What’s Wrong with the World

“He gossips habitually; he lacks the common wisdom to keep still that deadly enemy of man, his own tongue” - Mark Twain

The Roissy guy is the one that teaches guys how to "get back" at women by using them...because women are "getting back" at men by using them... because men were using women....

That's the right guy, right?

I will say there is a difference in kind and degree between stabbing someone and using them as a blow-up doll, even if both do involve dehumanizing the subject.

I'm so puzzled by this blog. Here's the whole quote from Auster.

Now, we know that according to Roissy and other Gamers, many women are naturally attracted to dangerous, violent men. The implication is that women who are attracted to such hyper masculine, "alpha" males are more vital, more truly female, than women who are not. But of course this is absurd.

Notice the "But of course this is absurd" there at the end. Why are you criticizing Auster for an "implication" that he thinks is absurd? It's not even his "implication"!! He's attributing it to Roissy et al.

I think Steve is trying to figure out what his name is doing in that list. Steve, I think we shd. keep in mind that even though the comments are individually posted at VFR, it doesn't follow that Auster is carefully considering every sentence and dubbing it sensible by posting the comment. That very commentator wrote a strange follow-up saying that he wasn't actually connecting Bodissey with the topic at hand in the thread but rather with something entirely different! So it's pretty obviously just a sort of illogical list of people with whom that commentator disagrees. Appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, there is apparently not intended to be any connection between you and the (in my opinion, quite odious and inappropriate) topic of "Game." Weird comment, probably not really worth taking note of.

There's an actor named Steve Burton, and a newish one by the same name.

There's also apparently a couple of guys in sports related stories, a newscaster (who may be one of the sports related guys), a stage magician, a guy who owns a sex tip page.... frankly, it's a pretty common name, what with the director, the snowboard company and various others.

Steve, have you written much in other venues on "game"? I seem to have missed it.

It's true that the world of "game" creates woman-haters, despite a few legitimate but un-original insights. For male "gamers", women are the sum-total of their darkest, lowest impulses, and nothing better can ever be expected of them. The moral distance between a Roissy and various brands of violent woman-hating criminals is precisely nil.

Women should not be "gamed" by men just because women often want it, respond to it, and are too short-sighted to see the desperate misery it will bring them down the road. What good does that do anybody? Far better to treat women according to their higher natures, as though it were expected, thereby reducing the pool of men who encourage, for their own depraved reasons, the destructive liberation of female passion and sexuality. Nothing will be right until we have a full-blown patriarchal regime of early marriage, strict monagamy, and large families - supported in custom and in law. At that point the misbehavior on the margins will be manageable and its damage contained. On a macro-level it is the men who lead and make the rules; the women always follow. We're in the mess we're in because too many men like it that way.

@Jeff: In many ways "Game" is what has emerged in the collapse of traditional patriarchal masculinity. Feminism purports to tell men that gender roles are, or should be, equal and fully reciprocal. This doesn't work, not socially not sexually not in any sense. Men who play by feminism's rules fail; most women disrespect them by placing them in the "harmless but certainly not attractive" box and of course the men don't respect them either. And since the rigors of traditional masculinity are no longer taught or expected, "game" is now the most successful male strategy for sexual success. With classical manhood in decline, most men now get the following choice: They can manipulate, lie, and exploit their way to sexual success. Or, they can continue to pretend that the world really does works the way that feminism says it does and they can live life as harmless loser.

They can manipulate, lie, and exploit their way to sexual success. Or, they can continue to pretend that the world really does works the way that feminism says it does and they can live life as harmless loser.

Or they can be manly, chaste Christian men and pray a lot. Considering all the wonderful unmarried young Christian women I know, young women looking for opportunities to get to know good, manly Christian men and eventually to marry one, it seems to me that there are some better choices for some Christian men out there, anyway.

I don't know why anyone would ever bother with 'game', men's rights, white nationalism, IQism, neo-paganism, anti-semitism, or any of the other stupid absurdities that rightists launch themselves into with fervent glee. To my knowledge though, Steve Burton has said nothing about 'game' whether pro or con. Roissy and Ferdinand Bardamu should be ignored by any decent person.

...the sort of story where Auster excels, if only because nobody else will touch it.

True to a point, but the problem is Auster won't stop touching it. He'll make 10 posts on the same murder, and every time reiterate the Big Idea, which is that whites--or at least white women--should generally avoid relationships with nonwhites, as though we couldn't figure it out from the last 100 times he said it. It comes off as a tad monomaniacal.

Jeff C.,

This comment seems off base:

"The moral distance between a Roissy and various brands of violent woman-hating criminals is precisely nil."

Roissy is a sinner, but he is not a rapist or killer. There is a difference.

Lydia,

Your 1:26 PM comment is spot on. I think people just don't realize how wonderfully radical and unlike the secular culture Christian culture can be. This was brought home for me recently when an older Christian gentleman was telling me how proud he was about his son getting engaged -- he said that when the son was going to ask his fiancee for her hand in marriage he came to his father and told him that he was proud of the fact that up to that point they had been dating almost a year and hadn't even kissed! Now, presumably after the engagement there might be a kiss or two, but still -- there is something refreshing about chaste Christian men and women who try hard to live lives of virtue and find each other for marriage. God will bless their unions.

What Lydia said.

Men who play by feminism's rules fail;

Which is why men should avoid "game", a form of manipulation that works within and even perpetuates the whole framework of feminism. "Game" is surrender.

most women disrespect them by placing them in the "harmless but certainly not attractive" box

So what? Be a good man, no matter what women think. Women who don't respect good men will end up, first, with the bad boys they deserve, and finally with the loneliness and misery that follows. Which is nothing to celebrate or encourage because innocents - usually children - are always part of the wreckage. Gamers are wholly complicit in ruining the lives of these innocents.

Besides, as Lydia pointed out, there are better women around. And let's be honest: the gamers don't want that type anyway.

And since the rigors of traditional masculinity are no longer taught or expected, "game" is now the most successful male strategy for sexual success.

What success? Debauchery is not success.

Amen to Jeff C. and Lydia's discussion. I see so many young women here that long for a truly godly man who will lead and love them as the Bible instructs, and who are willing and desirous to learn how to submit to and honor that man -- and they wait, and wait, and wait . . . . and too many, because for all kinds of reasons they start feeling desperate by the time they reach their mid-20s (or even earlier), "settle" for whatever man admires them. They don't want the "bad boys"; they want good men. But eventually they seem to decide that a good man is merely someone who isn't a heinous rebel, even if he isn't trying to develop into a man "after God's own heart." They want the security and provision of marriage -- and they don't realize that a bad marriage can be far worse than remaining single.

(Of course there are young women who are all too anxious to "reform" the "bad boy" and there are those who try to attract the guys in all the wrong ways -- but we don't tend to have as many of them here, just because of the nature of the institution.)

Roissy is a sinner, but he is not a rapist or killer. There is a difference.

Actually, placing Roissy in the same camp as rapists or killers is really unfair to rapists and killers. Roissy destroys souls as well as bodies: that's the difference.

I realize it's generally considered bad form in the conservative blogosphere to have any thread evolve into a discussion on Auster but it seems that's how this post began.

But to this:

True to a point, but the problem is Auster won't stop touching it...It comes off as a tad monomaniacal.

Auster writes just as passionately about the Islam problem and, for instance, has probably had tens of posts on the Ft. Hood massacre each tying back to the central idea that Muslims don't belong in the United States or the western world. Does this also make him monomaniacal? What about his voluminous and oft repeated criticisms of liberal ideology? Or is it only the subject of race that brings it out? Give me a break, why don't you just say that you disagree with his view on race or that you don't feel as strongly about them as he does?

Regarding 'Game', I agree with everything Lydia and Jeff C. have said in this thread. And it's reassuring that Jeff C. sees Roissy so clearly. The only other writer I know of who has forcefully called Roissy evil is Auster.

"The Game" - is this the world of the pick up artist? Using "evolutionary psychology" to "score"?

To be fair to Untenured, I don't think he meant to _approve_ of becoming manipulative, etc., given the of affairs he was describing nor to counsel despair. I think he was trying to portray the way the situation looks to too many young men, particularly to those who lack a Christian moral compass. So in a sense I was giving the obvious answer and preaching to the choir.

I suppose Andrew has a point; Auster is obsessive on a number of subjects. As they were not mentioned I saw no point in bringing them up. I have no problem though with Auster opposing interracial relationships or reporting interracial crime, but he ought to make one post and leave it at that. I have the same problem I have at VDARE; no matter how much I agree with them it's an exhausting site to read due to the single issue sledgehammer.

"The Game" - is this the world of the pick up artist? Using "evolutionary psychology" to "score"?

That is the idea, I believe. There are some dolts who think they are saving Western Civilization with this. It is enough to make a man despair.

@Jeff C:

What Lydia said. I am not approving of Game. I am simply pointing out that it exists to fill a gaping cultural vacuum that has been created by the anthropological lies told by modern feminism, and because of the wholesale abandonment of traditional male virtues.

But yes, Jeff, I can see how you could misread me and be rightly ticked off. I was implicitly writing from the perspective of a young man who was not anchored in a Christian ethic and who would naturally gravitate towards game as his only "apparent" strategy for romantic happiness. But it wasn't obvious that this is what I was doing, and so it might have sounded like an endorsement of Roissy and co.

But yes, Jeff, I can see how you could misread me and be rightly ticked off.

I understand your point, Untenured, and agree that the prospects for young men who hope for a traditional family life are pretty dismal apart from certain religious sub-cultures. And therein lies the answer for them and for all of us: attachment to a religious sub-culture in possession of the necessary tools to put things back together. Through such communities, too, women can gradually assimilate themselves to a "new normal". But we all have so much baggage. We must be patient with each other.

In the meantime, I would hope to see a revival of monastic vocations among those whose marriage prospects have been dashed by the cultural disaster that is upon us. And perhaps that is the silver lining in all of this, because if our civilization is to be preserved through the coming dark ages it will require the prayers and labors of a militant Christian monasticism, just as it did the last time.

. . . . and too many, because for all kinds of reasons they start feeling desperate by the time they reach their mid-20s (or even earlier), "settle" for whatever man admires them. They don't want the "bad boys"; they want good men. But eventually they seem to decide that a good man is merely someone who isn't a heinous rebel, even if he isn't trying to develop into a man "after God's own heart." They want the security and provision of marriage -- and they don't realize that a bad marriage can be far worse than remaining single.

I think part of the problem here, Beth, is that due to the fracturing of Christianity our religious sub-cultures are much too small, and so the pool of marriageable young men and women is likewise small. The best kinds of Catholics don't consider the best kinds of Baptists to be marriage material, and vice versa (and rightly so), and so young people have fewer prospects than they ought to have.

That is certainly part of it, Jeff.

Well, perhaps if they considered interracial relationships they would find a larger pool of marriageable Christians.

(-;

Jeff and Beth's point is very important, though. I think the evangelical community alone has subdivided so many times that friendships can become strained.
I think that some "user friendly" definitions of Mere Christianity would be helpful.

Out of curiosity, how are Auster's posts interesting? The case has received international recognition. In fact, he just seems to copy and paste articles from various Newspapers. And then throws in some chilling and confusing comments about race.

And then Auster lets people speculate on the significance of the width of a murder victims nose, and how quickly whites tan when we get good weather.

Now THERE is reason for a "what the???"

Some commentators assume that all inter-racial crime is prima facie racist, or explained by racial differences, or whatever gets them noticed. It seems to be a very lazy approach to explaining events.

Well, perhaps if they considered interracial relationships they would find a larger pool of marriageable Christians. (-;

Outside the Little Geneva cult, I don't know any serious Christian groups that exclude the possibility of interracial marriage as a matter of doctrine. We Catholics have made a veritable tradition of it over the centuries. :-) Nevertheless those who take marriage seriously will also be serious about personal and social compatibility - considerations that are, often enough, correlated with race. So, for better or worse, interracial marriage isn't going to solve the problem.

Out of curiosity, how are Auster's posts interesting?

I find Auster's site interesting as representing a certain strain of racialist thinking that ought to be ... monitored. It's an attractive message for some on the right - the kind that contains just enough truth to make its exaggerations and fallacious conclusions seem plausible - and we ought to know how to confront the arguments.

Auster made a comment recently that I want to address, just to keep the record straight, though I really hate operating on this level. He said to one his readers:

And I wouldn't post anything by Culbreath, who in VFR's first year (2002-2003) was excluded from the site by VFR founder Jim Kalb because of his personal vendetta against me over my "racism."

I was informed of my banning by Auster himself in an e-mail and was led to believe it was Auster's idea, though Kalb must have agreed to it as the site owner. I've long been on friendly terms with Jim Kalb, despite some civil disagreements, and I don't want people getting the idea that there is any enmity between us. There certainly isn't any on my part.

Yes, I told Auster that I thought he was probably a racist. He was offended and banned me. There was no "personal vendetta", just an argument. He prefers to describe his views in other terms, of course, and that's fine with me, but the bottom line is that Auster is demonstrably contemptuous of non-whites qua non-whites - race being the motive for his contempt. I do find the sum total of his racial ideology to be untrue, unjust and indeed morally repulsive. However, I don't believe he hates non-whites or wishes them ill.

Most normal people hold mild racial or ethnic prejudices, often within reason, but not without the ability transcend them when reality beckons. Auster goes far beyond this. If his racialism does not quite reach the fever pitch of a "race is everything" fixation, it is nevertheless so central to his total worldview that a common-sense "race matters when it matters" approach to life is excluded by definition.

[Updated 10:49pm PST - Jeff]

Why in the heck is Burton being grouped with Roissy and Bardamu? Weird.

Auster's obsession with the gamers is amusing. He must spend half of each day reading their blogs.

Jeff,
Some Indians living in West often appear at Auster's as commentators so I am not exactly sure about the racist part. It needs to be kept in mind that Auster is a traditionalist above all and this sort of racism is very much a part of mainstream Western tradition. A majority of prominent Westerners of History were no less contemptuous of non-whites.

MAR, that's ridiculous. Auster disagrees with the gamers and makes reference to them from time to time. I read his blog regularly and never get the impression that he's obsessed with them and reads their blogs all the time.

Jeff,

I'm your reader too. I asked Auster if that was you because I'm interested in what different bloggers that I read think of each other and what their relationship is(and not for the gossipy soap opera-ish reasons). I like you and your writings and think you're a decent fellow who I disagree with on a few things and agree with on a lot of things (but not Catholicism). I knew there wasn't emnity between you and Jim because I saw your posts on Jim's site around 2005-ish. I had a private email exchange with Jim where he recommended I contact you about something (Catholicism and localism) and there was no detectable enmity in what he wrote to me.

I suppose Andrew has a point; Auster is obsessive on a number of subjects. As they were not mentioned I saw no point in bringing them up. I have no problem though with Auster opposing interracial relationships or reporting interracial crime, but he ought to make one post and leave it at that. I have the same problem I have at VDARE; no matter how much I agree with them it's an exhausting site to read due to the single issue sledgehammer.

I suppose you could say WWWtW is obsessive with Islam or abortion too. But I wouldn't. Folks on these sites choose to address things that they feel are being neglected or inadequately addressed by the mainstream. VDARE, by definition, is a site that publishes a broad spectrum of personalities/types who all write about immigration. What do you expect them to write about?

And then Auster lets people speculate on the significance of the width of a murder victims nose, and how quickly whites tan when we get good weather.

I wrote the response to Auster's English reader because I thought it was a very strange comment. Leaving aside the fact that it was horrible regardless of the victim's ancestry, I think it was bizarre to start discussing whether or not the woman was racially mixed and the speculation was even wierder given that 100 out of 100 people you meet on the street would look at a picture of the victim and say that she was white. In other words, even though I think race matters, even I thought it was race-obsessive on the part of the English reader. So my reaction too was "What the ...!?"

Some commentators assume that all inter-racial crime is prima facie racist, or explained by racial differences, or whatever gets them noticed. It seems to be a very lazy approach to explaining events.

Black-on-white crime, regardless of your preferred explanations of its causes (I think there's several causes and that liberals are partly to blame for it) is a significant enough phenomena to warrant discussion on an obscure blog (all traditionalist, paleo, anti-Islamic, etc. weblogs are obscure). There's about 35000 black on white rapes every year (about 100/day, 2005 U.S. DOJ stats) and virtually no white-on-black rapes but the media would have us believe that whites raping blacks is a problem. 1 in 4 South African men ADMITS to having committed rape. There are lots of recent horrible black on white crimes where the victims are raped, tortured and often mutilated (Witchita massacre, Knoxville atrocity, Ann Pressly-who was beaten so badly that her jaw was broken to bits and sticking out of her face, the Arkansas family who had 3 or 4 generations murdered and burned, Columbia University rape-torture-attempted murder). If these crimes were committed by whites against blacks they would be front page news and we'd hear about them ad nauseum because it fits the left-liberal script. We still hear about Rodney King two decades later and James Byrd 13 years later.

So what you call lazy, I call being honest.

the sort of story where Auster excels, if only because nobody else will touch it.

Steve Burton, do you think Auster is wrong to touch it? What about you Lydia, since you link to Auster and sometimes comment on VFR?

And by the way one can acknowlege the facts that Auster does and still be kindly-disposed towards black individuals. Two weekends ago, my black neighbor came over when I was digging up our drainfield and put his hand on my shoulder and asked if he could help. He and his wife have given us milk and clothes for the kids and I like them even though I haven't been able to get them to come to Church. I used to kiss a nice black lady on the cheek (it certainly wasn't forced or fake - I felt genuine affection for her) every Sunday morning at Church (until she left our Church to become a Jehovah's Witness)

@Jeff: In many ways "Game" is what has emerged in the collapse of traditional patriarchal masculinity. Feminism purports to tell men that gender roles are, or should be, equal and fully reciprocal. This doesn't work, not socially not sexually not in any sense. Men who play by feminism's rules fail; most women disrespect them by placing them in the "harmless but certainly not attractive" box and of course the men don't respect them either. And since the rigors of traditional masculinity are no longer taught or expected, "game" is now the most successful male strategy for sexual success. With classical manhood in decline, most men now get the following choice: They can manipulate, lie, and exploit their way to sexual success. Or, they can continue to pretend that the world really does works the way that feminism says it does and they can live life as harmless loser.

It's incorrect to state that the point of "Game" is to teach men how to manipulate. Rather, it's to teach men how to acquire the "alpha male" behaviors that women find attractive. The goal is to actually incorporate these behaviors into your personality. Many of these are, in fact, necessary for the revitalization of patriarchy that most of us here want; a society where most men are marginally or outright unattractive mates is going to give women little incentive to embrace patriarchy.

There are, in fact, quite a few Christians writing their own takes on the subject about how to use "Game" in ways that lead toward a Christian, patriarchal household. Roissy uses them to get a new girl every other night; Vox Day, Novaseeker (Protestant and Orthodox respectively) use them to maintain their marriages in a feminist culture.

It's easy for "good men," Christian men in particular, to pretend that the reason they're single is just that they're a swell, moral guy in a sinful world. If you look at most single Christian men, most of them are about as far from an "alpha male" in the desirable ways as possible. They're pushovers, milquetoast to the nth degree and through various means make it clear to a good Christian woman that they are simply not capable of being a leader in a real sense.

Bruce,

Auster doesn't comment on the gamers now as much as he was a year or two ago. There was a time when he was writing on them regularly:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/014099.html

SB: "the sort of story where Auster excels, if only because nobody else will touch it."

Auster has done some great work in this area.

Actually, I disagree slightly Mike T. I see it this way. Women, naturally, are attracted to virile, manly, virtuous individuals. In Classical Christian patriarchy, a man was expected to be worthy of female sexual attraction because he had acquired certain characteristics that made him capable of being a suitable head of household. This is not quite the same thing as being an "alpha" as gamers. Being an alpha is not essentially connected to virtue; it is about adopting sufficiently masculine manners and postures so that you occupy the right spot in the social hierarchy. This is geared towards one end, and that it to garner female sexual attraction. For many men, "game" is a get sexual attraction and the subsequent satisfaction but without first becoming worthy of it by cultivating the necessary virtues. That is why you can have sexually "successful" gamers who live like punk undergraduates who can enjoy a series of transient relationships with women who are superior to them in terms of their worthiness for marriage. The Christian route to manliness is a lot harder and more demanding than the Roissy route to manliness. At any rate, many aspects of "Game" were predicted to a "T" by Paul Vitz in chapter 11 of his [1977] book _Psychology as Religion: The Cult of Self-Worhsip_

I suppose you could say WWWtW is obsessive with Islam or abortion too. But I wouldn't. Folks on these sites choose to address things that they feel are being neglected or inadequately addressed by the mainstream. VDARE, by definition, is a site that publishes a broad spectrum of personalities/types who all write about immigration. What do you expect them to write about?

I wouldn't...on any given abortion or Islam issue you may see 2 posts on it here, rather than 10 or 15 in a row. Also, abortion and jihadism is controversial but not taboo. When discussing a delicate issue like black on white hate crimes or any race issue in general, it's wise to make sure not to appear...over-enthused.

Of course I don't blame VDARE for being what they openly are; I was not assigning any blame but merely describing a reaction. Another example is Daniel Larison's blog at TAC. I can't even read his Libya posts anymore--there must be a 100 of them by now. Odds are I agree with 95 of them, but it's just too much. That's his thing though.

Untenured, I suspect you disagree even more than slightly with Mike T., who has repeatedly on W4 expressed approval of "Game"--studying it and following its precepts--as a legitimate way for Christian men to get and keep good marriages. He even implies in his latest comment that it is not manipulative.

God spare my daughters from men who are unable to think of any better way to be attractive to women and to be good leaders in the home than by studying "Game." Shudder.

This is not quite the same thing as being an "alpha" as gamers. Being an alpha is not essentially connected to virtue;

Well, consider the audience. Most Americans are not Christians in any meaningful sense, thus discussing Christian virtue with them is DOA. The larger issue here is that it does teach them a foundation on which we can discuss virtue, such as how to be a stronger, more assertive and confident man.

Lydia's assertions aside, I'm not an advocate of Roissy's views in many areas. Rather, I think most Christians don't want to face up to the fact that he speaks a clearer view of human nature than most pulpits do these days. If you want to actually uplift human nature, you must first understand it for what it is, no?

Ironically, reading much of this subject actually got me completely over any lingering feelings of bitterness about how I was treated when I was a "nice guy." I actually understood that there are legitimate psycho-sexual reasons why women instinctively recoil from that behavior. Thus the problem was always with me and guys like me, not with them in that respect.

As to your point about cultivating both virtue and desirability, I agree. "Game" focuses on the latter. It's up to the church and fathers to teach the former. Unfortunately, quite a few men don't have fathers today, and those who do frequently don't have ones that can teach them much of either. This is why I recoil at the blatant naivete of social conservatives who ignore the very real fact that many "good men" are about as desirable to the opposite sex as a badly overweight woman with bad skin, a buzz cut and who wears nothing but clothes from the men's section would be to them.

Untenured, I suspect you disagree even more than slightly with Mike T., who has repeatedly on W4 expressed approval of "Game"--studying it and following its precepts--as a legitimate way for Christian men to get and keep good marriages. He even implies in his latest comment that it is not manipulative.

Likewise, I suspect that like most social conservatives who have an opinion on the subject, the extent of your knowledge consists of browsing a few pages of Roissy's blogs and calling it a day. When it piqued my curiosity, at least I read a rather varied set of opinions on the subject. It seems quite clear to me that you and Jeff are rather uninterested in going beyond Roissy to writers like Vox Day, Novaseeker, Biblical Manhood and others.

Charitable interpretation of Game: It's remedial education for men who have been degraded and pansified by 40 years of bad fathering, feminism, broken homes and the eductional influences of a psychological establishment that has globally false ideas about human well-being.

Uncharitable interpretaiton: It's a simulacra of manly virtue; a way to achieve the sexual powers of a virile man without actually being a virile man.

Maybe Mike T. is reading it only in the charitable light, and I am reading it primarily in the uncharitable light. Or maybe I'm just naive.

And yes, I have read Vox Day and Novaseeker, and I am familiar with that angle.

Then there are small matters like love, honesty, tenderness, mutual respect, the sacredness of sexuality and...er...not engaging in nasty fantasies. When we think of all of that as naive, we surrender to the bestial.

Jeff

I wasn't implying that you have a problem with inter-racial relationships at all! The joke was meant to be at Auster's expense!
I've a great respect for your respect for your Churches moral teaching. Your recent post on immigration, for example, was very helpful. (I mentioned this, briefly, to Lydia in a recent email).

Graham

I'm still waiting for the Texan's to invade, by the way! What's the hold up?

Maybe Mike T. is reading it only in the charitable light, and I am reading it primarily in the uncharitable light. Or maybe I'm just naive.

I regard it in both ways. I'm well aware of how destructive it is when used without decent or virtuous intent. In my opinion, it's like a firearm in that respect.

Sorry for my absence. Way busy.

Yes, Lydia - what puzzled me was my inclusion on the same list with Roissy & "Ferdinand Bardamu." When have I ever said *anything*, one way or the other, about "game?"

But, then, It's no worse than that absurd *Chronicles* piece on "The Anti-Christ Right" by Jerry Salyer, where I was singled out for abuse on equally mysterious grounds.

I guess I should be used to it, by now.

Gian, you wrote:

A majority of prominent Westerners of History were no less contemptuous of non-whites.

Well, I don't know about that. I think you're making a stab in the dark here. I could say that a majority of prominent Westerners kept mistresses and be on more solid footing. In any case emulating "prominent" Westerners in their conventional attitudes doesn't make one a traditionalist. Most prominent Westerners were morally problematic in some way or another.

So, what's a traditionalist to do? Follow the best of prominent Westerners, of course, in their best attributes. An important aspect of the western tradition is its hierarchy of values, which gives it the capacity for self-criticism in many respects, and the priority it assigns to the Mother and Teacher of the human race, the Catholic Church. Who then are the best of Westerners? The saints, to begin with, to whom all western sinners looked for guidance even if they did not succeed in their efforts at imitation. But even sinners like Christopher Columbus and Hernando Cortez will do, having praise as well as blame for the non-European peoples they encountered, and considering their race in light of their future as Christians.

Among prominent westerners, a non-contemptuous view of non-Europeans isn't limited to churchmen. Such views are found even among the least pious of the American founding fathers. During the war Thomas Jefferson wrote to a Catholic Indian chief, Brother John Baptist De Coigne:

We, like you, are Americans, born in the same land, and having the same interests ... Hold fast the chain of friendship which binds us together, keep it bright as the sun, and let them, you and us, live together in perpetual love.

In the same correspondence he promised to send teachers to educate the Indians after the war. As president, he provided financial support for Catholic priests and schools among several Indian tribes. Jefferson was paternalistic toward them, but not contemptuous.

On the whole, the western tradition is neither egalitarian nor anti-egalitarian on race: it insists on a certain ontological equality and potential for sanctity, acknowledging real differences in both kind and degree but without exaggerating their importance. We have also learned through hard experience that an attitude of racial supremacy, no matter how it might be justified, is one genie that is usually best kept in the bottle. Beware the man who tells you everything that is on his mind.

Reading VFR alone, one quickly gets the impression that certain races are morally incorrigible, completely lacking in any positive attributes, and threatening civilization by their very racial existence. It's total, obsessive contempt.

Now, we know that according to Roissy and other Gamers, many women are naturally attracted to dangerous, violent men. The implication is that women who are attracted to such hyper masculine, "alpha" males are more vital, more truly female, than women who are not. But of course this is absurd.

And, in fact, Auster is being too "charitable" in his first sentence. For, in fact, Roissy and the Gamists assert that *all* women, without exception, are irresistibly drawn to dangerous men … and that women who claim otherwise or themselves are liars.

When one understands that, one sees that the implication to which Auster points really is there.

Jeff C:

We're in the mess we're in because too many men like it that way.

And included in that number, quite contrary to their frequent protestations that they just want "a good woman," or just want to learn techniques with which to counter the "alphas," are the Gamists.

Untenured:

... With classical manhood in decline, most men now get the following choice: They can manipulate, lie, and exploit their way to sexual success. Or, they can continue to pretend that the world really does works the way that feminism says it does and they can live life as harmless loser.

As with the Gamist "philosophy," the comment seems to be saying that the worth of a man is properly measured in how much ... hmmm [how to say this less bluntly/crudely that I normally would?] ... "action" he sees.

“The notches (in the bedpost) make the man” seems to be the attitude.

Lydia:

Or they can be manly, chaste Christian men and pray a lot. Considering all the wonderful unmarried young Christian women I know, young women looking for opportunities to get to know good, manly Christian men and eventually to marry one, it seems to me that there are some better choices for some Christian men out there, anyway.

To which the Gamist responds by labeling men who make the moral choice "losers" ... despite that by their own publicly proclaimed (and very much not-believed-in) stance and “philosophy” and “science,” those men tend to be the “winners” (for, as a class, they tend to reproduce) and it is the Gamists themselves who tend to be the “losers” … for, as a class, they very much intend to *not* reproduce, but rather desire only to engage in sterile (pointless) sexual activity.

Yes, I told Auster that I thought he was probably a racist. He was offended and banned me. There was no "personal vendetta", just an argument.

Ah! But in Austerworld, to make an argument against a position he takes *is* to engage in "personal vendetta," and of the worst possible kind: reason-based.

So far in this thread Jeff C. has admitted to calling and thinking Auster a racist, has said Auster is undoubtedly contemptuous of non-whites because of their race and that VFR exhibits total, obsessive contempt for non-white peoples. These are very serious (and in my opinion obviously false) charges and while they may not be actions which rise to the level of a personal vendetta, they represent far more than a mere disagreement or argument as Jeff C. stated above.

Like all human endeavors, VFR exists within a certain time and place and that context, today, is a world in which the American and international left is achieving enormous success in their effort to displace the white race from its native homelands. Just over 40 years ago America was about 90% white and today is only 60-65% and falling fast, this is deliberate. The left--which has always been Auster's intellectual focus, not non-whites--accomplishes this not just through non-white immigration but through all-out demonization of whites as whites, usually white men, which has profound effects on national cohesion and productivity, white birthrates and the preservation of identity and heritage. And the main lever by which the left makes this happen is the tool of white guilt which requires a foundation of radical racial egalitarianism. This false egalitarianism has burrowed deep into the intellectual and emotional ramparts of most all whites and requires forceful and often blunt artillery to dislodge. The left is at war with conservatives, they're the ones who have drawn the battle lines, they did it decades ago and the hour is late. This is the context in which VFR operates.

Ilion -

"Roissy and the Gamists assert that *all* women, without exception, are irresistibly drawn to dangerous men" &c.

Would you mind providing a link or two, here?

Charitable interpretation of Game: It's remedial education for men who have been degraded and pansified by 40 years of bad fathering, feminism, broken homes and the eductional influences of a psychological establishment that has globally false ideas about human well-being.

While charity is generally a good thing, a false charity is destructive or even deadly. "Game" is itself a tool to further "pansify" American men and aid in the ongoing delegitimization of authentic masculinity. “Game” isn’t about teaching pathetic or misguided man-boys how to be real men, it’s about leading misguided, poorly reared men further into the trackless wasteland of PW-dom.

These are very serious (and in my opinion obviously false) charges

We may not agree on the truth of my charges, but I agree with you that my charges are serious. I'm not at all sure why Auster would think so, however. The kind of racism I believe Auster exhibits he obviously doesn't call racism, and I've always been willing to use other descriptors. He has written essay-length musings on the definition of racism, but these inevitably skip past the elusive place inhabited by his own views. In general he's reluctant to identify anything short of KKK-style racial hatred (of which I have never accused him) as racism. His own views fall short extreme racial hatred, of course, but they also far exceed the sort of normal "preference for one's own" and "acknowledgement of racial differences" that he pretends to represent. That much ought to be evident to anyone who reads Auster's many tiring discourses on race, or who even browses VFR for more than a few pages.

and while they may not be actions which rise to the level of a personal vendetta, they represent far more than a mere disagreement or argument as Jeff C. stated above.

I suppose you're right about that.

Like all human endeavors, VFR exists within a certain time and place and that context, today, is a world in which the American and international left is achieving enormous success in their effort to displace the white race from its native homelands.

North America is the "native homeland" to non-whites as well.

Just over 40 years ago America was about 90% white

OK. How white was North America in 1776? Does it matter in your view? If not, why not?

The left--which has always been Auster's intellectual focus, not non-whites--accomplishes this not just through non-white immigration but through all-out demonization of whites as whites, usually white men, which has profound effects on national cohesion and productivity, white birthrates and the preservation of identity and heritage.

It's true that the left demonizes whites in general and white men in particular. Auster is sometimes good at shedding light on this. But whites are not mere victims of the left when it comes to low birthrates, cultural disintegration, religious apostasy, etc. - they are also the primary agents of our national decline. So it makes no sense to treat the demonization of whites as anything but a marginal (though infuriating) and late-coming facet of the overall leftist project, a tool of convenience only.

And the main lever by which the left makes this happen is the tool of white guilt which requires a foundation of radical racial egalitarianism.

I disagree. White guilt hasn't worked with most Americans, despite the best efforts of the left to shove it down our throats. But the left has been wildly successful in other areas: the decay of our civilization would have been fast-tracked with or without the phenomenon of "white guilt".

This false egalitarianism has burrowed deep into the intellectual and emotional ramparts of most all whites ....

Now you're onto something. False egalitarian beliefs are nearly universal, seemingly intractible, and have been immensely destructive (and should be clearly distinguished from "white guilt"). To his credit, Auster is often quite lucid and helpful on this topic. The answer, of course, is not an equally false anti-egalitarianism, but seeing reality for what it is and responding in a manner that advances - or at least does not impede - the public good in this country. To this end I maintain that the overall presentation of VFR distorts rather than clarifies, and impedes rather than advances.

Ilion, you wrote:

"Game" is itself a tool to further "pansify" American men and aid in the ongoing delegitimization of authentic masculinity.

You nailed it. "Game" is, in reality, the enslavement of men to the very worst of feminine characteristics, but tinged with vengeance and self-satisfaction.

"Game" is, in reality, the enslavement of men to the very worst of feminine characteristics, but tinged with vengeance and self-satisfaction.

Both of the sexes have characteristic virtues and flaws (which are generally related); and "Game" is about instructing confused or frustrated men that the route to authentic masculinity is to adopt the incorporate into their psyches some of the worst of the characteristically feminine character flaws ... with none of the characteristically feminine balancing virtues. And so, you end up with "men" who display the worst traits of both sexes and precious few of the virtues.

Would you mind providing a link or two, here?

Saying that **all** women are drawn to dangerous men is hyperbole. Of course, most women are drawn to them to some extent or another because of some of their qualities that are attractive in any male. Those qualities being strength, boldness, the perceived ability to protect, assertiveness (especially in the sense that he's not going to be lead by her). Dangerous men project those qualities in abundance. Good men used to as well in many cases, but today most "good men" are milquetoast pushovers.

Just because women are drawn to those things, doesn't mean they'll act on them. A number of the people here seem to be in denial that there are certain things which women tend to find sexually attractive in men regardless of the character of the man. Yet, I don't think it'd be controversial to say that most men find a beautiful woman to be sexually attractive regardless of her personality or character.

Ilion, Jeff and Lydia don't seem to consider the context in which Roissy writes. Most of the women in the DC area are hardly socially conservative in any moral or religious sense except when it suits them. This is why you will see plenty of women around here who will behave precisely as Roissy describes his encounters, and then expect to be treated "chivalrously" by a date. If you're going to make Roissy out to be the leading or exclusive voice here, then at least consider the full context in which he operates.

and "Game" is about instructing confused or frustrated men that the route to authentic masculinity is to adopt the incorporate into their psyches some of the worst of the characteristically feminine character flaws ... with none of the characteristically feminine balancing virtues.

Instead of speaking in generalities, why don't you actually enumerate precisely what those "feminine character flaws" that they are adopting.

North America is the "native homeland" to non-whites as well.

The continental United States and North America are two different things. North America is just a land mass which has been occupied at different times by different peoples for millenia. Some evidence indicates that caucasian tribes may have arrived on the continent as early as 7000BC. The United States is a nation that began as 13 British colonies on the Atlantic seaboard before eventually expanding across the continent and is almost entirely a creation of European man with a small african-based subculture in certain places.

OK. How white was North America in 1776? Does it matter in your view? If not, why not?

Again, the relevant question here is what the demographics were, not of the entire continent, but of the 13 states de facto united under the Articles of Confederation? I'm not sure what they were except to say the states taken as a whole were bi-racial, mostly white and where blacks probably made up more than the 10% as was the case by the 1960's. But more importantly, for almost 200 years successive generations of Americans took conscious and deliberate action such that the nation by the 1960's was 85-90% white. Why did Americans do this? Were they racist? We already know why, for the reasons I gave in my last comment, things have changed so much since then. Are we supposed to be unconcerned, or at most mildly concerned that America could very likely be majority minority soon? What do we know that Americans from the country's first 200 years didn't?

Why did Americans do this? Were they racist?

By today's standard, most definitely were. That isn't intended to mean they were deliberately spiteful or that this imposes some sort of "white guilt" on their descendants, it was just a fact of culture and law.

Are we supposed to be unconcerned, or at most mildly concerned that America could very likely be majority minority soon?

The main reason to be concerned is if there is something uniquely virtuous about whites or conversely something inherently nefarious about other races. Auster obviously feeds into that narrative but his obsession doesn't make it true.

"Game" is, in reality, the enslavement of men to the very worst of feminine characteristics, but tinged with vengeance and self-satisfaction.

I'm sure that is true for many of the alpha wannabes, but not all. Someone who commented here many years ago, and who Steve may remember from the old Right Reason days, has a more sympathetic view of Game.
http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2010/03/traditionalism-and-conservatism-old-vs.html

Step2 - the social pathologist, aka slumlord, is a great guy, and probably right more often than I am.

The main reason to be concerned is if there is something uniquely virtuous about whites or conversely something inherently nefarious about other races.

Inherently nefarious is an odd choice of words. More accurate to say that nonwhites don't seem capable of or interested in maintaining the sorts of societies that whites like to live in.

Another reason to be concerned is that only a fool makes himself a minority in his own country. Yet another is the absurd amount of grievances and ethnic spoils that infest American politics. In fact, there is almost no reason short of making leftists feel good about themselves to warrant such a transformation. We don't need any more immigrants of any color, and the ones that we are getting quickly become hostile to to the native whites due to grievance mongering by leftists.

Another reason to be concerned is that only a fool makes himself a minority in his own country. Yet another is the absurd amount of grievances and ethnic spoils that infest American politics.

History is filled with examples of what happens when you allow this to happen. It never ends well for the society receiving the migrants. If there is no special place in Hell next to traitors for the people who allow this to happen, then there ought to be one.

In fact, there is almost no reason short of making leftists feel good about themselves to warrant such a transformation.

Our corporate overlords disagree. They not only want to export manufacturing jobs overseas, they want to minimize domestic service wages as well through immigration.

If there is no special place in Hell next to traitors for the people who allow this to happen, then there ought to be one.

I suppose a Confederate apologist like yourself will get a chance to find out.

Okay, Step2, that will be enough of that sort of thing.

But I'm glad that, given that there is a Capitalist angle to the drama of the dispossession of America, you're willing to say that my side isn't all wrong.

Our corporate overlords disagree. They not only want to export manufacturing jobs overseas, they want to minimize domestic service wages as well through immigration.

This is true, which only makes it more baffling why honest liberals are so crazy about immigration and globalism.