Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Game is the Red Pill


Now that it appears the debate between the PUA/MGTOW/MRA blogosphere about Game and it's relevance and morality has cooled down a bit, I would like to reiterate the one point I believe is most relevant for why all men should take an effort to understand Game without trying to marginalize it or write it off as completely erroneous, simply because you object to the morality espoused by the PUA...or that you think Game is a silly, manipulative script that men follow simply to get laid.

To use the Matrix allegory, Game is the Red Pill.

...something happens which makes us question those very rituals we've blindly followed and we are confronted with a choice - shall we take the blue pill and choose to ignore any inconsistencies with our own paradigm which works pretty well, or shall we take the red pill and explore these inconsistencies knowing that it could lead us into a world we aren't familiar with... one that questions the very foundations of our current perspective.





In this context, I think it's perfectly fitting to describe the social engineering by cultural indoctrination and conditioning that has been effected for the last century regarding gender roles and attitudes towards institutions like the Patriarchal nuclear family; the confusion engendered by the "battle of the sexes" and the legal system of sexual/social politics; is all really best described as a mass delusion...an epidemic of blue pill-addiction.

Symptoms of blue pill delusions are ubiquitous, and it manifests itself all over the place. Only the few red pill takers...those that understand the reality of gender relations...are even aware of just how widespread the mass delusion of distorted gender roles is inculcated into mainstream consciousness.

And this is where "Game" comes in. Game is the red pill because it is based on men analyzing what behaviors are attractive to women, and what behaviors are not.

It is the basis for just about all social dynamics amongst any human interaction...why men compete with other men (for access to women)..why women compete for the attention and affection of men they perceive as desirable to other women.

Game is the Red Pill because it deals with understanding the principles of observable truths that are field tested...and these truths are in direct contradiction to the blue pill delusions of preconceived notions regarding gender roles in our BraveNewWorldOrder.

Once we learn of that new paradigm, we can no longer hold the older belief as our truth. Not everyone can deal with this kind of thinking. Many people are perfectly content believing something to be as they've always known it to be, and reject this newer attempt at truth because it's too painful to accept - they've been living their entire life based on this lie and only now they come to discover that the world is not what they thought it was.

Unlike the caricature portrayed by it's detractors, Game is NOT a simple ruse...a routine or a schtick to manipulate or trick women into having sex with men. No, it's about truly understanding social dynamics and the role that social hierarchy plays in any human interaction. Once you have this understanding, you begin to see "THE MATRIX" or false reality of delusions regarding gender relations.

I thought of this as I read the comment section of Dr. Helen's blog post that I cited in my last post on Relationship Dynamics. So many Men weighed in with their comments, unknowingly revealing the depths of their blue pill instilled delusions that contributed to their failures in their relationships.

Here are a few quotes that demonstrate this blue pill effect:

And whenever your woman asks which of two paint colors you prefer, you have to say you don't care. The alternative is surely picking the wrong color and paying dearly for it.

This is blue pill induced paranoia. Fear of "paying dearly" for upsetting a woman. Anyone that even has a rudimentary understanding of Game knows exactly what to do should a woman ask a man to pick a color...

My ex-wife used to love to put me into impossible verbal situations such as, "do you think that (super model) is prettier then me?"

Wrong answer #1: Yes
"You don't think I'm pretty!"

Wrong answer #2: No
"Liar!"

So I found myself avoiding talking to her at all.

Taking the blue pill renders many men utterly clueless to the "shit test." And failing these tests are relationship destroyers!

Here a few more comments showing the blue pill-addled mindset:

I do think, however, that women manipulate more. They cry, they feign anger or hurt, they tell you stupid things like "a man doing the dishes is sexy" or "I'll be happy if you ___" (and if you refuse you don't want her to be happy).

Of course, women lie to. Unless, of course, you really believe she's had a headache for 6 solid months or is somehow turned on by a man pushing a vacuum.

--

I'm a good guy. I don't cheat or go places I shouldn't or do things I shouldn't or drink too much or any of that stuff. I have nothing to hide from my wife, but I have learned the hard way that if I tell my wife the truth about certain things -- especially my feelings if they're at all negative -- then I'd better be prepared for two or three weeks of significant pain.

Helen is right. I want to be a truthful person with my wife, but it just isn't worth the hassle -- especially since she's made it so clear that she really doesn't want to hear the truth.

---

No offense, but sometimes women are just plain scary.



Are you beginning to see the common thread here? How the blue pill mindset has left so many men so clueless about how to deal with their wives and/or girlfriends? All of these preceding examples are Men who are afraid of their wive's emotional state.

For the majority of husbands, they married a woman who they could communicate with and formed an allegiance. Her attitude became far less tolerant and hostile after. (There are many reasons for this that I won't go into here.)

To rethink his attitude may invite a firestorm into his home. To rethink his allegiance will cost him dearly--he'll lose his children, and quite possibly pay huge bucks for his wife to move someone else in.

Your advice would be great if the laws were not so biased in favor of women. Men have much to lose and little to gain by standing their ground. Women have much to gain and little to lose by villainizing their husbands and divorcing him.


I get this impression that there exists a commonly held notion amongst MRA that ever since feminists got no-fault divorce legislated, all women have taken to it with great gusto, simply because they can...that the laws give women gold digging powers, and they take advantage of it simply because it appeals to women's greed, and they will happily destroy the lives of their husbands and children to sate that lust for greed.

I beg to differ. There's much more to it than that.

Because if a married man stands up for himself in today's climate, he could very well find himself put out of his own house, paying over a substantial chunk of his paycheck to his ex-wife, and seeing the kids when (and if) she decides that.

This is what I call the Emasculation Paradox.

Many men today seem to think that the legal system is set up to give all the women the power in marriage...so they'd better cede it to her to avoid upsetting her so that she doesn't take you into divorce court hell. But the paradox is that a man who understands the reality, also understands that STANDING UP FOR HIMSELF is the ONLY WAY his wife CAN respect, admire, lust and love him.

You really shouldn't worry about upsetting her. She's a woman. She gets upset as surely as the sun rises in the East. What you you have to worry about, is turning into someone she doesn't respect...and patronizing her because you are afraid of her emotional state is the fastest path to losing that respect.

When contemplating why we now have over 70% of women who initiate no fault divorces, there's much more to it than simply because all women are greedy, slutty, or adulterous simply because that is the nature of modern, Western women. Yes, there are most certainly a segment of the female gender that is in fact materialistic gold digging manipulators. But I don't think it's quite a stretch to simply say that the 70+% of women that initiate their divorces do so because of a greedy, materialistic nature.

No, you HAVE to account for the social engineering of our BraveNeWorldOrder on BOTH genders into account when trying to understand just why so many women "change" for the worse by getting bitchy, nagging, fat and absolutely contemptuous of their husbands after they get married...and why men that used to be bold, assertive and confident when they were dating, fall into the relationship dynamic where they are the pussywhipped, cowed and beaten wimps absolutely crushed under a domineering harridan of a wife.

In short, it's nothing more than a blue pill overdose. Taking the red pill will open your eyes to the reality of the female sex drive and how it's basis on the principle of hypergamy dictates her behavior. It provides a solid understanding of exactly why women on an instinctual level, require men to be the dominant leaders in the relationship. Whenever a man fails to fulfill that role, the relationship begins it's death spiral towards oblivion.

Attraction is not an intellectual vocation. This is why "marriage counseling" usually doesn't work. No matter how many logical reasons there are for a woman to be happy in her marriage...if she has that visceral contempt for the man that turned into a "Beta" in the marriage bed and impregnated her with his inferior seed, she cannot control how she FEELS about that. Because by him "becoming" beta, she only feels disgusting contempt for him in her gut.

This epidemic of blue pill delusion that doesn't recognize this basic understanding of female attraction is why I believe so many women turn into the proverbial psycho ex-wife.

It's women's basic biological nature to seek dominant genes for her offspring. Yet too many men beta-ize when they get married, submit to their wives as their authority figure, and even if she THINKS it's perfectly fine to be the dominant one...that she is just exercising "equality," her basic instinct is to have utter contempt for a man that she can rule.

This is precisely why so many men seem dumbfounded that the sweet loving girlfriend they married turned into an uncaring psychopath without a shred of mercy or decency in dragging him through the divorce court system and all of it's vagaries and indignities it inflicts ...THIS occurs because for the most part, because both of them failed to follow their natural gender roles, and the very nature of her sexual instinct -- hypergamy -- makes her regard him as a sub-human creature of utter contempt.

It is the very premise for the "game" routine that Roissy and other PUA call Marry Shag Kill

You have to understand why women have this curdled reaction to betas deep in their bones. If a man spills his seed in the wrong woman, no biggie. He can still bang other women and fulfill his genetic programming. If a woman gets her eggs polluted by the feeble seed of a beta, she’s stuck for nine months, and probably longer.


This is why there are so many cases of these women feel justified and entitled into getting the most they can from a divorce settlement...even if she's the spouse that ended up breaking her marital vows.

Beta Contempt.

By the time you are being taken to the cleaners, she is merely carrying through with the legally accepted means of playing the very real version of marry/shag/kill...with you being the Beta Sap she "kills."

I've come to realize this when I've thought long and hard about almost all of the failed marriages and relationships that I know of throughout my life. I can think of no exceptions in the cases where the female ended the relationship. It always happened after the man no longer fulfilled the leadership role her biological imperative requires.

The cultural indoctrination of our BraveNewWorldOrder -- the blue pill culture -- encourages these relationship malfunctions in every conceivable way. It's memes and shibboleths are ceaselessly pushed by our mass media driven popular culture to try and ensnare as many men and women to fall into this devious trap as possible. It is a population control agenda at it's most subversive.

To put it succinctly: The blue pill encourages masculine behavior in women and feminine behavior in men.

It encourages women to strive to hold all of the power in a relationship dynamic, and encourages men to cede that power to the women.

By promoting the ubiquitous culture of misandry, and making everyone strive for the unattainable goal of "equality," they push men and women to act out in ways that are contrary to our natural gender roles, thereby effecting an epidemic of "beta-ization."

Feminist lobbying for No-fault divorce was the mechanism for the BraveNewWorldOrder to attack the nuclear family; to re-make society by first destroying it's foundation...but it wouldn't have been nearly as effective if it were done without the social engineering that promotes contrary gender role behavior...empowered women and emasculated men.

46 comments:

Anonymous said...

Long time reader (2 Plus years?) first time poster...

You are really hitting your stride!

this is a brilliant post (and the last one) keep it up Dave!


Max from Australia

Grim said...

Great post man. You give computer geeks like me hope.

Talleyrand said...

Brilliant.

I was talking to Al about posting about the paradigm shift being game, and you beat me to it.

ganttsquarry said...

Like the previous commenters, I don't have much to add but praise for this post. The previous one for that matter as well. Well done.

I can visualize in my minds eye, friends, past and present, that could potentially benefit from these posts.

I say potentially of course, because of the difficulty in taking the red pill.

While many will never wake up, no matter how much evidence is placed before them, many could, if they only had the info.

"Attraction is not an intellectual vocation. This is why "marriage counseling" usually doesn't work. No matter how many logical reasons there are for a woman to be happy in her marriage...if she has that visceral contempt for the man that turned into a "Beta" in the marriage bed and impregnated her with his inferior seed, she cannot control how she FEELS about that. Because by him "becoming" beta, she only feels disgusting contempt for him in her gut."

Excellent point. For the sake of our hand wringing, feminized, therapy culture, try not to talk about it too much though.

Todd White said...

Dave, if you ground a relationship on the Game/Red Pill philosophy, I don't think it can work in the long-run.

If "the principle of hypergamy dictates her behavior" - as you claim - then women will always stray no matter how much their marketing analyst husband negs them. After all, there will always be more dominant men out there. Always. So what then?

I think a better approach is to recognize the truth that men SHOULD be confident, courageous, etc (which has been around a lot longer than Game), but without all this "feeble seed" mumbo jumbo which negates the possibility of sincere love between 2 people - regardless of their status in society.

Shared values. Shared interests. Shared experiences. That seems like a more sustainable foundation for a relationship than Game.

Justin said...

Great great advice overall, but I also think this pro-Game paradigm can be a bit simplistic. If you really want to talk about how this works, you have to be willing to talk about the escalation, verbal and physical, that man must be prepared to initiate in order to "tame the shrew". In the old days, that type of escalation was possible. Today, it is straight up illegal. Not to say it can't be done, but the fact is, many a man's thoughts stop right there. You should point out that to really be the alpha, the modern man has to risk some time in jail. If you think women get all submissive because your verbally clever retorts, or because your voice is loud, you have not had much experience with women.

A man also needs to know when to draw the line and cede power and autonomy in his LTR. "All alpha all the time" is not realistic, or necessarily even desirable. Women need their autonomy too.

Let me remind everyone of a neglected sociological fact: since the advent of no-fault divorce, yes, women are filing a lot more divorces, but the rate of wife on husband murder has also plummeted. Think about it.

Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech said...

but the rate of wife on husband murder has also plummeted

And your proof that this has actually happened is what? You don't have any.

Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech said...

This is blue pill induced paranoia. Fear of "paying dearly" for upsetting a woman.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say fear of the state taking away everything you own and your freedom rather than fear of "upsetting a woman"? Otherwise, who cares?

Taking the blue pill renders many men utterly clueless to the "shit test." And failing these tests are relationship destroyers!

What's the big deal with losing a relationship? There are lots of times when you need to dump her sorry ass.

I get this impression that there exists a commonly held notion amongst MRA that ever since feminists got no-fault divorce legislated, all women have taken to it with great gusto, simply because they can...that the laws give women gold digging powers, and they take advantage of it simply because it appeals to women's greed, and they will happily destroy the lives of their husbands and children to sate that lust for greed.

Maybe not every single woman on the planet (or the West), but certainly nearly all or most. Regardless the amount of divorce is a testament to the fact that this idea is true.

Many men today seem to think that the legal system is set up to give all the women the power in marriage

Are you seriously claiming its not?

so they'd better cede it to her to avoid upsetting her so that she doesn't take you into divorce court hell

I agree this is a stupid choice, but the real choice here is to not get married in the first place given what the state can do to a man if he gets married.

She's a woman. She gets upset as surely as the sun rises in the East.

Again, why get married? What man needs this crap in his life?

No, you HAVE to account for the social engineering of our BraveNeWorldOrder on BOTH genders into account when trying to understand just why so many women "change" for the worse by getting bitchy, nagging, fat and absolutely contemptuous of their husbands after they get married...and why men that used to be bold, assertive and confident when they were dating, fall into the relationship dynamic where they are the pussywhipped, cowed and beaten wimps absolutely crushed under a domineering harridan of a wife.

Hold on a second. First, what proof do you have that a NWO actually exists?

Second, if it does exist then how is it the NWO's programming only affecting men AFTER they are married? By definition that can't be the case. Since many men have been made to believe by women that they must have a relationship, they are already spineless wimps BEFORE getting married. So why are women getting married to spineless wimps they detest in the first place? This means that women are intentionally marrying spineless wimps they despise just to divorce them and take their money so women ARE greedy.

No matter how many logical reasons there are for a woman to be happy in her marriage...if she has that visceral contempt for the man that turned into a "Beta" in the marriage bed and impregnated her with his inferior seed, she cannot control how she FEELS about that. Because by him "becoming" beta, she only feels disgusting contempt for him in her gut.

Isn't this another reason that automatic female custody after divorce is very dangerous? If a woman feels this way about her husband, imagine how she feels about her kids with her husband's "inferior genes".

Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech said...

This is precisely why so many men seem dumbfounded that the sweet loving girlfriend they married turned into an uncaring psychopath

Again, how is it the NWO (or whatever else) programming didn't take effect until AFTER people get married? The answer is that it doesn't wait for marriage so she was never a sweet loving girlfriend in the first place unless she hid her contempt for him just to marry and divorce him for his money and her general amusement.

This is why there are so many cases of these women feel justified and entitled into getting the most they can from a divorce settlement...even if she's the spouse that ended up breaking her marital vows.

Beta Contempt.

By the time you are being taken to the cleaners, she is merely carrying through with the legally accepted means of playing the very real version of marry/shag/kill...with you being the Beta Sap she "kills."


The problem is that this is not a basis for a legal system in anything other than a totalitarian state. If a man engaged in such behavior, he would be locked up in a mental institution for being a psychopath.

The purpose of government is not to provide a legal veneer for emotionalism. It's to maintain civilization. When maintaining civilization comes into conflict with biology then government must pick defending civilization in all cases. Otherwise, we might as well go back to the caves.

In the end women have to be held accountable for their behavior because we live in a civilized state based on freedom (that's at least claimed to be free). Biology be damned.

Keoni Galt said...

@ Todd

"If "the principle of hypergamy dictates her behavior" - as you claim - then women will always stray no matter how much their marketing analyst husband negs them. After all, there will always be more dominant men out there. Always. So what then?"

You're not getting it. The principle of hypergamy that dictates her behavior does NOT mean all women will always try to jump to the most dominant male she can bed...leaving each successive male every time she comes across someone more dominant.

What I meant by that phrase is if she is dominant over YOU...whatever you happen to be; a marketing analyst dude in a cubicle job or an exciting and dangerous biker thug...her hypergamous nature will cause her to lose her attraction for you if you let her have control of the relationship.

Women's natural role is to find a man that she can submit to. If you are in a relationship with a woman "that wears the pants" she is not submitting, you are not dominant, so her hypergamous nature will cause her to lose attraction for you.

I never said women look for the MOST dominant. Only that they will never truly be attracted to a man that they can walk all over and control like a herbed-out kitchen bitch.

I think a better approach is to recognize the truth that men SHOULD be confident, courageous, etc (which has been around a lot longer than Game) but without all this "feeble seed" mumbo jumbo which negates the possibility of sincere love between 2 people - regardless of their status in society.


Your gagging on the blue pill...that is "not a better approach" IT'S THE SAME DAMN THING.

Your missing the entire point of what I just posted.

Consider this Todd - sincere love between two people regardless of status in society - great. That's missing the entire meaning of my post. "Sincere Love" can ONLY happen in a relationship in which the partners COMPLIMENT rather than COMPETE.

And that complimentary state is all about the masculine complimenting the feminine and vice versa.

Nothing I wrote has anything to do with status in society...but the man's status in the relationship with the woman.

If he demonstrates lower status...by deferring to her, by living in fear of her emotional state, her instinctive desire for hypergamy will make her lose respect, love and lust for him.

Shared values. Shared interests. Shared experiences. That seems like a more sustainable foundation for a relationship than Game.

LMAO. You REFUSE to let go of your preconceived and mistaken notions about what "Game" is. Game is not a foundation.

It's about recognizing the truth and using your knowledge of the truth to guide your behavior.

If you don't get that...you never will.

Keoni Galt said...

@ Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist -

First of all, I am not defending the current system. I'm just as opposed to the family court/divorce regime and the feminist movement as anyone else in the blogosphere. I've got almost 3 years of blog post archives attesting to that.

I fully expected somebody to log on here and use the old "why get married in the first place?" argument.

Good for you. Than don't.

But not all men want to Go their own way and have their legacy die out when they pass away. Some of us strive to have families and raise children...in direct opposition to the feminist population control agenda.

Take my hard learned lessons and experience, and disregard it all you like. To all of you that want to read what I wrote and log on here to tell me it's wrong or dumb or stupid...please, GO YOUR OWN WAY. You'll get no condemnation from me for you choice to avoid women, marriage and children.

But there are plenty of men out there that have considered much of this as I've written about, and have let me know that my own experiences helped guide them in making their own lives immeasurably better...which is why I bothered these last two, long, drawn out posts. Because it was asked of me.

So all you cynics and skeptics...carry on. I'm not sharing all of this simply because I'm spoiling for an ideological fight or looking to debate endlessly with a bunch of men that think I'm wrong or stupid for getting married and raising children.

Bhanu Prasad said...

Dave,

You have not factored in one more aspect. Aging in Women.

Aging and first pregnancy reduces her mate value drastically. So she MUST ignore the beta, if she strays off she is bound to get a bigger beta. So she must "endure" the beta.

z.g. said...

Pro male anti f. tech:

So why are women getting married to spineless wimps they detest in the first place? This means that women are intentionally marrying spineless wimps they despise just to divorce them and take their money so women ARE greedy.

Even if the men are spineless wimps, women at that point are still attracted to the man who has not yet signed up for the ultimate commitment.

Women themselves are oblivious to the strongest sexual attraction killer: the wedding cake.

Once a man promises lifelong commitment, he looses status in the female's eyes. (and modern life actually increases the loss: previous studs that have been bedded, previous studs that refused commitment, previous studs that have been rejected, tv, media, etc)

This is something women don't know.

And when it happens, it must be because the man really lost status/was low status to begin with. I.e.: it is his fault.

thus the non-committed stud now is a spineless wimp, even though he very likely is the same guy.

Also now that they are married, "This is what married people should do/should not do" enters the picture.

gallier2 said...

Very interesting. Just a little nitpick: it's COMPLEMENT not COMPLIMENT. I usually do not critique spelling, but in this case, as both words could be meaningful but twisting the intended meaning to its opposite, I had to tell.

MarkyMark said...

KG,

Though what you say has merit, my sentiments are more in line with Justin, PM/AFT, and ZG. Furthermore, even though I am in agreement about the NWO's social engineering scheme, there's one detail that's overlooked; there's one detail that PM/AFT and Anakin Niceguy (Biblical Manhood blog) brought up that we forget in these discussions about the NWO's role in feminism: feminism would not have gotten anywhere if a significant portion of women didn't BUY IN to it! If women didn't buy into it, then the NWO's machinations wouldn't matter.

I can understand why guys give in to their wives; their paranoia about family court IS justified. I got hauled in to family court 11 years ago on a false DV charge, and I'd only DATED the bitch! As a man, you truly have NO RIGHTS WHATSOEVER in that place-none! Take it from one who's BEEN THERE. Furthermore, women know of the power that they enjoy, and you can believe that they'll use it.

I don't fault you for pursuing the course that you did; you were already married, so making it work was the best and preferable course of action. I, Justin, PM/AFT, ZG, and others would rather say screw that noise. Marriage 2.0 is not for me, and I have no intention of pursuing it.

MarkyMark

Justin said...

"but the rate of wife on husband murder has also plummeted...

And your proof that this has actually happened is what? You don't have any."

These are simply verified FBI statistics. As quoted from Fathers for Life, demonstrating a fall of 70% in 20 years: "homicides by both men and women at near parity in 1976 at a rate of about 1500 each when they began collecting the data. Since then women have been killing their male partners at a steadily decreasing rate, and the rate stood at about 450 men killed per year in 1997".

filrabat said...

I learned that, in the end, the ultimate rule of Game is not to care what others think in the first place. I know the following seems off topic, but there IS deeper relevance where it concerns Game.

I think there's something deeper going on here. In particular there are several pieces of popular propaganda out there, propagated (pun intended) by the media. Especially guilty are the the entertainment and advertising industries, but the news media is also guilty of what I'm about to say as well. The propaganda pieces are:

*"If you're not in a one-of-the-guys/girls type group with a photogenic 'stage presence' and telegenic lifestyles, then you're not worth the gum that sticks to your shoes" (especially powerful with kids, which is probably the first major dose of blue pills in.

*If you're not "normal" (whatever that means) by mainstream society's definitions, you're likewise not worth the gum that sticks to your shoes.

*Not sexually successful (ditto)

*Not living the middle-class picket-fence with 2.2 kids and 2.5 pets (ditto).

*Don't want to have children (applies to yours truly).

Anyway, this was "my" red pill: realizing that the stereotypicalall-American picture-perfect culture is psychologically unhealthy because much of it is quasi-cultish in nature. They just arbitrarily tag certain behaviors, things, etc. as "normal", "weird", "disgusting" etc without giving any critical thought as to just how sensible it really is to place those labels on such.

CONCLUSION: A key rule of game is to simply be yourself no matter how weird or undesirable you are. That is a key marker of TRUE self respect.

Amateur Strategist said...

I cannot under any condition condone marriage for any single Men out there today in this current legal/political climate, it's simply not worth it.

However, I also cannot dismiss the trial of "game" to any ALREADY MARRIED Men, if it can make their lives less hellish and far more enjoyable.

Sadly, it's probably going to be a cure that actually kills some of it's patients. Game is catching on, and not just with Men, but Women are learning the techniques (not to use, but to watch out for) are will probably build a mental wall when she picks up on the cues. Because they all WANT to believe the feminist lie of "equality is sameness" she won't let herself be swooned even if her body and subconscious are in full swing to do so.

It's really a decision for each individual MARRIED Man to make, I still advocate stiff NO MARRIAGE to those who aren't already. When I talk to Married Men to try Game, it's because they've already lost the game, and their only chance is with these final moves. What I mean by Married Men making a choice is that they can either keep their crappy, miserable life as it is and put up with their "psychobitch" and may or may not get divorced, or they can risk it all on trying "Game", which can either end very well (see: Hawaiian Libertarian), or just speed up the inevitable divorce/destruction.

I don't think you're with the feminists, HL, and I know you're not trying to "fool young single Men to get married", but I think some things have to be said and emphasized.

You'd be surprised at the risk-taking threshold in the everyman.

If one was given the choice of keeping things the way the are, or doubling the income of 1/4 of the population (side effect is 1/2 of the population only gets to make 20,000 a year for the rest of their lives as janitors or something they don't like), you'd be surprised how many Men will hit the "double or nothing!" button, thinking to themselves "it won't happen to me".

That's right, "it won't happen to me", I think another blogger made an excellent post/blog post about this as the reason chivalrous Men exist, I'll let you know when I find it.

Summary: Yeah, go for it when it comes to Game if you're married, stay single if you're not married (you WILL get screwed, period.) Full support in the (percieved) endeavor of HL, but things have to be said about how everyman sees things.

Also, if you're going to advocate "Game" to married Men, could you put some starting steps of learning Game on... perhaps a sidebar or something? You may have posted it before, but it's lost the archives and not easily seeable to passersby. Also, "just go to Roissy's" won't help beginners as he mixes advanced with beginning with expert, I think most Men need to learn at the starting point or they'll get a misconception of what Game can be. Mostly the aspects of Game YOU found helpful, and what articles teach those aspects best, maybe repost them on your blog (giving credit where due) and then keeping these blog posts in a reel of it's own to teach game to the married Man.

Mr.M said...

Great post.

Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech said...

@KG

But not all men want to Go their own way and have their legacy die out when they pass away. Some of us strive to have families and raise children...in direct opposition to the feminist population control agenda.

If you're legacy is fighting a probably non-existent bogeyman or being destroyed in a divorce, I'd rather have no legacy at all.

Besides, there's a 30% chance that your "legacy" isn't really yours at all.

Also, it's not like you need to get married to have kids. For less than 10 grand USD, you have have the Rotunda Clinic in India will provide you a baby with your sperm and one of their egg donors/surrogate mothers. This guarantees that the child is yours and that there is no woman who can take your child away from you. In the future, this process will be facilitated by artificial wombs. Given the current legal climate, this is a superior way of having kids.

But there are plenty of men out there that have considered much of this as I've written about, and have let me know that my own experiences helped guide them in making their own lives immeasurably better

When you're at the bottom, you have no place to go but up.

@z.g.

I would certainly buy the idea that getting married lowers a man's status. Of course, that means never getting married is still the best option.

@MM

The fact that feminism wouldn't have gotten anywhere without broad support from women needs to be constantly emphasized. While I think the NWO doesn't exist due to a lack of evidence, the real truth is that it doesn't matter if the NWO exists or not. Even if the NWO exists and it disappeared tomorrow (which could happen since taking some radical direct action with a single truck bomb could easily take out the entire NWO), nothing would change since women are the fundamental problem here.

@Justin

All you told me is generations after the boomers are smaller and that less people are getting married.

@AS

stay single if you're not married (you WILL get screwed, period.)

This is the important thing to remember. Sooner or later being married in the current climate means a guy will get screwed over. Game may or may not work here. I agree that a married man has nothing to lose here so he might as well try it. In the end, even if it works the married guy will get screwed eventually.

MarkyMark said...

PM/AFT,

As the old saying goes, the screwing you're getting is not worth the screwing you're getting...

MarkyMark

roosh said...

The only way to understand women enough to obtain satisfactory relations with them is to sleep with a lot of them. Game paves this path. It yields the knowledge and know-how to relationship happiness.

Anonymous said...

Game paves this path. It yields the knowledge and know-how to relationship happiness.



Golly you sound just like Dr. Phil, hawking the latest snakeoil for Relationship Happiness to desperate, credulous, discretionary-incomed folks.

Altering male consciousness and behavior to better suit the wishes of females -- Game -- is terrible advice, spiritually, psychologically, and practically.

Falsifying oneself to suit this pathetic world and its unending ludicrous demands as to what men should be demeans God and oneself, in that order.

Y'all have chattered this subject into the ground trying to validate something that was phony from the get-go, yakkity yakkity yak.

Meanwhile, the CDC just proposed mandatory circumcision for all U.S. births . . . conveniently seconded just last week by the U.N. "finding" that circumcision was "cost effective" at curbing HIV spread.

Cost effective! And so timely too! lol

To say nothing of a dozen other similar outrages currently before us, such as the Stimulus Backstab, massive male imprisonment, or the increasing corporal "punishment" of disabled students, many of whom are nonverbal boys who cannot even speak in their own defense.

Can we move on from this self-absorbed Game/PUA navalgazing soon? I'll gladly say Please if that'll help. Our boys are getting slaughtered out there, while folks sit around bemoaning their self-induced betaness and lionizing players and their manipulations.

Dex said...

Dave, I'd like to recommend some reading on LTR for you. I think it meshes well with the idea behind LTR Game.
"Why Marriages Succeed or Fail" by John M. Gottman. Gottman, a psychologist, observed that psych theories didn't have much predictive power in determining which couples would stay together or not, so he set up a lab and had couples come in for therapy. By observing things like body language, physical response, word choices, tone of voice etc he developed a theoretical model that can predict with >90% accuracy the staying power of the marriage/relationship. Body language, physical response, tone of voice....sound familiar?
I think application of Game, which was developed by men cataloging what worked in pick-up to Gottman's research, which catalogues what works in lasting relationships, would be your true red pill.

Keoni Galt said...

PM/AF Tech - I don't need to try and prove the existence of the NWO. I don't care to try and convince anyone about what I believe. Only that by having taken a mental step back and observing the "BIG PICTURE" I believe there has been too many dramatic shifts in society and cultural values in the last century to simply right it off as chance. We MRA blogosphere folks should know more than others just how deliberately the feminists have socially engineered society. Researching further into the roots of feminism is what got me onto the entire "NWO" conspiracy theory in the first place. This is not just some simple thing where I was convinced by a particularly persuasive writer.

No, I connected the dots.

Anonymous - Altering male consciousness and behavior to better suit the wishes of females -- Game -- is terrible advice, spiritually, psychologically, and practically.

Yeah right. We should never alter ourselves. Just accept whatever indoctrination has instilled in us uncritically and go along! That'll work just fine.

Keep taking the blue pill...I'll stick to the red.

Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech said...

@KG

It's not random chance. It's an unforeseen interlock between the fact that all but of handful of women don't care about freedom, misguided individuals, and morons such as Horace Mann who wanted public schooling to turn Catholics into Protestants.

If the NWO really exists, it means they have created a monster that will destroy THEMSELVES. That's really stupid of them. Of course, I don't know how it would have gotten this far if the NWO really existed. The NWO wouldn't be able to perform a consistent strategy over generations. Everyone in the NWO would be too busy stabbing each other in the back.

Even if they managed to avoid this problem, anyone with enough ambition in the NWO would want to take out the rest of the NWO for their own power. A man in the NWO that destroyed the NWO could be king of the world. On top of that this man would be loved forever as the man who saved the human race from disaster. If the NWO really existed, I would try that. The rewards are just too high not to.

MarkyMark said...

Even when one believes that the NWO exists (and I do); even when one believes that they're behind feminism (and I do); there is one INESCAPABLE FACT: feminism wouldn't have gotten anywhere if there weren't a sufficient number of women to buy into it.

Justin said...

"The only way to understand women enough to obtain satisfactory relations with them is to sleep with a lot of them. Game paves this path."

That has seriously got to be one of the stupidest things I have read in quite awhile. The manifold idiocies embedded in that statement could only be missed by someone whose mind has been warped by deep and abiding narcissism.

MarkyMark said...

Justin,

One doesn't have to sleep with lots of women to understand that they're fucked in the head. All one has to do is quietly OBSERVE them; do that long enough, and you'll be turned off to them.

MarkyMark

Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech said...

Justin and Markymark, both of you guys are absolutely right. If I want to know what women are like, all I have to do is step outside and watch their crazy behavior.

Anonymous said...

There's a lot I recognize in what you're saying Dave, but I think it wise to not make too bold a claim for what is not a well-tested theory in absolute terms. Women may be responding to 'game' now, but there's no assurance they will continue to do so once every man starts practising it. I don't think it too far off the mark to say that all of us, betas included, would have been enormously attractive to women of a bygone age for whom 21st century men would have been fabulously exotic and desirable. Gamesters may well be succeeding for no better reason than that they are (for now) different from the rest.

As for the red-pill/blue-pill moment - again, pause for caution. Here's what the philosopher Karl Popper had to say about his colleagues who 'took the red-pill' and became Marxists, Freudians or Adlerites back in 1918:

"I found that those of my friends who were admirers of Marx, Freud, and Adler, were impressed by a number of points common to these theories, and especially by their apparent explanatory power. These theories appear to be able to explain practically everything that happened within the fields to which they referred. The study of any of them seemed to have the effect of an intellectual conversion or revelation, open your eyes to a new truth hidden from those not yet initiated. Once your eyes were thus opened you saw confirmed instances everywhere: the world was full of verifications of the theory. Whatever happened always confirmed it. Thus its truth appeared manifest; and unbelievers were clearly people who did not want to see the manifest truth; who refuse to see it, either because it was against their class interest, or because of their repressions which were still "un-analyzed" and crying aloud for treatment."
(Full speech here)

I'm more inclined to believe that most of us throw off a vast store-house of personal delusions if we are lucky enough to reach our 40s, and it is the throwing off of this old burden that explains why we genuinely feel that we have transcended ignorance and reached a higher level of knowing. I don't doubt that we have, but I suspect that higher level isn't as absolute as it seems. Newer and better insights will eventually supplant whatever it is we believe now (at least I hope so!).

I can remember falling in love at the age of 18 and thinking I was singularly affected - that no-one else had been struck so hard and so passionately because I saw so little sign of it in others. Of course I couldn't have been more wrong. That was sufficiently humbling to put me on my guard against ever again thinking I was uniquely blessed (or cursed, depending on how one judges young love).

So as glad as I am that I no longer labor under my former illusions, I can make no guarantee that my new beliefs aren't illusions of a different stripe. I don't think anyone can. (this was the essence of Popper's speech above, and the link I posted is well worth the read for anyone with a passing interest in knowledge, theories and their limits).

Anonymous said...

Anonymous - Altering male consciousness and behavior to better suit the wishes of females -- Game -- is terrible advice, spiritually, psychologically, and practically.

Keoni Galt: Yeah right. We should never alter ourselves. Just accept whatever indoctrination has instilled in us uncritically and go along! That'll work just fine.

__________

Is that what I wrote? Did you even try fairly to answer my comment, or just rush to restate what I wrote in a way that suited your bias? The quicker to shut your mind to criticism.

"We should never alter ourselves, just accept whatever indoctrination etc." isn't what I said.

I said "altering male consciousness and behavior to SUIT THE WISHES OF FEMALES"

Some of you guys are already uncritically clinging to Game as some sort of rallying point or inceptive movement. It's Your Baby.

Men falsifying themselves to suit females, collectively and individually, is the backbone of the matriarchy. More of it, championed by Game Experts, is no solution. It's just more servitude.

Reading that makes some of you uncomfortable. Good.

Talleyrand said...

Anonymous,

This tired saw was said repeatedly by Larry Auster's crew. It shows a fundamental lack of understanding of Game, which appears to be where you are coming from.

You are commenting from ignorance. Game is about taking control as a man, not dancing to someone else's tune. The ones that are dancing, are the ones that believe the lies.

It is unfortunate that men have to learn what they should have been taught by their fathers, or should have come naturally, but our society is so bent on utterly stripping the masculinity out of boys that when they grow up they are echoes of women.

Messed up Echoes.

Your comment about Gamers being uncomfortable is pure projection.

Marquis said...

one of the most succinct/concise posts i've read on this topic in a very long time.

Anonymous said...

Talleyrand is right. Anon. speaking against men who study or use game is spouting gibberish. This is about learning to be a real man and not the pansy-wuss society has taught us to be. I couldn't give a rat's butt what anon. thinks about it.

This is a fun way to live. Anon. who thinks we're uncomfortable because we're evaluating how we relate to women must be a pathetic mangina threatened by masculine men.

Fidelbogen said...

Anybody 'shit tests' you, shit test them right back!

And if the whole WORLD shit tests you. . . then shit test the whole world!

Or words to that effect. . .

;)

Factory said...

Mind if this goes in a magazine???

It's NFP, but it's a good primer on things men should be told...

I can email you a copy if you like, for your approval.

Anonymous said...

This is an excellent analysis as such.

It's still stuck within the confines of the "Game" discussion.

If you'd like to get past this stuff and deal with the real reality of relationships, you need to read David Deida.

Game hints at the truth, but it's like watching a dance contest vs. learning to dance. If you want to learn the dance, the only good guide is David Deida.

http://www.deida.info/books/way-superior-man

Anonymous said...

I am a married woman and me and my husband chose the red pill lifestyle and we are truly happy with learning about the truth in this world. We have very good understanding about being true to yourself. I think that men out here are choosing woman that are on the blue pill and they need to find out who they are really marrying or dating, because once you fully know who you are with it will make your life a whole lot easier. My husband and I do alot of research on finding about the truth in everything in life and he really has opened my eyes to things around me, so I respect him even more because he is very honest with me even if it hurts me,lol, but I respect his realness, that is a unique trait which is very hard to find these days.

Anonymous said...

Dang dude.

Basically right on the money.

I was referring to your image for a funny meme i posted
(http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/qvh/)
when I decided to read your whole posting.

When I read your post I was surprised, it's pretty accurate and well put.

That is why women love the "asshole" or "bad-guy". It's not because they are "dicks", it's because that personality-type fulfills the proper\natural male gender role, not the
"BraveNewWorldOrder" equality gender role, which is ultimately unnatural.

Props.

YOHAMI said...

This nails it on the head.

Im still warping my mind around this NWO being to blame though. Need more data.

Anonymous said...

Excellent article, and completely true.

As a guy growing up without a father in the picture, I had to figure out all these things for myself in life. The red pill/blue pill rule is so true. You can never let a woman rule you, else she will completely destroy you eventually.

romeo maldini said...

brilliant article.

good point yohami. how does the NWO benefit from the destruction of the nuclear family. i am not sure.

i almost feel like they would benefit MORE from having every man "happily" married with a wife at home.

we need to discuss this further.

perlengkapan bayi online said...

Thank you for an excellent weblog !! I discovered some useful information and will suggest your blog for all my buddies.

Rumah Dijual Jakarta said...

I believe that is one of the so much important information for me. And i am satisfied reading your article. However want to observation on few basic issues, The web site style is perfect, the articles is in reality nice.

Anonymous said...

Awesome post.