Whiteness and Game

After carefully reading Michael Bell’s new article at TOQ Online, I fail to see why it has provoked so much controversy. It appears that some here had a knee jerk reaction to the phrase “spitting game” and associated Michael with Roissy and his followers.

The thrust of the essay is that White Nationalists should exploit common sense (look her dead in the eye, be confident, be funny, don’t be a nice guy, etc.) to secure mates and racialize young females. The long term goal advocated is reproductive success (sex tied to reproduction), not sexual intercourse for its own sake. Michael could have stated this more clearly and used less provocative language to get his point across.

But nowhere in his article does Michael idolize dissolute males. He does not say that men should psychologically manipulate females to “score” as many one night stands as possible. His object seems to be to coax the more cerebral White Nationalists (he cites me as an example) out of their misogyny and into the “sexual marketplace.” I don’t agree with this characterization, as I am neither celibate or a misogynist, but that’s not the issue here.

I’ve elaborated my view of the Roissysphere before. There is a lot of truth in what they have to say, so I won’t criticize their science of the pick up artist, but I think the degeneration of sexual mores that followed in the wake of feminism is one of the strongest arguments against modern liberal society. It is something the White Nationalist movement should aim to reverse. At the same time, I have also said that retreating into monastic celibacy like Lawrence Auster is hopelessly impractical.

For the most part, I agree with Michael Bell. White Nationalists have to navigate the choppy waters of gender relations in a degenerate liberal age. In pursuit of the reproductive goal, I see nothing morally objectionable about making intelligent use of basic insights into female psychology. There probably isn’t a man in the world who doesn’t do this on some level. The only real point of difference between us is the stress he puts upon game.

White Nationalists are still a tiny minority of White Americans. There are still plenty of decent, respectable young women out there in a shrinking pool of potential mates. In fact, we’re outnumbered by them. If you are willing to look hard enough, you can find a mate of this sort. You also have a better chance of forming a lasting relationship with such a woman than using game to convert the common run of brainwashed female to racialism.

Unlike some people here, I am not going to condemn the emerging men’s issues movement, as it is clear there is some common ground between us. If you think about it, White men are being dispossessed in several ways: as a race, as a religion, and as men. The men’s issues movement is another angle on the dispossession story. It involves many of the same actors. “Game” is one emergent response to this. White Nationalism and Christian Nationalism are two others.

I don’t think anyone has looked at all three movements with the same critical perspective. We should mine this subject further.

31 Comments

  1. I’ve repeatedly clarified that my article is not aimed at Bell. He’s acknowledged that. You didn’t accuse me of that. Just sayin’.

    As a quibbling concern, I would like to find some other word than misogynist to identify somebody with a negative view of women. It medicalizes and pathologizes what is essentially a moral and philosophical thing. Doing that feels pretty jewy. It’s not even clear in exactly what the target is. Is the misogynist against women in general, women who embrace feminine roles, women who reject feminine roles?

    One thing for sure is that it serves as a dehumanizing label that virtually nobody actually identifies with. For example, I said that “women are our most valuable possessions” yesterday. Nobody called me out on that, but it’s a pretty bold statement. I don’t think they should vote, be in the military, or take on traditional elder roles (priest, rabbi, etc…). Maybe that makes me a misogynist. I dunno.

    As a practical matter, I’m “just sayin'” with the women’s suffrage thing. I’m not suggesting that position be publicly advocated or added to any campaign platforms. It would only be after some dramatic realignment of community roles, a restoration, that men and women would respectfully specialize in different aspects of civic engagement.

  2. Hunter,

    Is Michael Bell married? Does he have any children? How do we know his advice will raise White birth rates?

  3. What I had to say about Michael’s article over at TOQ:

    Michael wrote: One important thing to note is that some women will not respond to you no matter how well your game is. A small minority of women have specific types of men that they prefer, i.e., guidos, gangstahs, blondes, brunettes with blue eyes, bodybuilders, etc., and will never deviate from these preferences.

    Yeah. And a lot of us prefer gentlemen and can smell game spitters coming a mile away — and we would never, ever give you the time of day.

    In fact, we have a word for men who behave in the manners you describe above: *ssholes.

    Wise up HBD boys — you are making a BIG mistake following the advice of gamers. Yes, there are obviously huge differences between men and women — and yes, men should take the lead — but, sheesh, don’t turn into a bunch of *ssholes, please! You’re just gonna turn off the women you should be mating with — the women you could have a happy life with — you know, the ones with a “high level of self-respect and intelligence.”

    White Preservasionis is right — talk about dysgenic! Why don’t you just do your sons and grandsons a favor and NOT mate with all the flakey, shallow, stupid women out there — get their genes OUT of the gene pool. Make life better for your progeny already!

  4. Embracing vomitous Negro game culture is not a step in the right direction. If anything, WN men should use game techniques to figure out which women to avoid. Any woman who responds to game is not worth having.

  5. Roissy is one of the true relevant figures in the gaming movement. There is a reason why he is so popular and seems to tower over all the rest.

    Roissy is not a hypocrite in any way. He doesn’t pretend that game is good for civilization or any thing like that. In other words, he is not ridiculous in the sense of explaining what game is and what its purpose is for. He follows game to its ultimate conclusion. He doesn’t pretend that it is good for the White race. He just sees it as a way for men to get the upper hand in an age where women have all the power.

    It is not a solution to the problem, it is a reaction. White Nationalist thinkers should be coming up with the solutions, not bending over and reacting. Game is about getting lots of sex with no remorse to the consequences. Why not just leave it at that instead of trying to come up with all these scholarly reasons for why it is good for the White race?

    Instead of following others, WN thinkers and leaders should come up with their own ideas (like wiki and his patriarch idea which was excellent) rather than taking other ideas and trying to make them your own by spinning them to make them out like gaming leads to more happy families and happy children. It’s bullshit and we all know it. Gaming is a dead end which leads to divorce, illiegitimate children, disease, and misery. It is short term gratification. The only leaders who will come out of the gaming movement will be Bill Clinton types.

  6. “He just sees it as a way for men to get the upper hand in an age where women have all the power.
    It is not a solution to the problem, it is a reaction.”

    Nice summation, Mill.

    All of you moralistic puritans are pathetic. Kindly review these four essays on the state of modern femininity and stop your spitting. You’re playing a fools game if you don’t.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/fiori1.html

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/fiori2.html

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/fiori3.html

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/fiori4.html

  7. After carefully reading Michael Bell’s new article at TOQ Online, I fail to see why it has provoked so much controversy.

    I also do not understand why there would be any controversy. I would have expected the response to such an article to be almost entirely negative.

    It appears that some here had a knee jerk reaction to the phrase “spitting game” and associated Michael with Roissy and his followers.

    The reaction to the degenerate article was far from knee-jerk. Bell’s quoting negro slang from Urban Dictionary (“10 minutes after he met her (he) was hittin’ dat ass, dat dude got mad game”) and saying things like “spit some game” and “get laid” were not aberrations; they reinforced his message.

    The thrust of the essay is that White Nationalists should exploit common sense (look her dead in the eye, be confident, be funny, don’t be a nice guy, etc.) to secure mates and racialize young females. The long term goal advocated is reproductive success (sex tied to reproduction), not sexual intercourse for its own sake.

    This is not the thrust of the essay at all. Bell may have proclaimed on the previous thread that it was blindingly obvious that his article was about marriage and children, but that does not make it so. His essay is about casual sex, “spitting game,” “hittin’ dat ass,” picking up immoral sluts, and, by approving mentioning his friend who does so, avoiding quality white women with “a high level of self-respect and intelligence.”

    But nowhere in his article does Michael idolize dissolute males.

    Yes he does. He lionizes his ugly fat friend who “pounces” on women who are “less-than-bright with insecurities and daddy issues.”

    He does not say that men should psychologically manipulate females to “score” as many one night stands as possible.

    He clearly argues along those lines. Bell: “Their whoreishness, erratic behavior, uncertainty, irrationality, insecurity, and the like ought to be seen as exploitable weaknesses”

    After penning his debauched piece, Bell then sought to defend it by falsely accusing Millirone and me of misquoting him.

    Meanwhile we have Wikitopian suggesting that polygyny might be a good idea and Kievsky citing degenerate “game” as “Mind-Weaponization.”

  8. MGLS,
    I’m exploring the behavior patterns and traditions of White groups which are proving successful and overcoming the obstacles of modernity. It does seem like a lifestyle which is commensurate with both wholesomeness and population growth. I hope my thoughts on the subject aren’t subtracting from the quality of the blog and will explore other issues if that’s the general feeling.

  9. I still stick by what I said. I think the article should not have been published at TOQ Online. It was an article that belongs on a gamer site.

    Wiki’s idea of the Patriarch is a sound one minus the polygamy message. The idea of the father figure retaking back soceity is one that is sound and will bring about a desired result. Other than that, I agree with MGLS completely.

  10. MGLS,
    I’m exploring the behavior patterns and traditions of White groups which are proving successful and overcoming the obstacles of modernity. It does seem like a lifestyle which is commensurate with both wholesomeness and population growth. I hope my thoughts on the subject aren’t subtracting from the quality of the blog and will explore other issues if that’s the general feeling.

    I certainly wouldn’t want you to stop offering your thoughts on these subjects, and I wasn’t suggesting that at all. I think your posts on Mormons and patriarchs have been good and have offered much to think about. My disagreement was simply on the issue of polygyny, which I think is a terrible arrangement.

  11. Unsurprising indeed, MGLS. I think I’ll take the opportunity to quote Briffault once again.(For those to stupid to get it the first time around.)

    “The female not the male determines all the conditions of the animal family.Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.” –Robert Briffault

    Ponder it gentlemen, and ponder it well.

  12. HW:”It involves many of the same actors.”

    Hunter — it goes much deeper than just a single prominent Jewish feminist (Betty Friedan); you ought to link to the Wiki category below (containing over 100 Jewish feminists) instead to a single Jewish feminist.

    Modern radical feminism is a Jewish movement through and through, a definite part of the ‘Culture of Critique’: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jewish_feminists — which should be obvious to many people because modern feminism is thoroughly ultraliberal, anti-White male (but often pro-Jewish, pro-Black, pro-Asian, pro-Hispanic, etc); it is also anti-Western at base, fraught through with race denialism and pro-multiracialism, often anti-Christian, pro-globalist, etc.

  13. Wikitopian
    I’m exploring the behavior patterns and traditions of White groups which are proving successful and overcoming the obstacles of modernity. It does seem like a lifestyle which is commensurate with both wholesomeness and population growth.

    I wouldn’t base a white nation on polygamy but under revolutionary conditions a white man who could convert a dozen white women to the cause and breed with them can’t hurt. These polygamist groups are considered very dangerous because their large extended families amount to small armies, intensely loyal to each other and prone to holding grudges against the government.

  14. I wouldn’t base a white nation on polygamy but under revolutionary conditions a white man who could convert a dozen white women to the cause and breed with them can’t hurt. These polygamist groups are considered very dangerous because their large extended families amount to small armies, intensely loyal to each other and prone to holding grudges against the government.

    Good point OldRight. Polygamy under certain and very selective circumstances(such as, after during and/or after a devastating war or famine), otherwise, Monagamy should be the norm. After all, k-selection is what predominantly built Greco-Roman & Celto-Teutonic Western Civilization.

    … Monogamy creates a society that has an inherent equality. Every male has the promise of getting a female and every female has the promise of getting a male. It gives everyone a stake in society.

    Both high-status men and low-status women are liberated by polygamy. As the old saying has it, men “date down and marry up.” With polygamy you can do both. Meanwhile, the losers are: 1) high-status women, who must share their mate with lower-status females, and 2) low-status men, who don’t get to mate at all.
    It’s that last one that causes trouble. Every society and species that practices polygamy is plagued with a “bachelor herd” of unmated males who are very unhappy with their lot. Competition among males becomes much more violent because the stakes are so high. You either score with a couple of females or you don’t mate at all. Male fruit flies artificially bred to be monogamous have proved to be much less aggressive with other males. Take away that monogamous contract and your peaceful society disappears with it.

    When 18th- and 19th-century Europeans realized polygamy was common in the “backward” portions of the world, they had an easy explanation. Polygamy was a more primitive form of marriage. Advanced societies had evolved out of it. Then they discovered the hunter-gatherers and a different explanation offered itself. Polygamous societies had remained backward precisely because they were polygamous. Polygamy creates a huge inequality where all the wealth — however little there may be of it — and all the women are concentrated among the more successful men. Exclude enough men and you have the makings of a jihad society. When there aren’t enough women to go around, it’s easy to convince low-status men there are 70 virgins waiting for them in heaven.

    Monogamy is not a natural configuration. It’s a human construct. I also happen to think it’s the greatest social achievement in the history of mankind. Advanced societies never would have evolved without it. …

    The American Spectator : Polygamy and Me
    http://spectator.org/archives/2006/03/23/polygamy-and-me

  15. I don’t see anything wrong with using some sorts of “game,” tactics to find a monogamous relationship, but I do have a problem with the sexual degeneracy of the roissy crowd. As far as gamers go, there are some who have a sense of decency and morality while not afraid to look at the uncomfortable truths of sexuality– I don’t have a problem with that.

    The problem I have with Bell’s article is that, though not reaching the roissy level of degeneracy, comes a bit too close to it for my taste, and uses too much gutter language. I don’t have a problem with that per se, but TOQ, which tries to cultivate a respectable, academic image, isn’t the place for it.

  16. Over on The Spearhead I posted the following comment — we’ll see if they let it through.

    fedrz:”For the short hand version, if Feminism had not split apart the sexes in the way it had, our birth rates would not have fallen from a healthy 3.9/couple in the 1970’s, to a mere 1.6/couple today, while at the same time skyrocketing our debt. No culture has ever reversed a population decline that has dropped below 1.9 or 1.8/couple. By the time it drops below 1.3/couple, it is impossible to reverse destruction. There is a “generation gap.” You can’t just order up ready made 25 year old workers.”

    Yes fedrz, this issue is at base about racial demographics. I am sympathetic to pro-White views, though I am not at all an insanely violent racist — in fact, I am a respectable, reasonable, and educated man.

    Regarding general racial demographics, let me explain the basics. At the beginning of the 20th Century people of White/European descent were about 25-30% of the world’s population, which was a large and comfortable number. Now, at the beginning of the 21st Century people of White/European racial descent are only about 10-12% of the world’s overall population and still declining rapidly relative to other ethnic and racial groups. There are actually more White people on Earth than ever before, it is just that non-White racial groups have increased by an incredible amount in the last few decades (by many BILLIONS, often by using Western-invented medical, agricultural, and technological advances).

    By mid-century (about 2050) people of White/European descent are expected to be only about 7-8% of the world’s overall population (or even less…5%?). It is expected that by about 2050 White people will drop below 50% of America’s population, for instance — in many American urban areas Whites are already in the minority; I expect that Seattle (Welmer’s city) will become majority Asian before 2050 as will many other West Coast cities (just as some American cities are already majority Hispanic, or majority Black , etc). Other ‘White nations’ in Europe and elsewhere face similar issues.

    Now, all of the above wouldn’t be such a problem if non-White immigrants of all different races/ethnicities were not continually immigrating in to what are usually defined as ‘White nations’ (including the USA, Canada, large parts of Europe, Australia/NZ, etc etc) by the millions or even tens of millions; those non-White immigrants often (but not always, of course) take advantage of our generous welfare and child-support systems to have a lot of children at the expense of White taxpayers. So eventually the much more fecund non-White racial and ethnic groups will displace the native White populations: this is occurring right now in fact. I am not intrinsically against non-White racial groups at all or ‘racist’ and hateful toward them in any way, I just do not want them constantly immigrating in to our nations so that eventually White people will become a racial minority in their own countries (again, this is on track to happen within about 50-100 years in numerous ‘White nations’ if current trends continue).

    So at base, this is a serious demographic issue and by extension (around 50 to 100 years from now or so) the issue may actually come down to the general long-term and permanent racial survival of the White/European race. What do you think a world composed of only about 5% White people or less would look like? Do you think it would it be better or worse than the world as it stands now?

  17. White Preservationist,

    They got a few ‘mangina’s’ on that thread that are going into sh-itfits if someone even mentions the word ‘White’ next to the word ‘race’ or ‘people’. Absolutely hysterical — and pathetic as well.

    The blog moderator seems to be a cool guy, Welmer I believe his name is. Along with the author’s story thread, Jack Donovan, they seem to be doing a pretty good job in pacifying the few histrionic pussies there.

    I also think Welmer said he is originally from the South, and also may have said that Southerners are far more realistic about life than elsewhere in Babylon.

    There also seems to be a few cool and decent Black folks sticking up for the ‘manly’ White men, so that is also a pretty good sign that they are holding their own and making their cases eloquently.

    Good job as always, WP!

  18. As i said in earlier thread there is a mix of the false and the true in the game theory. It’s true that women look for confidence, alphaness, intelligence, humor, etc. It’s also true that they look for stability, a good job, and decency. Some look more for one and others listen to their mothers and look more for the latter. Civilization is likely doomed as long as people don’t settle down and have families; having a good time while the Muslims and non-whites take over and destroy the place is only an option if you are a radically self-absorbed hedonistic nihilist. You don’t need to be an old fuddy-duddy neo-puritan to see that.

    The “social cons” are your only possible allies, WNs. Young pussy-addled 20somethings who are too impressed with their IPODs and Facebook status aren’t going to to do shit for anyone.

  19. As i said in earlier thread there is a mix of the false and the true in the game theory. It’s true that women look for confidence, alphaness, intelligence, humor, etc. It’s also true that they look for stability, a good job, and decency.

    Roach,

    This is sometimes referred to as the Cads and Dads theory.

    http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2006/06/cads_and_dads.html

    Don’t agree with all that this theory posits, as well as I don’t think that it, along with a good deal of other Evo-Psych theories, is fully applicable to NW Europeans and their descendants (in other words, much of E-P and socio-biology is a little too a-racial). That being said, it is an interesting hypothesis.

    The “social cons” are your only possible allies, WNs. Young pussy-addled 20somethings who are too impressed with their IPODs and Facebook status aren’t going to to do shit for anyone.

    Definately agree with you here.

  20. I’m glad to see so many negative comments about Michael Bell’s article here. It’s really disappointing that The Occidental Quarterly, which claims to be a scholarly journal, is using its website to post articles that invoke Evola and Traditionalism to help men get laid easily. There is nothing about the transcendent in Bell’s article, so it seems to be a case of Kali Yuga degeneracy, only even more degenerate because it is claiming to be otherwise. I agree with Millirone that the article should not have been posted on TOQ Online. Thanks for the great comment by Andrew: “Embracing vomitous Negro game culture is not a step in the right direction.”

  21. This is the last bit I will say on the issue, because I’m growing tired of elucidating the obvious and repeating myself.

    “Embracing vomitous Negro game culture is not a step in the right direction.”

    I’m in no way saying that we ought to behave like Negroes. I was simply using one of their own sources to define a particular rendering of the word “seduction.” I chose to use their version of the word–game–because that is how most young people today refer to it, and the concept of “gaming” is blowing up the Internet as we speak. By exploiting such a popular phrase, I’ve gotten us more readers, which was my intention.
    Of course, I’m sure that now many of you are huffing: “Myehh…we don’t need all those people to read our stuff! They are degenerate! Piss! Moan! Piss!” There is no pleasing people like you, so whine all you like.
    Also, I am not saying that we need to go out and act like players who simply have sex with women and leave them. Nowhere in my article do I promote this. Do I encourage casual sex in a few places? Certainly, because its a healthy assertion of masculine vitality, provided protection and such are used. But I also say that we need to use game to procure future wives and mothers.
    “Women who respond to game are whores and not worth it!” whined one of you. I used to say that same statement when I wasn’t getting any, too! The truth is that ALL women respond to game, because game has many manifestations. Be it the nice-guy routine or the asshole routine; calling a girl beautiful or making crude comments about her visible thong; calling the next day or calling 3 days later; being a gentleman or being a jerk; all of these behaviors are certain types of gaming. It isn’t always about being a liar and user, but it is always about reading a woman’s signals, determining her psychology, and manipulating it. To the woman who says she prefers the “nice guy”: what you are really saying is that that type of game, or seduction, is what works on you. A man’s clean look, well-spoken manner, kindness, and such are what seduce you.
    As I’ve stressed already, it is better that we be the ones doing this for positive ends, because the Roissies out there will still be doing it for selfish ends. If you would prefer for the latter to prevail, then go ahead and keep bemoaning my argument and not giving it a shot. Keep imagining that all women are these pristine, innocent, normal angels that just want a nice guy who is honest and presents his heart to her on a platter. While these types of women do exist, they are in the extreme minority. I wouldn’t push for gaming if we did not need it for reproductive fitness as a race.

    Now, continue with the objections.

  22. I and probably everyone here agrees with your overall point that young WN men need to step away from your computer screen and spend more time pursuing women in the real world. The objections are to your proposed methods. Although I suppose all courting rituals could be considered a form of game in a very general sense, you seem to favor the manifestation of game that relies on being an asshole. After all, you’re the one who praised your fat friend for running game on emotionally damaged White women with daddy issues and no self respect. That sounds like Negro behavior to me.

  23. Just want to say I see the crossover between sites like The Spearhead, Roissy and Occidental Dissent as a good thing, even if you dislike Game. Roissy attracts guys who perhaps haven’t given white advocacy too much thought, and maybe going to Roissy eventually leads them here. Roissy links to Steve Sailer in his blog roll, and also Half Sigma, who also links to Sailer, and exposure to Sailer might eventually lead to this site. Most people at the Spearhead are well aware of Roissy, who has written articles for them. It’s all connected. Also, many pro-male, anti feminist, game sites tend to have an anti-liberal slant. Reading between the lines it’s obvious Roissy despises liberals.

    All these loose connections may lead to more disillusioned white men, particularly the younger guys who follow game, to be become aware that there is a growing white advocacy presence on the net.

  24. Well, all I know is that ‘Game’ was developed by a guy with two Jewish surnames: Erik James HorvatMarkovic.

    That right there should be enough for any self-respecting White male to know to stay away from such underhanded, dishonest behaviors.

    (Can’t believe that such Jewish behaviors are being promoted on TOQ of all places!! For shame.)

  25. As I said today over on HBD Books:

    The Weekly Standard article, “The New Dating Game”, was really interesting (thanks for posting about it!) — and just served to confirm all of my suspicions about Game.

    I knew a little something about Mystery (Erik James Horvat-Markovic) from before, but didn’t know anything about Ross Jeffries (“How to Get the Women You Desire Into Bed”) who seems to be the “daddy” of all the younger PUA advisors like Roissy.

    And, yes, just as I suspected about Horvat-Markovic, Jeffries turns out to be Jewish.

    Which goes a long way to explain the nausea I feel whenever I read about Game. Game’s practices are Judeo, 100%. Frankly, something THAT false and manipulative and obviously based on psychopathic principles (if they can be called “principles”) could be nothing else but Judeo in origin.

    And, like I’ve said elsewhere, I can’t believe that HBDers who are concerned about the future of Western Civilization AND who understand the difficulties of having a foreign group like the Jews having too much influence in our Civilization — I just can’t believe that you guys support Game.

    This is coming from a woman who completly understands that there are differences between men and women and who prefers it when men (REAL men) take the lead. I know that quite a bit of the Game stuff is right on — like Roissy’s post about hand-holding and which way men and women prefer to hold hands (something I’ve been aware of since I was a teen) — but for men of European origin to support and put into practice the devious practices of Game … well, no wonder we’re losing our Civilization. :-/

Comments are closed.