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.