Post-Game Culture

[fschmidt]

Below is an old post (from October 2009) that I made on the nice-guy forum. I'm curious to see what people here think of it.



I spent the last month traveling, with two weeks in Argentina and two weeks in Mexico. I now see Latin America as a post-game culture. Some PUAs/players have been advocating the general use of "game" among men as a solution to our problems, the idea being that this will allow all men to have some access to women. If you want to see the result of this, just visit Latin America.

My wife likes to chat and she chatted with an old guy in Buenos Aires about his old times in Argentina. The guy happily recalled his younger days when he was married and had lots of women on the side. Many were married. He told of a woman he was having sex with who was engaged and who had told her fiance that she was a virgin, and how she faked losing her virginity with some red dye. What this shows is that Argentine culture became promiscuous long before America did.

On the old DGM forum, I debated with Irlandes about the nature of Mexican woman, my contention being that Mexican women had change over the last 20 years. Irlandes disagreed and investigated and proved me wrong. The last two weeks I spent in Mexico confirms Irlandes's view. The changes I saw were mostly superficial. Mexico has been promiscuous for a long time, probably hundreds of years. The Spanish conquerors came from a chaste culture, but the Spanish influence was superficial and concentrated in the elite. The masses continued with their promiscuous behavior under a chaste veneer of Spanish style.

In a promiscuous culture, men either become players or become extinct. Men literally evolve to become players. This is why Latin men have natural game. But this has a cost. Since the men are natural players, instead of PUAs who fake it, they actually have the characteristics that women are attracted to. In other words, they are unreliable and focused on women, which makes them unsuitable for supporting modern civilization. This can be seen clearly after spending some time in a Latin American country. Of course, Argentina and Mexico are different, the difference being that Argentina became promiscuous about a hundred years ago while Mexico had been promiscuous far longer. This means that co-alpha characteristics, those traits needed to maintain civilization, have been far more fully bred out of Mexico than out of Argentina. And this can be seen in the behavior of men in these countries. America is in early stage decay, Argentina in mid-stage decay, and Mexico in complete decay. In Mexico, men are exactly as MGTOW/PUA advocate. They go their own way and seduce women for sex. They don't cooperate and they don't contribute to society. The government is too incompetent to enforce feminist laws, so men don't have to worry about child support and other such issues.

But now I ask you, is this what you want? If yes, stop complaining here and just move to Mexico. Mexico is a MGTOW/PUA society. If you support MGTOW/PUA, then you can't complain about the poverty and chaos in Mexico because these things are an inevitable result of MGTOW/PUA behavior.

I call Latin America "post-game" because after the widespread use of game has destroyed a society, it becomes poor enough for women to once again value men as providers. This does not solve problem but rather produces some equilibrium at a low level. Most men in these societies cannot be very effective providers because the country is poor. And the men must constantly guard their wives against cheating, which is widespread. American men are seen as super providers and this is why we are attractive to these women in spite of our lack of game. We are super providers because we have not yet fully gone the MGTOW/PUA route, but I assume that we will and we will wind up as just another third world country.

I think history proves my point. Most people in most of history lived in barbaric conditions. When civilizations fell, they almost never recovered. Rome/Italy is the only example of a place that I can think of that was civilized twice. Every other successful society became a basket case permanently. Visit Egypt today and look at the museum. They had a great civilization 4000 years ago. Today they are pathetic as a culture. In Mexico, they had the Olmecs, the Maya, and Aztecs, each from a different area and each more primitive than the preceding culture. My theory is that when a civilization falls, its co-alpha genes get wiped out. There is no good genetic material left to start a new culture. What was different about Rome? It had a key subculture, Christianity, that saved the right values and therefore saved some co-alphas. But Christianity grew when Rome was at its peak. It could not have grown as it did in a barbaric environment. We are now in a situation where most of the world has been absorbed into Western culture. If Western culture falls without any alternative subculture being formed, then I think this will be the permanent end of civilization.

[globetrotter]

Mexico isn't poor.

Cambodia, Burma - That's poor.

[Asia Outback]

schmidt-

You are likely posting to the wrong audience. Most here are tying to get or keep a game I think, and may not much care how it fits into
the broad scope of history or society. Your observations of the implications of degeneracy on a culture are astute, so expect lots of flack
about that. I expect the USA to begin to suffer military defeats and humiliations. The 20% of the population that is vital must either turn
the ship around or find another country or portion of the USA to make their own.

Idiocracy is in full bloom in the USA and will take a predictable course.

Mexico is not poor? Huh? Sure their are pockets of prosperity, but millions of Mexicans languish in dire poverty, similar to the shanty towns of the Philippines or Cambodia. the culture itself is deeply impoverished and likely not reformable. If civilization is to survive, new countries must be created.

Jake

[gsjackson]

The difference between North American and Latin American cultures has more commonly been analyzed in terms of the Protestant work ethic versus the Cathlolic party hearty ethos (party, then repent and you've got a clean slate). You may be closer to the mark, but I think both theses are much too ambitious.

The U.S. is going down the crapper, to be sure, but it's not because its males are evolving into players. They're going in the opposite direction -- disengaging from women and human connection altogether, and retreating to their screens. Countries in western Europe are promiscuous compared to the U.S., and they seem to be quite functional right now. You would need to develop the thesis with a lot more evidence, and I think its ultimately unsupportable.

[FreeYourMind]

A major reason why North America and Latin America went different directions is that the English brought their own women with them when they colonized the "new world," while the Spanish didn't. As a result the U.S. and Canada more closely resembled the cultures of Europe from the beginning while Latin America never developed economically and politically.

I'm fully aware of the arguments of exploitation of Latin America by the Yankee giant, and there is a lot to them, and still is. An interesting issue is whether White societies will be able to rebuild themselves after being fully hollowed out by Cultural Marxism, feminism, mindless materialism, non-White immigration policies, and the rest of the agenda of the ruling class. Or will the slide to Idiocracy continue to the point of no return?

I think one trend that is gaining, and that is reflected by this site, is that more and more American men -- namely the productive "beta" types who used to be valued and respected in society before the "Anglosphere" went feminazi and who are now despised in the U.S. -- are losing interest in wasting their lives working their asses off, and many are gaining interest in going to countries where they are still valued, especially by women.

If even 5% of the productive men in the U.S. withdraw their support of the system, with its large and growing underclass and its banksters and gangsters at the top continuing their plunder, the only question will be if the U.S. completes the transformation to a full-blown Idiocracy with a completed police state running things, or if it becomes a chaotic, ungovernable mess with warlords, gangs and who knows what else running things.

Another scenario is that Asia will simply absorb North America. The Asians are the quiet, intelligent, hard-working "model minority" and by sheer numbers alone are the likely successors if Western civilization fulfills its current death wish.

Another, more positive possibility, is that high quality Whites and Asians will combine genes and forge a "hybrid" culture that combines the best of the East and West.

[gsjackson]

At least five percent of the productive males in the U.S. are going to be withdrawing their support -- unvoluntarily. With about 57 percent of the college population female now, more and more of the decent jobs will go to women, as well as to ethnic minority foreigners who help employers cover their butts against employment discrimination suits. The U.S. is the only country, as far as I know, that makes it harder for its own citizens to get jobs here than it does foreigners.

The idiocracy is already here. I watched the movie for the first time in Aug, '08, and was switching back and forth between it and Sarah Palin's acceptance speech at the Republican convention. Watching the Repug yahoos going bananas over these hackneyed old cliches, like government being the problem, not the solution -- as if they were hearing these boilerplate talking points for the first time -- honestly I couldn't see any difference between the movie and the 'political' culture we're forced to pay attention to now.

And the idiocracy will stay in place because it serves the interests of the "banksters and gangsters" who run the show. The corporate media will see to that. Western Europe has screwed around like crazy with its sexual constitution, but those countries seem to remain functional because they haven't allowed money to take complete control. We have, at every level of government, and we are completely beyond any possibility of reform. Without money calling the shots, the European nations still have a grown-up politics in which some measure of reform and intelligent adjustment to circumstances remains possible. That is their saving grace -- adult life, in the sense of seeing ones own interests bound together with those of the greater community, is still possible there.

[fschmidt]

The 20% of the population that is vital must either turn the ship around or find another country or portion of the USA to make their own.

I saw in your other thread that you have left and are married. My family wanted to stay in Amerca, but at least we are in El Paso which is culturally Mexican. The 20% certainly can't turn the ship around and most will fail to reproduce and will be gone in a generation. I think the only hope is an alternative subculture. See my signature for more on that.

The U.S. is going down the crapper, to be sure, but it's not because its males are evolving into players. They're going in the opposite direction -- disengaging from women and human connection altogether, and retreating to their screens. Countries in western Europe are promiscuous compared to the U.S., and they seem to be quite functional right now. You would need to develop the thesis with a lot more evidence, and I think its ultimately unsupportable.

Those men in the US who are disengaging from women will not reproduce and will be gone in a generation. And that's my point, that's how men evolve into players. As for Europe, I haven't been there in a while, but based on the news, they are falling into an economic hole just as quickly as the US is, and their illegitimacy rates are rising just as fast. So I doubt Europe will last any longer than America, but the decline will be less painful just because Europe is more socially sane. Oh, your other point, Europe wasn't so promiscuous in the past, maybe more than America, but still nothing like now.

A major reason why North America and Latin America went different directions is that the English brought their own women with them when they colonized the "new world," while the Spanish didn't. As a result the U.S. and Canada more closely resembled the cultures of Europe from the beginning while Latin America never developed economically and politically.

Argentina is more racially European than America is, by far. It makes no difference. Argentina is just another poor corrupt Latin American country with slums worse than anything I have seen in Mexico. And I believe promiscuity was the cause of this.

[FreeYourMind]

The idiocracy is already here. I watched the movie for the first time in Aug, '08, and was switching back and forth between it and Sarah Palin's acceptance speech at the Republican convention. Watching the Repug yahoos going bananas over these hackneyed old cliches, like government being the problem, not the solution -- as if they were hearing these boilerplate talking points for the first time -- honestly I couldn't see any difference between the movie and the 'political' culture we're forced to pay attention to now.

Very funny and sad at the same time. If one were to chart the growth of Big Government over the past 80 years, there is no difference between "liberal Democrat" administrations and "conservative Republican" ones. If anything, the Republican branch of the one party system is the one more prone to run up huge deficits (though the current ones under Obama dwarf anything previously).

Now it's the "liberals" who are scratching their heads and trying to figure out why the Obama administration is a continuation of the Bush regime. Where's all the "change" they were promised? In 2012 the thick-skulled "Tea Partiers" will be upset at the Republican-controlled Congress for not fulfilling their promises to reduce the size of government. . . and on and on it goes in the American Idiocracy.

[i_want_a_hot_white_chick]

I agree with what you are saying, fschmidt. You have got to see the movie Idiocracy. It is a funny movie about the genetic decline of America.

There are several reasons why I believe the genetic decline will continue in ALL countries. Here is why:

Prior to the Industrial Revolution, food and other resources necessary for survival were scarce. Infant and child mortality rates were high. Providing the necessary resources to raise a child, the food and shelter, was very difficult. A single woman usually couldn't do it alone. For that reason, the children of women who had children out of wedlock usually died. Children who had fathers who were married to their mothers had a much better chance of survival. Therefore, the women who selected a man based on his FAITHFULNESS and his ABILITY TO PROVIDE did much better than women who simply selected men based on their ability to game women. Women who fell for players had children who usually died before puberty. So there were a lot more nice provider type guys and a lot fewer player type guys.

Now women who chose provider type guys usually do so by chosing guys who have a lot of wealth and income. Intelligence is one of the major factors that affects how well a man can provide for his family. A smart man can make more money and better provide for his family. So over several generations, women chose smarter men over dumber men and the average intelligence of mankind gradually increased.

In modern times the situation has reversed. Women who choose player type guys now have MUCH higher reproductive success than those who choose provider type guys. This is because the infant and child mortality rates are much lower. If a woman chooses a player type guy she may be stuck raising the kids alone. However, because of the welfare state those children are not likely to die. Furthermore, since her male offspring inherit the desirable player type characteristics, those male offspring will themselves have several illegitimate offspring. If a woman chooses a provider type guy she might have someone help raise the kids. However, her male offspring will have less reproductive success because they will inherit the provider tendencies instead of the player tendencies. Let me give you an example:

Lets say a woman has a one night stand with Bill Clinton. The resulting offspring will likely inherit his player tendencies and some of his charismatic qualities and may themselves have hundreds of illegitimate offspring. Therefore, those traits become much more common in the next generation. Each generation there will be more player type guys. This will continue until society becomes so dysfunctional that the infant and child mortaliity rate becomes high again.

Now if a woman marries a normal provider type guy and has his child, that child will not inherit the same charming qualities. Any male offspring she has will most likely have much lower reproductive success than the offspring of the woman who had an illegitimate child of Bill Clinton. So women who choose provider type guys will become less common in future generations.

While there are many exceptions, provider type guys generally have higher intelligence than player type guys. Also, women who choose provider type guys usually have higher intelligence than women who choose player type guys. I won't get into the reasons why here (the post would get too long) but if you are interested in why you might want to look at r/K selection theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory

[fschmidt]

i_want_a_hot_white_chick, I think we completely agree. I saw Idiocracy and discussed it here. I also looked at r/K selection theory here.

Just for fun, here is a copy of another old post of mine that more or less supports what you said:



No, women are not attracted to bad boys by default. Women are agnostic about male behavior. They are simply attracted to those men who represent the best evolutionary choice in the current environment. And stupid immoral men are the optimal choice for women in feminist societies, as I will explain.

The men that women seek in feminist cultures are omegas, not alphas. I have explained this many times. I also discuss the different male mating strategies in my description of co-alpha males. So let's review the different male mating strategies and see when each strategy works best. But first, we must remember that evolution is based on survival and reproduction. The goal is to survive, reproduce, and have your offspring do the same. So let's look at the options.

alpha - A successful alpha can have many children but takes high survival risks to do it. To make the risks worth while, the alpha has a harem that he mate-guards. The prize for getting to the top is exclusive access to a large number of females. In modern times, survival risks are low. But mate-guarding is banned in feminist societies, particularly with multiple females. The alpha instinct will drive this man to success and dominance in the male hierarchy but all this effort is wasted because the prize is not available. There is little evolutionary benefit to becoming a fortune 500 CEO. The best that the alpha can do is to have a sequence of wives and have slightly above average number of children. So women today consider alphas somewhat attractive based on this.

beta - This is a compromise strategy of allying with an alpha to be part of the winning team. If your team wins, you get access to females, not as many as the alpha, but still some. And if your team loses, you are less exposed to survival risk. This strategy requires being a dependable guy that the alpha can count on without being too ambitious. In modern times, this strategy leads to becoming a good employee. This man is dedicated to his work and is a reliable provider. In modern times, this strategy has little evolutionary benefit. Thanks to feminism, mate-guarding is prohibited. The lower survival risk is no benefit now. So this strategy is inferior to alpha today. As a result, women today find betas unattractive and will only use them as needed for material benefits.

omega - These are the lowest men in status. They are not good providers and so are not good for long term relationships. These men reproduce through seduction. Their evolutionary advantage is their immorality. Since they are not part of any alliance with alphas or betas, they do not hesitate to chase other men's wives. Women are attracted to these men specifically based on their seduction skill because this, passed on to the woman's sons, will spread her genes. The effectiveness of the omega strategy depends on the effectiveness of mate-guarding in a culture. In primitive times, mate-guarding was moderately effective, so omega survived but didn't thrive. In patriarchal societies, mate-guarding is highly effective and omegas become complete losers who are avoided by women. But in modern feminist cultures, mate-guarding is banned so omegas have by far the best strategy. Omegas are immoral but not necessarily stupid. But feminist culture combined with contraception has made stupidity a huge benefit. Smart omegas who want to avoid being stuck with child support will use contraception. It is generally the stupid omegas who don't use contraception. So by far the best male strategy today is to be a stupid omega. Women recognize this, which is why they are sexually excited by these winners (stupid omegas). It's true that women don't recognize this consciously. What women do recognize instinctually is which types of men are most successful at reproducing, and then women seek this type of man.

co-alpha - These men cooperative dominate a society and divide up the women using monogamy. The co-alpha strategy is about the same survival risk level as beta and about the same reproductive potential. The advantage of co-alpha is that a co-alpha tribe will beat a alpha/beta tribe in warfare because co-alphas all have more of a vested interest in tribal success. (The betas are always at risk of losing favor with the alpha, thereby losing reproductive access, so they have less of a vested interest in the tribe than co-alphas do.) The co-alpha strategy is the most effective mate-guarding strategy because co-alphas mate-guard cooperatively, protecting each other's wives, which makes things impossible for omegas. Co-alphas completely depend on cooperation. For this reason, co-alphas are highly moral and worry about things like justice all the time. When co-alphas are in control, you have patriarchy and a great respect for all traits that contribute to society, including intelligence, honesty, etc. In modern times, co-alphas are the ultimate losers. Mate-guarding is banned and cooperation fails. While modern women have no respect for betas, they are still willing to marry them for the material benefit and will simply cheat on their beta husband with omegas. But modern women will avoid co-alpha males like the plague because co-alphas are harder to cheat on and their failure to cooperate means that they have no advantage of any kind in modern culture. Co-alphas will likely be incels.

We naturally define "winner" based on our personal bias. But "winner" has a real objective meaning in evolutionary terms, which is the ability to spread one's genes. This requires survival and reproduction. Survival is not a significant risk in the femisphere, so all that matters is reproductive skills. A stable family tends to produce children of higher morality which is an evolutionary negative in modern society. The best environment in which to bring up children today is by a poor emotionally unstable single mother. This gets the children used to poverty, since pursuing wealth is largely an evolutionary waste of time, and will get them used to crazy women, whom the sons will have to tolerate long enough to fertilize them, and will guarantee that the children will have no moral barriers to interfere with their reproductive pursuits. For more on this, see the introduction to Idiocracy.

I hope this explains the evolutionary results of feminism. Women's preference for men is shaped by their environment. So choose a woman from outside of the femisphere.

[well-informed]

@ fschmidt : interesting with what you said. What are the examples you refer to in terms of mate-guarding in patriarchal societies and primitive times?

[fschmidt]

@ fschmidt : interesting with what you said. What are the examples you refer to in terms of mate-guarding in patriarchal societies and primitive times?

The most obvious example is the Seventh Commandment of the bible. The word "adultery" originally meant sex with another man's wife. So the Seventh Commandment is purely about mate guarding. And the punishment for violation was death.

In both Ancient Athens and Early America, a man was allowed to kill another man who had sex with his wife, and then could freely throw his wife out with nothing. This was effective mate guarding as well. Towards the end of Ancient Athens, this was questioned (liberalism taking hold). Here is a good passage from the trial of a man charged with killing another man who had sex with his wife in Athens:

"members of the jury, the law-giver considered violators [rapists] deserving of a lesser penalty than seducers: for the latter he provided the death penalty; for the former, the doubled fine. His idea was that those who use force are loathed by the persons violated, whereas those who have got their way by persuasion corrupt women's minds, in such a way as to make other men's wives more attached to themselves than to their husbands, so that the whole house is in their power, and it is uncertain who is the children's father, the husband or the lover ...

It is my belief, members of the jury, that this punishment [killing the other guy] was inflicted not in my own interests, but in those of the whole community. Such villains, seeing the rewards which await their crimes, will be less ready to commit offences against others if they see that you too hold the same opinion of them. Otherwise it would be far better to wipe out the existing laws and make different ones, which will penalise those who keep guard over their own wives, and grant full immunity to those who criminally pursue them."

Sound familiar?

Other rising cultures had similar rules. In early Anglo-Saxon culture, when a man had sex with another man's wife, the wife was killed and the guilty man had to purchase a new wife for the husband. Early Rome also had very strong controls. A good overview of this can be found in the historical part of the book "Sex and Culture" by Unwin.