Re: Game Vs. the Reactosphere (ATTN @Aurini)

This post will be a reply to Davis M J Aurini’s post “Game Versus the Reactosphere” at his blog Stares at the World. 

The skirmish between the Game bloggers and the reactionary bloggers has been brewing for a long time, but the blog fights appear to have been started by the post “Pick-Up Artists and the Nature of Women” at Emashee’s blog tba. Emashee criticises Pick-Up Artists for many of the same reasons that I (and Michael Anissimov, and several other reactionaries) have criticised them in the past, especially on Twitter: that they are (and they admit this) ‘enjoying the decline’. They are not attempting to fight the rise in female degeneracy and sluttery, but rather exploiting it for their own pleasure. I have compared this in the past to Nero’s legendary act of ‘fiddling while Rome burns’. Emashee’s thesis, with which I essentially agree, is that women need to be controlled by men, and that they are not going to take the initiative to fix the societal problems caused by feminism.

What I am definitely not saying, and what I dont believe Emashee is saying, is that women are somehow excused from blame for their misbehaviour or that they will not or should not suffer as a result of acting like sluts. What I am saying is that ultimately it is men who must initiate the changes that will fix this situation, as we must initiate all significant social changes, because women simply will not do so.

Aurini makes a sharp distinction between ‘PUAs’ and ‘Gamers’ that does not reflect reactionary usage of these terms (or any usage I am familiar with). We use ‘PUA’ to mean ‘a man who makes a major study of seduction and uses his skills to bed large numbers of women’. On this definition, Roosh is just as much a PUA as Mystery and all our criticisms of ‘PUAs’ apply to Roosh and his ilk.

Aurini then writes that ‘Gamer’ types would theoretically prefer a traditional, feminine (chaste?) woman, but since they have so much trouble finding one, they figure they might as well get laid in the meantime. I hope you can see why this attitude is less than impressive, especially to the Christian traditionalists. It’s a bit like saying ‘Well, I cant put out the fire in the Imperial palace, so I might as well get a bag of marshmallows.’ Cynically exploiting civilisational decline for your own pleasure will always call your reactionary bona fides into question.

Next, Aurini argues that the ‘Gamers’ have been discouraging sluttery and promoting traditional femininity with activities such as the #BackToTheKitchen and #FatShamingWeek hashtags. Well and good. But the above criticism still holds. Moreover, they are still validating the sluts they meet in person, even as their online activities trend in the opposite (and right) direction.

In the section that follows this, Aurini makes what I think may be his most repulsive ‘point’, but one I thank him for making, as I’ve made it before, but I think it has a bit more credibility coming from him; viz. that Roosh is in Eastern Europe because it is more traditional. But Roosh isn’t there to find a chaste young woman, marry her, and settle down; no, Roosh is in Eastern Europe to convince women who are not presently sluts (or at least who are significantly less slutty than the women he could bed in America) to behave like sluts with him. If you think this is admirable you are quite simply not a reactionary. Aurini claims that ‘at the end of the day…this behaviour is completely in the hands of the women.’ And in a sense this is true; Roosh is not a rapist. But when you lead someone to behave badly, even if you dont use force, you become partially responsible for that person’s behaviour. Blame is not a fixed-sum game; you are responsible for your own sins and you are responsible if you give scandal to others. And if you as a man feel you must pursue casual sex, it’s much better that it be with women who are already sluts. I really cannot understand how Aurini expects me to sympathise with Roosh because he makes it his goal to corrupt (relatively) chaste Eastern European women.

Aurini then makes several points that I either have no opinion about or agree with, and will thus skip over. I’ll pick up my criticism of his post at the second-to-last section, viz. the one about ‘white knights’.

The term ‘white knight’, as commonly used in the Manosphere, is a pet peeve of mine. I believe it originated as a pejorative term to refer to men who tried to ‘rescue’ women with the implicit expectation that this would somehow earn them sex; in other words, this was the kind of man a real-life acquaintance of mine would call ‘Captain Save-a-Ho’. However, the term has now begun to be used to mean ‘anyone who defends a woman who is behaving badly, on any level and for any reason’ and sometimes even ‘anyone who defends a woman against Manospherian attack, even when that attack is completely wrongheaded and the woman is in the right’.

To say that the men who convince women to behave like sluts share some of the blame for their sluttery is not ‘white knighting’; it is an obvious truth. Gamers tend to want everything to be considered 100% women’s fault all the time, and while I understand the impulse (because the progressive typically makes exactly the opposite error), it’s simply not correct. Unless the term ‘white knight’ goes back to its original meaning, I think it should be scrapped; it’s not useful except as a rhetorical bludgeon to help certain men escape blame for their degeneracy.

Finally, Aurini writes the following:

At the end of the day, the Manosphere is full of men speaking Truth, and daring to live by the Truth they speak.  That they fall short of an ideal is no surprise – we all fall short, at some point or another.  But don’t let these minor differences drive us apart.

I am afraid I must disagree. The Manosphere certainly is full of men speaking truth, after a fashion. But it is the understatement of the year to say they ‘fall short of an ideal’. They dont even try to live by the ideal, and moreover, they openly encourage others not to try to live by the ideal. If they were hypocrites who slept around while publicly proclaiming the need for chastity, that would be one thing. Most people wont live up to most ideals. But when they encourage sleeping around as a way of life (and when they attract a crowd that often denigrates and mocks marriage) they separate themselves from the values of reaction. And while I’m not above learning from them at times (when a person is right, he’s right), I dont feel the need to accept them as brothers or colleagues, until and unless they embrace the values reaction stands for.

I therefore stand with Anissimov, Steves, and Emashee, and against Roosh and his ilk (and if necessary Aurini as well), and I remain

your humble servant,

Arthur Richard Harrison

Advertisements

20 comments on “Re: Game Vs. the Reactosphere (ATTN @Aurini)

  1. emashee says:

    ‘But when you lead someone to behave badly, even if you dont use force, you become partially responsible for that person’s behaviour.’ It is not just anybody leading anybody to behave a certain way. It is a man leading a woman, which makes the influence’s influence inevitable compared to his influence on a man, or a woman’s on a woman.

    • In a sense I agree with the Manosphere in that I think restricting female sexuality is much more productive than attempting to restrict male sexuality. The classic analogy here is that ‘a key that can open any lock is a master key, while a lock that will open to any key is a defective lock’. Because of the evolutionary pressures that have acted on men and women, men have an incentive to pursue a sexual strategy based on quantity, while women do not and are largely bound to one based on quality. Bryce Laliberte has written about this in more detail here: (http://anarchopapist.wordpress.com/2013/10/30/why-sluttiness-is-unattractive/)

      I think you are overstating the case a bit to call an individual man’s influence on an individual woman ‘inevitable’. However, I do strongly believe that if we’re going to restrict access to sex on the female end (which is undeniably the best way to do it), we cannot count on women in general to ‘just do the right thing’; we need social structures that encourage them to do the right thing and punish them for doing the wrong thing, and these structures need to be upheld by men.

    • Aurini says:

      In other words, women have absolute zero moral agency around men? I suppose, then, that we ought to treat them like cattle – since they’re not ensouled beings.

      • Syd Chow says:

        Women having zero moral agency doesn’t mean that we treat her like cattle, the same way that children having no moral agency doesn’t mean we treat our children like paper planes. Even inanimate objects aren’t treated the same way like say a tree vs a rug.

        Myself for one do not believe women have any moral agency. FWIW I am not a neo reactionary per se but close, and come from a very different background.

  2. Aurini says:

    “Enjoy the Decline” was a phrase coined by Cappy Cap – and it refers specifically to the economy, though the same implications apply to the marriage market. Being a “good boy” in this economy won’t get you anywhere – the corporations are fickle masters. Entrepreneurship has also been squeezed. Ergo, minimalist lifestyle: the economy sucks, don’t try and win, just try and enjoy yourself. Be the reed that bends with the wind.

    Next, this bit about “leading” women into sluttery: as I’ve pointed out before, you need to re-read your Bible. Women’s archetypal sin is that she pretends to be tricked into eating the apple Emphasis on pretend.

    PUAs with their fast approach, focus on NLP, and use of style free of substance, are the equivalent of the travelling salesman with the farmer’s daughter. “I’ll love you forever,” he lies, to get her into bed, and then runs off the next day. This is contemptible, and this is what’s meant by seduce, Latin for “lead astray.”

    Game is about developing the whole person – style and substance.

    “Aurini makes a sharp distinction between ‘PUAs’ and ‘Gamers’ that does not reflect reactionary usage of these terms (or any usage I am familiar with).”

    Literally every single Game blog I read focuses more on self-development, than on pick-up lines and dating tactics. If you’re not familiar with the usage, that’s a matter of your own ignorance, and it would suggest that you actually read the blogs you are criticizing.

    You seem to be falling into the same error that all Puritanical theologies fall into: making the perfect into the enemy of the good. Absolutism leads to stuff like the Salem Witch Trials, where “righteous” women can’t possibly be wrong about their accusations of “Eeeevil Gamers!” and thanks to that trust in them, innocent people are put to death.

    Because of White Knighting. Here’s an excellent link on it: http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-25972-post-663807.html This is the exact same thing that Liberals do, and ultimately it harms society if the Churchians are too Holy to hang out with whores and tax collectors.

    • “Enjoy the Decline” was a phrase coined by Cappy Cap – and it refers specifically to the economy, though the same implications apply to the marriage market. Being a “good boy” in this economy won’t get you anywhere – the corporations are fickle masters. Entrepreneurship has also been squeezed. Ergo, minimalist lifestyle: the economy sucks, don’t try and win, just try and enjoy yourself. Be the reed that bends with the wind.

      Pass the marshmallows!

      Next, this bit about “leading” women into sluttery: as I’ve pointed out before, you need to re-read your Bible. Women’s archetypal sin is that she pretends to be tricked into eating the apple Emphasis on pretend.

      Way to not address my point, especially about Roosh in ‘more traditional’ Eastern Europe. You want to have casual sex and still tell me you’re against sluttery? Dont move halfway across the world because the women there are more traditional in order to slut them up.

      Literally every single Game blog I read focuses more on self-development, than on pick-up lines and dating tactics. If you’re not familiar with the usage, that’s a matter of your own ignorance, and it would suggest that you actually read the blogs you are criticizing.

      I’ve read the ‘Game’ blogs; never any of the ones you call PUA. But my usage is standard at Dalrock and Alpha Game at least. Semantic disputes aside, the substance of my point remains effectively unchallenged.

      You seem to be falling into the same error that all Puritanical theologies fall into: making the perfect into the enemy of the good.

      The good is advocating moral behaviour even if you dont/haven’t entirely lived up to your ideals. The good is not advocating immoral behaviour (even if you have and share accurate information that others are suppressing), nor is it mocking those who have acted more honourably than yourself.

  3. Christian says:

    You say ‘Literally every single Game blog I read focuses more on self-development, than on pick-up lines and dating tactics. If you’re not familiar with the usage, that’s a matter of your own ignorance, and it would suggest that you actually read the blogs you are criticizing.’

    Like this blog post that you praised on your podcast

    http://runsonmagic.com/2014/02/life-unlived/

    It’s a man who hides behind anonyminity,
    bemoaning how he could have married and had children and risked divorce,
    and ends with …

    ‘Last night I fucked an Asian girl from behind, while pulling her hair and calling her a dirty slut.

    Oh well. I guess that life will never be. Off to the gym.’

    This isn’t self development, any girl questioning feminism who comes across this is likely to conclude that a future on a low wage, living in an apartment with her cats, ain’t so bad if it means she doesn’t have to fuck repulsive omega degenerates like this,
    Aurini you are a natural beta who could aspire to be alpha but it’s easy to degenerate to omega, be careful, very careful.

  4. Aurini says:

    @Christian

    I’m half suspicious that you’re a troll, but that’s probably just because I think too highly of people, and would prefer to live in a world where that sort of argument was intentionally meant to frustrate.

    *You’re writing anonymously, too.
    *Going to the Gym isn’t self improvement.
    *Celebrating frivorce and Oprah tingles will encourage moral behaviour in women.
    *Telling sluts that, if they remain sluts, they’re useless for anything other then sperm receptacles will make the cats-and-wine lifestyle more attractive to them.
    *Alpha males are the guys who proudly raise their cuckold babies.

    Did I miss anything? I presume your solution to the present mess is “Man up and marry those sluts,” eh?

    You’re not a Christian. You’re a Churchian. Thanks for inflicting Babylon upon us.

  5. Christian says:

    Don’t marry then, instead aspire to be like runsonmagic
    and fuck Asian sluts from behind whilst pulling their hair and calling them a dirty slut,
    Is this your comment?
    http://runsonmagic.com/2014/02/life-unlived/#comments

    ‘Great post bro, I think I decided to comment for the first time because well i’m in the Phillipines off the advice of the Swoop the World crew and also banged an Asian from behind and called her a slut last night.
    I forget where I came across your blog recently from some other manosphere post but digging your writing. You are clearly an intelligent cat and I hope you keep up the good work’

  6. Aurini says:

    Quite frankly, Red Hand, this is why I can’t take the anti-Game stance seriously; Honorless, vile, degenerates like the self-titled Christian are the ones who are drawn to it.

    I think we can do better than Jack Donovan’s barbarians… but if it’s a choice between them and the callow pseudo-males of “civilization” like him, I’ll choose the Barbarians any day.

    • I’m not anti-Game, Aurini. I’m anti-PUA, as *I* have defined the term, and as it’s typically used in the reactosphere. If you use that label for something else, fine, but the men I call PUAs still exist and all my criticisms of them stand.

  7. Christian says:

    So white civilisation or asian slut fucking?
    You’ve made your choice then Aurini,
    but I think you’ll find that negroes are kings of the barbarians,
    never mind, you can still be king of the omegas,
    keep battling and you just might take Roosh’s crown

    • Christian says:

      Christ that was fast, Aurini has gone full on omega,
      on his podcast with a degenerate who wants it to be normal
      when you take your family to the local Krispy Kreme
      to be served by a gay leather fetishist in a cock ring,
      then have to sit next to grown men in adult nappies.

  8. […] The manosphere and masculine excellence. Related: Game vs. the reactosphere. […]

  9. Omega Man says:

    Rather than using the metaphore of the burning palace, I would use incoming tide. As King Canute so amply demonstrated more than an millenia ago, there is nothing you can do to stop the tide.

    When even good Christian girls have their legs in the air within a half hour of meeting that hot guy, then you as a man can do nothing to change the environment. Nice guys were once the catch that every woman wanted, but now they are treated like perverts and creeps, while the bad boys bed the ladies.

    Fight it and like the White Knights you’ll get friend-zoned. Your efforts will not be appreciated.

    What do we as good Christian men do? Do we learn game and get laid like tile (and commit a grievous sin) or do we remain celebate for the rest of our lives. It is a struggle each of us must come to terms with.

    This debate between PUAs, Gamers and others is really useless. All we can do is cope in our own way, and live with the consequences.

    • ‘Nice guys’ were never ‘the catch that every woman wanted’. To the extent they did better historically than they do now, it was because:

      a. Women had less opportunity for sex with bad boys

      and

      b. Customs that existed surrounding courtship made men ‘contextual alphas’ even if not natural alphas.

      Of course, men in general (including good men) were a lot more masculine in most past eras, and that helped too.

      Now, reactionaries, whether Christian or not, uphold certain values as both morally good and beneficial to civilisation. We are not obligated (and I see no reason) to admit as comrades those whose writings and (publicly self-promoted) personal lives not only fail to live up to those values but actively, intentionally, and proudly tear them down.

      • Omega Man says:

        Perhaps I should have stated that the “nice guys” of the past were real men. Gentlemen to be sure, decent and kind, but men nevertheless. The overly feminized “nice guys” of today are a relatively recent phenomena and cannot in anyway be compared to the decent men of my or my father’s era.

  10. Ergeniz says:

    I copied this reply over from https://emashee.wordpress.com/2014/02/19/pick-up-artists-and-the-nature-of-women/. Partly because I want you to respond to it, partly because female bloggers tend to ban me/not allow my posts through moderation. “The whole post reads to the effect of “We’re women, things need fixing so fix them”! You haven’t looked at the bigger picture behind it and are just dumping responsibility. Which of course is typical of women, but men are tired of it. Tired of being told they they are unattractive, incompetent, inferior by women and then being expected to pick up the pieces when women run out of options.

    Reading a bit of history, it seems this cycle in society has been repeating itself several times throughout history. One of which is Rome. My thing is this, my revulsion towards women and their behavior aside and (let’s assume men can fix it) why should we work towards fixing this society? Humans never learn; it seems this cycle will keep repeating itself – society starts, females have low rights to match their innate privileges, eventually the society becomes prosperous and women ask for more rights (giving women the vote was a large part of this mess). This starts the degradation of society until it falls or is taken over by another group. And then the cycle begins again. So in addition to the points brought up by other men in this post another question is why should men bother to keep saving society and rebuilding it so women can just keep tearing it down? As you seem believe women have no moral agency, this means they simply can’t control themselves and will always work against men’s interests in the end. So why should men bother? No thanks.

    Women may have no moral agency, no ability to fix problems, no ability to see the consequences of their actions. And that’s their problem”.

  11. […] Re: Game Vs. the Reactosphere (ATTN @Aurini) […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s