Gleaning the Meaning

Roissy's blog, Citizen Renegade, is a rich resource for the convergence of various ideas that have gained traction in the Masculinist-themed blogosphere.The comment sections in his blog posts are a literal hotbed of ideas and insights that cut through all the lies and misinformed disinformation of our present culture. Roissy initially entitled his blog "Where Pretty Lies Perish," and he's lived up that billing...along with the help of an outstanding cast of commenters he's managed to attract over the last couple of years.

Last Friday's thread Why Game Will Continue To Be Relevant brought out some excellent commentary. This is my attempt to glean and distill some of the great points made in a post that has garnered close to 500 responses (is there any other blog in the MRA/Game area of the Interwebs that gets even half that number of comments?!?!)

The following touch upon topics of interest to most most of you that read my blog: Game, the cultural indoctrination of both men and women that lead to dysfunction and divorce, and how fiat masters like Bernanke uses the fiat dollar to desoul women by secretly taping teh butthex.

llolollzlzlolz.

First up, Epoxytocin No. 87, on trying to explain Game to a skeptic:

“Game” is not a set of tactics. Game is the attitude, the mindset, that underlies those tactics.

You are absolutely correct: cheesy show tactics will accomplish little. Putting on a top hat, black nail polish, swim goggles, and shiny shirts won’t make a success out of you. But the organism-level sea change in ATTITUDE required for some scrub to do these things — and to affect a certain degree of panache in doing them — will change everything. Everything from sales, to relationships, to negotiating, to avoiding fights, to starting fights, to applying for grants, to raising children, to …

The reason you think of “game” as a set of tactics is because you’re listening to people who SELL things.

You can sell tactics.

You can’t sell good old fashioned masculinity, the kind that is born of imperfect circumstances and tempered by challenges and adversity.

For every person that takes the red pill and sees things clearly, this description by Epoxy is the distilled essence of this thing we call "GAME." It's a paradigm shift in the way you see yourself, the way you see other people, and the dynamics underlying all of our social interactions.

I would also add that "Game" recognizes the fundamental truths of the human sex drive based on gender: Males are hardwired for polygamy, Females for hypergamy.

Understanding what this means and how this affects all human relationships is the key to achieving the sea change in attitude Epoxy refers to.

When another female commenter accused "Game" practitioners of faking masculinity. Commenter TG set her straight with an even more concise explanation...so clear that maybe even a woman could understand it:

You don’t get it…90% of when men learn from blog/tapes/game seminars etc….

ISN’T how to fake who they are….

BUT...how to understand and respond to the situations they’re in…

...it’s more about understanding the female psyche…why women respond to certain behaviour, why do nice guys get less women than bad guy…when a woman says X…what does she really mean?…also why are women so mean to nice guys?

NO ONE can consistently fake who they are…if this material required you to do that….it wouldn’t work.

For example many of Roissy’s posts regarding Betas, Herbs and Alphas, gives men insight into how women see men…which is different than how men see other men….

Excellent point, TG.

The next commenter I'm excerpting, who goes by the name Gorbachev, than goes into extraordinary detail on how his study of Game effected his own sea change in attitude:

I was raised by my truly wonderful, equalist mother to be a good mate. Treat women with respect. Always compromise. Avoid conflict. Be a Chivalrous Man, but not condescending. Be a Good Man, not just a Man. Women are to be adored.

Same here...except I was also raised by a Father who embodied all of that - and my Mother is contemptuous of him for it - yet she still indoctrinated me to be a compliant beta pedestalizing all women as angelic paragons of moral virtue. As the old saying goes, Men, don't ever take relationship advice from a woman...especially your Mother.

Gorbachev continues his narrative where he had a LTR with his eventual ex-wife:

We dated for 2 years. I was hard to convert, but was ensnared and became what her family thought was an ideal husband. Her mother thought I was a gift to her family. I loved her. Really. Not just because she was pretty; because she was a good person.

A Good Woman.

I was the classic devoted, adoring Beta. I never argued; I considered her feelings at all times; I asked her opinion on everything, and we compromised based on a sensible middle ground. I cooked. I did 50% of the housework; we pooled our cash and I consulted her on even minor purchases. I was a skillful and patient lover, as was she, and we had an excellent sex life. She told friends she was glad she had the best of all worlds.

I had some annoying flaws: some weird friends; nights out with the guys, which she didn’t like (loss of control?); a penchant for buying cool toys; an unwillingness to pay for plastic surgery for her; not keeping up with the Joneses; weird work hours; but by her stated expectations, I was a good husband and her best friend, always.

She and I had lots of flaws. We were both human.

I was the same as most of the men I knew. As people, we’re all very similar.

That sounds like an uncomfortably familiar situation...

After 3-4 years, she started to get annoyed at small things. I spent more and more time enduring nagging over things I couldn’t affect or was too time-pressed to deal with. Friction started to develop. She became listless and uninterested in activities together (in retrospect, it’s possible she was cheating on me. Given my last few years of experience, I’m almost sure of it). Sex became less interesting. We tried to spice it up. I tried. She was the woman I loved.

It was bizarre: For a year, the more I tried to accommodate her (what she *told* me she wanted), the progressively more frustrated and annoyed with me she became. In hindsight, the pattern was obvious.

I became absorbed in household tasks; involved in activities outside home; I was domesticated; we went to counseling.

If your wife drags you into marriage counseling, and you go, and your experience is like Gorbachev's...

The counselor blames everything – absolutely everything – on me. It was like being in an interrogation room with lights pointed in my face. The counselor – PhD Harvard, still practicing – thought I was the root of all of our troubles. Seriously, when my wife acted out (threw a temper tantrum, smashed a dish), the counselor asked me what I could have done to help my wife emotionally. I couldn’t believe it: If I did something, it was my fault. If my wife did something, irrational and even insulting, it was also my fault.

I’m not making this up.

The counselor demonstrated that I was just inadequate.
(This was true, just not for the reasons she said).

We did counseling for 6 months. I went to every Cultural Revolution Self-Criticism Examination despite the fact that I had to cut work to do it because other times were inconvenient for my wife.

...your marriage is already doomed. Lawyer up and beat her to the punch. Gorbachev tried to salvage it the best he could...but he was hampered by the ubiquitous blue pill delusions of our feminist warped culture:

I did *everything* that Oprah Winfrey and the Self Help industry demanded men do for their wives.

So after another 6 months, she actually said: I am no longer in love with you, but you’re still my best friend. We amicably divorced.

This is the essence of our cultural zeitgeist and demonstrates exactly how and why so many Men fail to have a happy and meaningful long term relationship with any woman in our Brave New World Order. This is the uphill struggle men must now contend with in coming to terms with our culturally oppressed masculinity. Our cultural cues are all based on feminist ideology, that run afoul of her hypergamous hard-wiring.

Next up: commenter Badger Nation, responding to a presumably female commenter lamenting the proliferation of "Women Bashing" at Chateau Roissy:

This is equal time. if you want to hear about how bad men are, you can watch Dr Phil, Oprah, Maury Povich, read any number of advice columns, watch American sitcoms, sit in an American family law court…

As evidenced by posters here and elsewhere, a lot of guys are invested in a Victorian fantasy that women are the higher, perfect sex and that men are “civilized” by women. In fact it appears to be the opposite – matriarchal subsocieties are dysfunctional and have frustrated, out of control male populations. Breaking them out of this fantasy is crucial for their happiness.

But we should all be warned…red pill-ing can be bad for your psyche. It is disturbing to see the world as it is.

Certainly. If you see just how deep the rabbit hole goes...you will never be the same. Share enough of your red pill insights with blue pillers, and they start thinking your a "Conspiracy Theorist!" llololzlzolzlolz!!

Commenter INTP weighs in with a nice succinct explanation of where our society is ultimately headed and how the changes to marriage explain why we live in a declining Civilization:

Modern civilizations provide other ways for men to leave a legacy. Men can write “Great Books for Men”, build great companies, attain great personal achievement, etc. But that creates another problem. If men are off doing all that self-enriching cerebral work, and not raising stable families, then the civilization dies via the demographic suffocation of its high-value gene pool. In other words if great men are too busy to raise great offspring then where will the great men of tomorrow come from? That didn’t used to be a problem under Marriage 1.0 (every man was pretty much guaranteed a wife + be king of his own castle). Now, under Marriage 2.0, not so much. Marriage now officially sucks for men. Bye, Bye West.

INTP forgot to add that the Great Men of yesteryear didn't really raise the next generation...their wives at home did. But they served as the examples and positive role models for the next generation of men to follow. The difference is the great men are now laboring in a workforce where all the womenz are competing with them and the minimum wage daycare workers are raising the next generation...

Marriage 1.0 is necessary for stability. Marriage 2.0, our current still-born botched-abortion product of Feminism, is long-term dating with an obscene divorce rate and tri-fecta payout for women. Marriage 2.0 is the FARTHEST thing from stability. Marriage would have to roll back to pre-1960 standards, along with the rest of the culture, for it be remotely viable.

Marriage 1.0 gave us the foundation that forged greatest Superpower in the history of the world.

Marriage 2.0 gave us The Garbage Generation.

INTP Concludes:

The cultural elites have different plans. They seek to consolidate their power under 21st Century Feudalism (i.e., destroyed middle class, ignorant but happy drone workers, 1% controls 99.9% of the wealth). High-technology serfdom.

Welcome to the club. Pull up a chair and don your tinfoil hat, my friend.

Consider Epoxytocin's next point, regarding the presumptions of entitlement men and women assume are their just due in a relationship:

Specifically, I can’t count the number of times I’ve read, from various MRA types, that, in return for beta-style material provision / a roof over their heads / a father for their children / etc, they deserve a slender, trim nymphet-o-matic.

That’s not how it works.

What these guys fail to realize — probably because most of them are the type that has never been on the receiving end of intense attraction — is that attraction and economics are orthogonal.

Economically:
I provide the material goods and the father-figure role, she provides the housework, cooking, mothering, childbirth, etc. I take care of the financial shit, you fix the computers.
Etc. etc.
You scratch my back, I scratch yours.
Admittedly, feminism has fucked with this part of the equation, especially with couples who are so foolhardy as to outfit a kitchen with 2 refrigerators and no sink (i.e., two breadwinners and no helpmeet).

In terms of attraction:
I provide the alpha, she provides the hot physically fit nymph-o-matic.
This is still how things work; feminism hasn’t touched this equation with a fourteen-foot pole, and probably can’t since it’s too biologically hardwired.

The MRAs’ problem arises when they feel entitled to the attraction-side goods, even though they are only bartering with the economic-side goods.

The women’s problem (not just feminists’ problem, although that’s the ultimate origin) arises when they feel entitled to the economic-side goods, even though they are only bartering with the attraction-side goods (and that only temporarily).

The situation is in fact more symmetrical than many in this sphere would like to think.

That was an excellent breakdown on how Feminist social engineering corrupted the complementary gender roles of traditional Patriarchy. The entitlement mentality corrupts everybody that internalizes it, men and women alike.

Finally, no review of Roissy commenters would be complete without getting to the most amusing commenter to arrive at the Chateau recently, the estimable GreatBooksForMen...llolzlozlzolz!

This guy has found the most annoying, but simplified way of explaining the NWO conspiracy theory in teenager styled txt lingo. Many people get annoyed with him, and they repeatedly ask Roissy to ban him. They don't realize that there is a method to his apparent madness.

"yah dude rights nbow i am soo far ahead of america that i needs 2 repeat myself a bit until everything gets caught up."

Within reading his first 5 or so posts when he first arrived at the Chateau, I got this immediately...of course, I'm well read in everything he refers to in his disjointed rambles.

Eventually, some people try to understand just what the hell GBFM is talking about with all of his references to fiat currency, neo-con butthex, etc. and how it all corrupts America. Than he drops the knowledge, by quoting Mises.org:

“The linkage between character and money has everything to do with self-ownership. Aside from one’s body, the most personal property one may possess is the fruit of one’s labor. In a capitalist society, typically, this labor gets rewarded in the form of money — a paycheck. Hence, a person’s sense of value and self-worth is significantly influenced by how society values his labor — with money not only being that most personal asset, but also being the measuring rod. In days gone by, an individual developed character by learning that an honest day’s work would be rewarded with honest money (i.e., gold). Never has there been a more stable measure of value than gold.

In 1913, at the behest of the richest and most powerful banking elites in the world, an agent of social decay was established in the United States. Indeed, the Federal Reserve was founded. The stabilizing influence of gold money, gradually, was replaced by government fiat. Consequently, the character of Americans depreciated in lockstep with its fiat currency.

With his spastic act, he no doubt has gotten more than a few people to at least begin to look into just what the hell he's rambling on about with his constant references to fiat currency, the Federal Reserve and how the banksters have financed the social engineering of our feminist-warped society betwixt all the gratuitous typos and references to neo-con butthex.

lolzlzolzolzolzz!