The Roissysphere and its moral and intellectual objectives: a proposed manifesto

The ever-inquisitive Posec left this comment on my “Funny People” post:

From the tenor of this piece you clearly have an animus for Sandler’s “morally suspect” alpha character yet you will take mincing betas to task when they end up acting like Rogen’s conciliating Ira. What eludes me is that while you champion game as a salve for society’s ills (and berate conservatives for failing to do so), the adoption thereof would entail the alpha behavior exhibited by Simmons–which you did not heartily endorse–with all the concomitant callousness. If you indeed find such behavior reprehensible, how is this to be reconciled with your touting of an ideology which glorifies it? This is a matter of genuine curiosity–the resolution of which might not be so elusive after all if my conjectures are correct–but what say you?

While writing out my response, I realized that what I had to say on this matter needed to be seen by as many people as possible, so I promised to answer his question on the blog today.

I’ve been helped in this by comments and writings from other bloggers recently. The Elusive Wapiti left this comment on the blog last week:

As a side note, I also find it interesting that so many men on a diversity of sites (game blogs, Christian blogs, etc) have come to the same conclusion that underinvested men aren’t a healthy thing for a society. For crying out loud, the social scientists (I use that term loosely) note–and have been warning for years–that the glut of unmarried guys in Asian societies breed discontent, crime, and terrorism. Why would the glut of unmarried guys in the West have any different effect?

Φ of Delenda est Carthago wrote this, striking at the heart of what I want to discuss:

Likewise, an understanding of HBD recommends two different but not necessarily contradictory approaches to the problem of beta sexual impoverishment:

• On the micro level, betas should learn game (the PUA community); and

• On the macro level, we must reverse the social policies of the last 40 years (social conservatives).

Personally, I recommend both. I appreciate the criticism that the social conservative program is unlikely, but at least legally and socially enforced monogamy has the advantage of having worked at widely distributing sexual access and, yeah, also sustaining civilization.

Finally, a leftist chickblogger linked to my Sodini post and in addition to the usual accusations of misogyny (or, in her case, “mysogyny”) and getting my name wrong (its Ferdinand Bardamu, honey – get some culture if you don’t understand the reference), she used the opportunity to display her half-assed knowledge of evolutionary psychology and sexuality:

Sexual partners are chosen by women based on, virility, the ability to care, and availability of  superior sperm. Are you a virile, stable man who has a superior gene pool? Well, you will get the best women.  However, it is also more likely that you will  be cheated on. It’s falsehood that women don’t like to keep their options open. It’s not personal, we just want the best genes. If you don’t have them, well I guess you are shit out of luck.

So, according to Dogwoman, being an alpha male makes you MORE likely to be cuckolded. The seduction community LIED to me! Thank Yahweh there’s an obscure grrlblogger with poor spelling and grammar to set me straight.

Men are not [selective], not really. A chance for gene exchange is a chance for gene exchange. Sure they like ‘em young because the chance for continued reproduction is higher but really, they’ll take what’s available in the pool. As often as possible. In the weirdest settings.

That explains why cougars have to force themselves onto men in order to have a prayer of being noticed, something young women, outside of hookers, never do. And why whenever a granny is widowed, there’s never a line of dudes looking to hit that shit.

Female service goes to those who offer the best choice for survival of the offspring.

Funny how the type of men who receive “female service” has changed in recent years. I wasn’t aware that the sideshow freak with the pierced soul patch and fruity pimp hat is “the best choice for survival of the offspring,” or why women only realized this in the past twenty years.

If MF wants to throw some kind of evil man hating plot into it, well, that’s his right. His bizarre UPDATED ranting about ugly middle aged women not being good enough to sleep with tells me that he is probably a Beta male as well.

Not wanting to screw miserable, infertile old hags makes a man beta? Somebody should alert Roissy and Roosh – they’ve been living a lie!

I could go on for the rest of this post, but Dogwoman’s argument boils down to this: the West’s current sociosexual configuration reflects the laws of nature, beta males are supposed to get screwed over in nature, therefore they deserve to get screwed over by our society. The only recourse for betas, according to this logic, is to bend over and butter up. She’s essentially arguing for social Darwinism, which is verboten when talking about blacks or poor people, but is apparently A-OK when it comes to men. Had Dogwoman been alive in previous eras, she’d likely be publishing polemics on why blacks deserved to be enslaved or why Jews deserved to be gassed with Zyklon-B. It’s because Mother Nature wills it!

The issue that I and other bloggers are confronting here is the sexual impoverishment of beta males in the modern West. Western civilization is uniquely superior to all other societies because it was built by and for betas, harnessing their physical and mental power to create advanced technology, stable systems of governance, and economic prosperity. No other civilization – not the Chinese, not the Africans, not the Arabs, not the Amerindians – has ever managed to reach the heights obtained by European states and their offshoots because of this crucial difference. The reason angry ladybloggers can sit on their dimpled derrieres in air conditioned buildings and write blog posts displaying their painful ignorance to the world is because of the beta males who designed and built all of those things. Without them, as Camille Paglia said, “we would still be living in grass huts.”

To benefit betas and keep them invested in society, checks were placed on the sexual behavior of women and the alpha males whom they lusted after. The configuration of marriage afforded betas a chance to procreate, while protecting the women with whom they entered into holy matrimony. In the past four decades, these checks have been annihilated. Using the power of the state, radical feminists initiated a massive redistribution of wealth from the provider beta class to women. Alimony and child support payments, along with no-fault divorce, have annihilated marriage’s value, while welfare state programs such as WIC (Women, Infants, Children) reward women who become pregnant out of wedlock. Put simply, the socialist state has reduced the value of the provider beta to nothing. If provider betas were a corporation, it would have filed for bankruptcy and had its assets sold to the highest bidder years ago. Without the opportunity to reproduce, betas will give the bird to society and drop out, leaving the world to rot.

With their value gone, betas have no choice but to learn game to have a crack at getting laid (exempting prostitution, which is illegal, costly, and isn’t as satisfying as nailing a woman who WANTS your love-wrench in her she-place). The nature of game allows any guy to apply its teachings to his life, right away and without delay. However, game is not a complete long-term solution to society’s woes. Urging betas to take on the behavior and mannerisms of alphas will get their penises wet, but it will hasten the coming collapse. A nation of badboys is a nation that will cease to exist in time.

It is important to remember that the existing system that allows women to act out their hypergamous desires is in no way a creation of nature. “Empowered” and “independent” women are dependent on the state-sanctioned transfer of wealth to themselves through welfare, alimony, child support, and also need punitive laws such as VAWA, IMBRA, and “must-arrest” domestic violence clauses that afford them disproportionate power and privilege. Removing these laws and socialist wealth transfer agencies will tear the floorboards out from under the New Girl Order. Conservatism, with its credos of small government and social reservedness, is the ideal ideological system to accomplish these goals. However, working towards uprooting the anti-male government-media complex will take time, and no conservative thinker has proposed a way to address the needs of men right now.

With this, we return to the Φ post I quoted earlier:

Likewise, an understanding of HBD recommends two different but not necessarily contradictory approaches to the problem of beta sexual impoverishment:

• On the micro level, betas should learn game (the PUA community); and

• On the macro level, we must reverse the social policies of the last 40 years (social conservatives).

Personally, I recommend both. I appreciate the criticism that the social conservative program is unlikely, but at least legally and socially enforced monogamy has the advantage of having worked at widely distributing sexual access and, yeah, also sustaining civilization.

Ba-ba-ba-ba-bingo.

To combine these seemingly at odds goals, we need a new strain of conservatism that acknowledges the realities of human sexuality while maintaining its ideological integrity. The current crop of conservatives writing on this topic have failed us because they don’t understand the realities of the modern sexual marketplace. There is a ray of sunshine in this thunderstorm, though – we may not need them.

Consider Steve Sailer. I imagine most of my readers know who he is and what he writes on. During the 90’s, Sailer wrote for National Review, that venerable organ of respectable conservatism. For the past few years, though, Mr. Sailer has been blacklisted from NR and other mainstream venues – the only outlets that will publish him are “disrespectable” organizations like VDARE.com, the American Conservative, and Taki’s Magazine. And yet, with the rise of the Internet and blogs, Steve Sailer’s work has inspired a legion of similar-minded bloggers collectively known as the Steveosphere. Writers like Half Sigma, Ron Guhname, Razib Khan, and the Audacious Epigone have taken Sailer’s ideas and theories and used them to develop and present ones of their own. He may be a nonperson in our egalitarian public society, but Sailer has never had more influence then he does right now.

Similarly, in the last year, I’ve witnessed a community of writers and thinkers spring up around everyone’s favorite cad blog, Roissy in DC. Roissy isn’t the first person to write on seduction and what women want, but he is the first to link it to human biodiversity, conservatism, and the decline of civilization. His writings have influenced bloggers from all walks of life, including Whiskey, Novaseeker, Half Sigma, Michael Blowhard, Dennis Mangan, Welmer, Φ, Alpha Dominance, slumlord/The Social Pathologist, OneSTDV, Chuck, Keoni Galt/Dave in Hawaii, T. aka Ricky Raw, 11minutes, Ganttsquarry, myself, and many others who can be found on my blogroll. In fact, yesterday I plugged a new blog by DGL “devoted to the cause of the beta.” And this doesn’t cover the countless commenters at these sites that have ideas and theories of their own to contribute. With two or three exceptions, I found all of the bloggers listed in my “Game/Sexual Politics” category through Roissy. And like the Steveosphere, the writers of the Roissysphere have circumvented traditional methods of information propagation in order to present their ideas to the public. And we aren’t being ignored – the ideas put forth by Roissy are being discussed in other venues. Despite having only been blogging for a month, my own posts are being quoted and discussed on forums and blogs both sympathetic and hostile. The Roissysphere’s influence grows daily.

With that in mind, I propose a list of objectives that Roissysphere bloggers and denizens should consider. I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but I believe these goals are noble and necessary:

• We must mount an intellectual defense of the beta male. This includes illustrating the nature of the beta male’s role in creating, developing and maintaining civilization and the necessity of having them invested in society. Whiskey in particular has done admirable work in this department.
• We must provide a means by which beta males can sate their sexual lusts. Advocating game is the most obvious means to accomplish this, and the one I chiefly endorse, but I am open to other considerations. Some sectors of the MGTOW community have suggested expatriating to other countries with more amenable womenfolk, for instance.
• Outsiders regard our views as misogynistic – therefore, we must make the case as to how our proposals will benefit women as well as men. For example, liberated single women are disproportionately employed in professions that are dependent on a stable government and law and order. Should the government collapse, those women will be starving in the streets.
• Most importantly, we must work towards social, political, and economic changes that will destroy the existing sexual dystopia and secure a place for the provider betas in Western society.

The sole alternative to this is already occurring – the slow, painful collapse of the greatest and most humane civilization in mankind’s history. The devastation of Rust Belt cities such as Detroit is the result of the provider beta class disconnecting from society. This is the future of the West if we continue down our current path – infrastructural collapse, technological stagnation, and the breakdown of governments on every level. The black ghettos of the U.S. are the most stark examples of this coming hell. We’re reliving the fall of Rome. Restoring the role of the provider beta in society is the only way to prevent this disaster, and anyone who opposes liberation for beta males is an enemy of Western civilization.

The most significant revolutions did not begin out of nowhere. The American Revolution didn’t start with the Declaration of Independence or at the Battles of Lexington and Concord – it began a century before when John Locke published his Two Treatises of Government. Michael Blowhard has already posited the emergence of game as a revolt against modern society, and as my “Funny People” post showed, many are aware that something is drastically, seriously wrong in the West – all we need to do is show how the pieces fit in the puzzle.

My hope is that the Roissysphere will inspire a new generation of conservatives and libertarians who will put our ideas into action. The alternative is certain oblivion. My proposals may be a long-shot, but they’re something.