A woman inquires about Game

EH sent a long email with a series of questions. Here are some of them:

It seems like being Alpha is different from Pick Up Artist culture. PUA, from what I understand, is about getting laid every night of the week. But it seems like Alpha Game is more of an entire lifestyle. How to attain the life you want. How to manage relationships with women, both long- and short-term. What women actually want and how to be that. But also, how to interact with men. I found your blog through your exchange with Dave Futrelle, after clicking through a few links on the "Confused Cats Against Feminism" tumblr. And it seems like you classify even that interaction with a man as an Alpha-Gamma interaction.

Am I right that it's much more of a lifestyle thing? If so, what are the characteristics of being an Alpha? Or can you point me to a few  illuminating articles? I read the 16 Commandments of Poon. Can you give me a quick, couple-paragraph summary of the overall AG philosophy?

I think that a large part of it is that it's about not being/appearing weak. What exactly is weakness? Is kindness weakness? Is gentleness weakness? Or is it more that reticence and insecurity in your decisions and beliefs are weaknesses?

The interaction between Mr. Futrelle and I would be more precisely characterized as a Sigma-Gamma interaction, but close enough. PUA culture is merely one aspect of Game. Alpha Game is a broad spectrum series of observations, reflections, and random ideas concerning intersexual relations and how they impact society. Game is not a lifestyle thing, it is a philosophical heuristic.

The core philosophy of AG is that a man can learn successful patterns of behavior and improve his position in the socio-sexual hierarchy by observing and imitating the patterns of behavior exhibited by socially successful individuals.

Male success is heavily dependent upon not being or appearing weak. Weakness is the lack of strength, be it physical, mental, or moral. Kindness is not weakness, but it is often perceived as weakness by women. Gentleness is not weakness, but it is often perceives as weakness by women. Reticence may or may not be weakness. Insecurity is a weakness.

The gap between reality and the female perception of reality is one of the chief intersexual challenges with which every man must deal. It may seem unfair that the kind, gentle man cannot initially show his true nature to women he wishes to be attracted to his because they will have a strong tendency to reject him as weak, but the rules of attraction are what they are.

The importance of policy

At esr's place, Deep Lurker explains, by way of analogy, why going to SF conventions with "harassment policies" is not a good idea for men by way of analogy:

Hypothetical SF cons with “no prostitution” policies that not only are very strict, but that also put all the onus on the women and give all the benefit of the doubt to the men. Where an accusation, from a male attending the con, of “she propositioned me!” would be enough to get con security on the woman’s case, would probably get her kicked out of the con, would possibly get her arrested by local law-enforcement, and might well get her slut-shamed on social media and/or fired from her job. Because any male accusation has to be taken seriously and given the benefit of the doubt, and any denial by the woman considered a lie unless there was proof otherwise. (Because, after all, all women are natural whores, and if a woman hasn’t acted as a whore yet there’s still good reason to believe that she might suddenly start acting like one at any time in the future.)

And for extra rudeness, consider that, at such cons, the men can get away with propositioning women under this system, with a woman’s complaints either not being believed, or worse being dismissed with a “lucky you!” or words to that effect.

Under such conditions, would you then be so blithe about telling a woman that she should be brave and attend such SF cons anyway? That she is being excessively timid for declining to do so? That she is not a real woman but a mouse who deserves to die as a reclusive spinster?

I don't go to cons anyhow, having been distinctly underwhelmed by my single experience with one about 20 years ago. But at this point, it's difficult to understand why any man, however nerdrageous, would take the risk.

Defending the West

Heartiste brought this important video to our attention. It shows why MGTOW is not an option. This is why it is necessary for men to learn Game, to reproduce, and to build strong families. Civilization literally depends upon it. If you want to live a hedonist's irrelevant life for fear of a woman claiming cash and prizes, no one is going to stop you. But Man is made for more than momentary pleasure. If all you seek is pleasure, then smoke crack and crystal meth until you die. If you seek more than that, if you seek to help shore up and sustain civilization, then you have to take the risks that are inherent in doing anything worthwhile.

Marriage 2.0 is part of the plan to destroy Western civilization; it is part and parcel of the program that includes multiculturalism and mass immigration intended to do to the Native Europeans in Europe and America what was done to the Native Americans three centuries ago.

As it happens, I am both Native American and Native European. And I certainly don't wish to see the latter suffer the fate of the former, particularly since the well-being of the entire world depends upon the survival and well-being of the Native Europeans. Never forget that the future belongs to those who show up for it.

How not to write a rebuttal

The ironically named site Beyond Highbrow savages the Chateau with all the fury of a toothless lamb:

Roissy’s site is truly horrifying, and the man is a monster. He’s the biggest asshole in the known universe. Most of his commenters are orbiting him hoping to bask in the narcissistic glow he gives off. They are also trying to be an even bigger asshole than Roissy, and that’s probably not even possible. I mean not physically possible. I mean there is probably a law of physics that prevents any man from being a bigger dick than Roissy.

Knowing Roissy, he'll probably print that out, laminate it, and use it to successfully pick up two Ukrainian blondes this weekend. That being said, I have to admit it is nice to always be able to point to the two R's as proof that I am but a humble moderate in the controversial field of intersexual relations.

And as further evidence that the many would-be critics of Game remain irrelevant due to either a) their cognitive inability to comprehend it or b) their willful insistence on miscategorizing it, there is this logical debacle:

Look. This is the way it goes. Probably in any unglued society, the Alphas cannot possibly make up more than 15-20% of the males.

Let us suppose you had a society full of Roissy addicts who had all somehow managed to reach the pinnacle of Alphaness. It would not make sense. Because no society can be all Alpha Male (at least I do not think so). In Arab and Middle Eastern, Russian, Iberian, Latin American and Filipino society, sure, you have a huge % of men playing the “Alpha” game. They look and act like Alphas (especially in Arab and Middle Eastern culture).

But even here, the same 80-20 rule must apply. Suppose a hot woman, instead of being approached by one high-value (Alpha) man a day, is now being approached by five or six high-value Alpha men a day? What’s she going to do? Bang all the studs and whore it up? You kidding? The 80-20 rule, hard and fast, will continue to apply.

In a society where all of the men act like Alpha Males, females will simply pick off the top ~20%, the most Alpha of the Alphas and most Sigma of the Sigmas, relegate the rest of the regular Alphas to Beta, Delta or Gamma and toss the least Alpha of the Alphas (who are nevertheless very much Alpha men) to the Omega bin.

This hypothetical situation is impossible. Not implausible, but impossible. Since Alpha is defined as a certain level of success with women, a society of men where all men all reach the Alpha pinnacle is, by definition, a society where all men are successful with women.

Furthermore, since women find Alpha behavior attractive, even if we address his less extreme hypothesis that 100 percent of men merely mimic Alpha appearance and behavior successfully, this does not mean the 80-20 rule will survive. The 80-20 rule is not a law of physics; it's not even a law of economics. It is merely an observational rule of thumb.

Consider: if every man turned into Brad Pitt, George Clooney, and Joe Mangienello, women would not ignore 80 percent of them. Robert is completely ignoring the rules of attraction and getting the application of the 80-20 rule exactly backwards. The point is that women will reliably choose nothing, or sharing an attractive man, over settling for an unattractive one. This does not mean they will ignore attractive men simply because there happen to be a lot of them.

I am not saying that Game is beyond criticism. Of course it isn't. But it is a little tedious to see that its critics remain so resolutely incompetent. I mean, what does it say for a critic when he has observably failed to understand that which he labels "stupid".

And speaking of critics calling things stupid, I was recently amused to observe that what a Whatever reader once described as my "stupid little Game site" had more pageviews last month than Whatever has been averaging for the last eight months.

You have the right to be a slut

And we have the right to call you one. I find the futile attempt of women, presumably of varying degrees of ill-repute, to decry "slut-shaming" to be more than a little amusing:

It’s 2014, so Andi has the right—like any other Bachelor or Bachelorette or human being—to have sex for a myriad of reasons besides love. Plus, the show is also constructed to make her develop feelings for more than one man at a time, so it shouldn’t be shocking that she kisses or sleeps with or does whatever with multiple men.

Sure she does. And since everyone else possesses the freedom of speech, anyone who thinks she is exercising that right without sufficient discrimination has the right to call her a slut for doing so.

Women can cry about double-standards all they like. It won't do any good due to the fact that the double-standard arises from their divergent own rules of attraction. Women favor men with sexual experience. Men disfavor women with sexual experience. It's not rocket science.

Want to get rid of the double-standard? Fine, then stop having casual sex with men who aren't virgins. Going to go with that strategy? No, I didn't think so.

Back to the basics

I was at a public event yesterday, not a massive one, but about 300 people in a self-contained space. It was mostly families, so there were a fair number of people who were not paired up from the ages of 15 to 30.

There were several attractive girls and young women there who appeared to be unattached. There were also a number of good-looking young men. What I found interesting is that at no point did I see any of the young men attempt to talk to any of young women. That doesn't mean it didn't happen; I wasn't paying much attention to any of them. But I saw no signs of any young men even attempting to speak to anyone outside of their own little groups, which normally one would expect to have occasionally observed over the course of several hours.

This is the very first principle of Game a man has to accept: be proactive, not reactive. If you see an attractive girl, don't wait for "the right moment", but go and talk to her. Start with "hello". This is not necessarily with an eye to getting her number or finding out if she is taken, but simply to get oneself into the habit of speaking to attractive women as a matter of course. It's really not that hard.

If you're a single man, set a goal of approaching and speaking to seven female strangers this week. That's just one per day. Nothing fancy, no pressure, just going up and speaking to them, even if it's only to ask them the time. The objective is for it to become so natural that you will no longer suffer approach anxiety when you come across a woman in whom you are actually interested.

Nothing angers a slave-owner more

Than the sight of an escaped slave become a free and independent man:

Besides the warm, pumpkin-candle scented aisles of the Hobby Lobby, there’s another new club for self-effacing female enablers of angry white men. Women Against Feminism had, last time I checked, 16,013 followers on Facebook. Its tumblr is constructed of selfies of young women, dressed and posed like ads for DIY escort services, holding up bits of notebook paper on which they’ve scrawled screeds against feminism.

Here are just a few quotes from a compendium of such blinding idiocy and prejudice that it defies description.

Black nail-polished hands hold a notebook over a half-shirt exposing a bellybutton: “I don’t need feminism because I don’t think it’s necessary to belittle and dispose of an entire gender in the name of equality.”

A note is propped against the protuberant cleavage enhanced by a pushup bra under a tank top. “If I’m wearing a top like this I want you to look.”

A woman with two or three lip piercings: “I don’t need feminism because blaming men for your OWN insecurities and mistakes is WRONG & ABSURD.”

These women are slandering the movement that enabled their freedom. They live in a world in which they and their mothers can vote, decide whether or not to work, who and when to marry, and whether and when to have children. That was not the case for women within living memory. They have feminists to thank for that, not Rush Limbaugh’s ideological forebears.

And yet, when male critics point out that feminists are to blame for all the negative fruits of women voting, working, and failing to produce the next generation, we're told that it is the fault of the men who gave in to the dictatorship of the petticoat.

Aging feminists are angry that women are wisely beginning to turn away from an insane and incoherent ideology that is societal and civilizational suicide. And that anger is a positive sign that the equalitarian wave is finally beginning to recede.