Wednesday, June 18, 2014

Game — Just What Is It?

When I first heard about "game," I dismissed it as just the latest variation of the same old Hugh Hefner BS pseudo-philosophy of hedonism. But maybe not. Not entirely, at least. The thing about Hefnerian hedonism is, it seems to be in a peaceful alliance with feminism, and to have been so for decades. It doesn't have to make sense on the surface. Maybe the idea is to get girls all used up and shopworn so they'll be ready to turn over to the feminist apparat-chicks. Clearly, heedless promiscuity is a fundamental value of both the bunny guys of the Hefner world and the bitchy girls of the feminist establishment.

But "game" seems to be anti-feminist. At least, Chateau Heartiste, over there on the blogroll, certainly seems to be anti-feminist, and he seems to be in the "game" game.

So, as the old joke has it about the Marine fighting in the Pacific who overheard a Japanese soldier cursing Roosevelt, it can't be all bad. Well, Gregory Hood has been studying this for awhile, so I defer to him on the subject. At Counter-Currents Publishing, he writes:


The Sexual Counter-Revolution

Game is the male revolt against the sexual caste system imposed by feminism. The “red pill” is simply an acknowledgement that what women say they want, and what they actually want, are two different things. Even some women who say that they want a “traditional” relationship are not willing to do what it takes to get this by actually behaving like a lady, staying in shape, or not detonating a relationship over trivia. By definition, game is men learning whatactually works with women and using it to fulfill their primal needs for sex, companionship, and, ultimately, fulfilling relationships and family life. 
When a member of the Parasitic Class like an affirmative action journalist or Women’s Studies professor gives his or her opinion on something, it behooves the reader to ask himself, “How does this person benefit if I believe what they are telling me?” The feminist rage against game is the rage of the effete fop against his uppity peasants. Game shifts the frame on sexual politics by allowing men to reclaim sexual power, punish female misbehavior, and pursue their own interests. It is aspirational, teaching people to look above their station, and in that sense, it is a destabilizing force within the social system. It teaches men to break free of their assigned place as the kulaks in the modern social order, responsible for subsidizing everyone else.
Notably, while “men’s sites” like Return of Kings focus on self-improvement, learning skills, and physical fitness, recent feminist writing has focused on justifying or even promoting moral flaws such as obesity, adultery, and fraud. The manosphere promotes excellence; feminism promotes equality. The default feminist rhetoric on sexual politics seems to be an inexhaustible series of variations on the theme of “Wow, just wow.” It’s not surprisingly that in such an intellectual desert even somewhat juvenile articles on “text message game” seem like an oasis.
Moreover “game” fits into the subset of Dissident Right movements that recognize there is no contradiction between Traditionalism and science. “Game” heaps scorn on the“pedestaling” behavior of many religious conservatives and reactionaries who want to treat women like medieval princesses. Instead, game recognizes that women are sexually voracious in their own way, that they derive much of their self and societal value from their sexuality, and that many of the conservative beliefs about chivalry and virtuous women only make sense in a social context that privileges patriarchy, families, and fidelity. If there is one Christian teaching I can agree with, it is the doctrine of “total depravity” for both men and women.
It’s not that “science” is an enemy of Tradition – it’s that certain small “t” traditions arose because human beings act with an evolutionary program running in the background. The impulses of sexual selection, competition, and attraction are rooted deep within the unconscious of the species. So-called “social constructs,” like prizing female virginity, or the willingness of men to sacrifice for women, are rooted in biological and empirical realities, not religious mysticism.
What defines the real modern Right, as opposed to the reactionaries, is understanding that objective realities are reflected within ancient mythologies and practices. The traditionalist teachings of thousands of years ago are more applicable to modern society than a PhD’s eminently credentialed and empirically flawed ramblings on Jezebel. We should be cautious about modern intellectuals casually dismissing the wisdom of millennia as “outdated” when these same people will mock religious beliefs while holding far more absurd (and less empirically supported) beliefs about racial equality.
(Read the rest HERE.)
-----
Quibcag: I thought it would be appropriate to illustrate the quite with my favorite romanic couple, Ranma and Akane from Ranma ½ (らんま½).

4 comments:

  1. "If there is one Christian teaching I can agree with, it is the doctrine of “total depravity” "

    Total Depravity is a Point of Calvinism, all 5 points of Calvinism are Heretical to true Biblical Christianity that is based on Salvation by Faith alone and Eternal Security.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You must check out the Manhood Academy for some real anti-feminist wisdom which counters all that pretentious alpha pseudo-male delusions of game and hefnerism.

    These guys cut straight to the point, and White Men would be wise to read their free ebook.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not just white men, ALL MEN OF EVERY COLOR

      Delete
  3. I've pointed out for years you'll learn more from myths and "fairy tales" than modern garbage.

    ReplyDelete