Kurt Vonnegut Jr., a famous author and avowed socialist, also happened to pen a very clever critique of social equality. In the short sci-fi story Harrison Bergeron, Vonnegut portrays a world where technology is used to make sure everyone is the same. For example, the beautiful must wear masks, the fast must wear ball bearings, and the intelligent must wear loud speakers that blare relentless noise into their ears every so often in order to disrupt any complex thoughts.
George and Hazel were watching television. There were tears on Hazel’s cheeks, but she’d forgotten for the moment what they were about.
On the television screen were ballerinas.
A buzzer sounded in George’s head. His thoughts fled in panic, like bandits from a burglar alarm.
“That was a real pretty dance, that dance they just did,” said Hazel.
“Huh” said George.
“That dance-it was nice,” said Hazel.
“Yup,” said George. He tried to think a little about the ballerinas. They weren’t really very good-no better than anybody else would have been, anyway. They were burdened with sashweights and bags of birdshot, and their faces were masked, so that no one, seeing a free and graceful gesture or a pretty face, would feel like something the cat drug in. George was toying with the vague notion that maybe dancers shouldn’t be handicapped. But he didn’t get very far with it before another noise in his ear radio scattered his thoughts.
The story continues with imaginings of what a world where everyone is equalized would look like. The reader is unable to sympathize with the characters however, because the characters themselves are unable to feel sadness. However, the reader isn’t aware of this fact before he is presented with the genius of Harrison Bergeron who escaped from jail but made his way to national television.
Clanking, clownish, and huge, Harrison stood – in the center of the studio. The knob of the uprooted studio door was still in his hand. Ballerinas, technicians, musicians, and announcers cowered on their knees before him, expecting to die.
“I am the Emperor!” cried Harrison. “Do you hear? I am the Emperor! Everybody must do what I say at once!” He stamped his foot and the studio shook.
“Even as I stand here” he bellowed, “crippled, hobbled, sickened – I am a greater ruler than any man who ever lived! Now watch me become what I can become!”
Harrison tore the straps of his handicap harness like wet tissue paper, tore straps guaranteed to support five thousand pounds.
Harrison’s scrap-iron handicaps crashed to the floor.
Harrison thrust his thumbs under the bar of the padlock that secured his head harness. The bar snapped like celery. Harrison smashed his headphones and spectacles against the wall.
He flung away his rubber-ball nose, revealed a man that would have awed Thor, the god of thunder.
“I shall now select my Empress!” he said, looking down on the cowering people. “Let the first woman who dares rise to her feet claim her mate and her throne!”
A moment passed, and then a ballerina arose, swaying like a willow.
Harrison plucked the mental handicap from her ear, snapped off her physical handicaps with marvelous delicacy. Last of all he removed her mask.
She was blindingly beautiful.
I won’t spoil the ending of the story here, but instead make a remark on the nature of equality. There is an old Christian quote that goes, “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” Likewise, I would ask to those who believe in equality, “For what shall it profit society, if it should eliminate injustice, and lose everything great?”
George came back in with the beer, paused while a handicap signal shook him up. And then he sat down again. “You been crying” he said to Hazel.
“Yup,” she said.
“What about?” he said.
“I forget,” she said. “Something real sad on television.”
“What was it?” he said.
“It’s all kind of mixed up in my mind,” said Hazel.
“Forget sad things,” said George.
“I always do,” said Hazel.
Make no mistake, all this equality stuff is a religion, complete with an inquisition to enforce adherence.
There is a reason the Tudor and early Stuart monarchs refused to tolerate Puritanism- because of their fanatical and intolerant beliefs (ironic, isn’t it?). And we are now seeing full-well why they were right- because of the end result of those beliefs. In many ways, we’ve come full circle- oppression to oppression.
Seems like a good read.
They will tell how Oliver Cromwell closed the theaters and the taverns and the nightclubs; but they don’t tell you is that he had physically booted out every single member of parliament who had voted “yes” on a parliamentary pay raise.
.
Parliament thought the chaos that ensued after Charles I was dethroned was the perfect moment to vote themselves a raise.
Equality is unnatural so requiring more and more human control to sustain it is only normal. It’ll lead to tyranny if you let it go on long enough but eventually it’ll destroy itself anyway.
I still find it hard to believe how people want some of this stuff. “Have a mixing pot to create one global race” Such a weird idea to me. It’s so much more interesting to have different cultures and peoples interacting, but still being their own entity.
That is because you aren’t a member of Illuminati and thus it isn’t to your benefit to have 2-3 billion perfectly interchangeable cogs to do what you and your 500k-1m compatriots need them to.
Everyone is trying to bring equality of chances all at once by undertaking huge reforms which always fail. Equality should be achieved by solving one problem at a time. That being said, world is way too far fromequality, since there is no equality in a place where making things happen by the force of arms is still a norm.
There’s a short SciFi movie called 2081 based on this book.
the christians brought this idea of equality to the west, rather, they are the creators of it; it is the revolt of slave morality. Slave morality is based on resentment and envy and those who adhere to slave morality have no interest in overcoming their masters, but instead, they wants to reduce their masters to mere slaves (just like them).
Dumb. Equality of all before the judgment of God, yes, but never has equality of outcome ever been a Christian tenet. Jesus himself recognized that everyone is different in ability and that outcomes will vary accordingly. Maximizing what you are born with is what is important (The Parable of the Talents).
Your “slave mentality” of envy and resentment has been around since the beginning of man (hence- though shalt not covet, etc). Marxism, for example, is merely its most recent embodiment. You can look back to just about every civilization in history and see how prosperity, hubris, and envy destroyed it in the name of equality as traditional views of merit, talent, effort and so on were abandoned, regardless of their religion.
Funny how Marxism has strengthened as Christianity has waned, almost as if they are opposed…
I don’t have really have a dog in the fight for Earth’s souls, by the way. Your comment was just too retarded not to respond to.
Liberalism and its handmaidens: equalism and feminism … the modern faces of evil.
Is a man who fathers two children who he can feed and take care of, raise and give a good chance in life by being a good father and a productive man to the society, equal to a man who fathers six children, when he can’t take care of one, not raise them because he is in bars running after pussy on welfare dime that is spend on alcohol and shiny nikes instead of daycare and school provisions?
The first man is directly taxed around 40%, indirectly God knows; the second man is given free housing, and after child money has almost the same disposable income as the first man.
I know both men, and tyranny is already upon us.
First man will be jailed if he foregoes his taxes, his children shamed, the second man has found a whore or six whore to sire his six spawns of satan, and is paid by the state to look for more whores, will never pay taxes, will never need to produce.
The difference is, the first man is hope for the society, the second is a parasite.
Society has chosen which to reward and which to punish.
Shared this before; fuck you society.
The problem isn’t “equality.” But rather how equality is achieved. By government force. If government instead chose to use force to make men unequal; say whites housemasters, blacks slaves and jews firewood for the hearth, things wouldn’t magically be any better.
“Equality” is just the currently fashionable excuse for granting government leeway to shape other people’s lives. But it’s governments’ asymmetric access to means of coercion that is the underlying problem; not the trifle detail of what they currently happen to do with this access.
hahaha “spawns of satan” hilarious
Bravo sir
What you just wrote is absolutely accurate about the welfare man, but you left out the role that the woman plays in this scenario. The man is never the one who receives the additional welfare check, it’ the woman.
And to get those additional benefits, there CANNOT be a man around, because then it’s alimony that kicks in, but the guy’s on welfare, so big daddy goverment replaces him with additional payments, only if he’s not around. This scheme is well implented in every ghetto with section 8 housing, and women do it on PURPOSE!
And I do agree that a men like this adds no value to society. The scenario that you described would never happend if women only decided to procreate with a men that would add value to her life. But she doesn’t need to because she will always get bailed out no matter what. The man in your scenario is guilty for sure, but he was raised this way and don’t know any better. This is our future !! Women always get scot free is public media, but NOT on this blog.
One of the greatest critiques of social justice. I feel the greatest, on a tie with Orwell’s 1984.
Sadly, people now use the coined phrase “That’s Orwellian!” like a kid eats candy; and unlike the single mom’s kid, it no longer carries the same weight. I sense that what these two men feared is en route, and we will have more great authors pen their version of Harrison Bergeron, and 1984 style critiques of the socialist paradise of equality.
I pray it does not happen, but whom am I kidding? We are human, and prone to mess up. I believe in our nobility, but only despite the fact I see our greater half everywhere around me.
Of course, if you bring down the best to the level of everyone else, ‘the man behind the curtain’ gets to own everybody. In order to achieve totalitarianism, you cannot have people who think differently of independent means, you cannot allow a strong middle class – hence the globalization malaise of the Western nations.
Another consequence of homogenization applies to society.People are so invested in a concept of game – I don’t deny it exists, but it only helps marginally at best and is a self-reinforcing meme for the guys who get girls that they ‘earned’ it legitimately.
Game is mostly not fucking up.
The emergence of the PUA acknowledges problems in our Western
society, but game is not a long term solution. It is merely reactionary.
Women will choose the man who best represents what the society regards
as socially normative. Since this is dictated by the media, it become
survival of the socially normative, not survival of the fittest. The
problem is, most socially normative men are useless, so women’s choices
will destroy themselves.
Game will be overrated in future.
You couldn’t be more wrong about game. You literally have no idea what you’re talking about. I could demonstrate game to any man in person and prove to anyone how it works.
I’ve gotten so good I’m not surprised when guys ask for my number in bars, because they want to know what I know.
With all due respect, I am not a game denialist. But few people can master it and it doesn’t indicate any kind of fitness. People didn’t need game in the past; and I’m saying it will be less relevant in future. When healthcare and dental care becomes more expensive, a girl is going to care more about a man having these covered or being a provider/protectector/’hunter’, rather than being a ‘gamer’. You can see how the West is getting poorer. It just hasn’t gotten to the ‘tipping point’ yet.
I know tons of guys who think they’re alpha and great with women. That doesn’t necessarily make it so – because I disagree with them but don’t have the heart to burst their bubble. I don’t know about you, but if you truly do well with women, its because you built a rewarding life and built real value into yourself, not due to the parlour tricks of game. Game can only be a tranisent thing as hard work built civilizations – if dating becomes ‘gaming’, then that civilization will fall apart.
“People didn’t need game in the past”
Wrong
“I’m saying it will be less relevant in future”
Wrong
“When healthcare and dental care becomes more expensive, a girl is going to care more about a man having these covered or being a provider/protectector/’hunter’, rather than being a ‘gamer’”
Wrong
“I don’t know about you, but if you truly do well with women, its because you built a rewarding life and built real value into yourself, not due to the parlour tricks of game”
Game is not tricks, game is knowledge
“Game can only be a tranisent thing as hard work built civilizations – if dating becomes ‘gaming’, then that civilization will fall apart.”
Wrong, game has nothing to do with the quality of the dating world.
Totally ahisotircal, complete ignorance of what game is, and yet I see objections like yours all the time. I will write an article in response to these popular game denialisms at some point.
I understand that there were people like Casanova back in the day. But you do need a decent healthcare and dental plan to compete, especially since most people will be denied such things in the future. I will be interested in reading your article. I think more people will be concerned by more pressing matters in future due to a lack of finances; I can already see in the UK that many younger folk cannot even afford to go out its gotten that expensive.
You will see in roughly a decade or more, that game will be less relevant as per the economic conditions. You should write that article, but you cannot know the future and as it unfolds, it will prove what I have said to be true. It sounds like you have your entire identity invested in game; I’ve known many guys like this, they were good with women too, and they have all fallen flat on their faces eventually. Game exists, but it alone is not enough. Game is also the product of a wealthy society; many third world countries don’t have game ( i know, lived in a few) and once the West becomes poorer and you become older, all the game in the world isn’t going to make a damn bit of difference. You lack wisdom and that’s perhaps something you’ll never have. I await your article.
I understand that there were people like Casanova back in the day. But you do need a decent healthcare and dental plan to compete, especially since most people will be denied such things in the future. I will be interested in reading your article. I think more people will be concerned by more pressing matters in future due to a lack of finances; I can already see in the UK that many younger folk cannot even afford to go out its gotten that expensive.
You will see in roughly a decade or more, that game will be less relevant as per the economic conditions. You should write that article, but you cannot know the future and as it unfolds, it will prove what I have said to be true. It sounds like you have your entire identity invested in game; I’ve known many guys like this, they were good with women too, and they have all fallen flat on their faces eventually. Game exists, but it alone is not enough. Game is also the product of a wealthy society; many third world countries don’t have game ( i know, lived in a few) and once the West becomes poorer and you become older, all the game in the world isn’t going to make a damn bit of difference. You lack wisdom and that’s perhaps something you’ll never have. I await your article.
Samseau is correct. You display a fundamental misunderstanding of what game means.
Put simply: game is best thought of as a coin — a coin with acknowledgment of/reaction to human nature on one side and, on the flip side, a total investment in the betterment of the self. You can’t fully achieve one without the other.
There will never be a time when a man can afford not to study human nature and learn how to work it to his advantage.
There will never be a time when a man can afford not to better himself — his body, his mind, his understanding of the world and his place within it.
There will never be a time when women will cease to have an instant chemical reaction to confident, well-groomed men who move through life with charm, mystery and masculine poise uninfected by beta-male doubt.
And there will never be a time when a man won’t be able to make his peace with the opposite sex by confronting the limits and weaknesses of the female psyche, and adjusting his expectations accordingly.
Game — like a great novel’s window into the human soul, like fine Scotch, like Miles and Coltrane onstage in their tailored finest, blowing “Stella by Starlight” into cigarette smoke exhaled from the lipsticked mouths of a dozen Ava Gardners — will never fall out of style.
Game isn’t some cleverly rehearsed pickup line. Game is nothing less than the fucking spirit of life lived to the fullest. It’s life with the blinders removed. It’s life — your life — barreling down the highway as you deftly move from lane to lane, bypassing all obstructions in your path, all attempts to slow you down or impede you on your journey.
If you as a man know yourself, and know how to make your way through the world around you, then you have game.
As long as there are men breathing air on this fucking planet, there will be game.
The only people who are exceptional at game are the men at the top of the power pyramid in the West. They’re so good at game that they’ve castrated the majority of males and will end up owning the lot, because when the top 1% own 40% of the wealth, when that was far from the case before, you can see who is outgaming who. By the time they send you to your fate, you’ll be wishing for far more than paltry macking skills. Perhaps you are too blind to see this.
You’re both right and wrong. Surely the logical solution is thesis + antithesis = synthesis?
I would be curious to know what kind of life-sized “knowledge” game can give a man. A mixed bag of tricks to try and bed the lowest-denominator of bar sluts?
You’ve turned game into a religion, and game relates purely to pussy to many men, so at the very least there are many different types of game. However, what caught my eye is this:
“There will never be a time when women will cease to have an instant chemical reaction to confident, well-groomed men who move through life with charm, mystery and masculine poise uninfected by beta-male doubt.”
I know guys like this personally. They get lots of hot pussy. They have no doubt in themselves. They are evil cunts who offshore our jobs to the other side of the world. Even by their own accounts, their confidence is not infallible and is based upon their external circumstances (money). You mistake game as being more than being about women. That is not being a man. You see game as a philosophy, in which you and your ancestors deserve to perish, because you have no wisdom. Truly confident men are born of adversity and are rare. Most of the men of the West don’t even remotely know what adversity is (you may or may not be an exception) and as such their confidence is based on their external trappings relative to the rest of the World. You don’t know adversity, you don’t know confidence and you don’t get it. Neither does the previous antagonist poster to my comment.
When you are surrounded by the police state, wetting your pants at how you cannot afford healthcare or to be able to look after yourslef; when you are overrrun by the poor thuglets that game inevitably breeds at the lower classes; when you have lots of stylish men around you who come a cropper the first time they are really challenged in life – then don’t come running to me. Ive lived in two third world countries and several first world countries, and the men of the West are the least confident, least masculine and most brainwashed of them all. The ‘community wisdom’ so to speak has been lost in these parts.
Also, I think seth is trying to say “oh the media tells girls whats socially normative i.e cool, and whoever conforms to that best has the most success with them” – which has a germ of truth to it, girls ARE influenced by media. But what they cannot fight is their evolutionary heritage which is why “asshole” , “detached” , “not give a fuck” men (like myself) naturally do so fucking well. It’s NOT a series of parlor tricks, it’s inner confidence in your own fucking value and a life that is genuinely interesting, That, along with your physical attractiveness (which can be honed) and your social skills is the concept in a nutshell.
Flawless explanation brother.
“You’ve turned game into a religion”…
Better game as a religion than the self-defeating pessimism of a guy who watches from the sidelines as other guys scoop up all the pussy, who then cooks up elaborate theories that enable him to look down on mem with ten times more balls than him.
You know man, I’ve read all your posts and frankly you sound like somebody who is “losing” at life. I don’t know you personally so I can’t say for sure. But masculine men who have their shit together aren’t fretting about healthcare costs because 1) They took excellent care of themselves. 2)They have enough money to cover all but the most extreme situations. 3) They share Herodotus’ sentiment that “It is far better to have a stout heart and suffer one’s share of evils than be ever fearing what may happen.” You keep saying “Men of The West” – ya been watching too much LOTR brah? Yeeeeah, don’t act like you don’t know what I’m talkin’ about. I’m stylish, squared the fuck away, and I am master and commander of my own life- regardless of what happens. Ecological or Economical collapse of human civilization? No problem. Zombie Apocalypse? I’m ready. World War 3? Fine. But most likely the same shit is going to keep happening, the world keeps spinning and I keep winning. I keep my wits sharp, and my dick wet. You should try it.
I agree with the above, but can you call that game anymore? It transcends ‘game’ when it becomes a holistic life philosophy. Game as a attitude/behavioural pattern can no longer be argued to be game. If game is like Neil Strauss’s initial forays as described in his first book, then its routines etc…
Having a lifestyle that celebrates yourself and is geared to wards holistic improvement is no longer ‘game’. It could be called something else, but ‘game’ is a poor word to describe that inner value.
Having said all of this, I believe the Krauser and Paul Janka’s approach to lay ratio is around 4-5%. This is at the top level of game. SO game really is about not messing up; the girl’s choices are made instantly most of the time, and game features rarely in converting mabye’s to yes’s.
I’m not looking down on either of you, but I am right in pointing out that what you describe is a transient phenomenon. Like I said, we all believe what we believe. Give it a few years, perhaps a decade, and you’ll find that I am more on the right side of things. Its got nothing to do with superiority – you sound insecure in coming up with the insults. Like roosh said in one of his posts: you’ll need game, fame and spam approaching. But that won’t be in 2073 like the article suggested; more like 2023 or before.
This ^
I admit I am a beta. But I am also an alpha when it comes to standing up for myself these days. Nothing passes me by if the cause is right. I have no incentive to work hard any more for others, so society will collapse since I am the worker bee. This also means my education with 6 languages, 3 degrees etc cannot be used in society if I choose to leave and go elsewhere. I have lived in Central Europe for many years, the states for a few, and I will be leaving the UK as my affinity for Europe or NZ and personal preference for dating European women is greater than here.
You mention the ‘men of the West’. Sometimes I use this to mean men with Western ideologies (all races), and sometimes I use this to mean Caucasian men.
I don’t care if you are right. All I know is that I will leave and so there will be no more betas to support a burgeoning society and I will be replaced with immigrants. My education is slightly above average for Europe and certain Asian countries I have lived in the past (Singapore). The men of the West have decreasing social capitol, education and economic means compared to abroad. I know this from personal experience. So when I say all of this, including my stories, I have nothing to hide and say it for your benefit, so you learn from my experience.
You need to get over your whole ‘I am American/Western and therefore I am superior to all men BS’. That is incredibly short-sighted. You only exist because I am your doctor/engineer/worker bee. You will cease to exist because of political short-sightedness. I support the idea that Western nations should have white people as a protected peoples, but not only will politicians not vote for this, but it is economically unsustainable and people from other places work harder/better/smarter for lower wages.
You need to adapt, because the Western world will change drastically in the next few years. You can get your dick wet whilst getting overrun; not by me – I’m Christian. But you will be outcompeted and overrun nonetheless. I actually figured out that the best place in future for most folk (and white people) is Australia/NZ, perhaps Canada, Chile. That’s it. But hey, you only live once, and getting your dick wet with fat tramps makes you a man. So go for it. I’m just giving another opinion and I will only help my family and two Caucasian friends (they might as well be my brothers) whilst you get served your ass.
OK, I finally got it. You take the entire discipline of self-improvement, knowledge of the self and human nature, let alone the most elusive of them all – female nature, and you call it “game”. And once a man has all of this wisdom, refined culture and aesthetical judgment, all of this consummated life experience and charm…he should put it into use to try and get one night stands with dumb ladies in bars? Sounds to me like wanting to build a 4th-gen nuclear power plant to heat the shower pipe.
Cody, kudos to you as you may be, or at least feel, in full control of your life. But so are countless millions of other men, most of whom surely never heard of “game” or didn’t even think they would have to develop their personality, style and profession to those insane self-referential and narcissistic heights solely to get bar pussy. If I understand well, for most of those men getting laid is a by-product of those life choices, not the main goal, and not even that important.
My comment was directed at Seth Datta, not you (if that wasn’t clear) But to clarify “bar pussy” is a mischaracterization. Are some chicks met at the club or bar? Sure. Others at the pool, the beach, school, a restraunt, or whatever. And I wouldn’t say by product (because that implies a lack of effort) nor would I say main goal – just “A” goal. Along with lots of money, travel, freedom, etc whatever it is a man values.
Got it, Cody. Why, then, call it “game” and not with its broader label of male self-improvement, albeit with a narcissistic and invidualistic twist? I am a relatively recent reader on this blog and the subject matter, but I can see the semantic scope of the term “game” is a pretty fat source of confusion, already. Not a good start.
To each their own. Your gaining all the knowledge and experience partially because it is it’s own reward and partially because it’s an awful lot of fun to meet cute girls and have sex with them within a few hours. This is something that very few men are capable of and it is a including. A valuable skill. If you’d rather wake up every morning next to the same face than hey, to each his own. But many men, scudding ROK readers prefer sexual variety for the same reason they prefer a variety of food. No matter how much you love filet mignon if you eat it every fucking night of your life your gonna eventually crave something different.
It is an admittedly all encompassing term and different people use it in different ways. Some means of differentiating are “passive game” which is clothing, fitness, money, etc. And “active game” which is social skill, humor, grace, and charisma, There is also “inner game” which refers to psychological outlook, confidence level and so on. These are terms unique to the community and they tend to refer to a specific brand of male improvement.
Thanks Cody. You gave me the induction to what this blog is all about, all in the space of 3 posts. Awesome.
Your welcome, I hope you find the site and the “manosphere” in general, as useful as I have. There is also a strong narrative thread that part of the explanation for the “crisis of masculinity” in the West is because young boys are increasingly raised by single mothers at home, female teachers at school, and are bombarded with a host of messages from the media that cater to female desires. Man hits a woman it’s serious, woman hits a man roll the laugh track. Woman gets raped it’s serious. (proven) False rape accusations, who cares? The courts are set up(here at least) to seriously screw men over when it comes to custody of children and so on. Monogamous relationships and especially marriage offer males diminishing returns and because these men harbor “blue pill” ideas about relationships they fail miserably in the romantic sphere, which carries in to the financial area, physical and mental health and so on. This is generally accepted as fact by most folks around here.
You didn’t need to tell us you were a beta.
Your every word shows us that you spend life cowering inside your musty little box of personal mediocrity with the blinds closed, conceding defeat without ever having the balls to step out onto the battlefield.
Chumps like you are the eternal last-placers in the race of life — quick, as always, to criticize and mock the doings of others while conveniently ignoring the fact that you’ve never once been able to summon the courage to put yourself out there like those you so readily insult and make laughable assumptions about.
There’s not one aspect of your regurgitated textbook game denialism that guys here haven’t seen and debunked time and time again.
There’s not a single word of your “I may be a bitter loser but I will someday have the last laugh” tantrum that could possibly contribute any insight or anything positive to the discussion here.
You stand among men dedicated to doing that which scares you most — risking potential failure, embarrassment or personal discomfort for the greater good of self-improvement. You stand among men determined, by whatever means necessary, to conquer some fears, clear a few hurdles, attain some of the things that they want most in life. And you bring not a whit of inspiration or humor or hard-won insight to the table.
Your girlish negativity — taking pleasure in the imagined failures of others — places you in direct opposition to most of the men here. And you don’t even seem like you want to be here, since you can’t seem to find the slightest bit of common ground with people like us.
So my questions to you are:
Why are you here?
And what makes you think anyone here will be swayed by your sad, narrow outlook on life — your bitterness and childish envy of others?
You’re projecting. Where did I say anything about striving to land “dumb ladies in bars” or treating them as if they’re some kind of prize?
Game works on all women — not just random bar sluts. And why? Because, underneath all the bullshit “independence” posturing and the Herculean efforts to deny the things that turn them on, all women have a woman’s nature.
Game works on attorney broads. Game works on lady doctors. Game works on teachers, on office women, on athletic girls and the kinds of girls you meet at art galleries and museums. Game works on girls who kid themselves that they’re intellectuals. Game works on married women and religious girls and quiet girls and girls who have gone so long without a house call from Doctor Dick that they’ve got cobwebs between their thighs.
Furthermore, game isn’t just for one-night stands. Properly applied game can help you win — and hold onto — those few remaining girls who qualify as relationship material.
A man who aims no higher than a common bar skank only has himself to blame when disappointment sets in.
Wow – at least I put in some argument in my previous postings. You have just put in a lot of insults. Neither of you can be doing well with women and PUA for posting so much on this thread, cos if you were, you wouldn’t care so much to retort on my reasoned arguments.
Your monicker suggests you don’t have a dick. And i may be somewhat of a beta or alpha-beta with women, but am still always alpha of men. I don’t take your shit – I’m about bringing a different viewpoint which everyone may or may not agree with. If I’m a beta, you’re an omega, dick. Why don’t you admit that you couldn’t hack it out in the modern arena and when the shit comes down you’ll be off cowering home. You would never say that shit to my face coward. And if you did, you wouldn’t be alive at the end of it. So I’m done with talking to you. When I don’t post any more replies, its because all guys would lose respect when coming across a pathetic, sanctomonious and frightened child like yourself.
My questions to you are:
How can you be here when you can never be a leader of men? How can you exist when you are not worthy of respect, not from real men.
And, most tellingly of all:
Is your PUA so garbage that both of you must continually repost here to support your identity, rather than enjoying your women?
I understand. I am just seriously wondering why I would need to use particularly sophisticated techniques to turn on an office colleague, the reception girl at the museum, or my female estate solicitor, though. If they are going to be in my social circle, willing or nilling, then I will definitely give them due attention, but just presenting them with the facts of who I am and what I think about life. If they like me fine, if they don’t, they can walk away any time of limit their interactions to the formal and functional. I have already clinched on a girl who is definitely relationship/marriage material, my wife for almost 5 years, and didn’t need to use any more magic than with anybody else. The fact we come from similar cultures and we had a good personality match and, most importantly, we chose to be true to ourselves and our mutual feelings soon after the dating role play was over, did the trick. You seem to hint that game should be used as a tool to achieve a continuous stream of self-gratification, excitement and sexual variety.
Interesting metaphor, that of eating different food everyday. I would say a more fitting one is that which sees the one-lady man (with the right lady, that is) finding one or two nicely cooked meals every day, while the man with game finds it more exciting to go hunting in the wilderness, at the risk of returning home empty-handed and with an empty stomach.
Yet even after that, I feel this is all a bit too reductive. To some sex may well be an exchange of pleasurable acts, a quick song off a juke-box. To some others, it might be a form of communication, which completes and complements other aspects of a relationship, a whole opera that takes several hours and a full orchestral ensemble to build, struggle, grow and resolve. To which, the problematic question: how does the man with game deal with the rest of the relationship, when both the dating rituals and the coitus are over? Can game teach you when to be assertive and when to compromise, how to modulate empathy and individualism, when your woman needs be understood and embraced, not “handled” and disciplined, how to be a raging bull in bed and your child’s favourite teddy bear?
Perhaps it’s because I’m dangerously close to my fourth decade and because my poly/hypersexual heydays are behind me, but if I could choose between pursuing game and spending loadsa time, money and effort to bed three or four different girls a month, or keeping my wife and pouring spice on my sexual life and hers by entertaining certain flavours of “social sex” (swinging and stuff), or even a couple of young lovers on the side, I would definitely go for the latter.
Very useful. Like many things in product development and marketing, game is one of those syncretistic lunches off a smorgasbord of self-improvement and anti-feminism, masculine ethics and aesthetics, fine life tasting and fitness. I am sure many of us who can recall a better-than-mediocre sexual life before (or instead of) settling actually developed some of that frame of mind without knowing that somebody at some point would be relabeling it “game”. You probably know how much care we Italians devote to understanding the female universe. Luckily for most of us (certainly my case), having close relationships with an extended family where at least two or three power women can be found (mom, granny, auntie, pretty cousin, etc.), does constitute a good head start.
Very useful. Like many things in product development and marketing, game is one of those syncretistic lunches off a smorgasbord of self-improvement and anti-feminism, masculine ethics and aesthetics, fine life tasting and fitness. I am sure many of us who can recall a better-than-mediocre sexual life before (or instead of) settling actually developed some of that frame of mind without knowing that somebody at some point would be relabeling it “game”. You probably know how much care we Italians devote to understanding the female universe. Luckily for most of us (certainly my case), having close relationships with an extended family where at least two or three power women can be found (mom, granny, auntie, pretty cousin, etc.), does constitute a good head start.
This fag has been bant
To live in ‘equality’ is akin to being an animal held in a zoo.
Even if all base needs are equally met, all involved are essentially dead inside.
The Romans had a saying “modesty is an excellent virtue for ordinary men to have.” A society that celebrates equality celebrates weakness.
That last sentence is pure fucking gold.
“A society that celebrates equality celebrates weakness.” This pretty much sums up the stance of the average American on equality. Everybody over there wants to be special, everybody wants to be on the right side of the privilege and success fences. Almost everybody ends up getting sub-par education they it will take 10 years to pay off, buying the same host of products, eating the same junk food and watching the same TV programs.
As much as they emphasise the notion and value of individuality, the US and their European sister, the UK, are two of the most hopelessly conformist societies this planet has ever seen.
Well, it really depends how your defining conformity vs individuality. In terms of technological innovations, inventions, and so on… well virtually every major development of humanity in the past 100 years can be attributed to an American. Off the top of my head: Harnessing electricity, Automobile, Plane, Nuclear Energy(double edge that one), Spaceflight/ Moon Landings, The Assembly Line, The Lightbulb, Laser Technology, The Internet, etc. Not to mention cures for Polio and other diseases… Which makes our current situation all the more depressing.
It must also be said that virtually every major development that was attributed to an American happened before the 80s, when the US still was the world’s shining beacon in everything from quality of life, welfare and education, scientific and technology innovation and even the arts. Scientific progress is such a vague measure, though, as so many US inventions were registered as US patents filed by eminently foreign scientists and engineers settled or naturalised American. As I said in another post on this same spot, it is indeed depressing to see how little such political and socio-economic might has done to make your lives better.
I find it it interesting that you feel qualified to render judgement on the quality of life here. I gather that your from the UK? I don’t know how much time you’ve spent in the US and by no means am I denying the precipitous decline here. Yet I’m told by fellow travelers that women in the UK are even more spoiled, entitled, and feminist than they are in the US. Your thoughts?
I confess I must have spent a grand total of 4 weeks in the US in my entire life. I have a few US friends, and with one in particular (from LA, reasonably familiar with the manosphere and the reason why I got curious about it and came here) I have been chatting for hours about the dating & mating dynamics in your country. Having lived in the UK for almost 15 years, I think I know this society and its women pretty well, and – your traveller friends are right – I consider it a good proxy of what can be found in the US. I spent the last 8/9 years working in investment banking, which is still pretty much a man’s world and the few women have to display a remarkable mix of soft and hard skills to have a serious chance at making it. Talking in general, I have definitely seen the lack of femininity and the brazen ways, that loss of naivety replaced by a fragile pride and sense of independence. The feminist manifesto, a frankly debatable sheet of A4 paper, used to cover the whole of their body as a dialectic shield against everything that’s wrong to them or they think they’re entitled to. Mix it the typical dry humour/sarcasm that is the trademark of English people, not just the ladies. And top that with the fact that most white British women are done by their early 30s and not even that good looking and worth the effort. I think one of the reasons why many girls are spoiled is just in the numbers: the bar on beauty, savoir faire and wealth here in London is pretty high, so the good looking ones know they can aim as high as sky and afford to ignore or avoid everyone who doesn’t fit the 90-percentile of their bill.
The problem about the UK, not just the girls, is the tremendous effort that seems needed to show the simplest measure of empathy. That lack of “I genuinely care about what you’re saying and what you’re feeling” taints every piece of human interaction, makes everything look short-lived and superficial. I think it’s in their culture to be discrete and efficient, but that tends to reduce social dynamics to a mere series of transactions, functional to a practical end. 15 years in, I still get surprised faces when I ask an ex-colleague or acquaintance I haven’t met in ages to have coffee or pizza, as they always think I have something to ask or propose them. The idea of company for the sake of company doesn’t seem to graze their minds. Oh well, the saving grace is that London is so packed with people from all nationalities and cultures, many of whom wouldn’t want to give up being themselves for the sake of social conformity, that you can always find somebody, man or woman, to connect to at a somewhat deeper level. Looking hard enough.
Many of those innovations were made in America, but by immigrants from other places. For example The first nuclear sustained chain reaction was done under the bleachers at the University of Chicago. That is it was done in America, but by Enrico Fermi, a recent immegrant fleeing facsist Italy. AC electricity distribution was created in America, by Nikola Tesla a serbian immigrant. America over the past century has provided the best rewards for the worlds best so they have come here to do their work. However, I have severe doubts that we are able to create these men of greatness in the US of A today.
The UK is complicated. I’m an American who spent a year in Scotland, and THAT culture is a whole other story. I think World War 2 really fucked up the UK. You will never see women brawling in the streets in the US as much as I saw in Edinburgh and Dundee. The welfare state is out-of-control (get pregnant, get a free council-flat (apartment) and 600 pounds a week!) Women live to shit-test men there, and what will at first appear to be an Alpha will turn out to be another pussy-whipped guy. I felt the Scottish/Irish were more capable of showing compassion than Brits, but I didn’t spend enough time off campus to really find out. I regret I didn’t have a chance to be among Black Brits (I’m African-American) as most of my friends were Arab or South Asian. Still, the UK is complicated.
Scotland is the more humane side of the UK, on both the good and bad sides. What is left of the welfare state, the old “cradle to grave” mentality that will cater to the needs of the 17-yo “professional” single mom just as well as the Cambridge hi-tech entrepreneur, has been used and abused to an extent much worse than what you guys are seeing now with Obama and his handout bonanza. And that for 40 years now. For how much welfare fat there still is in the UK, the main problem remains the disintegration of the traditional family, something that no council flat or milk & nappy cheque will ever replace. Kids have to play on the streets unsupervised because both parents are at work and nobody can take care of them without a hefty fee. Women start drinking as early and as heavily as boys and lose their virginity as soon as they get a Facebook account and a mobile. You can definitely see people with more money in their pockets than dignity in their daily actions, on these streets. At least in London, people have to spend a million pounds to live in an area where they can be spared such depressing sights as you have listed. And that just for the house, an old 70/80 square meters conversion. Add up school fees, transport fees, bills et cetera, and you see everybody but the truly privileged super-rich is either in the arms of mediocrity or cornered by it.
Just saw a tv show about the UK’s single parent families. A million kids growing up without a father figure in the household. Increasing by 20,000 a year! Danger Will Robinson, Danger, Danger!
Absolutely. In fact, you know what? I think that could be one of the main reasons why girls grow up so bitter and fragile under that veneer of feminist pride and independence. All the frustrations and the grudges for not being able to enjoy a full-rounded paternal figure, the tough and benign, the sweet and structuring paternal figure, are projected against their male peers, or maledom in general. Never thought about it, but it kind of makes sense. Every hug and kiss those girls missed from their dads, they will withhold from us. And every slap they didn’t get, they will inflict on to us twofold.
Please discuss your thoughts on the impact of the World Wars on modern British culture and society.
where is this quote from? thanks
The roman saying I don’t recall where I got it, it was just attributed to Rome in general. The second sentence is my own but I’m paraphrasing Nietzsche.
Someone needs to put that quote on a T-shirt and send it to me.
I loved studying the classics during my high school years and don’t remember ever encountering the above saying. Roman society was indeed seated in social inequality, especially when comparing urban with rural life. Like the Greeks, the Romans were also aware that talent doesn’t necessarily come from privileged environments but from personality, superior learning and hard life experience. In imperial Rome, it was customary for rich families to adopt or sponsor under-privileged children and young slaves who would show talent. Rome’s greatest emperor after Julius Caesar, Caesar Augustus, was born in what we would now define a lower-middle class family.
A typo in the first sentence, really?
This article is going to offend the contributors of ROK with an equalist persuasion, as well as the commenters with the same affliction.
If the purple-pilled among us must be outed, then I say: let the outing commence.
Amen
Equality is human magnanimity used as a weapon against human nobility.
The funny thing is; in the natural state men are relatively equal. And as the saying goes; Sam Colt only made them more so. Virtually all the factors contributing to escalating unequality over the past several centuries, as well as in the end stages of social experiments of bygone times, have come about by some initially fairly equal men letting their guard down long enough that clawing back what they lost suddenly seems an insurmountable task. In places where that initial fall did not happen, like Afghanistan, you get a much truer picture of how relatively equal men truly are.
Vonnegut wrote that story as a satire on the paradoxes of socialism to defuse the sweeping fear of anything that came “from the East”. This article and most of its comments show that, 50 years later, the average American is still confusing egalitarianism with enforced mediocrity. Case in point for Vonnegut’s story.
The goal of socialism, indeed of any good social policy, begins from recognising inequality as a permanent aspect of the human condition. People have been born poor and rich, ugly and handsome, dumb and smart, and such differentiation will continue unabated till the time of our extinction.
The role of social policy is to mitigate that inequality by giving equal access to those opportunities for an individual to improve his condition. The successful will manage to become a privileged, the unsuccessful will remain anchored to its present status. Either outcome, the choice should be there, and should be given at the lowest possible cost of access.
Feeding the perceptive with noise and the physically able with weights is exactly the opposite of what a socialist society does, or should do. In most Scandinavian countries, Russia and even Italy, university education is free or virtually free and of a quality an American college grad can only dream of (for that price, at least). The healthcare system is inexpensive and well balanced in terms of quality/service ratio.
Ironic how the enforcement of a conformist rule, if anything for the sole profit of a selected transnational powers, has always come from capitalist models, not socialist ones. Aren’t the US that famous place where stuff that really shouldn’t matter in a man’s life – junk food, the latest iGadgets, countless, mind-numbing hours spent in front of a TV show or XBox game etc. – is cheap and easily accessible, while what’s most conducive to his well being and betterment – education and healthcare, opportunities for cultural development, solid bonds of friendship and love – are incredibly elusive and expensive?
Please think, why would Vonnegut have wanted to pen a satire of socialism, if not to warn us that capitalism and its farcical notions were something a lot more serious and potentially dangerous to us?
“In most Scandinavian countries, Russia and even Italy, university education is free or virtually free and of a quality an American college grad can only dream of (for that price, at least).”
And yet the best colleges are all American ones.
“The healthcare system is inexpensive and well balanced in terms of quality/service ratio.”
Most countries with a universal healthcare system are going bankrupt, but America’s healthcare system is ruined by it’s corporatism more than the lack of free healthcare.
All in all, socialism really offers nothing, and it’s also true that most socialist countries have really ugly women.
Sameea
I have ben through the US school system upt to the Ph. D. level, and have had 6 children go through the system. The last two are in college now. When you say the best Universities are American, I ask you best at what? American Universities chose the German model long ago. This model prioritizes faculty research over educating students. Teaching is an after thought in every American University I have been involved with except one. That one was a military academey steeped in eliteism, and where the students competed at the highest level to get in, were paid to go to school, and where the slightest weakness shown was ruthlessly culled. This is not the American Univeristy norm.
Small liberal arts colleges (Colby, Antioch, Bates, Hamilton, Bard, Bowdoin, Kenyon) focus on students over research. As an introvert, I knew I would thrive on a small campus in the middle of nowhere Maine or Vermont than on a large urban one in New York City, Boston or Chicago. Unfortunately, it meant less pussy action, less internship and networking opportunities, and a price tag equal to a major research uni. Oh well, can’t win them all!
Everytime somebody mentions Socialism and Scandinavia in the same post I feel compelled to point out that ‘yes’, socialist policies can “work” in a manner of speaking, given a very unique set of circumstances. Namely, a super small population with an enormous amount of resources. Kuwait has zero sales tax, and zero income tax. They can do this because all of their military defense needs are met by the United States and they are sitting on a whole bunch of the world’s most precious fossil fuel. Aside from that, this notion that Americans are fat, lazy, and stupid is funny to me because we still take most of the gold medals in the Olympics, and we land robots on Mars. Hmm.
Well designed and implemented, social(ist) policies are the just counterbalance to unbridled free market economy. Go figure: the US are resource-rich and large and powerful, everything mankind could need in one single country. And with all its perks, one has to wonder why they have been doing so very litte to improve the quality of life of its populace at large. You get the most Olympic medals because you have great ethnical diversity and a well-oiled champion-making machine that starts with college scholarships and ends with billionaire sponsors. And you may well land robots on Mars, but those missions are usually the result of massive teamwork from dozens of national space agencies the world over. And by the way, you have never landed on the moon. 🙂
Oddly enough, a reference to this story has just appeared in the LRB: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n16/rebecca-solnit/diary