Saturday, December 3, 2011

Alpha Mail: the iron doesn't care

Marcus Marcellus somehow manages to completely miss the primary objective of Game:
The problem with you and those who self-consciously subscribe to this "game" concept are two-fold: 1) you were all obviously very bad with women before it dawned on you to so something about, which is to now over-compensate by being a soi-disant asshole. No real gentleman who is good with woman needs to be an asshole; just don't be a pushover. Typical American over-compensation and response: no subtlety; no class; no clue. Secondly, you are like someone who learned there is no Santa Claus - on your 21st birthday. By being so self-consciously "alpha" and studying "game," don't you see how your obsession makes you as pathetic as any other loser? Self-conscious nonchalance is still self-conscious.
Marcus here indicates that he understands neither Game nor women. His first point is objectively incorrect. While RM, having started as a self-identified Omega, has been consciously using Game to improve his socio-sexual rank, I was openly recognized as an ALPHA by men and women alike long before the concept of Game was articulated. Game wasn't ever a means to an end for me, it was merely the coherent articulation of inter-sexual behavioral patterns that I had already recognized and utilized.

The statement "no real gentleman who is good with woman needs to be an asshole; just don't be a pushover" is not only absurd, it is a tautology. Marcus might as reasonably have said: "No Beta needs to be an asshole, he should just be content with Beta status and be careful not to engage in Gamma behavior". That's fine and all, but it is both sub-optimal for Betas and totally useless for the Deltas, Gammas, and Omegas of the world. And it is downright laughable to the Alphas and Sigmas of the world, some of whom are assholes and some of whom are gentlemen. I further note that a "real gentleman" almost surely does need to be an asshole, or at least be able to convincingly simulate one, if he is to improve from being good with women to being great with them.

The most useful way to think of Game is through a free weight analogy. Those who are naturally strong often tend to think of weightlifting as unnecessary, even though weightlifting will make them stronger and allow them to lift more weight than they ever could naturally. And it is downright necessary for the weak, who will never increase their strength by being "real gentlemen", "just being themselves", or "not being a pushover". In further support of the analogy, the naturally strong not infrequently refer to those who have built themselves up through weightlifting as being "puffed up" and "not having real muscles".

But the only relevant metric is if the bar moves when you try to push it up. The iron doesn't care if you come by your strength naturally or through a wide variety of artificial means. It either moves or it does not move, depending solely upon the amount of strength you have to bring to bear. The lift counts the same regardless of the amount of effort involved.

Think about how remarkably silly Marcellus sounds when applying his perspective to any other aspect of self-improvement. Don't you see how your obsession with [losing weight] makes you as pathetic as any other [fatty]? Self-conscious [weight loss] is still self-conscious. This is true, but Marcus is failing to recognize that the whole point of the exercise is to lose weight! Or, in the case of Game, increase your socio-sexual rank. He is attacking a strawman of his own device here since a lack of self-consciousness is not the goal of Game. This should be obvious in that an important aspect of Game involves simulating the Dark Triad traits, including narcissism, which women find so powerfully attractive. In fact, it is the lack of other-consciousness that is one of the more central objects of Game.

Like many men who find their socio-sexual rank to be satisfactory, Marcus finds Game distasteful for three reasons. First, it challenges his sense of superiority. He doesn't like the idea that a rising Omega like RM might one day be able to score more attractive women than he himself does. Game means more competition from those who previously never had a shot. Second, it shakes his sense of reality. He believes that women respond to men being "real gentlemen" and "not being a pushover" and it is troubling to consider the possibility that he is, despite his present satisfaction with his socio-sexual rank, simply misguided and has been all along.

Third, and most important, is the simple distaste for change that is always inherent to those satisfied with the status quo. If Game is correct - and it is - then Marcus would be well-served by modifying his thinking and his behavior, which he quite naturally is loathe to do. For men of high socio-sexual rank, there is very little to be gained from Game, except perhaps reducing the speed with which time and age naturally tend to reduce their rank. Thus, their interest in Game is either nonexistent or intellectual; the Alpha could not care less about the possibility of the Omega moving up to Delta. For men of moderate but satisfactory socio-sexual rank, on the other hand, their complacency as well as their ability to compete against other men of similar rank are materially threatened by Game, which is why they react in such a hostile manner to it.

Whenever one sees a nonsensical, emotion-laden criticism of Game by a man who considers himself to be good with women, particularly one who decries the possibility that high status women could be attracted to men who don't behave like he does, you can be almost certain that he is either a Beta or a High Delta.

54 comments:

Anonymous said...

Game is great. I was and still am successfully married for over 20 years. Game just ramped it up. Too bad all males dont have it. Their women would be happier.

Anonymous said...

Not that society at this point can be saved. But the patriarchy was established for a reason. I tell my wife we f*cked up when we let women vote. She doesnt disagree.

Anonymous said...

BTW South TX for the above. Vox, you may actually make me believe not all yanks are idiots.

Anonymous said...

I guess from an altruistic viewpoint. I wish every man should have game. It would keep the peace. Really, a happily married man with multiple kids doesn't want a war. I became a RP fan when I had draft elgible sons.

Yohami said...

I like the analogy.

Trust said...

The thing people like Marcus miss is that women are the score keepers. How a man thinks the score should be kept is utterly irrelevant.

Game is an observation about "what is and what is not."

Game is not an argument about "what should be or what should not be."

Marcus Marcellus said...

If my comments were nonsensical and emotion-laden, you would not have bothered to create a separate post for them and spent six or seven paragraph addressing them. Obviously they were perceptive and struck a nerve.

You classification of males into ranks is too arbitrary to take seriously and so I will ignore it. It surprises me someone who wrote a good book on the current recession (that's how I found your websites) would bother with such silly classifications.

While there is something admirable about the observations on male-female relations provided by your site and that other one, there is a pronounced anger at women; a disillusionment that permeates the discussions. Your post on how you changed into an asshole strikes me as both desperate and naive. Why did you put them on a pedestal in the first place? Now you're pissed and will miss out on the real pleasures of having a women soften the world around you. Instead, with your desire to set a stop watch timing how long before you fuck them, you become almost like a homosexual male and create a similar metaphysical sterility around you. Do you know how often someone like me rejects or does not follow through with a "target" because of higher standards - in NY/Soho/Village no less?

I see the value of game for real introverted types and , critically, young males, especially those of northern European ancestry who, as all Scandinavian and German girlfriends have told me, need some help in that department. You may want to consider why southern Europeans and Latins have so - so - much more natural game than Americans. Just a passing thought.

But really, I just don't care about this subject that much. I do look forward to reading more of your work on economics and religion.

Trust said...

@Marcus Marcellus said...
If my comments were nonsensical and emotion-laden, you would not have bothered to create a separate post for them and spent six or seven paragraph addressing them. Obviously they were perceptive and struck a nerve.
__________

From what I've seen, it's tough to strike a nerve with him. He simply refuted a common misconception about Game.

Your argument is true if the topic is "what should be." His argument is true of the topic is "what is."

Yohami said...

Marcus,

You´re missing the "iron doesnt care" point.

"You classification of males into ranks is too arbitrary to take seriously and so I will ignore it."

If you ignore it, how can you criticize any of this?

Marcus Marcellus said...

You know what, after walking down Spring St. to get coffee and seeing all the pretty girls in their sun glasses this morning, I'd like to add something:

I'm actually being a little unfair. I am roughly your age, mid-thirties, but my parents were in their mid-forties when I was born. They are not Baby Boomers - and they are European. Further, one of my older sisters was a fashion model. I did not grow up with this insane notion that men and women are the same. Instead, I grew up around what in retrospect were Milanese "alpha females." I never encountered the sexual equality dogma until college, and even then, at Chicago, the Straussians I studied with were pretty old fashioned.

Had I been raised by American Baby Boomers and their pathologies, I may have needed game to get my barrings. I see that. Most of my competition for twenty-something girls here in NY are either vulgar, clueless Guido-types or the New Males, who are fay homosexuals in every way. It's pretty easy pickin if you have something about you. I feel very sorry for the guys I see because they are obviously very confused when they learn the lies they were told about women's moral superiority and the "you go girl" pathologies are not true. Given such confusion, it's natural some will over-compensate and never arrive at a proper mean.

This, by the bye, explains the Scandinavian awkwardness I mentioned, as Sweden and Norway are virtual "Gynocracies" (to quote the philosopher Stewie).

So you know what, I'm all for game. It's pretty mean for someone with my advantages to begrudge the short, the ugly, the brainwashed their shot at pleasure. I never had to unlearn philosophic androgyny. The social engineers have done a real job on males in this society (except for blacks, which partly explains their popularity). It's a net game for people like me who can literally take a girl from a Hipster's arm at a bar. But it is bad for society as a whole. So live it up if you can.

R. Bradley Andrews said...

He probably answered your post because it represented what many are asking, not just you.

The problem with your view is that you have a very naive view that is far too idealistic. Women are not perfect and do get drawn to many flawed things.

I don't agree with the goal to even pretend to be an obnoxious to win over women, though I will improve myself as I can to help deepen the relationship my wife and I have. I am not seeking any other women at this point and I will deal with that issue should I ever have to do so.

The biggest problem I think I have with the whole concept is that it is seems to be saying you have to live by the ways of the sinful world to succeed. It may be true, but I am not going to try and succeed that way.

As I have noted in other replies, I strive to conform myself to the image of Christ. I do think some of His actions were viewed as being obnoxious, so totally removing that is not a goal, but being (or pretending to be) that way just to "score" is against what He calls me to.

I could elaborate far more, but I will leave it at that.

R. Bradley Andrews said...

I would also add that it seems to me that the linear scale noted here is not what all writers subscribe to. I believe Altol Kay has gamma as being a combo (good) of alpha and beta, which makes for a much more successful long-term marriage.

Being a pure alpha as I see it is not conducive to long-term relationships, though I have already been wacked for misunderstanding it, though it is far from clear.

Markku said...

Your post on how you changed into an asshole strikes me as both desperate and naive.

Changed into an asshole? You are probably confusing Vox with RM.

modernguy said...

Game is not teaching men to be men, it's teaching them to simulate it for women while everything else remains the same. Game is the ultimate pussification, when you've totally given up on being a man and resolved to simulate it.

In a way it heralds in an age of post-genderism, where functionally, men and women are equal in society but sexually they must play roles for each other.

As game is adopted more widely, it won't turn the tide back on feminism and gender equality, it will only reinforce those trends, because "being" a man won't be necessary if you can simulate it in situations when you need to seduce the opposite sex. Just as most women are not particularly naturally good looking, but it doesn't matter in the club when they simulate it well enough with make up and slutty outfits. You won't need to "be" anything where "relationships" are mostly short term and shallow. Western culture is not going the way of the black ghetto, it's going to simulate it at night while during the day we continue to punch numbers into Excel sheets at the office.

Anyway, there isn't much "Game" to be found here. Vox has the negative aspects of Game down pat - being an arrogant asshole, which comes easily enough for people who have generally thought themselves more intelligent the Average Joe. Alas, the positive aspects elude him - those traits more difficult to come by which make people not only right but also likable and appealing. In other words, charm, charisma. Wanting too much to be right tends to mean that those parts of healthy personality development get neglected.

King A said...

Are we supposed to be aware of who this Marcellus Wallace guy is?

I will agree with him that many shmoes with a URL domain and self-declared expert status will overinterpret the game mandate just like any fledgling discipline and thereby give it a bad name. I will agree with him that the expanded male categories of this site (alpha beta gamma delta epsilon zeta eta theta) are superfluous, awkwardly willful, useless, obsolescing, and a bit weird.

But his criticism is too obvious to be of any use, too gratuitous to be descriptive of anything but his own personality. Are his mutterings down at the end of the bar meant to set us straight or something? (Good! I'm glad you heard me! Yeah I said it!) Like we didn't notice the inevitable awkwardness of any slowly gelling program of social self-improvement? His criticism would have merit if it weren't such a transparent excuse to assert his perceived superiority over those unfortunate urchins who "needed game to get their barrings [sic]."

There is something especially masculine about categorizing knowledge into rules and codes and hierarchy and jargon. Game is no different. Yes, it is especially needed in our generation as an antidote to feminist necrosis. But more important, it has brought the ancient art of manliness into the modern idiom after a century of its disparagement.

It's not all about Marcellus coolguy, who scoffs at the more outre elements of this makeshift community. One can cherry pick disparate facets of any game-interpreter and cobble them into an ugly looking beast. This misses the forest for the trees.

Game, "manosphere," PUA, all of these slowly cohering phenomena are the first earthquake pre-rumbles of a paradigm shift. To judge it through the lens of Marcellus and his relative capacities/inadequacies is to personalize an obvious social trend so badly that he has rendered it unintelligible.

The self-claimed excellence and the sneer are indicative of a try-hard blowhard, who must take pains to announce his perceived virtues because they are too small to be noticed through his actions or presence.

Game is not about how naturally alpha any particular man is. It is about rallying around a set of principles that are considered gauche or inappropriate at best, verboten or illicit at worst. It is about defining a common language for a "problem without a name," recognizing the traits in oneself, and reinforcing virtue through community.

"We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and then bid the geldings to be fruitful."

Game has been called many things in the past. Thumos, virtu, megalopsychia, gentlemanliness, chivalry, savoir faire, rugged independence, sangfroid, swagger, honor. Marcellus "laugh[s] at honor" to aggrandize his unverifiable manhood relative to strawman chumps who primarily exist in own imagination, an imagination impoverished by what appears to be his complete ignorance of the phenomenon.

Double E said...

Vox has the negative aspects of Game down pat....Alas, the positive aspects elude him"

I don't necessarily think he would totally disagree with you. That is the difference between a sigma and an alpha. The sigma just genuinely doesn't care about what Athol Kay calls the 'beta traits'.

You too seem to be missing the 'Iron doesn't care' point. YOu may begin to lift weights to 'imitate' a bodybuilder, but if you do it long enough, and are as big and as strong as him, are you really 'imitating' him any more? or are you know a bodybuilder?

It is like training for ANYTHING. Just because some people could pick up an instrument and play instantly, doesn't mean people who get good by practicing are frauds or not 'real' musicians. Just so, its disingenuous to call people who trained their masculine traits not 'real' men.

Double E said...

BTW, i don't understand the constant criticism of Vox's socio-sexual hierarchy. it is certainly NOT arbitrary. it is broken down by success/results in human socio-sexual interactions.

It is even less arbitrary than socio-economic class distinctions like "upper, middle, etc" and nobody ever complains about those.

Do you guys just not understand the difference between the categories? What is your alternative for describing human socio-sexual hierarchies?

Markku said...

BTW, i don't understand the constant criticism of Vox's socio-sexual hierarchy.

I think much of the problem is that so many fail to realize that deltas is such a huge group compared to any of the others. All the other groups represent some peculiarity in a man, positive or negative.

Whenever someone is having trouble of fitting someone in one of those groups (usually themselves), the correct group is probably delta. But nobody likes being normal.

R. Bradley Andrews said...

I would argue that pushing a singular linear category in this area is just as foolish as pushing one in the political arena. Both negate multidimensional differences.

I like Althol Kay's chart much better, though it is probably not perfect.

Vox said...

If my comments were nonsensical and emotion-laden, you would not have bothered to create a separate post for them and spent six or seven paragraph addressing them. Obviously they were perceptive and struck a nerve.

You are totally incorrect. They weren't perceptive, indeed, it was the blind incoherence that was the interesting aspect. As for the old "you paid attention to it, ergo I must have hit a nerve", well, you obviously don't follow my other blog.

And Markku is right, you can't even tell the difference between one writer and another, thus proving my point about your lack of perception.


Game is not teaching men to be men, it's teaching them to simulate it for women while everything else remains the same. Game is the ultimate pussification, when you've totally given up on being a man and resolved to simulate it.

You don't understand anything about Game then. The entire point of a socio-sexual hierarchy is that it isn't tied merely to women. You are completely failing to understand that this is not Roissy's binary sexual hierarchy, which is precisely why more levels of distinction are required.

The fact that Game was initially developed for inter-sexual use doesn't mean it is inapplicable elsewhere. Calling it "the ultimate pussification" reveals your failure to comprehend anything about it; you might as reasonably call a bodybuilder's muscles "fake".

Hence the very title of the post. The iron doesn't care how "natural" your strength is.

modernguy said...

"You too seem to be missing the 'Iron doesn't care' point. YOu may begin to lift weights to 'imitate' a bodybuilder, but if you do it long enough, and are as big and as strong as him, are you really 'imitating' him any more? or are you know a bodybuilder?"

A better analogy would be imitating a man who had become strong as a byproduct of living a physical life by pumping iron in your basement using techniques you read on the internet and then thinking you might be more of a "man" because you can bench more. To think that the end is all important and the means are inconsequential is just immature thinking. Conceivably, we could one day have the olympics of Game, with "athletes" who spend all their time becoming as good as they can with women, to see which man is the most skilled. The mechanisms of something natural have been distilled, concentrated and formalized into a system designed to produce a result. Marcus has a point, this is what Anglos are best at. Except we're talking about human beings of the opposite sex. The whole thing smacks of the type of scientific autism Vox likes to think he doesn't have. Except that this kind of aggregation, reduction and dissection of something personal and holistic into it's constituent mechanical parts, when applied to human affairs, is exactly that. Not that I'm saying it doesn't work, science has at the very least shown that when it's right, it works. Often, to our subsequent horror.

Yohami said...

modernguy, I dont like the faking angle of game either, but your analogies are terrible

modernguy said...

"You don't understand anything about Game then. The entire point of a socio-sexual hierarchy is that it isn't tied merely to women. You are completely failing to understand that this is not Roissy's binary sexual hierarchy, which is precisely why more levels of distinction are required.

The fact that Game was initially developed for inter-sexual use doesn't mean it is inapplicable elsewhere. Calling it "the ultimate pussification" reveals your failure to comprehend anything about it; you might as reasonably call a bodybuilder's muscles "fake"."

I called it that because even for the guys who become good at it, little else changes. They still go to the office from 9-5 and listen to their female boss. The social landscape is not going to change because of "Game". Men have lost the upper hand in the West for good and what remains is to simulate what used to exist to attract women. At least for the common man.

And if game can be applied to intra-sexual use, which techniques exactly?

DaveD said...

"Game is not teaching men to be men, it's teaching them to simulate it for women while everything else remains the same. Game is the ultimate pussification, when you've totally given up on being a man and resolved to simulate it."

Ah yes, the plaintiff wails of a man (or sometimes a woman) that sees Game working but is outraged by it because it isn't how things SHOULD be. I hear it all the time from people who aren't good with women. "You're a pussy if you have to learn how to be good with women."

We learn everything we do. We learn to eat without wearing it. We learn to poop without wearing it. We learn to dress ourselves, to fix the car, change a light bulb, build a computer, hang insulation etc.

Even "naturals" learned everything they do by WATCHING OTHER MEN do it. They may not have been told, do X then do Y but they learned Game the same way most people learn to talk...by being immersed in it.

Why is it ok to seek help in learning how to fix the car, lay tile, shoot a gun, write a novel, program a computer, create a website, fly a plane, drive a car, learn to read etc etc but the ONE area where we are expected to just wing it and flail around blindly is the single MOST IMPORTANT area of our lives?

I've never met anyone who was good with girls that needed to TELL everyone how good he was with girls. Its usually the guy who can't get laid that goes online and brags about how great he is.

DD

modernguy said...

Yohami: Game might not be practiced physically in your basement, but the mentality is exactly that. You might as well be brainstorming in your basement while you wonder whether to be aloof or cocky to your next shit test.

Markku said...

Men have lost the upper hand in the West for good and what remains is to simulate what used to exist to attract women.

The real deal still exists, and can be achieved by engaging in violent crime. But Game allows one to both attract women and remain a productive member of society.

Yohami said...

modernguy, I still dont get your analogies.

game is also working on your personality and doing profound changes, changing your life, changing your beliefs, turning things around, growing the masculinity which had been repressed until that point, getting to know more people, talking to more women, having sex, understanding social dynamics, figuring what you are about for real, etc.

So a lot of people use game to "fake" but you still can do all the stuff for "real", even if you started way off.

The iron doesnt care is a good analogy. Its not about "faking" that you pump weights. Its about, pumping weights. Pumping weights is real, its work, takes work, and the changes in your physique are real, can be made permanent, etc. and the iron: it doesnt care.

Anonymous said...

"Game is not teaching men to be men, it's teaching them to simulate it for women while everything else remains the same."

Ahahahahaha, no. Game is not simulation, but recognition and incorporation of proper habits (and elimination of unattractive habits) vis a vis the opposite sex, and other social situations. The aim is not to fake alpha while remaining omega/gamma/low delta/whatever, but to work to improve one's socio-sexual rank.

"Habit has ten times the power of nature."

modernguy said...

"Habit has ten times the power of nature."

If you have power you don't need to learn habits to mimic people who have power. Power is really what is attractive. And game just means that men are in a situation of such low personal power that they have to learn to mimic those who have it.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, because Tiger woods didn't need to make swinging a golf club a habit either. It just came naturally to him.

Stop being such a fucking tool, mg.

STX said...

Wow. Sorry for interrupting. I just went to a local watering hole. The young bad asses were out. I didn't challenge because I dont like pain. I was having an adult conversation with an older adult when the hot red head bartender started humping the Christmas tree she was decorating. She apologized and said the song was one she heard in Amsterdam watching a sex show. Gives me a whole new perspective. I thought guys were bad. She does have an awesome rack

STX said...

Because of the nature of the females sex drive, you need to have game to game to survive. In fact, it is crucial.

Double E said...

"If you have power you don't need to learn habits to mimic people who have power. Power is really what is attractive. And game just means that men are in a situation of such low personal power that they have to learn to mimic those who have it."

They have power because of certain things they do, and certain ways they act. People who successfully 'mimic' their behavior will get the same responses from others.

Like yohami said, if you are actually pumping the iron, and not just miming the movements, then you aren't faking anything.

True some people might just be going through the motions, but that doesn't invalidate the principles of game. Just like when people who do feeble workouts and don't get big and strong, it doesn't invalidate the concepts of weight training.

NateM said...

"The iron doesnt care is a good analogy. Its not about "faking" that you pump weights. Its about, pumping weights. Pumping weights is real, its work, takes work, and the changes in your physique are real, can be made permanent, etc. and the iron: it doesnt care."

And to carry the analogy a bit further, no one will be more annoyed by the whining of weak guys who complain about the preference of women for more muscular guys, or that whiner's own weakness than the guys who put the effort and time into going to the gym 5+ times a week for several years to get where they are. Sure the naturally strong guy might not care since he wouldn't get where the guy was coming from, but the person who had been there and made a conscious effort to build themselves up would show only disdain for a guy who expects the same results without any of the work.

Anonymous said...

Once you accept that civilized life is mostly an illusion and that the majority of females in the animal kingdom want the biggest and baddest killer, it shouldn't be so shocking to you that women want a killer. Life is nonstop war.

The gorgeous filthy pig eye-fucking you is what you want. She wants the killer.

The necessary brainwashing of society is what creates conflict, and it's certainly done more good than bad. But it's false and you should remember that at all times.

There is only war.

modernguy said...

It's all a bunch of fanciful thinking. You're making a conscious effort to behave in a certain way to present yourself in a way that doesn't reflect your true reality. Which is fine, and necessary now. The point is that attraction has become divorced from reality. Just like when women wear make up. Something like that is excusable for women, now men are faking themselves too. Or not. The question is, does the way you behave socially reflect who you are, or is it a skill you use to manipulate people. In other words are you authentic or not?

Yohami said...

modernguy,

Again, while there is a subset of game that is doing the "pretending", this shit can be done for real.

So its not about "behaving in a certain way", its about changing.

And about the conscious thing: the iron doesnt care.

DaveD said...

Modernguy,

If your theory is correct than there is no such thing as self improvement. Even if I lose 100 lbs, I'm still a fat guy. If I learn to speak in public better, I'm still bad at it. If I take dancing lessons, I'm still a clumsy goof. If I lift weights, I'm still a weakling. I'm just pretending.

You seem to think that if a person doesn't come by a skill or attribute "naturally" (and by "naturally" I mean in the way modernguy approves of) then they don't really possess that skill.

This is obviously faulty thinking. I think your hatred for Vox is blinding you.

Now, if you're saying Game can't help guys become real men because there is no such thing as real men anymore then you're just a dumbass.

DD

STX said...

Although I am off the market. I am still a little bit shellshocked. I have finally realized it is really that bad.

STX said...

Makes me sad for the children.

Anonymous said...

"Now, if [insert condition] then you're just a dumbass."

Personally, I don't see the need to attach any conditional to modernguy's dumbassness.

STX said...

The oldest two are stronger than I am. But I don't mind. They know their place. Thank God. I do worry about the daughter. Although they have permission to kick anyones ass that messes with her. I'll hire the lawyers.

Anonymous said...

We will of course all ignore the Cosmopolitan and assorted sites strewn across the internet.


C'mon ladies, just be yourself!

Toby said...

two pussies criticizing something that they do not understand.

King A said...

modernguy wrote: "Game is not teaching men to be men, it's teaching them to simulate it for women while everything else remains the same. Game is the ultimate pussification, when you've totally given up on being a man and resolved to simulate it."

The simulation is the teaching. Fake it till you make it. Wear the attire of the position to which you aspire. Forcefully adjust your behavior and the habits follow. It is the opposite of "totally giv[ing] up on being a man." It is the attempt to unlearn the cultural patterns and expectations into which modern men ("modernguys"?) were born even as entrenched conventions continue to dissuade them from recapturing the behavior of men unembarrassed to be men.

The choice of the term "pussification" indicates which side of the culture your sympathies naturally reside. By laughing at the attempt of men to reclaim their honor in a feminist age, and by declaring the very pursuit to be the antithesis of manly, you contribute to the status quo, the silent hegemony of female equality in all its unimpeachable assumption, an equality which runs contrary to logic, proof, tradition, experience, and instinct.

I've been where you and Marcellus have been. I didn't need a book to tell me how to flirt, how to score, how to lead. I learned the way most men do, through trial and error, through imitation of superiors, through application of principle, through the simple process of growing up. But this is clearly not enough today. Natural leaders who are unabashed in their manhood are isolated by the cultural conventions of our day -- divided from each other and therefore easily conquered. Game is an early stage of the regathering diaspora. Under the brilliantly simple least common denominator of all men everywhere -- i.e., the desire to possess the most beautiful women -- game creates a common language and unites men who recognize and encourage virtue in each other, against the idols of the age.

Your criticism is so familiar and obvious that it has almost achieved a predictable pattern. There are plenty of manly detractors who witness the frank discussion of manliness and instinctively recoil: a community discussion of manly things just feels vaguely unmanly. But if you are honest and intelligent enough to discern what is truly going on -- rather than thinking you're cool for strutting through a comment section to enlighten your inferiors -- if you are man enough, you will quickly recognize yourself in the men you reflexively disparage.

Or maybe you're too cool for school. Either way, cheers, brother.

Your critique is tired, familiar, erroneous, and derivative of the very disposition with which we are grappling and about which we have mastered far more thoroughly than you have the perspicacity to recognize, much less to honor as legitimate.

King A said...

Vox wrote: "The entire point of a socio-sexual hierarchy is that it isn't tied merely to women. You are completely failing to understand that this is not Roissy's binary sexual hierarchy, which is precisely why more levels of distinction are required."

Trying to convince a middle manager to abandon his pet project is like telling him to voluntarily demote himself. He has invested his identity in the success of an enterprise and is the last to recognize its failure. If only we push it a little harder, if only we try it another way, etc.

The criticism of your contrived alpha ALPHA beta BETA sigma lambda taxonomy will fall on deaf ears. I get it. It is pointless to rehearse every argument against it. Add to that the sycophantic groupie yes-men who defend Vox qua Vox, and the symbiosis of suck becomes unyielding.

So don't take this as a plea to shitcan the idea, if only because I am self-aware enough to know the futility of persisting in making fun of you for importing this Sci-Fi D&D World-Maker tendency into a discussion of men. Shaming a mere nerd into shedding his nerdliness is much more plausible than attempting to counsel a Lord of the Nerds into a rejection of his assembled sycophants' obsequence.

How true and necessary, that our analysis must not be "tied merely to women." "Roissy's binary sexual hierarchy" is indeed limited and limiting for a general discussion of the social dynamic.

But this isn't a world of your imagination, this is the world I happen to live in, and you're not the dungeon master who can establish by fiat an entire mode of communication. It must be tested against and accepted by the field with whom you are trying to communicate, deficient in vision though they may be. The need for a term (much less an entire lexicon) must present itself before the term can be foisted on a discussion. When there is a need, and the need is met by le mot juste, adoption is rapid and universal. You can better convey your philosophy that the "binary" categories are not large enough to encompass the expansion to "socio-sexual" matters (a philosophy I share) without the attempt to rewrite the game glossary.

Roissy intuits this necessity and you do not. He sends up test phrases all the time. Some stick, some don't. But he doesn't persist using them if they don't obtain near-immediate currency.

That said, any discussion of the Greek alphabet inspires nostalgia in me, memories of drafty dank basement classrooms in the oldest campus buildings where a half-dozen of us studied the dead language (classics departments of our universities are scandalously underfunded), translating Homer in all the superfluity of gods at their leisure.

αἰὲν ἀριστεύειν καὶ ὑπείροχον ἔμμεναι ἄλλων

So, there's that.

IndyGuy77 said...

You goons are like a dude in a German restaurant wondering where the pizza is. You'd probably be happier elsewhere, and far less annoying to others.

Anonymous said...

"So don't take this as a plea to shitcan the idea, if only because I am self-aware enough to know the futility of persisting in making fun of you for importing this Sci-Fi D&D World-Maker tendency into a discussion of men. Shaming a mere nerd into shedding his nerdliness is much more plausible than attempting to counsel a Lord of the Nerds into a rejection of his assembled sycophants' obsequence"

Is this guy for real? ...Obsequence? Does this guy even know where the other blog is?

Markku said...

Is this guy for real?

Yes, he is our resident malcontent.

Yohami said...

"But this isn't a world of your imagination, this is the world I happen to live in, and you're not the dungeon master"

You almost convinced me there... but I just checked and I have my hand full of dices.

King A said...

"Malcontent"? I'll take it. "Resident"? Hardly. This blog is hit or miss, good for a peek-in once a month or so. Fine concept poorly executed. And the whole Vox tooting his own horn shtick gets old after about ten seconds. Unchecked ego is no substitute for leadership. Yohami has the best attitude of anyone who publishes, that I've seen anyway. May his tribe increase.

Does the "other blog" contain a clue to this one's consistent mediocrity? Show me the light, toadies. I've seen Vox Popoli, it's a better production.

IndyGuy77 said...

I'd ditch the weight lifting analogy and go with Judo.

If you can flip the woman on her back, you win whether you're a natural or you "learned" how from some other means.

Anonymous said...

The problem I have with game has nothing to do with its effectiveness, which I readily concede. It has to do with the notion that men should cater to women and their hind-brain instincts. Such conduct does not help civilization or patriarchy, but rather undermines them. Civilization must channel and restrain sexual impulses, not give them free rein. And placing female desires at the pinnacle of male achievement is, for lack of a better word, feminine.

Pussy-ManiaGirls: http://goo.gl/w9Oepq said...

watching my collection, we have upload more video at here:

Collection Part 1:

Doggy Style and In Missionary Position

Hot Sex Anal With Amazing Girl Friend

Sex Under Hot Lights Bad Girls

Give Me The Cum

Cum In My Panties

Nude Amateur Teen Girls

Sexy Brunette Girls

Young Kinky Sluts

Busty Tattoo Chick On Car

Young Asian fucked anal

Latina Havana Ginger gets

Teen Threesome Porn

Hot Blowjob

Amateur Pulls Down Tanga

Sweet girl amazing hot

Sexy japanese babes getting their tight

TEEN BLONDE ANAL SEX ORGY




Collection Part 2:


Hot asian blowjob and pussy creampie

Sucking dick, Audrey put vegetables in all holes

Blonde love fuck

Naomi Russell And Her Royal Ass

Sexy blonde gives blowjob in the car

ASIAN XXX PORN VIDEO

JAPANESE XXX PORN VIDEO

ARABIC XXX PORN VIDEO

HARDCORE PORN VIDEO

GAY XXX PORN VIDEO

WATCH STREAMING PORN VIDEO

USA CELEBS XXX PORN

LATINA XXX PORN

LESBIAN XXX PORN

Hardcore Porn Celebrity

HOT TURKEY PORN MOVIE

INDIAN NUDES CELEBRITIES VIDEOS

UZBEKS Fuck PORN VIDEOS

HOT RASTA GIRL


100% MAKE you satisfy......








































Reply Delete

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.