Counter-Currents
863 words
On a recent date with a semi-suave Australian venture capitalist, I experienced what all western women currently go through to find a proper mate. Things started out nicely. Over VIP treatment, he complimented me on my natural beauty and told me that he was impressed with my “real” conversation skills — only to demand a short time later direct control of my nether region’s grooming habits.
“Do you mind if we order dinner first?,” I casually replied.
Welcome to modern day misogyny, a.k.a. the Seduction Community: an online community where lust-filled beta males devour techniques of trickery to strip unsuspecting members of the opposite sex of their panties along with their honor. As Andy Nowicki has said, game is a “reverse feminism” that has become a national “machoism” phenomenon.
If you’re white and under the age of 45, you know all about it. You’ve been introduced to it by osmosis within your frat clique or by reading the New York Times bestseller The Game by Neil Strauss. There’s even been a prime time reality show on VH-1 following poor schmucks around as they implement the game under the tutelage of pick up artist legends.
Just as feminism has brainwashed women into acting like men, Pick Up Artistry brainwashes men into acting like monsters. Primitive animal behavior that whites criticize as beneath them is now glamorized and analyzed by millions of white youths eagerly awaiting their turn to swap whatever moral fabric is left in Western Civilization for soiled sheets as proof of their promised instant sexual gratification. Forget about Negroes, are we no better than gorillas?
Just as feminists guilt-trip women for not joining the “liberation” bandwagon (“Men deserve to be hated!”), Pick Up Artists have hijacked the term “Alpha” and used it to manipulate insecure men into following them like good little betas.
Case in point, on a recent mega-misogynist website, a Lolita-inspired story was hailed and glorified as the epitome of Alphadom. Where is the chase when a school teacher preys on a minor, again? With that logic, I guess child molesters must be über-alpha since they deflower little girls before they have chance to form syllables and object to foul play. Shouldn’t Jim Bob Duggar — a happily married stud who we know has had sex at least 19 times — be considered Alpha man of the month and not a creepy professor gone wild? Only in the seduction community are “Alpha” and “Honor” mutually exclusive and always will be. They can’t sell books otherwise.
In regards to the general population, pick up artistry is not surprising. Most men and women accept whatever trends the mainstream media gives them. But when it comes to my racially aware white brothers, I expect better insight. Why? Well just as modern feminism is a Jewish intellectual movement from Friedan and Steinem on down, the PUA movement has Jewish roots and promoters as well: Ross Jeffries (born Paul Jeffrey Ross), the Anthony Robbins of the seduction community; Nick Benedict (Savoy) founder of Love Systems; dating guru Jesse Krieger (Starlight); and last but not least Mr. Strauss himself all belong to the tribe. “Jews set up, Jews knock down.”
The clash between feminism and PUA is just a Jewish family quarrel, the natural reaction of narcissistic, emasculated, manipulative men against aggressive, neurotic, castrating harpies. And whites, like the children we are, just sit in the backseat and listen to them bicker and then try to act just like them — until they drive us off a cliff.
Furthermore, a lot of the language and techniques of “game,” as well as its general atmosphere of degeneracy, comes straight from the ghetto. But this wouldn’t be the first time that Jews have profited packaging black degeneracy for white consumption. (I’ll give you one clue: it rhymes with “crap.”)
So, why have White Nationalists embraced this obvious Jewish manipulation of their libidos?
And don’t tell me that “game” is about restoring patriarchy. If it were, I would be all for it. But game is only about being on top for a few minutes in the sack, with no subsequent commitments or consequences. It is not about a restoration of male power and the responsibility that goes along with it. Roissy says it best: “Feminism has been very, very good indeed for men who want to play the field, and have the skills to do so. A return to patriarchal norms would really cramp my style.”
Fellas, if you want to halt the destruction of the white race, you need to stop being part of the problem and start embodying a real alternative. So, please, stop taking out your frustration and anger with modernity on us, as if we were disposable blow up dolls. Stop hating us. You can’t win without us. You need us. The war between the sexes is just another way that Jews profit from our decline.
Game is merely a reaction to feminism. Game follows feminism just like conservatism follows liberalism: right into the abyss. And don’t tell me that women have to change first. That puts women in the lead. But women will never restore patriarchy. Besides, aren’t Alpha males supposed to be leaders, not followers?
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
155 comments
I’m so glad I’m married. I’d be sickened to be in the “dating pool” these days with such scum polluting it.
I agree. It’s an issue of maturity. Mature man who have had a lot of success with women know that banging women one after the other eventually becomes empty and unsatisfying. It’s why they get married. I’m glad I’m married, too, and especially that I have kids. When I get home from work every day and unlock my front door, I’m greeted by my kids running to the door yelling Daddy, Daddy!! It’s a good feeling, a feeling I cherish more than anything, an irreplaceable feeling, as any father reading here will affirm. I wouldn’t trade five minutes with my kids for every social event, night out drinking and partying, or piece of ass I’ve ever had my whole life. In fact, I wouldn’t trade it for anything. Simple as that.
A “suave Australian”? What???!!!
“Semi-suave” was the exact term. Surely there are some semi-suave Australians.
My brother’s quite suave, but he’s the exception to the rule in Australia.
Very well written.
“Jewish family bickering” phrase is anthological.
It would be hilarious if it wasn’t that serious.
The problem is that both men and women just love to play psychological games, counting the gains (real or perceived). Name it moronic or ridiculous but they love such games with equal fervor. What’s even more saddening is that the phenomenon is propagating everywhere.
Also I have observed that women tend to be very kind toward these kind of guys. Instead, I think they are exploiting women’s narcissistic tendencies. It looks that the artists are playing dumb so that they have an excuse to babble things that a serious man wouldn’t dare think. Women look happy with the ridiculous flow of cheap humor and fake compliments. In exchange for these compliments, women can show great loyalty toward the cheapest kind of human beings. Even if they are really short, ugly, stupid, even violent morons. Yet, if the baubles and compliments stream flows, everything is OK.
The aggressive side is usually directed toward the men that deserve it less – most of all against the serious men. It is like a childish rebellion against the adults. “If you don’t give me my baubles I don’t need you, I’m strong, I’m so and so…”.
It is an issue of power. If the man is able to steadily confront that aggressive side, backed by a powerful fall-back position, then probably everything can be sorted out.
They need to remove the external negative influences. Starting with the gossiping “friends” and everything you dislike. Bring in positive influences – most all family with kids.
Thank you for this excellent article. It really bothers me that relationships have become just about sex and/or manipulating. Whatever happened to courtship? Whatever happened to tenderness, gentleness, the joy of seeing your beloved? I don’t think it is all about restoring patriarchy, but creating it anew. Men of character and heart do not have to be rigid dogmatists, nor women judgemental prudes. If my magic wand really worked, I would restore play and fun and laughter.
Boo-hoo. Get used to it. Guys have figured out many things, including the impotence of your shaming language. That is also part of liberalism… the moral outrage. Women don’t get to keep those parts that are advantageous to them and throw out the rest.
People who have something to be ashamed of need to be shamed, and if they can’t be shamed, they are morally lost. Only sociopaths are immune to shame.
This is an excellent article.
Often, in white nationalist (and dissident) circles, disgruntled compatriots harp on this or that issue. Some bash the blacks. Some bash the jews. Some bash the women. Some bash the men.
All of this bashing is swatting at the branches of a tree that needs to be pulled up by the roots.
I’m sorry to say, but the PUA issue (and this article), points to an underlying weakness in the Alternative (American New Right) intellectual community. And, I’m not just saying this because I’m a Christian:
We need a religious conviction underlying our movement, else we’ll never have the strength of will to combat the religious convictions of those anti-Westerners who wish to see our movement ended. They’re religiously devoted to their position and we’ll not match their zeal with arbitrary whims and Nietzschean nihilism.
Until we embrace some underlying religious conviction, animal passions will rule the movement.
We may need conviction. I’m not sure we need the exact manner of conviction that the Christian religion has offered us. Nor do we need the superstition that follows it. We need a healthy affirmation of natural law and the beauty of life when such laws are realized. If you find that in Christianity (I can see how Catholicism allows for this to be realized), so be it. In fact, I’m supportive. But I’ve found that religious morals largely talk past our ends. In fact, most Western religion actively works AGAINST us. We’re literally up against an avalanche of opposition.
Why? Why should I define what you’re asking me to define? I’m fine with doing so but I fear it would serve no purpose in terms of furthering any discussion between us because I never actually said I was opposed to a transcendental philosophical system or a set of such ideas or EVEN religion itself. In fact, such thinking interests me immensely which is why I frequent this site. I wish more people had such beliefs instead of taking the lukewarm utilitarian route. I took some light jabs at Christianity; not the concept of metaphysical belief as a whole.
Mr. UFASP,
I grew up with stories about Christian heroes like Nathan Forrest, Robert E. Lee, King Arthur, and many others. It’s hard to imagine (in light of their example) why you would doubt their convictions or think them second rate heroes.
They weren’t fighting as a Nietzschean ubermensch.
Furthermore, I support Sparkle’s implication: Not only is a love for Christ necessary to fan our passions into a zeal that can conquer the egalitarian, it is conceptually necessary if we’re to have a consistent philosophy.
I’d also like to take some friendly jabs at your cherished conceptual scheme.
Classic Sparkle,
“Well lay out your transcendental system then since you take umbrage at Christianity so I can take some light jabs at yours.”
Why would I do that? That sounds like a complete waste of time to me given the posturing of your rhetoric. A discussion is not a pissing contest.
“Tell me your beliefs so I can take issue with them because you take issue with mine.”
You’re basically admitting that you have no interest in asking me my personal beliefs in a spirit of good faith, so no, I won’t actually. Go find someone else to who will indulge you in the discussion you apparently want to have. But suffice to say all one need to do is look at some of the authors that are vanguards on this site and you’ll get an idea of where my beliefs come from.
Shotgun,
“I grew up with stories about Christian heroes like Nathan Forrest, Robert E. Lee, King Arthur, and many others. It’s hard to imagine (in light of their example) why you would doubt their convictions or think them second rate heroes.”
*sigh* Why are you putting words into my mouth? I took a jab at Christianity, not Robert E. Lee, King Arthur, or any one Christian in particular. One can criticize a belief system without directly criticizing people who may place faith in such a system. Or do you not think highly of any pagans despite your own Christian faith?
“They weren’t fighting as a Nietzschean ubermensch.”
I don’t think you really understand the spirit of Nietzsche’s writings. Otherwise, you’d never say such a thing. Obviously, they weren’t Nietzscheans in the strictest sense as the people you listed predate Nietzsche. If you want to know the type of morality Nietzsche praises, read The Twilight Of The Idols. He is very fond of Thucydides, as am I. I don’t think there is that much of a difference in spirit between King Arthur and Pericles even if one was a Christian and one was a pagan. The difference is that paganism didn’t have an ethical system that can be directly linked to liberalism.
“Furthermore, I support Sparkle’s implication: Not only is a love for Christ necessary to fan our passions into a zeal that can conquer the egalitarian, it is conceptually necessary if we’re to have a consistent philosophy.”
No, it’s not. That’s why metaphysics and religion, though they overlap, are not one in the same.
“I’d also like to take some friendly jabs at your cherished conceptual scheme.”
Why? To make yourself feel better? I wasn’t proselytizing on this thread like you’re trying to do. In fact, I actually wrote that I supported your Christianity if it works for you. You’re the one who wants to divide us up into groups by advocating one particular religion for all white people as if white people are not broken down enough, already.
I’m not in the business of encouraging “bloodletting” within our group. There’s enough people doing that already both directly and indirectly. The last thing we need is more white people advocating against other white people and over a matter of religion of all things (which I do not mean to trivialize but it’s also a very private personal matter as well as a cultural affair).
I also will submit to you that I don’t think any sort of Christianity will be encouraging ANY type of bloodletting any time soon. It hasn’t for the past few hundred years, either, for the most part. Anyone who sees Christianity as a MEANS to save white people (and placed no prior value into the faith outside of that) is really fooling themselves, I think. Even in the more traditionalist camps. I can’t imagine the current Christian institutions speaking out against miscegenation. And they, more than any other religion, have a record of tearing down that taboo.
That being said, I understand that the Christian faith is pretty amorphous and that G.K. Chesterton is not Pat Robertson. I’m not in the business of trying to talk people out of Christianity. But when Christians insist on being dogmatic on white nationalist sites, I’m not afraid to tell them what I think of its influence over the past few centuries has meant for white civilization.
“There you go again” what? Some guy on here was Christ-pushing. I told him what I thought about it. That’s all that has happened here. Again, I’m not the one pushing religion. First of all, this is not the appropriate spot for an in-depth metaphysical discussion.
Again, if you want to know where I draw my “system” from, read Evola, Nietzsche, Devi, or you know, many of the authors that are along the perennialist/traditionalist frame of thinking. Hell, even the Greeks like Plato and Aristotle have some good thoughts. I name-dropped Thucydides earlier because figures in his writings demonstrate a type of par excellence for traditionalist morality. Christianity (acceptance of the Gospels as transcendent metaphysical truth) doesn’t follow from any of that thought, necessarily. Realism, the philosophical system Christianity draws from, is actually applicable to most of the world’s religions which is where perennialism as a philosophical movement comes from.
You think you’re turning the heat up on me but I’m actually beginning to wonder if you can’t distinguish philosophy from religion.
“It is an inappropriate place to discuss the merits of game and I didn’t ask for anything in-depth.”
Your question implies an in-depth response for it to be satisfactory. (Or at least I think it does.) Philosophical beliefs are not easily condensed unless you like to fit under a handle or an intellectual vogue that can be easily condensed. Most thoughtful people have very qualified opinions on such matters. That’s why Jonathan Bowden gave those long lectures on the beliefs of such people. That’s why most intellectual figures have large numbers of influences they can cite. So qualifying everything with respect to one’s own personal “system” does take space.
“Evola? Devi?”
Yeah.
“That’s supposed to be a superior “system” to the entire Christian tradition?”
No. Evola and Devi are not systems. You know, it’s really annoying explaining things to you that, were you genuine and not just argumentative and egotistical, you’d be able to figure out. Traditionalists are largely neo-Platonic. Christians of the Scholastic tradition (i.e. traditional Christianity/ Roman Catholicism) are also neo-Platonic or Aristotilean. They follow the same metaphysical “system.” The texts of the faiths themselves are different but they use the same metaphysical guideline to structure their beliefs. You may have noticed that Greg Johnson just did a piece on Aristotle. What do you think it is that draws both traditionalists and Catholics to Aristotle? You’d know if you read more and condescended less to others about matters you clearly don’t understand.
This is why I wrote how it’s obvious to me that you can’t distinguish philosophy from religion. You do an awful lot of blathering for someone who seems to have a grasp on so little. I noticed I’m not the only one that has had to point out this unfortunate character feature of yours.
“Firstly, that’s religion too (at least as it is typically contrasted with science).”
What? You asked me for “a system”! Not a what religion I followed. Perennialists like Evola and Guenon endorse many religions. They never claimed to be founders of any sort of religion themselves.
“Really goofy religion at that. A bunch of metaphysical nonsense.”
Again, no it’s not. This is like saying that Platonism is a religion or that Cartesian metaphysics is a religion or utilitarianism is a religion. I mean, you can call them that. But then you’re just engaging in word play and stretching the meaning of the word “religion” even if people aptly use it in a metaphorical sense all of the time. Again, the vast majority of the perennialist thinking I have come across (which characterizes Evola’s thought) is neo-Platonic. If Evola is nonsense, you may as well say Seneca and Plato are nonsense too. But I’ll trust their authority over yours as much as that hurts your vanity.
“Secondly, they are the most unsystematic thinkers I can think of. That’s not to say I don’t enjoy reading Evola. I do.”
Really? You enjoy reading something you can’t understand? I find such an experience to be frustrating. At the very least, though, I can explain why I like or approve of something or dislike and don’t approve of something because I try to actually understand it before I judge it. I’m not just dismissive in some generic way like you apparently are; but I can see through you. Judging from the way you write and the words you use to describe a level of nuanced thinking clearly beyond you, I’m not so sure you even understand philosophy that well let alone how a particular thinker fits within the long tradition of metaphysical ideas that have come out of the West.
It’s funny that you call Evola “unsystematic.” Even liberal-minded people I’ve had dialogues with who have an almost moral fear of Evola will admit how systematic he is. It’s the one thing they admire about him. You want to know what isn’t systematic? American Protestantism (and really Protestantism in general). Their love of tautology is matched only by Islam.
“I just fail to see a system anywhere there that is philosophically defensible and that can account for the world as we know it.”
Yes. You do fail. That doesn’t mean myself or others do.
“As far as Plato not leading to (or even being equal with) Christ, the entire Western philosophical tradition stands against you. ”
What?
“Nietzsche’s formulation is pretty standard here. ”
What?
“Plotinus is also really instructive here with regard to where Plato’s thought leads.””
Well, the only system Christianity has ever had is Platonic. So if you’re trying to say that Platonic thought leads somewhere that isn’t desirable, you’re not helping your cause any.
“If you think that Jonathan Edwards wasn’t doing philosophy I can’t continue the discussion. If you think that what the Scholastics were doing wasn’t philosophy then I can continue the discussion.”
Of course they were. But Scholastics were neo-Platonics (Boethius) and Aristotileans (Aquinas). Have you not read any Aquinas? Again, you’re only showing me how terribly illiterate you are on this subject. Philosophy and religion are separable. Even the Church talks about Reason (philosophical grounding) and Revelation (theology).
“That’s just extreme prejudice and there will be no changing your mind and any further dialog will be unfruitful.”
Whatever. It’s pretty obvious to me you’re the one who forms opinions before he’s even read anything or read and actually understood what he’s read all while he preaches to other people. I can see right though you. I’d quit before you embarrass yourself any further. Go re-ban yourself. Your modus operandi is only going to create confusion and pissing contests.
Whilst I can understand a woman’s distaste for the PUA/’game’ scene, I can only point out that game has evolved precisely as a reaction to the unfortunate circumstances that the young men of today face regarding the paucity of attractive women (in the West, at least). To put it simply, feminism and obesity are together reducing the pool of attractive women; this causes increased competition for the women in this pool; and this heightened competition, in turn, encourages ever greater narcissism among said women. It’s a tricky situation, to which the only effective response is mastering the art of seduction.
Ava Moretti should bear in mind that game teachings have evolved on a trial and error basis. She criticises men for not “embodying a real alternative”, but her idea of what constitutes this alternative strikes me as a little naïve (begging her pardon). Based on the rest of this article, it seems to consist of ‘VIP treatment’, compliments and gentlemanly courting. These approaches have been tried and discarded for a reason: they’re generally unsuccessful in the present climate. It’s not the case that PUAs spontaneously decided to adopt an ‘unchivalrous’ attitude towards women; rather, it arose because it was found to work where other approaches had failed. (As a reformed ex-beta, I can vouch for game personally in this regard.) Seduction gurus are only able to sell their books because women have responded positively to the techniques they teach to men; thus whatever one’s feelings about the PUA scene, blaming men alone for its doctrines is somewhat disingenuous. PUA doctrine exists as a result of the sexual choices made by women themselves.
I hope to see patriarchy restored in the future and thus regards game as a temporary ‘tactic’, suitable for the challenges of our particular age, rather than as a new paradigm for male-female relations. In the short term though, PUA teachings are of value to Radical Traditionalists. They offer young men some guidance as to how they might put themselves back in the ‘driving seat’ of our culture, and it encourages them to think of themselves consciously as men and (if part of a loosely-defined PUA ‘community’) look at their goals collectively as men. Frankly, any culture whose men are at the mercy of its women has no chance of forming a virile alternative to the status quo.
Incidentally, Michael Bell’s article on game (here at C-C) is worth a look as he mentions some practical benefits that we might obtain by adapting some of game’s teachings for our own purposes.
Very well, point taken, but what is the alternative? Is there an alternative available in Western society today? All there really is are the shallow horrors of dating culture, which really only emerged in our civilization within the last century. How many women would even experience some alternative form as anything but weird? The dating world seems to work for some people, but more often than not, as the statistics and the state of our society plainly show, the results in general have been disastrous. I realize most women will probably call me a horrible defender of patriarchy for saying this, but I really do think the traditional system of arranged marriages, in which a match is set up by the respective families for their son/daughter, is still the best system. It was common practice in the West until very recently, after all, and it still works in India today (there must be a reason why their divorce rate is under 1%).
Of course, I recognize that the odds of such a system re-emerging in the U.S. today are about the same as the horse-drawn carriage replacing the automobile once again, but I can’t really think of a viable alternative that’s better.
John, regarding the dating culture you might find an the essay on Carroll Quigley http://www.instaurationonline.com/pdf-files/Instauration-1988-10-October-pt1.pdf. to be a mine of information. The essay is based on the the sub section of the 20th chapter of Tragedy and Hope entitled The United States and the Middle Class Crisis. According to Quigley by the 1960’s the teenagers had developed a new culture “like that of the African tribes” whose hallmarks are music, dance, scanty clothing sex play, interpersonal relationships and a rejection of future preference.
The dating scene, the formal dance, where the idea was to introduce the girl to as many eligible young men as possible was obsolete by 1947. The habit of going steady was transferred from the gangster circles of south Chicago to the middle class through the suspices of the george Raft movies of the 1930s. The new custom was itself soon replaced by the tribal gregariousness and tolerant sexual broadmindedness which has killed sexual jealousy and privacy.
“I really do think the traditional system of arranged marriages, in which a match is set up by the respective families for their son/daughter, is still the best system.”
Sure saved everyone a lot of time and trouble. And, in the long run, probably very few were displeased with the final result anyway.
Interesting piece, chock-full of classic feminist shaming language. Typical “blame the man” attitude. Bitter much?
Game is not only about learning the techniques to attract and seduce women (techniques their fathers should have taught young men, but didn’t), it’s about developing the set of skills to maintain a woman in any relationship, including marriage. It’s about helping brain-washed and emasculated young men (especially White men) develop confidence and take charge. It’s about telling men to take their own side, to put themselves first.
Game would not be necessary if women haven’t consistently proved by their actions over thousands of years that they find Alpha men the most attractive and sex-worthy.
And, since you mention negroes, the frequency of black male/White woman pairings cannot have escaped the attention of even the most racially unconscious young White man. You want White guys to “get with the program”? Okay, then, here’s a start: Stop. Dating. Apes. It doesn’t become you.
It’s easy for women like Ava to shame men into “manning up” and to challenge them to “restore patriarchy” when she has the entire government, legal system, media, social service, security force, and culture on her side. White women’s very membership in such a system (from which they continue to benefit) helps legitimize it and allows it to continue. In this respect, White women are traitors and have shown themselves to be selfish and disloyal. Is it not surprising then that many White men simply use Game to get what they need from these women, and nothing more?
Frankly, Ava, with your attitude, it’s no wonder you’re still dating.
Again with the shaming. I am already hearing a “mantra” here.
But I am not seeing any real attempt to engage her argument, just ad hominems. Instead, what you communicate is nothing but resentment, and apparently, you reserve the right to be unreasonable until your grievances are addressed. Who, exactly, is the girl here?
Back in the 1990s, I watched a John Stossel special on rumors in the black community. Blacks will believe outrageous and absurd things as long as they cast whites in a bad light. When Stossel confronted them with arguments, their reactions were much the same as yours: aggrieved pouting, the refusal to engage rationally.
That was one of the “lightbulb” moments when I realized multiculturalism will never work. Blacks are too poisoned by bitterness.
I hope that is not true of the war between the sexes.
“Shaming” is a feminist tactic used by certain women to attack and shut down male critics. It’s real. It exists. That we easily identify it as such doesn’t make it less relevant.
It’s the feminist equivalent of blacks accusing Whites of “racism” or Jews denouncing Whites as “anti-semites”.
:::yawn:::
We’re not “pouting”. On the contrary, like Roissy, many of us are enjoying the current scene. It’s made for guys like me.
It’s women who are the real losers. And yet many of them don’t realize it.
Again, it’s way to easy to slam men when feminists and their supporters have the entire government, legal system, media, social service, security force, and culture on their side.
As for men? Well, we take our own side.
Men are not blameless, I’ll concede, but the older I get the more I realize that greater problems lie within the female community.
Until they admit it and take steps to change it, or until circumstances allow us to force them to change it, we’re going to continue to suffer from these communication issues.
Racism and anti-Semitism are nothing to be ashamed of. Are you sure you have nothing to be ashamed of? Your demographic war seems to be directed at our own race.
You cannot seriously believe in patriarchy and then blame women for the present degradation of society and demand that they take the first step toward changing things. If you believe what you putatively believe, then men are responsible for the rise of feminism and also for the solution to the problem. Yes, earlier generations are more to blame than the present generation for the decline, but only the present generation can take responsibility for reversing things.
But why do that? Why even think about it when one can curse the fleshpots as one revels in them?
I disagree. No argument is even put forward in this article that needs to be challenged. And to be honest I’m surprised this article is even published on this site. If anything I thought this site was about raising up White men, not printing articles downgrading white men by clearly bitter females.
‘Game’ is extremely beneficial to white males in particular. They are the single most beaten down members of society. And Game is not about sleeping with as many women as possible. As I commented on another site all men should strive to be alpha. It is very good for maintaining healthy relationships.
Was this whole article written because of one comment made on a date that this author didn’t like?
Sure, because this particular Jewish intellectual movement isn’t like all the others.
Of course there is an argument here: making modern decadence work for you is not a way of changing a corrupt system.
If you believe in male dominance and male responsibility and male leadership, then you can’t expect women take the lead and restore that for us, even if it would be in the interests of all.
Given the vicious, emotional, demeaning tenor of some of these replies, I think there is plenty of male bitterness out there too.
“And Game is not about sleeping with as many women as possible….”
Show me one “game” website/blog where producing countless white babies in a traditional marriage is encouraged.
Speaking of which…On the same Heartiste link I put in the article above he goes on to say: ” This is why I counsel men to avoid modern marriage altogether: it’s a RAW FUCKING DEAL for men because it requires most of the sacrifice to come from the man’s end of the bargain. A man has to turn his back on much more of his natural sexual predilection in the decision to commit to marriage than does a woman.” Is that considered a traditionalist?
“Was this whole article written because of one comment made on a date that this author didn’t like?” More like current dating trends than a singular comment. Be it at 22 or 42; it doesn’t matter since this is what all women go through.
Ava and cites in blockquote:
They aren’t, because that is not their purpose. Their purpose is to inoculate us against the man-hating Feminista status-quo, so at least we can become active participants, rather than haplessly manipulated fools, in the game of (hopefully) meaningful relationships.
It lays the foundation for Traditionalism, as it provides the foundation for the possibility that allows the man to act with a greater Perspective than immediate gratification. See Esther Vilar on how easily we have been manipulated into just that. Remember what Father Himself, Tiom Leykis, He of Blessed Name, said:
Women are dream killers. They will take your Dreams and replace them with their plans for you.
Look in the eyes, look at the posture, of the Beta Males you see going to work every morning, Don’t they look like beaten dogs? Why is that? WHAT sucked the life force from the marrow of their bones? It as a series of Traps, where Her Plans for him become His Duty to The Relationship, and the full powers of the State will reduce him to bitter poverty – AT BEST! – if he tries to leave the trap.
BEATEN DOGS!
Do you want your Son to be trapped in the Hell Marriage has become for Western Men? For the first time, we have become proactive. For the first time in history, we have the power to say “NO!” and back it up, in an “apple pie, strictly legal, sort of way.” (HT: Jim Giles)
For the first time in history, to quote from “They Live,” “We Can SEE!”
And we are not going back. After all, as Roissy so astutely noted, there is nothing in what marriage has become for us.
The woman – not girl – in question was at least 17-18, a fully functioning, sexually mature adult female. It’s hardly surprising that an older feminist would try to compare this to a “little girl” unable to “form syllables,” a typical feminist “sex panic.”
Typical feminist, her words do not match her deeds. In describing this date, no mention of her chaperone? Where was her father? That would be real “tradition” but it’s clear the author isn’t actually a traditionalist, simply bitter that men now have the upper hand, and choose younger women instead of her. Is she a virgin? No? Well that explains exactly what sort of woman she is, and what sort of dates and marriage proposals (if any) she can expect – she is damaged goods. She has “put out” before, why wouldn’t her current date expect similar benefits? She should expect to be judged on her “nether region’s grooming habits” (though clearly she is unable to give up “control” of anything, to a date, husband, or “john” for that matter.)
Her moralistic-feminist arguments simply carry no weight, and her frustrated hypergamy comes across loud and clear. Next time, she should ask her father, mother, or aunt to arrange a proper date for her, and be ready to accept a proposal that is acceptable to her family, based on likely ability of the suitor to support a family. (Her father can explain to the potential suitor that she is not exactly “fresh.”)
But clearly, the feminist author is instead interested in “VIP” treatment. She thinks quite highly of herself, likely a product of “self-esteem” education. You go girl!
You can’t tell a feminist anything. Please notice that this feminist is lecturing men here – has she penned an article telling young women to remaine chaste? Is she directing her energies towards countering feminism?
The narcissist now believes she speaks for all women. The fact is, men need women – but they most certainly do not need her. It’s too late for the author. Focus should be on saving the younger women from turning out like the author did.
Now go make your father a sandwich.
More pouting truculence.
I’m on OKCupid? Cool. Also, I’ve never been called a “graying hag” before. Fag hag maybe.
“The clash between feminism and PUA is just a Jewish family quarrel, the natural reaction of narcissistic, emasculated, manipulative men against aggressive, neurotic, castrating harpies. And whites, like the children we are, just sit in the backseat and listen to them bicker and then try to act just like them — until they drive us off a cliff.”
Heh. That’s an interesting way to look at it. I think feminism played on real grievances that women had– domestic abuse, male chauvinism, etc. But I also think it played on female vanity. “I should have HIS job!” “I shouldn’t be STUCK raising HIS kids!” Just as Rousseau’s “noble savage” played on real feelings white people have about nature and simplicity but also injected a hostile liberal set of values against civilization, feminism did something similar with respect to female grievances against men.
A bunch of Jew harpies (and a large corporate media campaign) told happy white Caucasian mothers that their lives were “meaningless” and “unfulfilled” and it sent TONS of women into some indignant outrage against their own civilization. Why would they go against what was largely in their own interests (raising children as opposed to working a stupid job) if not for vanity? I don’t think that’s the driving force behind game.
I think game is playing on largely legitimate feelings “beta” men (read: most men) have today when they reach the age where they’d like to find a woman and are simply hopeless under the present climate whereas sixty years ago they’d have been fine. It’s not vanity, really. In other words, while women were “reduced” to being “lowly housewives,” men today REALLY are reduced to World of Warcraft-playing, “bottom-feeding,” untermensch whose “equal pay” offers women nothing unless they either a) genuinely better themselves or b) learn the “tricks.” That young men don’t instinctively know how to better themselves (this comes with life experience) is forgivable to a degree, I think. Particularly when you consider that many of the ways men really can better themselves in the eyes of women go AGAINST what educators and moral figures tell us constitutes male improvement (which is why game even exists). I sympathize with that sense of young male despondency more than I do with some woman who refuses to be June Cleaver because she wants an “exciting” life. I know. I’m biased being a guy and all. But that’s the way I see it. In short, one motive is by default selfish while the other may not necessarily be so. So I wouldn’t quite view them as male and female counterparts of the same phenomenon.
Unlike Roissy, there are many people who use the wisdom of game to find A woman. I mean, most women ignore most men who have no “game.” What do you suggest for that guy outside of “be yourself and some girl will see you for who you are” until the patriarchy is “restored”? Most men understandably see that “be yourself” sentiment as not good enough. They tried that. It failed them. What their mothers told them wasn’t true, after all, though it sounded nice.
“Fellas, if you want to halt the destruction of the white race, you need to stop being part of the problem and start embodying a real alternative.”
You know, I did enjoy this article, but I think this is a case where you’re talking past us. At least, a good number of WNs. There’s always going to be scummy men. Just as there’s always going to be gullible women who seemingly crave abuse. Most of the men I have seen in WN circles are not praising gamers though a small number do. It’s inevitable. We’re not going to get to 100% game condemnation anymore than we’re going to get 100% pro-Christian sentiment or 100% pro-pagan sentiment. It’s pretty understood that this new alternative racialist right sees gamers as useful to the extent that they understand human psychology.
But most people on WN sites (from what I’ve seen) aren’t praising Roissy as a person or even advocating serial f*ckers (aka PUAs). Quite the opposite, in my experience.
The fact of the matter is that as long as the vast majority of women accept the non-sense they hear from their college professors and Sarah Jessica Parker, these types of men you decry are going to prosper and proliferate short of some major social upheaval by disgruntled men willing to use some sort of force. Unlike say, the 1950s and before, virtually all of the selective pressure for mating is in the hands of most women. That’s why men get “lucky” today and women talk less about “landing a good man” than they did decades ago.
“Game is merely a reaction to feminism. Game follows feminism just like conservatism follows liberalism: right into the abyss. And don’t tell me that women have to change first. That puts women in the lead. But women will never restore patriarchy. Besides, aren’t Alpha males supposed to be leaders, not followers?”
I agree that expecting women to change first is absurd. But the fact of the matter is that whichever “Alpha males” step up to restore any sort of traditional roles are going to have to at least understand the deep biological differences between men and women that exist. Possessing that understanding in itself seems to upset MOST women– even the ones who say, “I’m not a feminist.” So such men will at least have to understand game in order to do this.
I think you are right about feminism: there are real causes of grievance, but the vast bulk of it, and the really destructive qualities, are grafted onto female vanity.
Didn’t we meet on Okcupid last week?
An excellent response to this “Game” silliness. It goes without saying that these pick up artists are not the sort of men we should strive to be like. They may be able to fornicate with numerous women, but they are nothing more then male sluts when you get down to it. They aren’t leaders, which is what our people need. They follow not in the model of the great Hellenic, Latin, or Germanic heroes, the role models of our race (think Hector or Aeneas or Beowulf), but rather emulate the antics of Bill Clinton and Hugh Hefner. This whole “Game” foolishness is yet another distraction and dead end for our people.
” They follow not in the model of the great Hellenic, Latin, or Germanic heroes,”
Who never, ever philandered. There were no manuals of love in Ovid’s day. No Celtic hero ever slept with his neighbor’s wife. No Kievan Rus ever sold his womenfolk down the Volga for wine and wares. And verily, no god disguised as a bull kidnapped a sexy Phoenician girl and begat a continent.
Is this why the damned Anarkhisti
were sick of bourgeois morality?
“(think Hector or Aeneas or Beowulf)”
Why — do real reproducing whites think of them? why do you? and is that the same Aeneas as he who abducted Lavinia from Latinus, and in rock-star fashion broke the hearts of the sisters Dido and Anna, moving them both to suicide?
Whatever. You create a socioromantic slum for men and then complain when they slum it a little on their way back to hierarchical balance and confidence. This lady should think beyond herself a bit more.
Who is this “you” here?
We should all be thinking beyond ourselves a bit more.
Who is this “you” here?
As with everything, it’s a profile of different groups and layered responsibility. Women are strongly represented.
We should all be thinking beyond ourselves a bit more.
Spare me the piety. This woman in particular needs to think beyond herself a bit more. Or, more directly, she needs to shut her mouth, and refrain from bringing criticism until she brings me a sandwich.
And by the way, we men of the game influence do not hate women. We just know their nature, and human nature generally, and appreciate in a heightened way that one truly must be cruel to be kind. Don’t you let yourself or anyone else forget it.
“And by the way, we men of the game influence do not hate women…Or, more directly, she needs to shut her mouth, and refrain from bringing criticism until she brings me a sandwich.”
No hate at all here. Move along.
“This woman in particular needs to think beyond herself a bit more.”
Sadly, the article was about your future.
No hate at all here. Move along.
Sure, Ava–take that chauvinism and dwell on it. Women react as Roissy says and thrill to what he says they do. Sorry! If it makes you feel better we can pretend I caused it, by telling you to shut up and get in the kitchen.
Sadly, the article was about your future.
Luckily for you this dialogue is fated to remain online and anonymous. Don’t peer into my personal life or you’ll be disappointed.
So Counter Currents is all about truth, but here we may have identified its outer limit, beyond which it lapses into smarm as empty as that of any campus Marxist. Whenever we talk about game and its reality we’ll just tell Ava and the Churchladies, “Earmuffs!”
Sadder yet, it’s fundamentally about both our futures.
That you can’t see it is, or prefer to deny it, is all the more tragic for you.
Obviously, we do hate you. Rabidly, consumingly, remorselessly. There’s no sense denying it. Demetrius and Chiron of Titus Andronicus were only slightly more brutal to poor Lavinia than I would be unto you given the chance. Sexual conflict is one of Nature’s major industries, and we’re all working 24-hour shifts until we produce something.
However, you did come here and pick this fight. We doused you with a cold bucket of our truth. Now you act curt and high-handed, as anyone in denial might. Now we must wait to suffer your next anti-PUA hit piece.
There’s one more curious aspect of WN female psychology I left out of my account yesterday, one I’ve touched on before but never bothered to work out as it quickly irritates orbiting white knights.
Which is that she invariably presents a very “stiff” persona. I have in mind you, MOB, Helvena, and a few others whose names are lost to my poor memory. You have some things in common:
– You pop up from time to time to criticize, in heavy moralizing terms, the sexual attitude of young men,
– You are obsessed with monogamy and what you call “tradition”, to the point of loathing anything else,
– You have a fetish for high IQ and eugenics (these three traits, be it said, are proxies for your strained and desperate genetic interests: you hate/fear men who are getting laid because that “means”, analogically, this laissez-faire attitude threatens your preference for monogamously investing men; you’re obsessed with monogamy/tradition because these are code or “ciphers” for what will maximize your interests in a crumbling society where the middle-class is imperiled, the poor of all races are growing, and the rich are mostly indifferent to phenomena they can’t control anyhow; and you fetishize “good genes” because, as everyone should know, that’s what females in a healthy breeding population do — social decline + reactionary ideology = female too obsessed with eugenics to actually breed)
– When you piss off 90% of the men about with your moralizing, anti-sex schoolmarmery, you limit yourself to one- or two-line ripostes exhibiting a very active condescension for those who dissent from your basically puritanical ideology, or altogether petty remarks like “I hate cats” (doesn’t speak in your favor btw; Heartiste, Classic Sparkle and I love cats, and girls like that we like cats; girls who don’t like cats lack something)
– You have no children! You yourselves have failed by what you are, and presume to lecture us for failing or worse, “going our own way”; but you don’t really want us to suffer with you, for we don’t even know who you are, and this “brothers/sisters” rhetoric merely insults us with an affectation of fraternity that is impossible both to strangers and a genetically outbred population that has no natural community, and thus, common spirit
I speculate elsewhere that what brings your sort here is that you are somewhat masculinized or otherwise inured to the inherent risk / adventurism of fringe politics. What on the surface appears to be an intellectual, or rational concern with the benefits of a mono-racial society to women, seems more like a steely broad who doesn’t have the temperament to weather the primordial preoccupations of unattached men. Certain tropes are employed to brow-beat us, as though all of European history, every culture, every people, reduces to stolid Norwegian peasants of Lutheran faith who, once married, never looked beyond the homestead. Because Norwegian farmers never drank and cheated on summer nights when all the hay had been lifted for sinter. Because our life as industrial citizens is like that, and we can reproduce that morality in the middle of the most overweening technological civilization ever on earth; as though morality doesn’t depend at all on social circumstances. It isn’t that we’re so alienated from means & ends by this process, really the END of the process, so uprooted like everyone else down to the last Papuan subsistence farmer, so overstimulated by endless (mostly sexual) shit that, failing normalcy, we’d at least like to exorcize our more active sex drive sometimes so we don’t lose our minds.
But that is wrong. That is “niggerish”. It isn’t European, even. No Europeans of antiquity ever did such things. The Greek Anthology isn’t full of bawdy wisecracks and their amphorae don’t depict wild sex acts. Or rather, that’s why Greece “collapsed” — wild sex acts and “miscegenation” with the helotry!
We should not allow ourselves to sleep with women, ever. We must all become as stolid Norwegian supermen. Like Greg Johnson who isn’t married, or German poets who had no children. If we don’t have high IQs and we talk too soon about your pussy, we are cretins, brutes, “monsters”, we ought to be ashamed because we are “your brothers” and are failing to live up to you. It is we who must live up to you, first and foremost. You are under no obligation to accommodate or compromise with us. There is nothing wrong with you, and PUA needs to screech to a halt because it’s reaching your shores, and to trick us into hating it, you’ve exaggerated its jewishness, made it the other face of feminism, and the staff are happy to play along. For as we know, once WNs have decided something “is Jewish”, there’s no talking them out of it. (Even though Counter-Currents just ran de Benoist’s great article on J.J. Rousseau, who, as WNs have long been stridently self-convinced, “is Jewish” because of a prejudice inherited from the Conservative/Christian critique of “the Enlightenment”.)
As I point out elsewhere, should my words be approved, intelligence and fertility are INVERSELY CORRELATED.
I want you to let that sink in.
Go away from this. Go for a walk. Ponder it.
You are highly intelligent.
Highly intelligent people aren’t successful reproducers.
What if it isn’t “Jews and feminists”, via PUA, who are so simply to blame for your romantic failures? What if it’s you, what if it’s each of us, all trying to fit together when we all came from a culture with a million diversions and modes for people to separate and become as different species to each other? What if your hamster is at work spinning theories that ignore your human culpability? What if, in effect, you’re as much an alienated, industrial citizen as we are, exhibiting just another semi-pathological behavior not amenable to the values and primary mode for which we all yearn? What then — if you’re partly to blame, and you won’t accept it?
The window is closing. You haven’t long left.
White men don’t hate white women, white men hate themselves. We white men have been beatin’ to death by our culture that is hostile to us and has instilled at a very young age negativity in us and women do not like negativity.
Most white men are also un-kept slobs. About the only white men that I see that maintains their hygiene and belly are the metrosexuals. The more masculine white men I see are in a decayed, beer belly, resistant state of mind who unconsciously resist our feminin and alien culture.
“We white men have been beatin’ to death by our culture that is hostile to us and has instilled at a very young age negativity in us and women do not like negativity.”
Good point. Another reason white girls don’t go for White Nationalists and loathe & fear the Heartiste/Rollo-side of PUA. Too much *negativity*, and too much peaking under their skirts for comfort. Nietzsche asked if truth were a woman, would all-too-insistent inquiry be immodest? Men insist, women resist.
Now, Classic Sparkle and I have the right approach …. quote some Plath, give ’em a little slap and flick your tongue, they’re already half-way to our side …
Actually the worst thing about ‘Game’ is that its a scam that doesn’t work.
Show me the evidence that it really turns ‘average frustrated chumps’ into modern day Casanovas.
Show me the evidence that real women are dropping long-term relationships to join these players’ harems.
Does “game” work? I don’t know if it does or it doesn’t, but a healthy dose of skepticism and contempt seems to be in order. The game milieu reeks of Jewish gurus, pop psychology, and self-help literature — all of which suggests that it amounts to a steaming pile of bullshit. (The Jewish management author Peter Drucker wryly remarked that most people use the word “guru” because “charlatan” is too long.) And as the saying goes, if something isn’t worth doing, it isn’t worth doing well. To be a professional fornicator is hardly something to be proud of.
A comment can be ironic or paradoxical without being incorrect or illogical, at least when viewed within a larger context, as it usually should be.
Drucker’s comment that most gurus are charlatans is quite apt. He was doubtless referring to gurus among business writers. I’ve only read one of his books, namely Management Challenges in the 21st Century, and I didn’t find anything patently Judaic, subversive, or unreasonable in its contents, although I’m probably what Abraham Foxman would call a “virulent anti-Semite.”
I might not have made my original point very well, but you didn’t make your point at all.
Anyway, it looks like you’re going out. You said that you would ban yourself, but you then returned to make comments that suggest that you’re going to get yourself banned.
Are we sure this piece wasn’t written by Andy (or his female persona)?
I don’t reveal pen names, but I can say that this is not written by Andy.
Don’t think the comments would be so hateful if it was written by Andy.
I have no desire to actively take a side in this debate that could have been very enlightening, but has instead been reduced to childish bickering by those who feel that name calling and pot-shots are appropriate for an intellectual website. I would, however, like to simply declare the following:
Women’s minds work in such a way that some form of “game” is necessary to make them like you, even if it’s something as simple as making eye contact while conversing and smiling often. Being handsome, somewhat successful, and well spoken are not enough these days. Writing her poetry only works in the movies. A woman’s brain needs to be poked the right way. It’s sometimes a pain that they have been wired this way by nature, but this is how it is whether we like it or not. If we wish to find suitable mates, we will need to use game to an extent. Going to a girl’s house with a blazer and flowers on the first date, showering her with endless compliments about her beauty, and calling her the very next day will be a sure-fire way to come across as a creep, or at best, as needy.
Game does not have to be used simply for banging different chicks every other night. I think that many people take issue with certain uses of game rather than with game itself.
Right. Even some of Evola’s writings on in Eros come across as “game” for high-minded intellectual types. I think someone wrote a piece on this site that pointed this out. Perhaps it was you? I don’t recall.
The bottom line is that there a lot of different ways the valuable information contained within “game” can be assimilated for good or for ill. I will say that I think the author of this piece has a legitimate gripe about the motives behind many gamers. It almost makes you wonder if any of these people trashing her lock stock and barrel have any sisters or women in their life they wish to protect from the exact people they are defending one hundred percent without qualification. Say a father has a loose daughter; is he supposed to think, “aw, shucks, she’s a skank; game away!”? To the extent that that father has a legit gripe, so does Moretti, I think.
But I would also like to ask Ms. Moretti why she didn’t ditch the creep right away when he began asking about her “nether regions”? I think the whole “dinner first” bit was a writer’s jest but that may have not exactly ingratiated her to the sentiments of some of these readers. They may have seen it as bit of having one’s cake and eating it too.
This is a very good question. “Gaming” has become so common when I date that I have to mentally take stock what is superficial “negging” vs. deep-seated hatred. When my date pulled out his swinging glory days is when I officially checked out and went home.
Yeah, it’s kind of creepy the way everything is so “hook-up”y these days. Even young girls seem to be prepped for it as young as nine or ten. Just take a look at the Disney Channel.
In fact, people think there is something wrong with you if you’re NOT that kind of guy that just plays grab-ass with a cute little thing after a casual handshake greeting. I’ve noticed a change in attitude even from people who are today in their 50s and 60s who were probably quite conservative when they were younger. Dancing With The Stars and God knows what else has just made them receptive to the new “we shagged and now we live together” norm. I’ve even seen this new sort of acceptance in my own parents to a small degree. They just sort of accepted secularity without even realizing what it is they’re accepting as I once did, unfortunately.
It’s sort of a race to the bottom out there if you’re single for the vast majority of the consumer proletariat. But men and women both would do the world a favor by turning down indiscriminate casual sex more often in the interest of building something. More power to you for bailing.
Heh, please tell me “swinging glory days” is meant to be read literally and is not some sort of euphemism!
By the way, I didn’t mean to imply that you were a skank. I just realized the above response I made could be read that way but that wasn’t my intention. I meant that you have a point with respect to women who date in general.
Well done here. Should reduce all quarrelling to silence. Game doesn’t have to be solely for the purpose of raising your notch-count; it is merely a tool, and can applied to simply boosting one’s confidence and cutting a better figure in society / with women.
The problem, obviously, is that it is a facade which, if not internalized, must eventually fall and leave one where one began.
On the other hand, white memsahibs have generally had too many partners to be capable of the depth and innocence of commitment required in successful monogamy, and moreover are quite fond of birth control, the state’s mechanisms of wealth extraction & punishment, etc., so in this age not acquiring the fundamentals of Game is pretty much blind stumbling through an endless labyrinth of enslaving horrors.
In the end, what we all ought to be doing is acting forthrightly in pursuit of our genetic continuity. If the sexual mores of our time were not fatally warped by things like birth control and abortion, pornography, the anti-male narrative running through popular culture, sexual liberation, etc., which of course drapes sexual relations over with disingenuousness, there would be no need for an exploitative response from men. Again, if the disjunction between reproduction and alienated, hedonistic fulfilment cannot be resolved (by neo-tribal OR big bureaucratic authoritarianism — can’t sweet talk each other out of this morass, folks), all relations will be fatally stymied by dishonest signalling, disingenuousness, selfish exploitation, and bitterness.
The truths of female psychology are eternal. Science would have laid them bare with or without feminism. The Heartiste end of the PUA “community” does it with more verve, humor, and a good deal of well-deserved rancor.
Michael,
I might have agreed with you if I hadn’t experienced “gaming” after the initial pickup in other circumstances. The negativity and fine-tuned insults you get with meetup “negging” eventually spreads to deeper issues within the gamer’s mindset. Once you are conditioned by the pros to manipulate and demean, it’s hard to step back and treat the opposite sex with respect.
“Once you are conditioned by the pros to manipulate and demean, it’s hard to step back and treat the opposite sex with respect.”
That’s just it, though. He never condoned manipulation or demeaning women. He advocated learning how they work in the same way a mechanic learns how an engine works to better care for it. The mechanic, upon knowing this information, can either open up a garage and try to screw people or he can strive to run an ethical enterprise. The “game” that is condoned here is the information that can be gleaned from even the unsavory anecdotes of sleazeballs and degenerates. Their musings and conquests, as well as embarrassments and failures, tell us so much about biology. The sour ethical approach to such knowledge that you understandably find so unpalatable need not follow out of necessity from having “studied” this slice of life called “the manosphere.” Hell, I’d love it if women wanted to understand what makes men tick for positive ends in the same way some guys want to understand women through game. Such an endeavor would have the potential to make them better women. But again, the simple truth is that men are not putting pressure on the supply of sex in the way women are currently doing so men don’t need to be understood for women to attain many of the things they want from them.
Having control over a situation involving a woman does not have to imply manipulation or negativity toward her. My grandmother always deferred to my grandfather on certain matters. She never talked back to him, either. At her fortieth wedding anniversary she was beaming with pride in front of a large gathering when my mother spoke of how she NEVER talked back to him. It was probably enough to make any modern feminists in the room ill. I don’t think that means that my grandfather was manipulative or demeaning. And there were other areas where my grandfather deferred to my grandmother. But only by first UNDERSTANDING women can men fill out their roles as men toward women. Only by achieving such an understanding of women will women grow to FULLY trust a man’s judgment and commit to him in a genuinely feminine and healthy (rather than a superficial and fleeting) way.
What it really boils down to is that game is helping some men once again understand how gender roles arise from biology now that traditional “old fashioned” gender roles at work and home and here and there are all but forgotten in most cases. And gender roles, for a traditionalist, should be a positive.
If women in this movement are unwilling to concede that men have a legitimate reason to want a certain type of overarching control over the relationship (which most women seek out by instinct even if they don’t admit it) in certain areas, then communication will remain largely dysfunctional between the two camps and the white race will for all intents and purposes have reached a dead end.
Essentially, Ava’s piece addresses the most minor of footnotes, in an attempt to discredit the transformation of Western Civilization by men who realize The Game (capitals!) is rigged against them, particularly is they attempt to fulfill their responsibilities as Patriarchs.
I refer one and all to F. Roger Devlin’s analysis of “Sexual Utopia in Power,” addressed on this site.
That is for starters.
I have mentioned the critically important foundational work done by those of us at the-spearhead.com, particularly the commenters Firepower, and Armor. There is a hew commenter, and his words MUST be read to understand the magnitude of what we are up against.
His name is “walking through hell.”
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/03/26/despite-all-the-risks-why-young-men-still-get-married/#comment-141602
Skip down to march 31, at 6:59, and read his story.
His insights are now on many threads, and are well worth reading.
Now, for an example of how the process of emasculation works, see:
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/01/18/hate-bounces-how-man-hating-and-man-bashing-harms-women-the-making-of-a-misogynist/
And finally,
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2009/12/12/the-cultural-devastation-of-and-by-feminist-women-tell-your-stories/#comment-16803
This gives you some examples of what women have done to themselves, and brothers, shed no tears for them. They intend to turn you into gelded beasts of burden, at bests, and destroy you altogether, if they can.
(Incidentally, a Charles Martel is posting on the-spearhead. )
Ave seems to do for Men what you might expect of Gramscian Marxist-Feminism in action; take a peripheral issue, fix it in place, magnify what you do not like about it, and blame the entire Movement for one technique, one practice.
“Game,” a la Roissy, was NEVER more than a means to a narrowly defined end. Yet, that it worked recommended it as a technique. It is not enough – see George Sodini – but, I think i was Devlin who addressed the larger issue:
Game ONLY “works” if you are an Alpha Male.
Again, see Geoege Sodini, ticket puncher, and professional nice guy. See him through the eyes of a generation of vipers, who admire the “women” of “Sex and the City,” and their daughters, devotees of the First Church of Miley Cyrus.
“Game” is useful as a vaccination against Feminine manipulation. Read Esther Vilar’s wonderful book, “The Manipulated Man,” and see how easily we have been played for fools. Rather than fall prey to the anger that follows from impotence, let’s use the heat of anger to fire up the Light of Truth, and see how we have been manipulated, and how we can overcome it.
It is actually fairly easy, ONCE you get the Mindset.
THAT is why women are so angry about Game; not for what it is, as a technique, but for what it leads to, which is inoculation against Feminine manipulation. Once we get THAT Mindset, they have lost the easy control of Soft Power, and are reduced to using State Power against us, IF we give them that chance.
They want to invalidate “Game,” today, and Men, in time.
I want a Warrior Caste Order of Priesthood.
A thought provoking article.
First I want to comment on the word “patriarchy”.It is best to avoid it. It may mean different thing to different people.It may connotes the images of the strictest “patriarchy” as in some Islamic societies.I do not believe that we want that.Neither we would want arranged marriages which are simply materialistic.Do we need religion to guard us against the onslaught of vulgarity?We should find spiritual strength in our conviction,our ideal ,the ideal which was although never fully practised but it was accepted as lofty through Western civilization.The ideal of deep affection, true love,self-control,respect to women.Having that ideal should instil pride in the white man,he has risen above the bestiality.
We do not need to blame women, probably men are more at fault.
We do not need to call names and attach derogatory attributes such as “damaged goods” to those who were victims to the prevailing culture.We should be glad that they have courage to see that they were led astray.
Its sick that as Western Civilization collapses so many men are worried about getting laid.
Check out the number of comments at CC and Alt Right on sexual issues, and you will see that these articles stimulate the most interest. I’m not downing sex, but I am downing the lack of concern extended towards the sort of environment future generations of white children are going to be placed in.
I guess the truly aristocratic men of virtue and overwhelming idealism are dead (lying seven feet under in Stalingrad and other Eastern locals). This is a world full of fornicating cowards.
This is not just about self-indulgent fornicators. If whites cannot handle these issues, there will be no future generations to worry about.
Greg:
Agree with BX above–no need for denigrating those who aspire to rise above the mess regardless of past beliefs or relationships. Interesting how many comments articles on man-woman affairs receive. The frustration of both genders is intense. Wonder if there is an opportunity here. Perhaps more real life encounters where invited readers, sponsors, writers, and contributors–men and women — can meet in real life as they query Collin Cleary in person on exactly what the hell he was talking about in his essays on Heidegger?
We do organize get togethers from time to time. I wish there were more of them, all over the country.
I recommend that you take advantage of any public meetings available: AmRen conferences, NPI conferences, David Irving talks, etc. I have met a lot of interesting movement people at such events.
Last time this issue came up, I thought Andy Nowicki made the better argument. This essay was good too. It is long past time for some push back against this game/PUA trash. Defending masculinity, traditional gender roles, sex realism, mens’ rights and patriarchy do not require embracing PUA “game.”
I agree with you. I am all for sex realism, HBD, the restoration of traditional sex roles, ending no-fault divorce and reforming the nightmare of family courts, etc. To the extent that young men get a dose of sex realism from the Game community, that is fine. I think that Mike Bell is right: even men who wish to start families need to know how to attract women. But 97% of what I have seen is just laughably narcissistic cads looking for ways to pick up dumb chicks in bars. That’s not what I call a revolt against the modern world.
Really, we need a new dating scene, a meeting place for men and women who have gotten over the bitterness fostered by the present scene, sworn off being cads and bitches, and are there because they are serious about founding families and giving our race a future.
Maybe it is just a class thing, but nobody I know ever met his or her spouse in a bar. My parents were introduced to one another by mutual friends at a dinner party. They would go out for drinks and dancing once they were dating and married. I remember overhearing my mother tell one of her friends that she saw a person they both knew at a nightclub alone. That fact struck them as newsworthy (unusual) and also pathetic,
My advice is not to look for people in bars or through online dating, indeed not to look specifically for dates or hookups at all. Rather, find something you are passionate about, something that you do with others, something that also attracts members of the opposite sex, and throw yourself into it. You will meet eligible members of the opposite sex, and when you do, you will already have something in common besides just looking for a date. It can be anything: a music scene, a hiking club, a book club, a religious community, some kind of volunteer activity, etc. Unfortunately, the WN movement tends to be heavily male, but the number of women involved is increasing, including highly attractive, single, family-oriented women like Ava.
” Rather, find something you are passionate about, something that you do with others, something that also attracts members of the opposite sex, and throw yourself into it.”
Excellent advice. This is what everyone single should do. No more articles. No more comments. Go. Life is with people. Do things, and they’ll float into one’s orbit unbidden.
I like to fix dinner with a gal. Intimate without being overtly sexual, with the space to go that way if there’s a spark.
“Unfortunately, the WN movement tends to be heavily male, but the number of women involved is increasing, including highly attractive, single, family-oriented women like Ava.”
It isn’t ‘unfortunate’, it is necessary. The number of women is not increasing because it cannot increase without popular endorsement of our ideology. You just made that up. Ava is not family-oriented, at least not socially.
Wait, let me refine that.
With a woman like Ava, there are three layers to the question of her familial fitness.
1- She is a woman and allegedly still capable of bearing young (biological)
2- She is too highly individual, and probably all too experienced, to actually make a mother (biosocial)
3- She is pro-family because she is a white nationalist (social/cultural)
“Being pro-family” is not the same thing as fitness. I am pro-family. I’m also thirty, unemployed, broke, and as vicious as a starved Doberman pinscher. Should I have kids?
Moreover, as I say in a comment elsewhere, “highly attractive” is a huge red flag in the sense of something to be avoided, not something to make us charge headlong. And anyway, why say that to us, bro? do you want us to compete for Ava? is she up for grabs here among her “white brothers”?
Oh, no — she goes for the big bux zlzlozlzoz!!!
“Resentment”, you’ll say. Sure. Why not? We’re all resentful here. You can float above it, we’re down here in the muck of sublimated sexual longing and frustration.
“Tu stai al caldo, ma io sto nel fuoco … “
We will rebuild Patriarchy – from the ground up. And that means that everything now standing has to fall. Much of it is going to fall anyway. And as Nietzche said, what is tottering can be pushed. And the current lifestyle and character stucture of Women like Ava have to go the way of the dodo. Let them contemplate their empty wombs and sterile apartments listening to cats yowling instead of babies crying. They betrayed us and now they must pay. We will seek wives in other lands. Sadly many Men have been driven out of their Race by this. That is a true Tragedy.
Yes our Race is in endangered. But why blame us? Blame women and their complete acceptance of Political Correctness and no fault divorce. Of course we let it happen – so that is in our Court. But in cannot be undone now without destroying the System. The Enemy has us where they want us and Women fully accept and love the power they have been granted. And now Gays have jointed the Grievance Coalition and even more networks and complexity is added. Women love Gays and Gays love Women. Why can’t straight men be more like Gays?! It all has to Go. We have to withdraw our support and blow really hard.
“Let them contemplate their empty wombs and sterile apartments listening to cats yowling instead of babies crying. They betrayed us and now they must pay. ”
Cats? I hate cats!
Hate Cats? That’s another way of saying that you hate women. And as Professor Levin says, Feminism is about the hatred of Femininity. One prominent White Nationalist expressed her desire to stomp cats. Damage control is ongoing since many men love cats as well as dogs. Of course, many women hate dogs too. And some men do hate cats but few hate dogs. Men seem more balanced by this rough, admittedly flawed test.
Among the giant Kzinti Cats of Geidi Prime, only the Male is intelligent, the female merely semi-conscious, a smart animal. Perhaps Evolution went wrong here on Earth, the Kzinti situation seems much more viable. Wait, maybe we already have that situation – is talking alot a sign of real intelligence?
At least by hating the coming extinction of the White Race, you are headed in the right direction. This alone puts you ahead of nearly all women and men. Thank you for your courage in descending into the Lion’s Den. You have to appreciate that our hatred is a reaction to GENERATIONS of the most vicious vitriol imaginable being thrown at us by Lesbian and Jewish Feminists. All that we could have dealt with. But the betrayal by ordinary women, or wives and sister, just to gain benefits was too much. Most women now say they are not Feminists. And all of them are willing to cash in on the ill gotten gains of Feminism. The denial of Feminism is just a ploy to put men off their guard. That women really believe the lie as they say it just shows the chaos of the average woman’s inner life. And it is a potent weapon since it makes them effective liars. Thus the average woman is far closer to the classic psychopath than the average man. Young men have to be taught this and be ready for it. So your hatred of your own sex is admirable if you could understand it correctly. The small number of honest (by masculine standards), sane, and intelligent women is and will always be very small. You are the Elite and are welcome to the Banquet. Needless to say, you understand why Women cannot be allowed to vote.
The deciding factor of my anti-women’s suffrage “vote” : http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/05/is-john-edwards-flirting-with-a-female-juror/
Oh and cats are the narcissistic queens of animal domestication. What can I say? I own an Aryan dog.
Dude,
I love your comments. They are like the sweetest bars of song to me, no joke. I copy them onto paper, carry them in my pocket, and hum them quietly as I go on my way. I am, in short, kinda in love with you.
And though you speak with righteous moral force, there is a deeper point to be made about this tragedy you invoke. A pre-moral one that does not lend itself to any ideological coloring. Which is this:
WE’RE DESCENDED FROM ABOUT HALF AS MANY MALES AS FEMALES.
Ok, no big deal, polygamy — nothing new, uh. But it’s one of those grand facts of our species, and really of speciation itself, that goes forgotten in everyday discussion for being just so big and surreptitiously consequential, as one is apt to forget the sky for it being everywhere. We exist in this fact as in a medium; it generates us; we *are* this fact.
Half as many men as women. What’s it mean? That most females reproduce, while far fewer males do. In many species the disparity is still more “tragic”: 70%-20%, even 90%-10%. Then, regard the plants: how many acorns that fall to the earth become mighty oaks? One in every 10,000.
There is an abundance of seed, and a scarcity of eggs. Always. Everywhere. Male-female ratio may hover at equality, but the real inequality is in the gametes, the reproductive cells.
Most of us here will never reproduce. Our lines will terminate.
Ava’s might too.
What is any of us doing to avoid this tragic fate? is there anything the worst of us can do? are we here because we are unfit, and are all these slogans and debates and mantras and analyses so many divagations from that which we have failed to do, are not fit to be doing?
What if it was never anything more than reproductive anxiety?
So it appears to me now that the real danger to “our race” was never this or that, but the bottom line of sexual politics as revealed by sociobiology: surplus sperm — egg deficit.
The best thing we all could do is give up white nationalism and take up rugby or something. That is, if you’re not a venture capitalist. The Ava Morettis of the world will go for either.
“Let them contemplate their empty wombs and sterile apartments listening to cats yowling instead of babies crying.”
OUCH man!
Turn uh around and you have hu – the mantra of the true man. Thus Allaha Hu is God in Man.
Quite true about Polygamy. But that’s alot of life, love, and Force going to waste. Read Father Devlin’s series if you haven’t already. It’s in the archives here. Monogamous societies are more efficient and gain an advantage over polygamous ones for this reason. Genetically, should the gifted men have more children? Perhaps, but at the same time, some valuble material is probably lost if so many men don’t have children at all. The Church’s policy was disastrous of course with the most gifted men being celibate. David Lane had a nice compromise in terms of the three classes of men: the Thrall or slave would have none. The Karl or middle level would practice monogamy. And the Jarl or Aristocrat would practice polygamy or monogamy plus concubinage. This would be the best of both worlds.
I love how a select few are attacking me personally but not at the idea of being controlled by Jews. Hmmmm. Greg, if I (the decrepit menopausal female) can help your readers get into the mind of the modern western woman and help repair what will be essentially lost upon future white generations, then please exploit me as much as you want.
Ava in blockquote:
We have dealt with he issue of Jewish control at length, and see the mistake so many WNist sites make – ALL they talk about is News and Views about the Jews (NVJ). For all of this, they have absolutely nothing to show for at least half a century of “analysis” and “activism,” save horrific levels of ineffectiveness, and demoralization.
What separates us from the rest is we are moving towards an effective, empowerment model, where WE get to define the outcomes WE seek on OUR terms. We, Bob Whitaker and Horus the Avenger, focus on what WE can do, and not wring our hands helplessly about what They are doing to Us.
Our best analyst, a former radio host named Peter Shank, asked The Question:
“What would you do if, tomorrow morning at sunrise, all of the whatever groups went away – just vanished into thin air. Jews, illegals, coloreds, whatever, all just vanish into thin air, never to return. Why aren’t you doing that?”
My answer is the metapolitical focus, using the Northwest Republic as a temporal bridge. Did you notice there was no mention of “the Jews” in my answer? They are simply distractions to the extent we allow them to be.
If we are looking as to how best “get into the mind of (and impress) Western women,” shouldn’t a more correct question be, “How can we do what fulfills the metapolitical purpose for which we were born?”
THAT will attract the correct QUALITY of women to us.
After all, do you REALLY want to impress the open-mouthed sows cheering on “Oprah” in he audience, or the devotees of the First Church of Miley Cyrus?
No, of course not. Yet, that is what the vast majority of “Western women” have become.
The best will learn mountain climbing with us, and study Evola from the peaks.
Ava,
We’ve all heard your pseudo-traditionalist, supposedly “not a feminist” spiel before, a million times. When your type says you are “not a feminist” that usually means you do want men to open doors for you, buy dinner, and the like; but it’s not that you are going to submit to a husband, act like a proper lady, or give up any of the privileges of feminism.
Here’s an idea – stop catting around with venture capitalists, go to church and find a not-so-handsome but highly responsible 40 year old man who will be overjoyed to have you. Oops – you’ve only been called a “graying hag” once, so there’s still time to catch Mr. Big (there’s a first time for everything; expect to hear “graying hag” more often from now on, as you continue to age.)
You aren’t a special unique snowflake. You are just like 80% or more of the women of the alternative right, traditionalist in name only. You have nothing to teach men; nothing – at all. An unmarried women over the age of 25, lecturing men? Who do you think you are kidding, aside from yourself? A truly traditionalist woman would have at least two babies by now.
If you were sincere (and it’s clear you are not) you would be penning articles advocating chastity, early marriage and childbearing for young women. But you aren’t – just like any two-bit Cosmo girl, you want to complain about your lousy dates and bitch about men. You also seem quite bitter about men choosing younger women too, I think we can all figure out where that bitterness comes from.
Now, about that sandwich.
How about a knuckle sandwich? Surely you have been served a few in your life, if you behaved in the real world like you do at your keyboard.
You are assuming something that is not in evidence, i.e., that our authoress is in the story is practicing hypergamy. You are assuming something about her and something about her date that you are not in any position to know. But you toss it out there anyway, because you are presumably indifferent to the truth.
And who is the one motivated by resentment here? If Ava were to go to church and start looking for “not-so-handsome but highly responsible 40 year old man who will be overjoyed to have you” would that be you?
Bile, resentment, bitterness, insults, indifference to truth. Just in case you are wondering why you are now banned as a commenter.
While the MRA version of “shaming” language is laughably feminist in origin, WNs will never win the support of young men by acting like offended, morally self-righteous church ladies or pretending reality is something other than what it is. Young men were not raised in a traditional society with traditional moral values. They were raised in a feminist society with sexual revolution values. Doing the math to figure out what doesn’t work and isn’t good — basically from trial and error — will take them years to do on their own.
The Jewish angle is interesting and partly true (feminism is absolutely a movement for spoiled Jewish women and the PUA-for-numbers phenom has a merchant class quality to it), but overplayed and a bit of a hobby horse here.
The reality on the ground is that our society tells lies about what women are and what they want, and these guys wind up in adulthood clueless and without a compass when the scales fall from their eyes. Everyone is playing a sociopathic and inhuman dating game, and looking for artificially imposed “relationship ideals.”
When I talk to these guys and occasionally meet them in person, they aren’t exactly the depraved monsters you imagine (though some surely are) and “game”–which is basically learning the masculine assertiveness they were never taught from scratch–becomes a gateway to learning how to be better at being a man.
I agree that discovering “Game” can be a valuable step for young men to de-propramme themselves from false, anti-male ideas about “gender” and sexual differences. I would not underestimate the power of this stuff to undermine and break feminist/”gender mainstreaming” ideas and Zeitgeist. It can even raise an interest of sociobiology which quickly can lead to race-realistic positions.
The question is if you can go beyond the p*ssy hounding game phase, see through the scam business that is going on in the scene and reach a deeper understanding of male-female-relations and male-female identity. Not everyone can start with Evola. Game can lead you to eternal questions of male self-esteem and male essence – in fact I got to discover Jack Donovan’s stuff while checking out meta-Game literature.
Ava’s most important contribution is in my opinion to point out the lack of honour within these PU guys. Honour is a crucially male notion. If your relations to women are reduced to manipulation, lies, infidelity, egotism, cynicism, numbers game etc. you haven’t got it. Neil Strauss, who is a pretty good writer, also pointed out the dangers of Game, starting his book with a scene of a psychic breakdown of his guru “Mystery”: all those hundreds of women he talked into bed couldn’t fill his inner void and the fact that he had not achieved what he initially really wanted to become in life (a stage magician). Don Juan always goes to Hell in the end.
Beyond Don-Juanism, I think for example Orlando Owen, a German-American who has emerged from the Game scene, has quite interesting things to say (see his lectures on “male essence” on Youtube). I remember a video of him speaking in Munich at some big PU convention, where he posed the question “Today, is it politically correct to be a man?”, implying “no” and that that’s precisely the challenge and the cool thing about it, followed by “Is it politically correct to be a German?”, which elicited cheerful noises in the (mostly German) audience.
+1, and cheers to the point about honor.
Game + honor = all you need in that department.
As a German, I can’t say how pleased I am to hear this.
While the MRA version of “shaming” language is laughably feminist in origin, WNs will never win the support of young men by acting like offended, morally self-righteous church ladies or pretending reality is something other than what it is. Young men were not raised in a traditional society with traditional moral values. They were raised in a feminist society with sexual revolution values. Doing the math to figure out what doesn’t work and isn’t good — basically from trial and error — will take them years to do on their own.
Amen.
I’ve passed through the PUA gates–as has your Michael Polignano–and I can report a little more helpfully than another self-centered female croaking about a date that didn’t perfectly and immediately suit her sensibilities.
Yes, there’s plenty there to disappoint WNs. One angle in the community is to assist and encourage metrosexualized mud people in serial raids on white women.
But outside of that, whatever bile exists in the “game” pustule is a biproduct, not of evil, small-minded Roissys, but of feminism, period, the end, if you have a different attitude absolutely shut up and sit down. It’s a bile that must be gotten out before we can move forward. And while we can rail against psychologically weak bullies, at some point we’ll have to begin raising an archaic Occidental man, who thinks of our women as our possession and has the maturity, stature, seriousness, and strength to keep them.
Roissy alone has done more than anyone stateside to raise that archaic man, largely (and often explicitly) along broadly WN lines. People like Donovan and Devlin are allowed to qualify and criticize him, but everyone else I’ve seen is a pygmy who is in the way.
Three cheers for Murray F. Rottencrotch!
(Bring it back, bro.)
This is why mras will fail.
There is forgiveness for the grown-up male
who as a child had no father – raised by mommy
but there is damnation in ANY movement that refuses to pull the pacifier out of its mouth and remove the diaper from its ass.
You’re looking at 40-year-old children – WHINING about injustice
As if some SuperHero SuperFriendsTeam is coming to the rescue.
Not gonna happen
What women find unattractive isn’t “nice guys” or “chivalry” as the gamer cliches suggest. It’s men who are psychologically weak, squishy, unassertive, obsequious, deferential, easily manipulated and have little or no confidence when it comes to women. I’ve noticed a fairly common topic in the gamer conversation is dealing with so-called “approach anxiety.” Well, hell, if you’re so thin-skinned you’re anxious about approaching, well then your problem isn’t that you’re not being enough of an aloof asshole; it’s a basic confidence problem. The problem is not on the outside, on anything you’re doing or not doing; the problem is on the inside, something spiritual or mental and correctable without becoming a PUA gamer asshole. Camille Paglia said women will ignore timid men because, she rhetorically asked, what kind of quality of sex can a woman expert from a man too timid to make a pass or to approach? If women are biologically wired for submission, then this attitude makes perfect sense from the female POV. The error these gamers make is in their conclusion that in order to be a man, to be confident, dominant, aggressive and not easily manipulated you also have to be “an asshole.” But I don’t see where those two things have go together. It’s possible to be kind, honest, nice, and a person of integrity, chivalrous in the proper sense (see Ludovici), without being psychologically weak. Cultivating the best asshole techniques must be spiritually debilitating at some level to all men but true sociopaths.
Good points. Bullies and assholes are just overcompensating weaklings. They lack gravitas and self-worth and oscillate between extremes of being stepped on or stepping on others.
This is a real enough phenomenon. F. Roger Devlin has been promising an article on female masochism for some time. Perhaps this will prod him. Female masochism is a huge part of the Twilight Saga: Edward and Jacob are attractive to Bella precisely because of their strength, which can hurt her, as well as the nobility that keeps it in check. I was astonished in the fourth movie, Breaking Dawn, Part 1, at the scene in which Bella explains to Edward that he should not worry about hurting her when they have sex. He is a bit over-socialized, you see.
Although masochism is an element of female psychology, frankly women who openly prefer assholes or abusers are probably damaged goods, and you should hope that they are not attracted to you.
Lew, you hit the nail on the head. Will be discussing this at a later date.
Another precious White female doing the traditional thing:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/17/fashion/weddings/sara-di-bonaventura-nii-ofosu-amaah.html?_r=3&ref=weddings
I’ve also heard that one of the more prominent young White women in the WN/Revisionist movement is marrying a foreigner and moving overseas.
Way to go!
Yes, but JA is marrying a white man.
The mistake is obsession with high-quality females.
It’s female strategy to sift through males for best quality. It is proper male strategy to go for females who give the appearance of reproductive capacity; not signs of fertility only, but successful bearing of many young (physical robustness).
The trade-off is that physically capable females are typically not as attractive or interesting. The more a white human female has invested in beauty and personality, the higher her cost will be, and the less likely she is to reproduce in 2012.
White Nationalist females are not only irrelevant to this silly thing of ours, they are of far less value to reproduction. Above all, there are too few of them, for a simple psychological reason I give in a long comment below (if der chef is kind to me and lets it pass). Second, they’re almost always taken; this too is easy to understand — an unattached female usually will not want to wander into a men’s club where she knows passions are likely to be high; whereas an attached female feels “safe” and would like to participate as an earnest, non-partisan member of “the cause”.
If anyone wants to go forth and multiply, the last thing to look for or expect is a WN female. Find ye rather some fleshy, milk-white melungeon from the country who’s going to turn out three or four regardless of political orientation and everything else. That be your ticket to genetic continuity, not the Elizabeth Wurtzels of latter-day white ethnonationalism.
It is not a matter of which gender goes first, but it is clearly preferable that White women begin to follow more feminine rule structures, than it is that men become more obnoxiously masculine – to aspire to act like Negroes, in a word.
This should be easier for both genders (for women to act more feminine and for men to Not have to act like Negroes), more beneficial for gender relations and for society in its ramifications.
To the extent that White men are able to assert themselves, influence and work with the nature of gender relations, they ought to find ways to discourage women from acting like masculine hard-asses; and they ought to assert and compel them to recognize the value of White men as they are in their natural, optimally evolved range – masculine, but not over the top masculine; neither behaving like hyper-assertive Negroes nor like conniving, manipulative Jews.
Does dating a construction worker missing a front tooth count? Check.
Although, my last few boyfriends have been financially struggling intellectuals. Blue-collar men usually don’t do it for me mentally.
Honestly, the Venture Capitalist was used to show an example of my stock more so than his.
*I should say have dated. Joey disappeared after a few dates two summers ago. Still scratching my head on that one. Sometimes the WN stuff is too much for the general population to digest.
Thanks Kevin.
I might need to write another piece just on the comments of this thread!
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/17/fashion/weddings/sara-di-bonaventura-nii-ofosu-amaah.html?_r=3&ref=weddings
…wishing this woman the worst and looking for the deliberate means of justice. There is no way these pigs should be allowed in our midst and to impose the ramifications of their choices upon us.
“Fellas, if you want to halt the destruction of the white race, you need to stop being part of the problem and start embodying a real alternative. So, please, stop taking out your frustration and anger with modernity on us, as if we were disposable blow up dolls. Stop hating us. You can’t win without us.”
What will be the end of us is females are simply not attracted to white men (90% anyway). Studies show women are not attracted to light skin and eye colors. Studies also show that not only do women prefer dark skin but also prefer “fuller” lips and bigger noses. Women are attracted to all thing opposite to white men.
Sounds like rubbish to me. Produce some citations or I will conclude that you are a troll or a kook.