That seems to be the theme of the discussion on View from the Right. The heading of the post already sets the starkness of the situation and the tone “Can a pick-up technique save the West?”
We can surmise several things from this alone:
- They recognize that the west needs to be saved.
- Something only needs to be saved if it is in dire peril.
- The discussion (and their view point) is rigged against game since it either passes of fails on whether it can save the west.
Flipping the question back on them: Can their brand of conservatism save the west?
The answer, quite simply, is no. They cannot. Name one time in history when conservatism has stopped the fall of a civilization. Conservatism just slows the decline.
Their attitude is a foolish and arrogant one:
No, as the latest kids on the block of conservatism you will have to give a persuasive account of the conservative value of Game before we members of older conservative traditions will grant you respect. This account will have to define Game, show its connection with other basic human truths, show how it is the best response to the current situation, and show how it will contribute to the comprehensive restoration of society at which all true conservatism aims.
They can see the changes in society, yet they seem unaware of the shift that has caused these changes, or that men are responding and adapting to these changes. If you want to be relevant to men, you must offer them SOMETHING. Not shame, and not hope. Those are not enough.
What Alan R offers is an honorable death:
. . .we see in the Roissyites’ continuing promotion of and pursuit of sexual promiscuity even as Titanicis sinking . . . but is it not more honorable to fight the cause of social decay rather than just accommodate one’s self to the symptoms?
The Titanic. Consider that right there.
LA replies: According to Game, human virtue, particularly female human virtue, is an impossibility. Acceptable (not virtuous) female behavior can be brought about ONLY by men treating women like slaves, animals, or machines–in any case, by absolutely controlling them, because they are by nature incapable of being anything other than whores. Can any pro-Game conservative explain how this is compatible with a conservative or traditionalist vision of society?
Notice how the question gets skewed. LA and others recognize at some level that all men and women are “fallen” They recognize that social controls are necessary in order for society to survive and function. (The most important being marriage) and yet, when faced with the idea that game is about restoring some form of control of human behavior to control the most destructive impluses of individuals they recoil in horror and describe it as treating women as “slaves, animals, or machines.”
Does not the traditionalist view of marriage place the man as the head of the household? The king of his castle? The ultimate authority? If not, explain how you are a traditionalist?
A more thorough reading of game theory shows that one of the fundamental things a man needs to do, is lead in his relationships. To be decisive. To act like a man, the way men used to act before they became feminized. To act the way women find them attractive. To stop being doormats to women (which is not attractive). To hold his opinions as being as valuable as anyone else’s, and being true to himself is more important than the supposed favor you get by backpeddaling and demuring to women.
To be assertive.
These are all qualities that are admired in a man and fall within traditional masculinity.
In a comment by Alan R:
To be genuinely conservative, Game will have to acknowledge that man (including woman) is fallen, but capable of some virtue, provided he inhabits a social environment where he has incentives to act virtuously.” (emphasis added. Note how women are added almost as an after thought to the idea that men are fallen. Alan has some deep seated pedestaling beliefs. The fact that conservatives by and large pedestal women is part of the decay of our society that game combats).
A statement of truth by Alan, but then he immediately ignores what he is saying and goes right into the importance of convincing people of the higher truths of God. (I will save for a later post the fact that I see God as absolutely necessary for a thriving civilization and the fact that I no longer think Christianity is capable of doing this).
The reason Game is thriving is because there are no incentives for acting virtuously. Game recognizes that. It also recognizes that if a man is married, he better have game if he wants to stay married. Or to put it in a way that maybe social conservatives may understand: If a man is married he better know how to understand his wife and behave in a way that makes her invested in their relationship. That makes you the type of man that she can love and respect.
There are no social constructs left that will keep a man married, quite the contrary feminism and the liberals have done a beautiful job of destroying marriage by creating incentives for the vices of women, and disincentives for men to see the virtues of getting married.
Game at it’s core is telling men to stop being the feminized patsies that society has made them into. To start being men. To start leading your life, instead of letting it happen.
More to come . . .
