100% Effective

Anonymous commenter on my last post wrote the following:

Game has a place in marriages and perhaps its most salient contribution is the realization that one must constantly romance their wife.

But like all things, game is not 100 percent effective and many comments on game blogs veer into victim blaming.

I disagree...game is 100% effective - if you understand that the goals of understanding and applying it are not dependent on achieving arbitrary and artificially measured achievements like notch counts or same day lays...or trying to "constantly romance your wife."

Now...before I go into this, it is important to note that I am certainly taking this quote out of context.

In the context of the rest of "his" post (I suspect it's a he based on the words he used), I agree with most of what anonymous wrote:

It's one thing to talk about acting alpha and "controlling the frame" and its another to expect men in long-term marriages, esp. those involving children NOT to be devastated by divorce, and to immediately be able to play the role of care-free and happy bachelor. Men do bond you know.

So of course there's many things men can do to improve their marriages, make divorce less likely, and if divorced get back up and on his feet as much as possible -provided of course he doesn't end up in jail for the crime of being impoverished by the divorce or allegedly hurting his kids.

But women are people too, and are not just bundles of instincts. How many women are behaving in marriages and long term relationships these days is disgraceful by any metric and I don't fool myself that game by itself is more than an individual pallative.

I don't disagree with most of this...but the last sentence is key.

I don't fool myself that game by itself is more than an individual pallative.

Game, in it's very essence, is the penultimate individual palliative.

That was the entire point I was trying to get at in my Game is the Red Pill post.

It is not the means to an end...but rather the end unto itself.

It's about opening your eyes to discerning the truth and recognizing all of the distortions, misdirections and behavioral programming inculcated by our mass media culture. Programming that is broadcast to deliberately emasculate men and butch-up women.

It is a paradigm shift in the way you view yourself, your personality, and understanding the underlying biological motivations for the way in which people behave.

its another to expect men in long-term marriages, esp. those involving children NOT to be devastated by divorce, and to immediately be able to play the role of care-free and happy bachelor.

Of course Anonymous, of course! The point of understanding the underlying principles of Game though, is not to "immediately be able to play the role of care-free and happy bachelor," but to understand your own behavior and how it affects and effects your relationships with other people. It offers the insights to effectively reflect on your situation and where it is you that you may have went wrong...and how to avoid falling into the same mistakes again in the future.

IMHO, Game is about BECOMING.

Becoming a man who is self-defined, confident, assertive, direct and most of all honest.

Becoming a man who doesn't look for female approval for personal validation...but rather becomes the sort of person for which females work to seek YOUR approval.

THIS IS YOUR FRAME. You control it by not allowing interactions with others to make you lose your frame.

If you take the effort to study and understand this theory we call "Game," you will gain an overall framework for understanding most aspects of social human behavior.

That is why I say it is 100% effective, because at it's very essence, game is about recognizing the truth.

The truth that women are not attracted to the same things men are.

The truth that women are not attracted to supplicant, eager-to-please nice guys.

The truth that not only is "equality" impossible to achieve in a male-female relationship, but a recipe for surefire failure.

The truth that in our culture, women are mislead to believe that infatuation and lust are the same thing as "LOVE."

The same holds true for women. Endless are the anecdotes of deluded women who believe that their college degrees, careers, and high salaries are all attributes that are supposed to be attractive to men.

Understanding Game is 100% effective in helping people see these truths.

Two other points here:

one must constantly romance their wife

This is not true at all.

In fact, "constant" romance would be the absolute wrong thing one should do in trying to apply game to their relationship.

Well-timed and well-executed "romance" at unpredictable and spontaneous intervals is enough...the only constant one needs to apply in a LTR is to constantly avoid running afoul of her hypergamous instincts.

...many comments on game blogs veer into victim blaming.

I can't speak for everyone...but sometimes playing the "blame game" is just copping out, or failing to recognize how one's own behavior may have played a role in the demise of his relationship.

Now if a husband "beta-izes" and his wife divorces him out of boredom and does all of the things she can to harness the power of the State to get every advantage out of the divorce, and destroy the relationship between a father and their kids, she most certainly is being a selfish, entitled, greedy bitch. That still doesn't mean the man shouldn't seek to understand how his own behavior, attitude and demeanor may have contributed to her actions that lead to the dissolution.

It's not about assigning fault, or assuaging oneself of guilt that they did no wrong.

It's about improving yourself...and self-improvement is impossible without facing the truth.

Learn Game so that you can be true to yourself.

That is how game is 100% effective.

ADDENDUM - Just came across a nice, succinct comment by Krauser over at Deansdale's, that encapsulates precisely what I'm trying to say:

When game is a shell of tricks wrapped around a total loser, it fails miserably. Unfortunately most PUAs I’ve met spend years in this mode. Eventually they tumble to the core truth that game is about personal transformation – about becoming the best possible you. That’s alot of hard work, painful introspection, and most guys won’t do it.

High value girls do not consort with low value men, even if the latter has “tight game”.

Praxeology & the truth of Game

 For the most part, Vox Day is largely responsible for helping me to see the error of my ways, and curing myself from an addiction to Mass MediaPCP. It took years of reading his old World Net Daily columns and daily posts at his blog, to eventually unplug from my regularly scheduled programming of establishment Republican/Neo-con-driven ideology. During all that time of reading and debating amongst the dread ilk (the nickname for the regular participants of Vox Popoli comment threads), I eventually clicked over to some references to Austrian Economics websites and the Mises Institute. This, to say the least, introduced me to a whole new way of viewing economics and politics. 

Having graduated with a (now largely useless) Business degree from the University of Hawaii, I had two years of economics courses, and in hindsight, I've come to realize the primary difference between the Keynesian-based economics curriculum of my Business college and the Austrian school and it's proponents, is that Keynesian economics starts off with the flawed deceptive premise that economics (as presented and taught in academia) is an exact science, on par with chemistry and physics, and that scientists can control the economy with centralized planning based on scientific "laws," while Austrian theory is based on Praxeology. 

Anyone interested in an in-depth description of Praxeology and the difference between it and the 'hard' sciences, should read Austrian luminary, Murray Rothbard's piece on Praxeology here(pdf).

But for expediency's sake, as Rothbard's treatise on the topic is somewhat in-depth, we can just go with the definition posted by Wikipedia, who's entry for Praxeology defines it thusly:

"Praxeology is the deductive study of human action based on the action axiom. The most common use of the term is in connection with the Austrian School of Economics, as established by economist Ludwig von Mises."

 The deductive study of human action based on the action axiom...so what's the action axiom?

"An action axiom is an axiom that embodies a criterion for recommending action. Action axioms are of the form "If a condition holds, then the following should be done."

Given that Vox is both an ascribed creationist Christian and an avowed proponent of the School of Austrian Economics, I find it completely fitting that he is also a proponent of game while completely dismissing the relevancy of evolutionary biology and psychology that are the so-called sciences cited by many game proponents and PUA. In the comment thread of Vox's response to GBFM, he writes:

"Evolutionary biology is nothing but ex post facto fairy tales and psychology is bullshit. Game doesn't require grounding in anything but observation of human behavior and the construction of predictive models from it. The "why" is irrelevant."

In other words, Game as we've come to know it here on these fringes of teh Interwebz, is a Praxeology...i.e. Game is the deductive study of human sexuality and inter-relational behavior based on the action axiom - "If a condition holds, then the following should be done."

Here is but one example that I can think of off the top of my head, that is a game-based action axiom:

*** Women often "fitness test" or "shit test" men. Men interested in mating with a woman need to learn how to recognize when she does this. When he ascertains that in fact she is attempting to fitness test him, there are several known responses that other men have employed with varying degrees of success, such as "agree and amplify."***

Looking at game as an exercise in Praxeology should help those who struggle with the morality of accepting these ideas of game description and proscription, versus the vehement distaste for the immorality of promiscuity many (but not all) game proponents advocate and celebrate.

While I am not trying to speak for anyone else here, I do believe the defining line between those of us in the MAndrosphere who are nominally Christian and advocate Christian Marriage (Vox, Dalrock et al), and see no conflict between Game and Christian morality, versus all the other Christians who are up in arms about it and repeatedly denounce it, is that those of us in favor, simply view game as a Praxeology; it is not a hard science, nor is it a moral code to live by. Rather, it is simply using deductive reasoning to come up with action axiom's to describe the hows and whys of human intersexual attraction and mating behaviors.

These action axioms are useful tools for men to recognize and reverse engineer the myriad of deliberately inculcated dysfunctional behaviors and characteristics that pervades societies institutions, mass media programming and subversion of our churches with the idolatry of Goddess worship. As more and more men embrace the axioms of the Game Praxeology, more and more discover anecdotally that they are based on observable truths regardless of the morality of the men doing the "testing in the field."

Just because men committed to Christian morality may take ideas from and discuss with the axiomatic truths of game with the immorally promiscuous PUAs, does not mean we are holding it up as a new religion, a new moral paradigm or a new idol to be worshiped blindly and in total faith; nor does it mean we are deifying or glorifying fornication, adultery and promiscuity. 

We are ALL fallen sinners. Based on our common, fallen and debased nature as sinners, throwing out the axiomatic truths of game simply because they are espoused by sexual sinners is akin to throwing out YOUR argument (any argument on any topic, that you choose to make) based on your own sinful nature.

If one considers the ideas on their own merit, and not the person who is voicing the idea, there should be no moral problems with men employing the axiomatic actions prescribed by immoral game practitioners for his own use, to achieve his own Godly goals of sustaining the covenant of marriage and leading his family.  

As Vox wrote on his post Game vs. Churchian Idolatry:

Now, Game is not Christ. Game is not Truth. But Game is truth, and he who comes to love truth will, in time, come to love Truth as well.

Amen.


We are all one day going to face our creator, and have to account for our sins. 

Of all my sins I dread accounting for, "learning to neg my wife from reading the anecdotes of Pick Up Artists on teh Interwebz," is definitely not one of 'em.

A Clarification on Game

A long time denizen of the comment sections of the MRA Blogosphere, Deansdale, finally decided to start his own blog. He's s been a regular commenter at many of the usual hangouts for us masculinist-minded folks - Roissy's Chauteau, Seasons of Tumult & Discord, The Spearhead et al...and has frequently commented here as well. His comments have always been well-thought out and insightful, so it's good to see him finally start wielding his keyboard for his own space on the internet. Welcome to the party, D! Hope you stick with it.

His first substantive post is a good one: My Clarification on Game and it's Sceptics

Game is a box of tools, with manuals on when and how to use them. Actually it can not “not work”. It can be misused in a number of ways but that’s the user’s fault. If you’re an apprentice in – let’s say – blacksmithing, and you know only how to operate the bellows, your success as a blacksmith will be very limited. If someone gives you a hammer and tells you how to use it then it’s up to you how you manage, but simply saying that the hammer “does not work” is foolish.

Great analogy...one for which I'd like to expand on a little: seems to me that a lot of the criticism of "GAME" comes from people who look at the majority of it's proponents - the PUA - and say that it's bad. To use Deansdale's analogy, a hammer can be used for more than just pounding nails, no?

Same thing with this tool we call "game."

Understanding what women find attractive has so many more applications than simply trying to seduce hotties into bed. See what happens when you "run game" on a waitress, or a bartender, or some other woman you interact with for which you have no romantic or sexual interest in. I'm talking about playful negging (cocky and funny), DHV's, comfort and rapport building, acting confidently and assertively, etc. while dealing with ANY women...including relatives.

Even women who are not interested in you in a sexual way will still eat it up, and you'll find that this "tool" of Game will serve as a social lubricant that can get you a freebie dessert from an amused waitress, or perhaps some banter with a receptionist might find her able to "slide you in" an overbooked schedule...or a female bartender might give you a drink "on the house." Furthermore, if you do this in front of a women you actually do want to seduce, you will also increase her own attraction for you as well, as it will validate to her that you are authentic, and not just putting up a front to get into her panties. As I've said before, understanding the concept of game is life changing, not just sex-life changing.

You see, just as a woman with a pretty face, a great rack and a plump ass finds such favors are regularly given her simply by men who find her physical appearance easy on the eyes...

...so too do women react to men who use the tools of "game" in a no-sexual-intentions sort of way.

As for the rest of his initial post, Deansdale lists various categories for the various skeptics and detractors of game that he's encountered in his time as a regular blog commenter.

1. The ones who are repulsed by the idea of it or say it’s “immoral”.
2. The ones who read a few sentences and decide it’s BS.
3. Those who say there’s no need for game.
4. Those who say game can’t be learned.
5. Those who say it’s “manipulation”.
6. Those who tried game and say it does not work.
7. Those who say that game is abuse, coercion, rape.

He's gives some pretty good details for each category...feel free to drop on by and give him some comments...after all, if you're a Masculinist-Blogosphere Blogger, he's been doing it for years now at your blog!

God, Game & The Shape of the "Men's Movement"

"You're Doing it All Wrong!" "No, Game!" "No, MRA!" "No, MHRA!" "No, MGTOW!"

Contrary to popular belief, the "men's movement" on teh Interwebz has always taken the form of a particular shape...and that shape is a circle.

Are we all set yet? Ready...aim....FIRE!


lozlzolzolzolzozlol

The following comes from a post written on an old MGTOW forum by Zenpriest. After re-reading the post Retrenched referenced in my comments, I had myself a nice little Lima Oscar Lima moment.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

 
 
The following is a paraphrasing and edited re-post with current linkage to apply Why There Never Has Been Any Coherent "Men's Movement" and Why There Never Will Be to the current debate on Game and Christianity going on in the Christianity-concerned sector of the MAndrosphere.

And, once again, here is why there never has been any coherent "men's movement" and never will be. Women who detest everything about another woman will still stand with her as a woman against all men, while men will argue each other to death over such weighty issues as Vox vs.Chesterson or Cane Caldo is not Chesterton.

Men, in general, seem so obsessed with dividing the world into "us" and "them" that the inevitable end point of the process seems to boil down to "me" and "them".

There are far more than just two types of motivations for a man to unplug and decide to go his own way. And, there is no "the" division among the MAndrosphere on teh Interwebz - there are thousands of divisions, even though we only have a little over 100 members.

PUAMRAMGTOWMHRAWHATEVS is not any sort of "movement", or at least no sort of mass or unified movement - just like the so-called "marriage strike" is no sort of strike at all, but the visible result of millions of men turning off to the idea of marriage, and becoming so disgusted with all the secular women who have the EMF (Entitlement Materialist Feminist) mentality, and for other Men struggling with adhering to Biblical Christianity, they too are becoming disgusted with the EAP (Evangelical American Princess) mentality, that dealing with modern women is so unpleasant, that aversion to them is stronger than the normal biological drive and attraction.

That alone says a lot about the quality of women we have as our possible choices of mates.

"Understanding" does not equal getting down with someone in their self-pity pot and wallowing in it with them. If that is how they want to spend their time, they are welcome to do that, but the rest of us have better things to do with our time and our lives.

I think there is a third group which is far larger among MGTOW than either of those mentioned above - men who realized that the system was rigged against them and opted out of playing the rigged game.

I have a certain degree of empathy for divorced men who have been screwed over by the system, but it is limited. The signs have been out there in the culture for more than 30 years indicating where this is all headed.



Men who ignored those signs, or were too thick to realize what they meant, had the chance to avoid what ended up happening to them, but chose not to. I saw those signs and have avoided most of the negative consequences of dealing with EMF and EAP women, and don't see any reason why they couldn't have done the same.

Yes, I agree that the system has mightily fucked them over. What I do not understand is why so many of them continue to support and defend the very system which did fuck them over.

I view the whole marriage/fatherhood and even dating issue much like I view the de-criminalization of marijuana. Marriage and fatherhood have been criminalized, and those who go ahead and choose to do it are doing it at their own risk. A lot of people take the same approach to smoking pot - they do it, and hope that they are one of the ones who get away with it without getting caught.

Of course, for men seeking to follow the path of Christ, they are commanded to "smoke the pot" if they burn. This makes complete sense, because authentic, Biblical Masculinity and Patriarchal Marriage have also been criminalized.

So there does exist a group of both Christian and secular men of whom the legal deterrent is significant enough to encourage them to refrain. Particularly when past experience with the criminalized activity has convinced us that it is marginally worth continuing even without the legal risk.

Now, there are a lot of issues on which I disagree with [insert any MAndrosphere blogger or commenter here]. But none of them are significant enough to be worth putting energy into creating conflict about and risking polarization because there is a far greater number of issues on which we are in total agreement. Since those are major issues for men, it makes more sense to spend time and energy looking for ways to cooperate and strengthen each other's efforts, instead of wasting a lot of time and energy, and creating animosity, by trying to prove to each other that we are right and he is wrong.




As Zed aka Zenpriest pointed this out way back when, I too echo the sentiment. We live in interesting times, and men need to lower their guns, step out of the circle, and get busy doing what they need to do to get what they want out of this life. (While filed that link under "Eye of the Mind" that particular story "so shut up and shovel the fuckin' gravel." was written by Zed.)

So Free Northerner asked the Christian denouncers of Game for an alternative. In my view, much of what these guys are preaching, is discussing the same things, just using a different terminology to get away from the advocacy of sinful fornication, promiscuity and adultery the PUA advocate when discussing Game.

There are a number of us that see no inherent conflict or evil in studying this thing called Game..but there are a number who do.

I say, have at it Gentlemen. You think those of us that tell men they can learn something useful from studying Game are headed in the wrong direction? Fine. Instead of jumping into the circle and pulling out your guns and getting ready to shoot us, I say, GO YOUR OWN WAY. If what those of us who advocate the study of Game are wrong, then the rightness of your argument will win out.

Go and build your foundation and see what may come of it. In the big picture, I agree with most of you, more than I disagree. In my view, the disagreement rests on semantics and everyone trying to define "Game." Some of us see it as a toolbox...one that has zero relevance to adhering to God's laws and morality. I agree with the assessment from the blog Masculine by Design, in which he states - Game is Not a Four Letter Word.

Game has dark roots by Christian standards. It started out as guys on the Internet trading ideas about how to get laid. In particular, how to walk up to woman a you had never met before, and have her in bed before the night was out. Not using force or money, but by convincing her that it would be a fantastic idea to sleep with you—right now. And, it worked.

Despicable.

Then something unexpected happened. Men at the other end of the social spectrum—shy, socially inept men—started to ask how they could simply talk to a woman without her publicly emasculating them by proclaiming “YOU think you're good enough for ME!” And, lo and behold, game worked for them also. Dating, marriage, children, a family—a normal life—suddenly became a real possibility for these men.

Not despicable at all.

Game is amoral; game is concerned about reality, and men were desperate for answers about why the world worked as it did. So, they extended game into other areas of their lives—marriage, work, school, the legal system, politics, church, and economics—in an attempt to see if they could answer why these things were as they were in modern culture. Game developed a profile of men, woman, and American culture. The profile is unflattering (to say the least), and has led some to call game anti-women (and ironically others to declare it anti-men). But game isn't anti or pro anything or anyone, it's about what works. Pragmatic to its core, if something worked it became part of the profile; if it didn't it was discarded.

Game is not a religion, and Roissy is not its prophet. I believe it is a Praxeology, and studying it's axiomatic truths can help many of awaken to the truth. I can only shake my head in disagreement because I KNOW what studying and applying it to my own life has done for me. In the same way all the denouncers of the Paleo Diet never ever gain traction with me, because I've done it, and the differences in my health and well being are more than enough confirmation for me to discern who's got it right, and who's got it wrong. I know what path I'm on. I know where I am going, and I know where I am from.

When it comes to men getting together and discussing the way of the world, many of us will agree, and many of us will disagree.

This will always be so. Time to accept it and move on.

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!

Proud Member of the Paleo Conspiracy Cult

Interesting debate thread over at PMAFT's discussing Alek Novy's activities on teh interwebz. (Hat tip to Chuck at GLP for bringing it to my attention.)

Novy once wrote a very good post about why he links to blogs that other people may find objectionable.

I agreed with his premise, and like I do with any blogger who writes something I find interesting and/or compelling, I added him to my blogroll.

In 5 years of blogging, he remains the sole person I've ever bothered to remove from my blogroll.

His hysterical, over-the-top, ALL CAPS rantings against "gamers" and "paleo diet cult members" annoyed me to the point that I actually got off my ass and actually bothered to log in to my blogger control panel and delete him.

When it comes to "game" I really no longer give a shit about the entire "game" vs. "anti-game" arguments.

I have always supported, linked to, and regularly read MRA/MGTOW bloggers like Fidelbogen and Paul Elam, even if I disagree with their stated positions on game. Game is a personal, individual thing. A tool. Use it or not, YMMV.

If you read about the concept of game, and ruminate on it and reflect on your personal experiences...you either get it, or you don't.

Some folks are simply incapable of wrapping their mind about what Game theory actually represents. Because anyone who has an ounce of logic and critical thinking skills, can find the basic fundamentals of game theory for free on teh interwebz, and figure out how it applies to their own lives, their own history and experiences.

That's what I did. Hell, I did not pay a single dime to anyone for a damn thing related to game. The only game books I've ever read where Roosh's books...and I got those for free from some generous IP pirate that emailed me .pdf versions of Bang and Dead Bat in Paraquay. (Sorry Roosh...I'll at least say they were both good books and advise others that it would be worth their time and money to buy them!)

Other than that, everything I learned about this thing called "game" was from blogs and forums I found on the internet for free...before I ever heard of Roissy and his now infamous blog. (That's not to detract from Roissy at all...but Novy and his crew seem to think anyone that enjoys Roissy's blog is a cult member mindlessly worshiping him and incapable of thinking for themselves).

Gee, what a scam and conspiracy theory, eh? Reading some advice for free on teh interwebz, experimenting with it on my own to see if it works or not, than sharing my own results with others (for free) and comparing notes with others who tried the same sort of experiments.

My, how cultish, diabolical and conspiratorial.

But when it comes to Novy's unhinged diatribes against PUA community "gurus" and "masters," I actually agree with about half of his criticisms. There most certainly does exist a subset of slick marketers, fraudsters and charlatans out to make a quick buck off of sexually frustrated men who are simply clueless about how to attract and seduce women. You don't need seminars, DVD sets, books, or e-newsletter subscriptions from so-called gurus. Just some self-awareness and critical thinking skills to digest and comprehend what so many other folks are discussing - for free - on blogs and forums throughout the manosphere.

But Novy's anti-game jihad is not why I'm writing this post. He really goes off the rails when he shoots off about the paleo diet being a "cult" and just another "fad diet."

Here's what Novy wrote about the "Paleo cult" -

“You end up eating less calories while believing calories don’t matter, and lose weight, and then attribute it to a conspiracy theory that tricked you into eating less.”

I responded over at PMAFT's:

How about I eat 3000 calories of meat, egg, cheese and veggies sauteed in butter every day for a month.

You eat 2500 calories of twinkies, cookies, crackers, cake, soda, ice cream and candy every day for a month.

We can both follow the exact same exercise regimen, with you eating 500 calories less than I.

What does logic and scientific inquiry lead you to understand what would happen where we to conduct such an experiment?

No response yet.

The more I think about it, the more I've come to revile this simplistic, idiotic notion that the be-all-end-all consideration when it comes to diet, is based on counting calories, and burning more calories via exercise than you eat.

See, the Paleo "cult" is not concerned with WEIGHT LOSS as it's ultimate goal. This is why it is not a "fad diet." The primary concern is eating real food that is nutrient dense. Nutrient dense foods allow the body to function the way it was designed/evolved to. Weight loss is just one aspect of the health results one gets when they remove modern, processed junk food from their diet.

When I "joined the cult" back in 2007, I was overweight and approaching the obesity point (despite a regular regimen of weight lifting, martial arts and other physical recreational activities like surfing, diving, hiking and hunting). I was certainly starting to transform into a "Hawaiian blob." I was trying for years to eat healthy according to the conventional wisdom - low-fat/whole grain/lots of fruits and vegetables. Didn't matter, still got fatter.

Just like "game," I discovered the Weston Price Foundation, and than later on the Paleo "cult" blogosphere. Again, I paid exactly $0.00 to read and apply the principles of the WAPF Nourishing Traditions & Paleo diet concepts. Within the first 3 months, I lost all the excess weight. My growing "beer belly" shrank to nothing. I went from 225 lbs. to 185.

That was over 4 years ago. When I stepped on the scale tonight, I was 186. At 38 years of age, I look, feel and perform in better shape now than when I was 28.

Must be the "placebo effect" of being a brainwashed cult member.

Since then, I've come to understand that "paleo" is about so much more than simply losing weight. It's not a "fad diet." It's simply about understanding the difference between real, wholesome foods and how they provide nutrition for the body....versus man-made, mass processed crap that makes you sick when you consume enough of it over a long enough period of time.

Aside from the weight loss, and keeping it off for 4 years and counting (gee...some fad diet there), I've experienced a number of other health benefits that come from eating a nutrient dense diet and avoiding the modern, manufactured, processed junk foods. But I'm sure those dramatic changes in health, stamina and strength are just more iterations of the placebo effects that only happened because I've been brainwashed by the paleo conspiracy cult!

I mean, why would I question the tenets of my cult?

Do you think 500 calories of fresh caught wild fish from the Pacific ocean, eaten raw, would have the exact same effects on your health as eating 500 calories of a factory farmed fish fillet, seasoned, breaded in white flour bread crumbs, flash-frozen, wrapped in plastic and shipped thousands of miles away...then deep fried in partially hydrogenated soybean oil typically used in most restaurant's deep fat friers? Do you really think there's no nutritional difference between the two?

500 calories is 500 calories!

How about 800 calories of grass fed beef steak, pan-fried in grass-fed butter...versus 800 calories of lean chicken breast fried in non-stick, non-fat (aka soybean oil) cooking spray? No difference? Really?

After all, calories are calories?!?!

Just eat less and exercise more!

Anything more than that means you're just a delusional cult member fooling yourself with the placebo effect!

Ah...but don't take it from me.

I'm just a "Hawaiian blob" and a "conspiracy theorist."

How about this recent article from the Vancouver Sun: Trans fats linked to brain shrinkage

Some trans fats are found naturally, in small amounts, in dairy products, beef and lamb, but the trans fats in the study are hidden in cakes, flaky pastries, potato chips and other fried, frozen and processed food. Trans fatty acids increase inflammation, make arteries harder and decrease heart rhythm, increasing the risk of cardiac arrest.

Only a handful of studies have looked at the relationship between trans fats and brain function, Bowman said. "I think our study is one of the first to look at blood levels of trans fats related to brain health."

Evidence suggests that trans fats can replace good fats in cell membranes, "and when that occurs it changes the structure and chemical properties of the cell in an unfavourable way," Bowman said.

"Trans fats are known to be bad for cardiovascular health," he said. "It makes sense that they're probably bad for the brain, too."

He recommended avoiding processed foods that list "partially hydrogenated oils" on the ingredient list. "That's trans fat," Bowman said.

This article sums up the difference between us paleo cultists and regular, sane folks like Novy and his crew of pro-establishment sycophants.

See, it doesn't take a genius to understand that our distant ancestors would have never eaten something like trans-fats created in an industrial facility from rancid, oxidized vegetable oils.

But hey....taking Novy's expert pronouncements to it's logical conclusion, why ingesting 500 calories of partially hydrogenated soybean oil (aka margarine) is no different than 500 calories of Grade AA grass-fed butter! To believe otherwise is just the placebo effect caused by the delusions that come with joining a cult!

If that's the case, than I am happy to say that I'm a proud paleo-conspiracy cult member. Wouldn't you like to join the cult too?

Let me know and I'll set up your initiation ASAP.

It's All About Hypergamy

It appears the debates between the relevancy, validity and morality of "Game" continues with both sides somewhat "talking past each other." I'm going to attempt to break it down to it's bare bones to try and foster a better understanding for "game" detractors, and to also explain why Game "works" across the spectrum of male and female relations.

In my view, I believe the biggest problem is largely of semantics. Many social conservatives and religious oriented detractors and critics of "game" have a hard time overcoming their sensibilities and moral sense of right and wrong when it comes to the terminology employed by "Game" proponents to gain a true grasp of the basic principles underlying "Game."

I myself thought at one time that the term "Game" was too loaded with negative connotations and that those of us that understand it should seek to come up with a better term for it...but I've since changed my mind about that, and I'll save that topic for another time.

Nevertheless, the misunderstandings that abound still need to be addressed.

First and foremost is the term hypergamy.

Hypergamy is the primary reproductive biological imperative of female sexuality. Whether you're a godless atheistic darwinist or a devout religious person, recognizing this basic fact need not be a point of contention, but rather an observation of reality. Either women evolved and adapted this hypergamous instinct as an evolutionary strategy...or God designed women that way on purpose. And while both views come from a very different starting point, they both have practical applications when it comes to understanding female sexuality and how it drives female mating strategy.

Because strategy is what it's all about. Mating strategies of men and women are nothing more than the reproductive biological imperative: Women are instinctually attracted to male dominance and men are instinctually attracted to female fertility. Both instinct-driven strategies are either God's or Natures way of ensuring the best means of ensuring the procreation of the next generation into an environment with the best chance of success in continuing the propagation of the species.

No amount of feminist social engineering, indoctrination or propaganda is ever going to overcome this basic instinct...it will only mislead people that believe in it down a path of unhappiness.

No amount of Christian-based moralizing and caricaturizing of male sexuality as depraved and female sexuality as chaste purity and virtue are going to overcome this instinct either, and it too only leads to shared misery of both men and women that adhere to it.

Both the religious and secular foundations of these shibboleths are destined to failure because they fail to understand the role of female hypergamy in the female mating strategy.

It all boils down to the basic fact that women are driven at a subconscious level to mate "up."

When it comes to "long term game" or dealing with it in a relationship, your mate will always subconsciously be judging your hypergamous position with regards to her in your relationship.

Think of it as a scale, with hypergamy on one end and beta-spinelessness on the other.

As long as your scale is tipping towards the hypergamy side, she's happy, she's in love, and your relationship is "working." Even if you occasionally backslide into some Beta behavior, as long as the majority of your relationship dynamic is tilted towards your status as a leader that she can respect and follow, you will not experience serious relationship discord.

But should you tip towards the Beta side far too much, it's a virtual certainty that she's going to "fall out of love" or start becoming dissatisfied with every facet of her life. Believe me, when you are running afoul of her basic hypergamous instinct, it will poison everything else in your relationship.

Marriage counselors and relationship advice folks always try to do scientific polls on the primary causes of divorce and/or relationship failures. They always point towards "money" or "infidelity" or some other easily recognizable "cause."

But what never gets addressed is the underlying female instinct of hypergamy.

A married couple can and will become a stronger, closer and more intimate couple in the face of severe difficulties and hardships in life...as long as the women has not developed Beta Contempt for her man. From a personal perspective, when I was in the death throes of marital beta-tude, minor financial troubles would turn into huge conflicts that would last for days...whereas nowadays we've never been worse off financially due to our current Great Depression 2.0, yet we get along better than ever.

Every instinct in every fiber of her being screams out for mating with a man who is "up" on the hypergamy scale. If your on the beta side, every little thing you do, every problem you both face, every obstacle and stumbling block in life will be magnified and intensified in her emotional reactions and her "feelings" about the Beta contempt she has for a man she no longer feels like she's "married up" with.

Another obstacle that seems to be hard to overcome appears to be an almost post-traumatic stress disorder reaction that manifests itself amongst many of Game's detractors - the minute a "Game" proponent tries to explain or encourage men to try and understand how they could apply the Game principles, critiques and criticisms of thought, ideas or actions in that context, they are reflexively deflected or rejected as nothing more than the equivalent of "shaming language."

Their is a substantial difference between trying to help someone recognize that a certain behavior is an attraction and respect killer to the female's attraction instincts by pointing out to them 'That's Beta,' versus a feminist or a mangina trying to silence debate by insulting someone simply to shame them into silence.

But I digress.

The primary point here is that whether you like it or not, the reason why "Game" has gained so much traction as of late, is because whether you agree with it or not, whether you are turned off by the hedonistic and what many consider the immoral pursuits of some of it's proponents (the PUA's), is because "Game" only WORKS because it is based on recognizing the principles of the female biological imperative, hypergamy.

Whether you are a devout Christian saving yourself for a marriage consecrated by God, or an aspiring player looking to engage in hedonistic indulgences with as many willing women as possible, understanding the principles of the female biological imperative will go a long way to understanding how to succeed at whatever avenue you choose to pursue.

Now She's Thinking

Ok...after "attacking" Laura Wood and calling her the Emoting Housewife, I must give her just due when she does live up to the title of her blog.

As I first wrote in my initial critique of her criticism: "She has some good points for which I often find myself in agreement with..."

Sometimes, she really does "get it" when she's not defaulting to her sense of self-righteous, moral-superiority.

I only know Game second-hand. I do not read Roissy, who is an advocate of sexual conquest and freedom. I think of Game as Youngfogey described it, as “acting like a man.” When someone says a man should “use Game” in a particular situation, I can, with a fair degree of accuracy, predict what he means. Game strategies do make sense in some circumstances. However, I can’t comment on the ideas of many of those who write about Game.

Many men find themselves, because of feminist indoctrination, trying to appease and gratify the emotions of women. This can be a tremendous mistake and that is a valuable insight of Game. We live in a feminized, therapeutic culture where many people believe that if we are always sincere and let all our feelings hang out, relationships will thrive. This is not true. Neither men or women like to be involved with someone who is a pushover or who has no will or mind of their own. Women especially are better off when their spouses are more assertive than they are. But that is a simplistic statement. Marriage involves the whole of our personalities. It’s a complicated affair. Game is not applicable in many situations.

I'm sure she does not "read" Roissy, like she doesn't "read" the Spearhead...

...but here, she does demonstrate a grasp of the concept as to why so many men -- not just PUA's and aspiring PUA's, but Patriarch's and other God fearing, morally conscious men -- believe in Game.

She's right too, about it not being applicable in every situation...especially if the ONLY objective is to preserve the marriage, no matter how unhappy or abusive it is. Sometimes, when a man gains an understanding of Game, he realizes their is no "fixing that which is broken beyond repair." But this clear understanding from the insights gained from studying game gives him the courage and gumption to make the tough, painful decisions that must be made to finding the kind of relationship he wants. Some women are either grown so contemptuous and disgusted with their pedestalizing spouse, or are too thoroughly programmed by cultural feminized indoctrination to recognize the value of submission to a worthy man in marriage.

Game gives men involved with such women the awareness that he does not have resign himself to staying in that state of emasculated submission.

The Zeta Point

Seems like this shit will never end.

Roosh writes this, and Paul Elam responds.

Two standard bearers of differing factions in the same general reactionary/anti-misandry/anti-feminist culture movement, disagreeing on varying different points of view. Each one presenting what they believe to be their particular version of THE TRUTH.

Both are right...in their own way and from their personal point of view.

Both have their share of supporters, fans and sycophants eager to voice their support and affirmations for their chosen champions point of view.

*yawn*

 

I'm an avid reader and supporter of both men and there blogs and/or forum, and both spheres they appear to represent. It essentially boils down to the pro-game vs. anti-game camps of the general anti-feminist reaction to mainstream, socially engineered, mass media disseminated and narrated culture.

Can we all just get back to focusing on the real enemy of this so-called "movement?"

Roosh vs. Elam....whose side do I take here?

I'll take Dan Moore's...aka Factory, replying to Elam's farewell to the "manosphere" -

We go around and around like this because the ‘answer’ doesn’t lie in any one camp. The center of gravity the various groups cannot escape is what I call the Zeta Point.

The point of balance between the need for female approval, and enough self worth to walk away from disrespect.

Between the need to maintain some form of civilization, and the strength to throw the parts that are destructive on the trash heap.

Between love for women as counterparts, and the reality they have become competitors.

MRAs can teach others valuable lessons. But it’s imperative we remember that others have just as many lessons, that are just as important, to teach us.

Yes. All of us in this anti-feminist/anti-misandrist counter-culture here in the hinterlands of teh interwebz are focused on some facet of MRA - Men's Rights Awareness. You cannot have meaningful, personal activism, without awareness...aka a clear understanding of truth.

As I wrote back when Frost and Elam had first agreed to have their game/anti-game debate at In Mala Fide:

I don't think anything good is going to come from the pending debate between Frost and Elam. It's just going to further fracture the manosphere.

But that's ok.

There's no "winning" here.

What it will do, is provide clarity, so the onlookers can decide which "side" here offers them the viewpoint to improve their own lives and their own struggles.

 

Dan Moore goes on to clarify the point further:

I am a proponent of Game Theory, and believe a huge swath of the MRM could use an awful lot of education on women and their behaviour.

And why things went the way they did in their own lives.

The real value in Game theory is not in becoming a PUA (although, as I have said many times, the ‘starved for affection folks’ are the ones easily manipulated into selling men out wholesale), it is in understanding the basic drives in all of us, and how those drives tend to make us act.

Basically, Game theory picks up where the politically correct Masters and Johnson crowd feared to tread. Game theory utterly destroys many of the cultural myths indoctrinated into our society nearly from birth.

And anyone who has ever paid attention to the theory knows exactly how hard it is to penetrate the initial resistance to the ideas, as well as the sick feeling when Game is proven right.

And the even sicker feeling when you see all the spots you fucked up in previous encounters.

Oh so painfully clearly.

Oh so clearly. FML.

Game is an essential component of the Red Pill, and in many cases is more then enough counter-cultural medicine to do the job.

In the early 00's, the MRA online movement was essentially a small group of male bloggers, most who've been screwed over by women, feminism, and/or our Brave New World Order's family court system. The convergence of the MRA bloggers and the Game Advocacy movement over at the comment section of Roissy in D.C.'s blog several years ago was the essential turning point. It melded the truth of the corruption of the system, with the truth of the basic biological nature of male/female attraction....and it spawned what we now call THE MANOSPHERE.

We had a small period of time in which we had a unique harmonic convergence of ideas that coalesced into a new, broader understanding of the the things we've all experienced in our present socially engineered dystopia. Then, like any group of men, the need to jockey for status amongst the hierarchy causes divisions, and we divide and conquer ourselves.

This is why their can be no "movement." There is only recognizing TRUTH and using that to guide your own personal life decisions. Find your personal Zeta point....it is there that you find that elusive balance...the path to a meaningful, satisfying life.

Life is a gamble..completely unpredictable. You could die getting hit by a car while crossing the street tomorrow. You could die in your sleep tonight in a completely random house fire started by an errant spark from your light socket igniting nearby curtains. (yes, this almost happened to me....). We all have choices to make. We must weigh our odds, make our judgements, and then decide on a course of action. Having the clarity of truth will certainly have a profound and meaningful effect in making such choices. You may very well meet a young woman who is all that and worth sacrifice and risk to get married to and have children with. Or she may be a manipulative slut looking for an easy provider to blind with her sexuality long enough to lock him into divorce chilimony servitude.

 The important thing here is that any man facing such a choice, be able to recognize the realities of his personal situation, and make the best choices based on the most facts available to him at that time. Which is why both facets of OUR "manosphere" are important. They are largely focused on their areas of primary concern, each serving as a valuable resource in gaining understanding of the big picture.

This is all any of us can hope to achieve.

There is no candidate running for office that you can vote for to advance the idea of "men's rights."

There is no political party you can join, no "tea party" rally you can attend or no organization or cause that you can donate your money to that is going to make a damn bit of difference in our current state of affairs.

There is no possibility of working within our current system to "fix" what's wrong.

That's because there's nothing to fix.

From the view of those who have implemented the system and constructed our current situation, this shit is going off exactly as planned.

The people who wield the power in our society have deliberately shaped it to emasculate the males, de-feminize the females, sow relationship dysfunction and alienate children from their parents so as to make them more malleable and exploitable human resources.

They effected their social engineering program precisely through the creation of "movements." You think getting a bunch of men and women (who thanklessly support them) together to try and effect change in this system is ever going to accomplish anything meaningful?

Not happening.

No matter who is right or who is wrong, the only correct answer here is MGTOW.

Go your own way. Find the truth and make your life-changing decisions cognizant of it so you are properly prepared to face the consequences of whatever path you may choose.

You wanna be a PUA? Good luck Brother, I wish you the best!

You wanna be an MRM advocate and start up a movement that lobbies to overturn the officially sanctioned misandry of our current society? Amen! Good luck Brother, I wish you the best!

I really don't see any point to be gained in focusing on the differences in outlook between the two camps.

Whatever works for YOU is the only thing anyone should be primarily concerned with.

Understanding Hypergamy

Seems like a lot of folks have been discussing hypergamy on their blogs as of late.

I'm rather busy as of late (hence my really sporadic and infrequent posting), so I'm not going to offer the usual linkage to all the good folks that have been writing on the topic...rest assured, you need only look at my blogroll to see the various angles that have been up for discussion by such luminaries as Dalrock, Deansdale, Chuck, Athol et al. Much of the debate has been dealing with men who appear to be angry, upset or think of female hypergamy as some sort of defect.

I've already done a bit of ruminating on this topic awhile back, but I think I'd like to repost some of the commentary that was left on that particular post, as I think it contributes some good points for this topic: It's All About Hypergamy

Mating strategies of men and women are nothing more than the reproductive biological imperative: Women are instinctually attracted to male dominance and men are instinctually attracted to female fertility.

It really is that simple.

But let's break it down into even more basic terms:

Men getting angry about women's hypergamous nature is the same thing as women who get angry that "Men only like thin supermodels with big boobs."

May as well get upset at the sun for rising in the East every morning.

Now are you gonna keep raging at the things for which you have no control over...

...or are you going to use this knowledge to your own advantage?

Because that is really what "GAME" is all about. That former case of STD that has now been cleansed from the blogosphere, Tallyrand, left the following insightful comment on my previous post:

Game is accepting the truth about what men and women find attractive.

Rejecting it, is equivalent to rejecting the idea that men find young, healthy, blemish free women with symmetrical faces attractive.

You can reject the truth, but it doesn't leave you any better off doing so.

Following Talley's excellent point was a rather good comment by Anonymous (yes, that same Anonymous who seems to post comments on every single blog on the Inter webs...)

I think your emphasis on hypergamy is the right start. Game starts on the presumption that it has a valid understanding of what is attractive to women, and it's not just guess-work, theorizing, moralizing or vain hope. It's empirical (ie based on experiment), and as such is closer to science. I think its observations are sound, in that they accord with my own experience of the world. Women are indeed drawn to confident men with an air of authority about them, and the more social smarts a man can broadcast, the more attractive women will find him (most women anyhow - some women will immediately dislike such a man because they will rightfully believe they don't have a chance of snagging him).

Women are 'running game' as soon as they uncap the lip-stick, or go on yet another diet. They've correctly understood that the appearance of fertility is what attracts a man, and that youth, good physical build and symmetry of features (which is what beauty is) are the best indicators of fertility. The most attractive women also know how to be submissive in demeanor, in order that the man gets his opportunity to shine in what she expects of him - taking charge (this is the so-called feminine mystique).

Not every man needs game though, just as not every women needs make-up, exercise and dieting. They're rare though. Some people are so damn attractive that they are better off down-playing rather than upgrading themselves, so that someone will at least think they have a chance with them.

Funny thing is, we don't condemn women for reading our basic attraction psychology correctly and trying to exploit it - we even encourage it.

So I've come around to the game proponents point of view thus far, after initially being resistant. However, had game been presented in this way to me, I don't think I would have had any objection to it. It's not its observations, or even its application of those observations that are causing the rift between so many men. It's the command that is carried under the breath of so many game proponents: "get with game, or you're a lesser man - being attractive to women is all that matters."

Agreed Anonymous, great point. But understanding Hypergamy has far more implications than simply figuring out "Game" and how to get married or get laid.

As long-time Roissy commenter, Doug1 pointed out:

From the overall social point of view, one of the big downsides of female hypergamy is that the type of male psychosocial dominance that women are attracted to if their hypergamy isn’t strongly culturally shaped and constrained, isn’t by any means always socially recognized male leadership and status, but rather often rough bad boy or even thuggish violence.

BINGO! That is PRECISELY the knowledge of female sexuality that the social engineers utilized when they created the brainwashing programs to institute the feminist zeitgeist we are all now subjugated by.

Knowing the reality of female hypergamy is precisely why the feminist activists pushed the concept of "equality."

A Man who is Equal to a Woman, is a Man that Woman will not find attractive.

This knowledge is the keystone behind almost every legislative action, every government program, and every cultural message transmitted through the mass media outlets and educational institutions.

The cultural marxists that promulgated the feminist movement were quite explicit in stating their goals: they wanted to destroy the nuclear family to re-shape society to create their collectivist utopia. By promoting the feminist orthodoxy of "equality," they used their knowledge of the female's hypergamous instincts to create a society of people who are far more prone to fall into relationship dysfunction, leading to the rise in divorces and the decline of marriages.

Are You Ready Boots?

Roissy's latest post, These Boots Were Made For Divorcing is another man-o-sphere blog's tour de force...putting the pieces of the puzzle together to reveal the picture of the final decline of Western Civilization as the unleashed chaos of female sexual empowerment destroys the once-great superpower built by a Patriarchal  society.

Goodbye America, indeed.

Several bloggers have already made their own posts riffing off of Roissy's, including Vox Day, in which he focused on the 2 choices Roissy offered at the end - either rescind feminism or follow it to it's logical conclusion.

I, on the other hand, found another section I'd like to riff on...

You want to save marriage? Learn game. What are the odds that these “great catches” the wives are unceremoniously divorcing are betas to the bone? The answer is in the last sentence.

“while the men are still too broken-hearted to date again.”

Readers, these wives did not marry “great catches”. They married pushover herblings with steady jobs. Any man with a lick of game and an alpha attitude would not be broken-hearted for long after a divorce, even a surprise divorce that caught him off-guard. He would be lining up dates while the ink on the papers was still drying.

There is one key aspect about learning Game by a man who is married or in a LTR...by learning what behaviors, attitude and demeanor are attractive to your wife or girlfriend, you are also learning what's attractive to all women period.

When you internalize this, you will begin to notice how women in general are attracted to you and enjoy your company.

Don't most men prefer to be surrounded by female beauty, given a choice? Even if you have no sexaul intentions...and you are in situations in which you must interact with women on a strictly platonic level...wouldn't you certainly prefer to socialize or work with attractive, easy-on-the-eyes, women rather than obese, butchy, short-haired, land whales?

Well, the same is true with women...but, as men's attraction is cued towards the visual, women's is cued for social dominance. Learn your game...and practice it on every women in your life. No, I don't mean seduce your wife's sister, your best friend's girlfriend or your mother-in-law...but certainly neg her and DHV and play up your cocky-funny banter whenever you're around your female friends, family and acquantances. It's one way of indirectly gaming your own woman.Of course, especially if you're dealing with friend's and families women, like your buddies wife, you certainly need to remain respectable about it...but that doesn't mean the principles of game don't apply when interacting with them.

Your wife or your girlfriend's friends will start to tell her that she's lucky to have you. They will flirt enthusiastically with you. And your wife or girlfriend cannot help but notice this - even if not consciously, subconsciously she certainly will.

Note the excellent commentary by TLM regarding his observations of a sad-sack older women who divorces her doctor husband because he was boring.

Once the papers were served and the beta hubby got over his grief, he now appears to be on the road to making some changes that are destroying the wife’s vision of her single-life good times fantasy. I’m not sure who’s guiding him through this, but he’s taking their sage advice.

Before he moves out the wife finds a new prescription for Viagra. Additionally, he also starts getting phone calls from some nurse.

Nothing, and I mean NOTHING makes a woman value her mate more than knowing he's attractive to other women.

Well this infuriates the wife and puts the hamster into overdrive. A few days after he moves out, all the utilities are shut off along with cell phones etc. She’s now panicking and reality is starting to set in. Of course she breaks down in tears at the terrible things happening in her life, incapable of accepting responsibility for her incredibly stupid actions. There was no reason to divorce him other than she was Bored!

Well she certainly got what she was looking for...she definitely can't say she's bored now! I do bet though that if he had not reacted that way, but instead went into breakdown mode, and begged and pleaded with her to reconsider her actions, she would have ruthlessly proceeded to crush him in divorce court without a second thought of remorse.

But that's besides the point. According to TLM, this lady was fantasizing for years about divorcing her boring Doctor husband.

I'd venture to guess her husband probably didn't have any sort of "game." He was most likely devoted, faithful, predictable, and routine. If and when they were around other women, he probably treated them as purely platonic, logical, straightforward interactions. He did not "broadcast" his attractiveness to other women...let alone his own wife. Hence the descent into boring territory.

As I wrote previously:,

Understanding what women find attractive has so many more applications than simply trying to seduce hotties into bed. See what happens when you "run game" on a waitress, or a bartender, or some other woman you interact with for which you have no romantic or sexual interest in. I'm talking about playful negging (cocky and funny), DHV's, comfort and rapport building, acting confidently and assertively, etc. while dealing with ANY women...including relatives.

Even women who are not interested in you in a sexual way will still eat it up, and you'll find that this "tool" of Game will serve as a social lubricant that can get you a freebie dessert from an amused waitress, or perhaps some banter with a receptionist might find her able to "slide you in" an overbooked schedule...or a female bartender might give you a drink "on the house." Furthermore, if you do this in front of a women you actually do want to seduce, you will also increase her own attraction for you as well, as it will validate to her that you are authentic, and not just putting up a front to get into her panties. As I've said before, understanding the concept of game is life changing, not just sex-life changing.

You see, just as a woman with a pretty face, a great rack and a plump ass finds such favors are regularly given her simply by men who find her physical appearance easy on the eyes...

...so too do women react to men who use the tools of "game" in a no-sexual-intentions sort of way.

Game is not just a tool...a trick...a routine used to get laid.

It's a way of life.

Thou Shalt Not Have Any Gods Before Me

The recent little fracas I started between The Thinking Housewife and The Spearhead produced some excellent discussions and commentary...not just "evil attacks" as she and her White Knights of Churchianity characterized the debate as.

One of Laura Wood's White Knights (he himself proudly called himself that, I'm not using it as a sarcastic jibe here,) than wrote several blog posts with his own perspective on our little disagreement when he responded to Laura's hysterical cry of persecution in the face of  "attacks." It's obvious to see that some of the more reasoned, logical arguments some men bothered to comment on at his blog got him to at least consider changing his mind about The Spearhead and the men's right's movement in general, as he went from ridiculing men's rights issues and game, to a more sober, serious rumination: Is the MRM wrong but useful? How then can we fight feminism?

But the reason I post on this topic is not because I wish to continue the debate between the "traditionalists" and the "manosphere," (Laura never did respond to my response, claiming that no further discussion is necessary since I refused to moderate the more extreme comments at the Spearhead...despite the fact that I do not moderator powers there,) but rather to highlight a brilliant comment by one "Kel," which was really more of a testimony of a traditional Catholic who immediately recognized the truth of "GAME" and how it changed his whole viewpoint on his religious beliefs:

As a traditional Catholic, I think there is extreme wisdom in “Game.” I was, and am, a traditional Catholic. But when I read Roissy and learned about game, it’s as if many delusions of women were swept away in one fell stroke. I realized how blinded I was to the existing culture, and how manifestly corrupt things have become, because I was pedastalizing women. In reality, Christianity teaches that no one should be pedastalized, that all are sinners. But in practice, especially today, the stink of Satan exists even in the Church and this stink has at its source the pedastalization of femininity.

Patriarchal traditionalists claim that proponents of Game are engaged in an objective evil because Game treats as its baseline assumption the idea that a woman is at her core a biological organism that primarily responds to her biological influences instead of rational/moral influences, which is dehumanizing, objectifying and therefore evil. Women listen to their “tingle” instead of morality or reason, and the science of Game is to understand that fundamental female motivation.

To this objection, I think that the patriarchal traditionalists are overreacting. Saying that a hungry man will eventually grab for food is not objectifying him by reducing him to fundamentals of gastro-intestinal chemistry. Likewise, it is not objectification to understand that a woman who wants exciting sex will therefore grab for exciting sex. Biological functions are a reality to be dealt with. If society made gluttony a fetish (and in some way, it has) and proclaimed that eating to obesity is the right and should be the desire of all women, and that 400 pound women were living life to the fullest and the subject of movies like “Eat, Pray, Eat Some More”, understanding the dynamics between that public call to gluttony and everyone’s basic need to eat would be very useful for a person looking to find a thin partner. Likewise, understanding society’s pervasive promotion of hypergamy, and how it turns a natural sexual desire into a fetish of misandry, is useful for a person either looking to avoid it or deal with it in his own way. That is what Game is about. It deals with the intersection of basic, fundamental biological urges and the cultural reality we are in today.

Furthermore, patriarchal traditionalists objectify women anyway. They treat all of them as objects. Glass objects, to be revered and fawned over, but objects nonetheless. They have made femininity into its own God, violating a fundamental commandment that they claim to uphold. Yes, to the outside observer, when the traditionalist patriarch places women on a pedestal, he is making femininity into a New God to be worshiped in violation of the First Commandment. The actual teaching of Christianity is not so blind, which proclaims that all people (including women) are sinners and that the flesh is weak in all of us (including, and sometimes especially, women). Patriarchial traditionalists, with their pedestalization of femininity, have violated their own core beliefs and mock the tenets of their own faith. And God will not be mocked.

I’m a practicing Catholic but I think that so-called “patriarchal traditionalists” are fundamentally blind to a big part of reality. In reality, Christianity is not going to improve things here. It has always failed to conserve its political strength, and it will continue to fail, because Christianity is not about practical politics. “My Kingdom is not of this Earth,” He said. And Jesus was right. His Kingdom IS not of this earth, and the world hated him and will continue to hate him. You want to be Christian, you’re going to have to bear a cross. And so Patriarchal traditionalists are chasing a dream if they think that their strong faith will produce practical results. It will not. Jesus has all but said it will not. There is NO prosperity gospel. Being a believer won’t earn you riches nor will it make society more fair towards men. If anything, it WILL get you thrown to the lions. And while a pagan society that fed Christians to the lions eventually converted to Christianity, it took nearly 300 years and the blood of countless martyrs. And unfortunately, we can’t wait another 300 years between the time Christians are fed to the lions and the State officially blessing Christianity. Men have problems now and can’t wait for the blood of martyrs to fertilize the ground.

Amen, Kel.