The outcome of the American Revolution was in doubt from the beginning. The colonists faced a wealthy European country with a well-equipped, professional army and the world’s most powerful navy. Although Americans of the time were a rugged, healthy and largely self-sufficient people, their rustic manners, disorganized militias and comparatively inexperienced military leadership were no match for the bloodthirsty redcoats, many of whom were thieves and cutthroats snatched off the streets of England’s dismal cities and beaten into vicious, remorseless and organized killers. And to add to the redcoat menace were the whooping, scalp-hunting savages to the west, armed by the British and driven into frenzies of bloodlust by a steady flow of firewater across the lawless frontier.
Moved by forethought, genuine patriotism and enthusiasm for the company of beautiful European ladies, America’s greatest statesman of all time set out to secure an alliance that would result in the salvation of his fledgling nation. By the time the American Revolution got under way, Benjamin Franklin was already advanced in years, but despite his bald head, spectacles, heavy paunch and coonskin cap, he was a smash hit with French women.
The men of France already admired Franklin greatly for his achievements in science and literature, but what really won over the entire nation was his passion for the Game. However, not all of America’s founding fathers were entirely pleased with Franklin’s methods, which seemed to some disorderly and wasteful, but with the benefit of hindsight, their efficacy can hardly be doubted.
John Adams, who was of a different sort of temperament and was initially sent as part of the same diplomatic mission, wrote dismissively of Franklin’s peccadillos:
The life of Dr. Franklin was a Scene of continuall discipation [...] It was late when he breakfasted, and as soon as the breakfast was over, a crowd of carriages came to his Levee or if you like the term better his Lodgings, with all Sorts of People; some Phylosophers, Academicians and Economists [...] but by far the greater part were Women and Children, come to have the honour to see the great Franklin, and to have the pleasure of telling Stories about his Simplicity, his bald head and scattering straight hairs…
–The Diary and Autobiography of John Adams
Adams was probably a bit jealous, and the attention Franklin garnered likely wounded his pride, but this was France, after all, and the love the French had for Franklin turned out to be a very valuable asset.
Despite Adams’ account, it wasn’t simply Franklin’s reputation for simplicity and eccentricity that scored points with the ladies; John Adams, beta that he was, was blind to the diligent effort and skill that went into Franklin’s brand of diplomacy. It was his eagerness to play along and his attention to the finer points of Game that elevated Franklin to such mythic proportions amongst the ladies of France.
For example, we like to think of the text message and email as revolutionary tools for social networking, but in the France of Franklin’s day people were in the habit of sending countless notes and letters per day — especially women. These notes were often as pointless as your typical text message, sometimes including nothing more than a teasing or scolding word or two, or some invitation to dinner, or for a walk in the park or whatever else might be desired by an acquaintance.
Franklin made it a point to keep up his correspondence as best he could, writing volumes of letters to his female admirers. Many of those that survive included references to acts of physical intimacy and “professions of undying love and demands [...] for greater intimacies with what would seem to be a whole harem of passionate and beautiful women.” [Edmund S. Morgan in The Genuine Article, chapter 16 "Secrets of Benjamin Franklin"]
As this quote from Morgan’s book demonstrates, his letters also reveal the subtle use of Game tactics such as push-pull:
Franklin may complain to Madame Helvétius, with whom he says he has spent “so many of his days,” because “she seems very ungrateful in never giving him one of her nights.” But when a lady actually yields to such entreaties, he asks for a delay “until the nights were longer.”
[ibid]
Although he had long been well-known to French intellectuals and men of society, French men viewed Franklin’s dalliances with women as though he were engaged in a sport — one that they themselves enthusiastically participated in as well. His skill at Game greatly raised the French estimate of the American character, leading them to take the budding country more seriously, and soon money and aid began to pour into the Revolutionary cause.
Ultimately, Franklin’s diplomatic mission was such a resounding success that the French Navy sent a fleet to relieve American forces during the most crucial point of the American Revolution, ensuring America’s victory and Independence.
Although a man bereft of the accomplishments of Franklin could not expect to have been taken as seriously as he was, yet a man of unquestioned intellectual brilliance and accomplishment never could have accomplished as much for his country as Franklin did without Game. Without Benjamin Franklin in all his incarnations – author, inventor, and master of Game – the world’s most powerful nation could easily have died in its infancy.
Subscribe to The Spearhead Newsletter for a free copy of the Book of Zed
{ 4 trackbacks }
{ 43 comments… read them below or add one }
Welmer,
Superb article. You just gave the socialcons/betacons a vein-popping stroke.
Someone like Pons Seclorum, who is very anti-Game, but considers himself a ‘punctilious student of history’ should see this.
now this is what i’m talking about. founding fathers, game, french women, america. what’s not to like?
Interesting that the principles of “Game” are almost identical to what was simply considered admirable and effective masculinity before the feminitwits spread their mental illnesses through the culture.
Inventive! I believe he also hung out with a kinky swinger’s club during some trips to England…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellfire_Club
Excellent post, Welmer.
The Fifth Horseman:
“Superb article. You just gave the socialcons/betacons a vein-popping stroke.
Someone like Pons Seclorum, who is very anti-Game, but considers himself a ‘punctilious student of history’ should see this.”
Dude, I don’t agree with Pons Seclorum, but he’s not “anti-game.” If anyone should see it, it’s the guy I called out on this Delenda est Carthago post. From his writings, it’s painfully obvious he doesn’t know what game is and he probably couldn’t even define it in his own words if asked.
zed:
“Interesting that the principles of “Game” are almost identical to what was simply considered admirable and effective masculinity before the feminitwits spread their mental illnesses through the culture.”
I’ve been making this argument for a while now. In fact, I’m working on a piece for The Spearhead in that vein.
Edit – that should read “I don’t ALWAYS agree with Pons Seclorum”
Interesting that the principles of “Game” are almost identical to what was simply considered admirable and effective masculinity before the feminitwits spread their mental illnesses through the culture.
AND before ’socialcons’ decided to become the pawns of feminists in a campaign to swindle and subjugate the average man.
Ferds,
From his writings, it’s painfully obvious he doesn’t know what game
Yes.
is and he probably couldn’t even define it in his own words if asked.
I HAVE asked him (and Todd White, Larry Auster, etc.) many times, and he/they pretend to not see the question. Try it yourself, and see. They will not even ATTEMPT to prove that they can define it.
Thus, his anti-Game stance comes from ignorance (as is also the case with other Betacons, MRA liabilites like Porky Domesticus, etc.)
His anti-Game position is due to ignorance, so he is ‘ignorantly anti-Game’, if you will.
Interesting that the principles of “Game” are almost identical to what was simply considered admirable and effective masculinity before the feminitwits spread their mental illnesses through the culture.
The more I think about this the less I’m surprised by it. A lot of what we call game now was passed on from father to son. Feminists broke that link by forcing fathers out of the family. Add in media that spreads feminist lies and you have most of the population of men never knowing what the principles of effective masculinity are aka game.
“Dude, I don’t ALWAYS agree with Pons Seclorum, but he’s not “anti-game.”–Ferd
Ferdinand is right that I am not anti-game because, as Zed put it, “the principles of “Game” are almost identical to what was simply considered admirable and effective masculinity before the feminitwits spread their mental illnesses through the culture.” What I do quibble over is TFH’s insistence that socons/trads had “decided to become the pawns of feminists in a campaign to swindle and subjugate the average man.” Yet, according to his narrative, everyone except insiders were blindsided by the amendment of the divorce laws so no alliances or opposition should have had a chance to coalesce in the first place.
Ponsie,
I have told you before that I can accept your alternative explaination that socialcons were too dimwitted and oafish to notice what feminists where doing, and thus were not complicit in some nefarious scheme that was done under their noses.
I would agree with you there.
But now for the next question :
Define, in your words, what Game is.
TFH, I will define it again (although why does one who does not oppose game/former masculinity outright have to define it?) when you undo the knots in your narrative on the divorce laws. Tell me, how was it that socons were conspiring with the feminists when none but the leftist cabal knew what transpiring? If you explain this away by saying that the socons were oblivious to this clandestine development on account of their purported mental shortcomings, how come another more incisive group, perhaps a centrist one, did not raise the clarion? Above all, why did the neocon luminaries stand about in indolence? As a neocon yourself, do you feel somewhat ashamed of their muted mouths? Would you brand neocons as “dimwitted and oafish”?
Feminists and Social Conservatives cluelessly proselytizing for Islam :
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2009/10/06/feminists-and-social-conservatives-cluelessly-proselytizing-for-islam/
Ponsie,
Hiding again, I see.
You still can’t define Game, can you? You have agreed that Game resides one level higher in Maslow’s hierarchy than social cons do, and your continual inability to define Game shows that you can’t grasp it (which 80% of men cannot do).
Socialcons held themselves out as upholders of ‘traditional values’ (which, as per the main article, socialcons are oblivious to). Everything socialcons claim to support was changed with zero resistance from them, which makes socialcons oafish and dimwitted at best, and sinister and complicit at worst.
You know this is true. Your weak attempts to pass the buck onto newer groups is evidence of socialcon shame.
“You have agreed that Game resides one level higher in Maslow’s hierarchy than social cons do, and your continual inability to define Game shows that you can’t grasp it (which 80% of men cannot do).”
Can you quote me on that? I would argue that you and certain other gamers are not self-actualized since, if you truly understood game yourself, why do feel the continuing need to discuss its minutiae in several fora? You should have internalized its tenets by now so what goals remain to you to achieve, what debates for you to win? Also, where did you get that 80% figure? Why not 57.5?%
“Everything socialcons claim to support was changed with zero resistance from them, which makes socialcons oafish and dimwitted at best, and sinister and complicit at worst.”
Or it could be because the amendments were furtively passed per your explanation. Care to change your narrative?
“You know this is true. Your weak attempts to pass the buck onto newer groups is evidence of socialcon shame.”
And you, as a neocon who remained silent during that time, refuse to accept any blame for your passivity and inefficacy in resisting feminism. Instead, you weave specious tales where your group conveniently gets a pass for dereliction.
Thought you’d like this one, Roissy.
Thanks for reminding me to tag French women. What a careless oversight on my part…
Ponsie,
Yawn….. you continue to attempt to set the world record for using the most words to say the least.
1) You cannot define Game. You have been asked several times, and many have pointed out that it is beyond your comprehension.
2) Can you quote me on that? It is all over In Mala Fide. While you are there, you are still obligated to produce a profound and punctilious assessment of Obsidian’s judgement about how socialcons failed so totally.
3) Socialcons are the very epitome of weakness and impotence for having a 100% failure rate in achieving your political goals in the last 40 years. No other group, left or right, has been such a shameful failure as socialcons. Even now, you admit that something furtive passed under your Betacon nose and you were helpless to defend what you claim to value. This leads us to the inescapable conclusion that :
4) Socialcons/betacons are either incredibly dimwitted, or are sinister allies of feminists. Or both.
5) No one follows a group of losers. Socialcons, being the most unsuccessful political faction of all, thus have no followers, and are a laughingstock.
Again, you have no solutions, only whining. You can’t even assess Obsidian’s comment of the month (August) which effectively hangs socialcons out to dry.
a) I am not a neocon, or even a big political person
b) Neocons have not held themselves out as guardians of traditional values, the way Betacons have. Neocons have not failed at neocon goals, the whey socialcons have failed at socialcon goals.
Results matter. You don’t seem to grasp this, which is why it is clear that socialcons are drifting into becoming part of the left, rather than the right. Again, we have been over this.
Be a man (a concept lost on socialcons) and take responsibility for your failures, for that is the first step towards regaining respect from your former allies.
Ponsie,
Welmer’s essay on socialcons exposes them completely. You have not rebutted the points, so you are admitting their truth :
http://www.welmer.org/2009/09/13/defining-social-conservatism/
In addition, the essays on socialcon failure from a) Obsidian, and b) Ferdinand Bardamu are also unchallenged by you.
That is three essays that expose the truth about socialcons. There isn’t really much more to add to these epitaphs of a failed group.
And you, TFH, continue to epitomize redundancy. For a self-touting thinking outside the box figure, you rarely say anything that has not been reiterated several times previously and which has also been conclusively refuted e.g. even Obsidian no longer defends his August comment of the month while you tightly cling to it trying to wring out some vestigial value.
“Be a man (a concept lost on socialcons) and take responsibility for your failures, for that is the first step towards regaining respect from your former allies.”…”I am not a neocon, or even a big political person”
Thanks to your political inaction you most likely abetted the passage of the very laws you despise. Responsible much?
“1) You cannot define Game. You have been asked several times, and many have pointed out that it is beyond your comprehension.”
Who are these many? Again, actual quotes and not just speculation. The opinions of sock puppets like ‘Gamebit’ do not count.
“Welmer’s essay on socialcons exposes them completely. You have not rebutted the points, so you are admitting their truth”
Here is Hermes from that very thread: “Who passed all those alimony laws? Who drafted the 19th amendment and the ERA? Who decided Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade? Senators, Congressmen, and judges. Powerful men in positions of high authority. In other words, ALPHA MALES.
The Fifth Horseman seems to me like the highschooler who reads The Fountainhead, or the college freshman suddenly freed from the authority of his parents who decides he’s an atheist, thinks he’s suddenly grasped the truth of the universe, and goes around bashing everyone on the head with it, trying to shout them down until they submit. He just reads like a naive kid who doesn’t actually know what he’s talking about but is merely parroting lines he’s picked up from some authority figure he idolizes.”
Refute that or admit its truth.
“Feminists broke that link by forcing fathers out of the family.”
This is loser-thinking crap. Feminism is a weak force, compared to the sheer massive weight of fathers who have simply abandoned the active caring for their own sons. The story of the good and willing father who is denied custody is tragic and unpardonable. But that case is far outweighed by the volumes of fathers who happily consent to seeing their kids only a couple time a month (at most).
Blaming feminism for the failure of fathers to take an active role in their sons’ lives is bunk. The fact is, most men abandon their own offspring for the very express purposes of Game: to increase their odds of getting laid.
Game and responsible fatherhood are diametrically opposed, and all you Game cool-aid drinkers need to shut up until you have children and are raising them.
You Game boys are quick to whine about socons and betacons and feminism, but who among you has sons and daughters?
Who among you has fought FOR custody?
Who has sacrificed social life and sexual opportunity for offspring?
Game is for the childish idiots whose higest ideal is getting laid, and who have expressed THANKS for legalized abortion, and are quick to encourage their knocked up lovers to SNUFF OUT their own offspring.
Sick. Perverse. Evil.
You jackasses pretend to be making a point because someone won’t define Game, and tell yourselves opposition stems from ignorance? What a joke.
Right now, name me ONE GAME blog that is also devoted to fatherhood? Just one!!!
Typical Gamer = Nacissistic childist whiner.
The fact is, most men abandon their own offspring for the very express purposes of Game: to increase their odds of getting laid.
Do you have any evidence for that, other than perhaps your own anecdotal experience? I have directly witnessed maybe one or two examples in my entire life – about the same as women abandoning their children. I have seen far more cases of psychological distance than actual physical abandonment.
Justin:
“This is loser-thinking crap. Feminism is a weak force, compared to the sheer massive weight of fathers who have simply abandoned the active caring for their own sons. The story of the good and willing father who is denied custody is tragic and unpardonable. But that case is far outweighed by the volumes of fathers who happily consent to seeing their kids only a couple time a month (at most).”
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing people like you that he doesn’t exist. You claim that “volumes of fathers who happily consent to seeing their kids only a couple time a month (at most)” outnumber “good and willing father[s] who [are] denied custody” runs counter to MRA wisdom, so I hope you’ve got some evidence to back up your claims.
“The fact is, most men abandon their own offspring for the very express purposes of Game: to increase their odds of getting laid.”
That’s a disgusting lie, and you should be ashamed of yourself for even stating it. Glenn Sacks and other MRA bloggers have covered this beat adequately. The entire family court system is anti-male to the core. From day one, if you are a father, the entire system is rigged to bring you down. Don’t tell me you’re going to start bleating about the myth of “deadbeat dads” now.
“You Game boys are quick to whine about socons and betacons and feminism, but who among you has sons and daughters?”
Do I need to shove a metal fork into an outlet in order to know that electric shocks are painful? Do I need to get raped by the misandrist legal system to know that starting a family in 2009 America is a losing proposition?
“Who has sacrificed social life and sexual opportunity for offspring?”
No sane man will get married and start a family when there’s a fifty/fifty chance the marriage will end in divorce, which will in all likelihood be initiated by the woman, who will in all likelihood get custody of the children and punishing alimony and child support payments. If not wanting to make myself a slave to a society that is only interested in exploiting me for its own greedy ends is immoral, I don’t want to be moral.
“Game is for the childish idiots whose higest ideal is getting laid, and who have expressed THANKS for legalized abortion, and are quick to encourage their knocked up lovers to SNUFF OUT their own offspring.”
Game is a tool. Tools are morally neutral, and can be used for good or evil purposes. Whenever someone pulls out an example of someone using game for moralistic ends (such as Dave from Hawaii/Hawaiian Libertarian), you people conveniently ignore them to cherry-pick quotes from people like Roissy. Is it any wonder no one takes you seriously?
“Sick. Perverse. Evil.”
Just keep digging, pal…
“You jackasses pretend to be making a point because someone won’t define Game, and tell yourselves opposition stems from ignorance? What a joke.”
In order to properly oppose or support something, one has to KNOW what that thing is. This is Debate 101. From your writings on game, both on your own blog and on other venues, I think I’m justified in saying you don’t know what it is, and therefore you aren’t qualified to discuss it. Evidence? Your whole “positive masculinity” shtick IS game – there is no difference. Your obsession with trying to differentiate yourself from the Roissysphere, when in fact you’re advocating the same thing we’re advocating, is laughable.
Of course, I could be wrong. So Justin, tell me, in your own words, what game is, and I and others will take your criticism seriously.
“Right now, name me ONE GAME blog that is also devoted to fatherhood? Just one!!!”
Incentives. Matter. If the only reason you can give to as why men should become fathers is something along the lines of “God/society/I/some BS moral code says you should,” you will lose the argument, as you deserve to.
“Typical Gamer = Nacissistic childist whiner.”
Says the guy who explodes in a tantrum whenever anybody challenges him on this point.
This ‘Justin’ is a perfect example of how the lines between socialcons and manginas have been greatly blurred. ‘He’ represents the merging of these two sordid groups.
Ferds asked :
So Justin, tell me, in your own words, what game is, and I and others will take your criticism seriously.
You will get NO answer from Justin. The same question posed to Ponsie, Todd White, Conor FriederDork, etc. also gets no answer.
At least Ponsie is relatively polite, but he is not the student of history he claims to be, as he would otherwise be in full agreement with Welmer’s original post on Ben Franklin and Game.
Ponsie,
You can’t answer simple questions, can you. Define Game, since Justin cannot. You can’t, can you?
The essays by Welmer, Obsidian, and Ferdinand say it all. Social conservatism is THE most failure-oriented ideology alive today.
Socialcons/betacons held themselves out as defenders of ‘family values’. Now, you pathetically say that centrists, neocons, fiscal cons, libertarians, etc. were equally responsible for blocking feminism, which is about as dumb of a statement as saying that the victims of 9/11 were just as responsible for foiling the plot as the CIA and FBI were.
Plus, none of these groups are presently aligning with feminists, the way socialcons are.
You cannot rebut any of these three essays that expose the truth about socialcons. That effectively ends the debate.
Remember, it is you who needs the Game community. Neither we nor anybody else needs socialcons.
Actually, Justin fits Welmer’s definition of a socialcon perfectly. Justin would qualify as ‘Exhibit A’ to support Welmer’s correct deduction that a PUA is morally superior to a socialcon.
Of course, not every man with Game is a PUA. So in terms of moral integrity :
Man with LTR Game > PUA > Socialcon
Welmer’s article is also a perfect example how someone higher in Maslow’s hierarchy can easily describe someone lower (a socialcon), but how someone lower (sociacon) has zero ability to grasp a concept that resides higher (Game), despite being asked a simple question, that should trigger basic curiousity, again and again.
Sorry, that should be (hierarchy of moral integrity) :
Man with LTR Game > PUA > Socialcon/Mangina*
*since the two groups, socialcons and manginas (male feminists) are becoming indistinguishable from one another.
“You can’t answer simple questions, can you. Define Game, since Justin cannot. You can’t, can you?”
Zed’s definition will suffice: “At its simplest level, ‘Game’ is a spontaneous re-discovery by younger men of the principles, attitudes, and behaviors of masculinity which women find attractive and which were taught to most young men by their upbringing and cultural conditioning as recently as 50 years ago, but which have been eclipsed and lost as feminism has ascended as the dominant cultural paradigm.” At higher levels, I would argue that game constitutes something like ‘bildung’.
“The essays by Welmer, Obsidian, and Ferdinand say it all…You cannot rebut any of these three essays that expose the truth about socialcons. That effectively ends the debate.”
Far from it–Obsidian’s essay was dealt with. I am not aware of one written by Ferdinand. And Welmer only opposes “socons” who are “the Pharisees of today; the kinds of people who mask their avarice and lust with legal constructs and false piety”; he has no venom for “good, religious people, but rather those hypocrites and liars who hide their base instincts in a cloak of righteousness”. Welmer also asks for more nuance in language and questions if “the term ’social conservatism’ may not be the best choice” to describe the Pharisaical. Would you allow similar nuance in your assessment of ‘betacons’? The debate goes on.
“Now, you pathetically say that centrists, neocons, fiscal cons, libertarians, etc. were equally responsible for blocking feminism, which is about as dumb of a statement as saying that the victims of 9/11 were just as responsible for foiling the plot as the CIA and FBI were.”
These groups were not responsible for failing to block feminism? Why? How about the apolitical such as yourself, TFH? Was your inaction in any way responsible for the amendments in the divorce laws that you so despise today?
I know that Justin is an honest, forthright man. I think it is perfectly fair for him to criticize misuse of Game from a moral standpoint, but I think the level of hostility here reflects a fundamental misunderstanding about what it embodies.
My personal philosophy is that Game is a discipline like swordsmanship. How men use the skill reflects on their own character, and I think allowing people to reveal their own character through their own personal choices is the correct path.
Justin brings up the issue of fatherhood, and I am glad he has done so — we really haven’t paid enough attention to that on this site so far.
One thing I can say is that I’ve spent the better part of two years devoting myself to securing my position as a father to my children, which has eclipsed every other aspect of my life (this was my choice, so I don’t feel bitter about it). I really haven’t had any time for women, and when it comes down to it that’s OK by me, because my kids are ultimately more important than whether or not I can attract the attention of some woman at a bar.
However, I think Game may be an important tool for single fathers and young men, and I would like them to have it at their disposal. I have only started to emerge from family court hell over the last six months or so, and having a little self-confidence and understanding of what is going on in the mating game has been a real blessing.
It is a rough world out there. Young men in particular need some skills to deal with it, and I continue to have faith that most of them will use those skills for benevolent purposes.
“At least Ponsie is relatively polite, but he is not the student of history he claims to be, as he would otherwise be in full agreement with Welmer’s original post on Ben Franklin and Game.”
Well, I do take issue with Welmer dubbing John Adams a beta. While Adams was repelled by Franklin’s behavior and that of French society at large, he was not alone in thinking so. Thomas Jefferson, francophile that he was, was also put off by the French mores.
Fair enough, Pons.
I identify more with TJ than Ben Franklin. I also like Adams as a man, but I think his Yankee sensibilities have a lot to do with the problems American men face today.
As for Jefferson, he may have voiced some criticisms of the French, but he was, fundamentally, a Francophile, and conformed more to French mores than he admitted. In fact, that was a source of contention between him and Adams.
“I identify more with TJ than Ben Franklin. I also like Adams as a man, but I think his Yankee sensibilities have a lot to do with the problems American men face today.”
Good point. In what ways do you think Adams’ sensibilities were quintessentially Yankee?
Oh, maybe a touch of Calvinist judgmentalism. Nevertheless, I share a few of his passions and traits, including a love of ale and a neurological characteristic that affected his handwriting (and does the same to me — thank God for keyboards).
Yep — those New England Calvinists of his day still had some of those traces.
Jefferson was my favorite “founding father”, together with Franklin. The ironic thing is that the old democrat himself would probably be a tea-partying-picketer today.
Welmer, you mentioned that “Yankee sensibilities have a lot to do with the problems American men face today.” I can see how the two are correlated but what was it exactly that drew you to this conclusion?
It was essentially the expressions of authors like Walt Whitman, Herman Melville and Nathaniel Hawthorne that clued me in. Each was very different, but all had a peculiar sort of rebellion against the prevailing cultural norms, and all were Yankees (in addition to my Virginian heritage I am part Yankee, too, for the record, but only by ancestry — not so much by culture).
However, as a Westerner, it took me a long time to gain a fundamental understanding of what was going on.
Anyway, Pons, this is a fascinating subject, but you know it would take volumes to explore it, and I’m run a bit ragged ATM. I’d appreciate your take on it.
“Anyway, Pons, this is a fascinating subject, but you know it would take volumes to explore it, and I’m run a bit ragged ATM. I’d appreciate your take on it.”
Indeed it is fascinating. I need to look into it with more depth as well before I give my take on the matter.
Actually, the whole Jefferson/Hamilton liberal/conservative thing is kind of complicated. Jefferson was more for religious tolerance (modern-day liberal) but also pro-rural (modern-day conservative). Hamilton was pro-urban (modern-day liberal) but also pro-industry (modern-day conservative). What’s happened, of course, is that the interest group alliances have moved over the past 200 years, which is to be expected over two centuries. The modern Democratic party puts together poor minorities with union members and urban professionals, whereas the Republicans literally serve both God and mammon.
Welmer, I respect both you and Nova who view Game as simply a tool. I respectfully disagree, under the premise that it carries an entire worldview with it. You don’t have to conduct a scholarly inquiry to identify the the dominant Game spokesmen and their values.
Why not title your article, “How roguish charm secured American independence”? Do you see what I am getting at?
Speaking of fatherhood, I’d like to make a request. I’d like the writers on this site who are fathers to do a post on what they’re teaching their sons. Are you advocating that they marry and invest in the third world shit hole known as the USA? Or, are you just going to teach them game and tell them to enjoy themselves?
What is your strategy?
What sane man would sacrifice his sons to this society?
@Justin
The evidence is pretty clear that past the age of 7, or so, peer environment is far more important than family-environment, so I’m not exactly clear as to what you’re trying to say. One important thing to note is that many young, single mothers never even tell the male inseminator of the pregnancy from the outset. Anecdotally, I see little to no evidence that there are masses of children being hurt by the absence of their father. Heck, there are a lot of fathers that no sane person would let near any child, including their own, and don’t forget that women who get pregnant out of wedlock tend to choose a worse breed of man than do women in marriage.
You are belabored by radical nurturist propaganda.
On the other hand, you are correct and Fifth is wrong about the overall social effect of game on a population, in aggregate. As game becomes more widespread, female sexual selection becomes ever further detached from settling down and starting a family inside of a monogamous relationship. The young men who do settle down will be subsidizing the mating choices of non-married parents.
The problem that neither of you are grasping is that this is solely a political problem, and it can only have a political solution. You can defend the soc-cons all day long, but I see absolutely no evidence that they are engaged in any constructive efforts to address the problems of family formation. Furiously preaching that people “should” get married will not change anything, because the decline in marriage is due to the changes in incentives over the past several decades.
Soc-cons don’t want to address the issues of incentive changes. No, they sanctimoniously puff up their chests and brow beat anyone who doesn’t follow their ideal script.
Uh-oh, someone has “Jews issues”.
http://religionnewsblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/who-is-allowed-to-have-nukes-in-mid.html
Hey, Justin, what’s your handle at StormFront?
“For some unknown and unfathomable reason, our media overlords are attempting to villify the largest democracy in the Middle East (Iran) for attempting to assert their rights to capable self-defense and energy independence.”
Look, even if you dislike Jews, it makes no sense to use such Orwellian language in positively describing Iran.
Justin’s a nut. You betcha.
These my Game essentials:
1. Game must draw a transcendant conclusion that lies outside any lesser notion conceived by the individual Gamer.
2. Game is much greater than a tool, it
is an environment.
3. Game encompasses two modes of “play,” adaptation and/or meme creation.
4. Game is not destructive.
5. Game is positive action.
6. Game is judged by the masses and manifested in the Gamer.
7. You know Game when you see it.
8. Game is heterosexual and therefore not inclusive of homosexuality.
9. Game is omnipresent.
10. Game is exclusive.
11. Game is internal and external.
12. Game has been exemplified and therefore it can be understood.
13. Game has already been defined and Gamers necessarily seek to live up to that definition.
14. Game rewards the workhorse.
15. Game is absent in evil.
16. Game is a fully engaged relationship with reality and its Creator.
Not one in a thousand red-blooded American men are engaged in Game. If anyone can provide what they believe to be someone playing Game, bring him
forth and we’ll dissect his Game.