In the course of my foray into psychology, I decided to look into Carl Jung – who was mentored by Freud for some time – for some new material. From what little I have read so far, I have found Jung to be a very appealing thinker.
While conducting some online research, I happened across an article discovered by fellow-traveler Chuck Ross that he incorporated into one of his blog posts. Chuck has uncovered a very rich seam here (read the article online with free registration), as I will presently explain.
The article quotes Jung in its title, in which Jung says: “America [is] facing its most tragic moment. It will either master its mighty forces or be mastered by them.”
Jung expounds upon the theme of mastery, covering the struggle between different races, the elements, and finally the struggle between the sexes. It is the last to which he most conclusively attaches the epithet “tragedy.”
I was pleased to see that, as I proposed in my recent post on the “American Dilemma,” Jung also explains the American character as a result of its religious heritage:
They chose the greatest abstraction of all, the idea of God, and they sacrificed everything to that idea. Countries went down before it, families were broken up by it, armies were slaughtered in the attempt to learn to think of God, and your puritans, the Huguenots, and all those to whom the idea of God was greater than anything else, learned to think so well that they left their own homes, and you are the descendants of those people. An abstract thought is always ruthless. It is the most dangerous one to think, and the most marvellous.
Having established the character of the American people, he sets about diagnosing the ailment:
I study the individual to understand the race, and the race to understand the individual. I ask myself, What influence has the building of America had upon the American man and the American woman of today? I find that it is a good subject for the student of pschoanalysis.
There is only so much vital energy in any human being. We call that in our work the Libido. And I would say that the Libido of the American man is focused almost entirely upon his business, so that as a husband he is glad to have no responsibilities. He gives the complete direction of his family life over to his wife. This is what you call giving independence to the American woman. It is what I call the laziness of the American man. That is why he is so kind and polite in his home, and why he can fight so hard in his business. His real life is where his fight is. The lazy part of his life is where his family is.
The diagnosis is clear: America is the land of the Beta provider.
If Jung appears to be merging with Roissy here, just wait, it gets even better:
I made many observations on shipboard. I noticed that whenever the American husband spoke to his wife there was always a little melancholy note in his voice, as though he were not quite free: as though he were a boy talking to an older woman. he was always very polite and very kind, and paid her every respect. You could see that in her eyes he was not at all dangerous, and that she was not afraid of being mastered by him. But when anyone told him there was betting going on he would leave her, and his face became eager and full of desire, and his eyes would get very bright and his voice would get strong, and hard, and brutal.
Because this was written in 1912, the modern equivalent to the betting parlor would be the TV screen and a football game, where even docile, beta husbands will yell like barbarians.
The final passage of the article, which offers analysis and the cure, is startlingly prescient, predicting decades in advance the wholesale collapse of the American family. In fact, this final passage is so illuminating that I’ll transcribe the entire thing on my blog, so that readers who don’t have time to register with the NY Times Magazine can read it right here:
American Marriages Tragic
You believe, for instance, that American marriages are the happiest in the world. I say that they are the most tragic. I know this not only from my study of the people as a whole, but from my study of individuals who come to me. I find that the men and women are giving their vital energy to everything but the relation between themselves. In that relation all is confusion. The women are the mothers of their husbands as well as of their children, yet at the same time there is in them the old, old primitive desire to be possessed, to yield, to surrender. And there is nothing in the man for her to surrender to except his kindness, his courtesy, his generosity, his chivalry. His competitor, his rival in business must yield, but she need not.
There is no country in the world where women have to work so hard to attract men’s attention. There is in your Metropolitan Museum a bas-relief which shows the girls of Crete in one of their religious dances about their god in the form of a bull. These girls of 2,000 BC wear their hair in chignons; they have puffed sleeves; their corseted waists are very slender; they are dressed to show every line of their figures just as your women are dressing today.
At that time the reasons which made it necessary to attract men to themselves in this way had to do with the morals of their country. The women were desperate just as they are today, without knowing it. In Athens four or five hundred years before Christ there was even an epidemic of suicide among young girls, which was only brought to an end by the decision of the Areopagus that the next girl who did away with herself would be exhibited nude upon the streets of Athens. There were no more suicides. The judges of Athens understood sex psychology.
On Fifth Avenue I am constantly reminded of that bas-relief. All the women, by their dress, by the eagerness of their faces, by their walk, are trying to attract the tired men of their country. What they will do when they fail I can’t tell. It may be that then they will face themselves instead of running away from themselves, as they do now. Usually, men are more honest with themselves than women. But in this country your women have more leisure than men. Ideas run easily among them, are discussed in clubs, and so here it may be that they will be the first ones to ask if you are a happy country or unhappy. [Here Jung is clearly warning Americans that pent up sexual frustration will cause American women to effect potentially disastrous changes through activism]
It may be that you are going to produce a race which are human beings first, and men and women secondarily. It may be that you are going to create the real independent woman who knows she is independent, who feels the responsibility of her independence and, in time, will come to see that she must give up spontaneously those things which up to now she only allows to be taken from her when she pretends to be passive. Today the American woman is still confused. She wants independence, she wants to be free to do everything, to think everything, to say everything, to have all the opportunities which men have, and, at the same time, she wants to be mastered by man and to be possessed in the archaic way of Europe. [Today, since much of Europe has gone down the same beta American spiral, we find women turning to romance novels in which they are spirited away by sheikhs to some desert oasis]
You think your young girls marry European husbands because they are ambitious for titles. I say it is because, after all, they are not different from the European girls; they like the way European men make love, and they like to feel we are a little dangerous. They are not happy with their American husbands because they are not afraid of them. It is natural, even though it is archaic, for women to want to be afraid when they love [here's where Roissy's "shady character game" comes into play]. If they don’t want to be afraid then perhaps they are becoming truly independent, and you may be producing the real ‘new woman.’ But up to this time your American man isn’t ready for real independence in woman. He only wants to be the obedient son of his mother-wife. There is a great obligation laid upon the American people – that it shall face itself – that it shall admit its moment of tragedy in the present — admit that it has a great future only if it has courage to face itself.
The medicine Jung offers as a cure is as obvious as the diagnosis was: American men need to learn gender realism and game.
I have to admit that this article blew me away. I could hardly believe that I’d find a psychologist, ninety-seven years ago, offering the same advice we’re getting from the more lucid segments of the PUA community.
Carl Jung was something of an alpha male himself. He was married for over fifty years, and allegedly had a number of lovers on the side. I don’t doubt it. He also sends feminists into paroxysmal rages, which force them to write long, incoherent treatises on why and how Jung is wrong or should be “revised,” even as he attracts throngs of female admirers. I will certainly read more of Jung, but from what I have seen here, I believe it would be fair to call him the founding father of the theory of game.
54 responses so far ↓
1 Grim // Aug 13, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Another great post. Extremely interesting.
Without a doubt beta’s made the west the power house that it is, would it be possible to get the beta’s a bit more alpha without destroying that economic power? Or would the realization of what women really completely destroy it?
2 Lukobe // Aug 13, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Yes, another great post, and thumbs up for gender realism, but game and PUAry? Might work for some. I don’t need to do it anymore since I’m getting married soon, but to be honest it’s never been in me. Who knows. Maybe I’ve just been lucky. But it seems like game and PUAry are a great way to waste many many years of your life.
Good for you for reading Freud and Jung, though. I need to read some more.
3 Welmer // Aug 13, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Jung argues that you need “Game” in marriage. In fact, he suggests that it is essential for a happy marriage (especially for the woman).
Having been there, I’m pretty sure he’s right.
4 Tim // Aug 13, 2009 at 3:07 pm
MAn…according to Jung…I’m an INTP…I’m fucked….now wonder I’m still a virgin
5 novaseeker // Aug 13, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Yep, Welmer. As I said over at Roissy, great article.
And it’s very true that you need Game or something like it to make an LTR work in 2009. What women want is different than it was before, and their options are as well. If you do not please them with Game, you will get dumped, eventually, in a lot of cases.
More men need to know that.
6 ganttsquarry // Aug 13, 2009 at 3:40 pm
This post is yet more evidence of the reason I read your blog Welmer. Fascinating reading. Jung was Nostradamus like, in his ability to read the trends very early on.
I’m not very optimistic on any sea change in attitudes anytime soon though. American culture not only seeks to lift up and celebrate the strong independent female but also seeks to denigrate everything male. What men have achieved, do to their own unique nature is ignored or derided. Even though American men are the softest touch in the world (even 100 years ago), their natures are still shamed as being dangerous and predatory. The irony is rich.
Males, because of this de facto inferiority are taught to bend over backward to the female and her superior nature. Questioning this arrangment is often looked at as whining, not only from women but men as well. Yet another irony. Arguably male shaming is worse. It is hard to pass a “shit test” when all the beta provider males are shaming you for not kissing her superior feet. Like Roissy says, women are happier when men don’t reflexively placate their every whim.
Maybe the solution will come from feminists themselves. Maybe, in 47th wave feminism, they will caterwaul about the lack of “real men” and promote “game” as a way to make them happy, and save them from the workplace drudgery that they fought for in the 1st place.
7 chuck // Aug 13, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Good post Welmer.
I too am fascinated by Jung, as shown in my posting about him. Finding that article at the back of John Leland’s book “Hip: The History” was mind-blowing. Of all people, Carl Jung was saying these things?
You should check out that book and read the beginning of the chapter “Would a hipster hit a lady?” It starts out with Jung’s article and dovetails into the discontent of men through the ages. It holds some pretty good insight.
I think as bloggers in this niche of male/female relations, we need to pay more attention to Jung/Freud/Campbell et al. They have important things to say, and their insight would give intellectual weight to some of the things we write about that are too easily dismissed by close-minded people.
8 ganttsquarry // Aug 13, 2009 at 3:48 pm
One quick point. That’s why game, while hardly a panacea to a very large, and culturally signifigant problem is the best hope for individual men at this point in time. To steal a word from the feminist playbook; game is “empowering”. No whining needed. It’s all about individual self improvement and confidence. It’s about helping your fellow man see the light. It’s about making the best of a crappy situation. This is what men do well. MRA stuff is fine, and its important. Unfortunately it is viewed as whining by men and women alike, and is a long way from effecting wholesale change politically. And besides, who says two agendas can’t be promoted at once.
9 novaseeker // Aug 13, 2009 at 4:11 pm
He also sends feminists into paroxysmal rages, which force them to write long, incoherent treatises on why and how Jung is wrong or should be “revised,”
Tsk tsk.
Am I the only one that found the abstract for that “tome” to be only barely intelligible at best?
10 Welmer // Aug 13, 2009 at 5:02 pm
You know that’s why I linked it, Nova.
11 BeltainAmerica // Aug 13, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Ya know no one has ever labled me as a beta. I may not have always been the most dominant alpha in every group I was ever in. In fact I usually prefered to be about 2nd or 3rd on the alpha list but I always made sure I was the eternal contender in everyones eyes for that title.
I still have female stalkers, I have received letters from women I dated years ago telling me they went through therapy and their doctors suggested writing me a letter to prove they had over come whatever hangup they had about us. I went out with a woman exactly half my age a few years ago just to mark off another check of been there done that. One or two women have tried to claim I was the father of their child, despite the fact that I have always been super careful there. I have only had one child and that was while married.
I have always had game. My current girl friend even reads rossie’s site occasionally and highlights all the parts that sound like me. Oh ya also my current GF (who I do love despite my never admiting it to her yet) is also an EX that I dated 20 years ago, I just dumped her one night back then to go run around and yet she was all over me when we met again just last year.
What I have learned about game and women is that it is NOT the most important aspect of winning the battle of the sexes or even just getting laid.
The most important thing is being in the right “group”. By that I mean if your a white guy and you find yourself with a group of women who’s group mentality is black guys only, all the game in the world will typically amount to nothing. The same thing rings true of income, car etc depending again on the group mentality of the women. A site like rossie’s and excerps from casanova types have alot of useful information in them but they usually lack this one point and almost certainly they are written from the point of view of the male who fits the IN group at that time.
This is why so many young guys think they have game with older women when the reality is that it isn’t so much their game as it is the “IN” thing for the woman to do.
What drove me into hating feminism is how it tips the social playing field away from men and keeps them from being in the IN group. That and the legal side of allowing women to hunt your ass down years after the fact too
So yes attitude and game is important but if you haven’t got the outward sign a woman can show off (money, looks, age, power, etc) all the game in the world won’t help.
Just my thoughts on the subject.
12 Welmer // Aug 13, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Beltain, all good points, but you’ve got to keep in mind that for many men they are academic, i.e. they are not getting any action at all.
Despite not having it all, you are apparently pretty successful with the ladies. You’ve got old flames running after you, women in therapy because of you, etc.
This is not the case for every guy. There are plenty of men who have plenty of money, are the right age, and even have some power (at work) who aren’t getting anything.
For these guys, don’t you think game is a necessary component? As a natural, you may not even realize what they are missing.
Think about it. It’s easy to overlook what you have in abundance.
13 Savvy // Aug 13, 2009 at 6:30 pm
The women are the mothers of their husbands as well as of their children, yet at the same time there is in them the old, old primitive desire to be possessed, to yield, to surrender. And there is nothing in the man for her to surrender to except his kindness, his courtesy, his generosity, his chivalry.
—————————–
Kindness, courtesy and chivalry are so rare that they make me yield. If you are a woman who is approached by men who are putting on the moves “discovery channel” style, its totally annoying. This sounds like crap to me. But then, my grandfather was dealing with El Paso on and off while still being in Spain. El Paso then was still the Wild West. What part of America did Jung see? Oh wait–just NYC? Seriously folks, New York City is as Queenie as it gets.
14 Savvy // Aug 13, 2009 at 6:33 pm
On more story to touch your hearts–young stallions are thrown out of the herd and form their own herd of all males. They can try stealing a mate from the herd, or sometimes there are other ways. I saw an example of a young stallion who discovered a lone female who had lost her foal and been left behind by the herd. He doted on her and stood by her and eventually mated with her. Sometimes nice guys do win–or at least nice horses.
15 Savvy // Aug 13, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Tim–I used to be INTP, then I changed to ENTP and now scored ENFP. I kinda like guys like you, but at 1% of the population, you are hard to find.
16 Welmer // Aug 13, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Savvy, I am sorry to be so blunt, but the real question here is what do you yield?
This is addressed in the article:
17 BeltainAmerica // Aug 13, 2009 at 8:01 pm
No Welmar you are missing my point. I said game was important but it isn’t THE most important nor is it THE first step.
The first step is to make sure you have something that the woman can show off. Either this is a reputation for being out of her league, power so far above hers that she wants to control it. Thats why we hear so much about the bad boys getting all the action because it is some primal “power” thing that the woman can show off as having tamed to her friends.
Feminism has made so many things of what was once an aspect that women could show off about their men obsolete, it is much harder to achieve today. seriously 50 years ago men didn’t have to be something special to have admirable qualities to women. Now adays they have to have something to quote a phrase “Money can’t buy”. Having a job that ranks even better than average means little today (unless you move to an economically depressed area). Why? Because women usually have jobs that pay pretty much the same as the men now.
What I have always tried to point out to men who say they have no luck with women is to make their own luck. Find out what you are good at and then show it off. After you have shown the world what is special about you and the woman is interested then the actual Game starts.
you need game to seal the deal yes but as I noted most all Casanova type writers were always the “type” that were found attractive by the women they were gaming at the time. White guys with even decent jobs are a dime a dozen they won’t impress her friends but a white guy with a decent job who can attract attention in some way will impress.
Most men can understand the game aspect but alot never figure out the target audience to allow the game to even get started.
Why I listed my past experiences with women was only to show that although I may have game (Or had before I started getting old and not caring) there were still areas where all the game in the world would have availed me nothing. Most men who write about how good they are at attracting women fail to acknowledge or report when they encounter these issues.
I picked up on it 30 years ago when I traveled to every corner of America with 4 friends. There were areas that I was a lady baggin god and yet we could travel 50 miles up the coast and I wouldn;t get a second look but the lighter haired shorter friend got all the action. When we cross referenced why this would occur we figured out that it had so much to do with what was common for that area or some other reason. But it all boiled down to something that gave the women an intial point of interest that other women didn’t have in their own men or some good point that the local women seemed to find attractive as a collective.
18 Savvy // Aug 13, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Back to the Horse:
Cloud: Wild Stallion of the Rockies
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/cloud-wild-stallion-of-the-rockies/introduction/29/
If anyone is curious.
19 Savvy // Aug 13, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Welmer:
By yield, I mean that guys who are kind and chivalrous really make me pause and take a good look at the guy because that’s the kind of guy I want to be with. That’s EXACTLY why I have a huge crush on the guy up in Seattle.
20 Ferdinand Bardamu // Aug 13, 2009 at 9:33 pm
FANTASTIC post, Welmer. The precepts of game have been around longer than most people know. A full century before Jung, Lord Byron wrote a poem entitled “Reply to Some Verses of J.M.B. Pigot, Esq., On the Cruelty of His Mistress” in which he gives Roissy-esque advice to a friend on how to win over a woman. There are other examples from the past I plan on dredging up for my blog.
21 Welmer // Aug 13, 2009 at 9:55 pm
But Savvy, do you see how you have made Jung’s point?
Your yielding (passivity) is only a pretense in this case. You are the one who is looking and deciding.
To yield, you must give in to him.
22 Savvy // Aug 14, 2009 at 12:42 am
Welmer–you will have to explain yourself better. I said that when a man is kind, etc, it makes me take notice of him. I respond to his courtesy, chivalry, etc. What do YOU mean by yield? I’m not going to “yield” to a man who doesn’t seem to care and plays games. When you are being gamed, there is nothing to yield to because games are crap.
23 rc // Aug 14, 2009 at 3:55 am
Here’s some clarity: why should I care what you take notice of Savvy? Or any other man for that matter. What do you bring me that I would value?
I’m not much interested in game, nor do I care what women want. That’s as much time as you’re getting from me.
24 Eman // Aug 14, 2009 at 5:24 am
But-but-but Jung was an EEEEEEVIL NNNAAAZI!
Or at least that’s how modern (Jewish-dominated) American historiography has come to view him.
Still though, Jung was a definitely a brilliant psychologist. His ideas and theories have outlasted and proven more resilient than Freud’s and Jung will surely continue to have a strong sociointellectual impact well in to the future, long after Freud has fallen in to relative obscurity and disrepute.
25 Eman // Aug 14, 2009 at 7:07 am
Savvy:”What part of America did Jung see? Oh wait–just NYC? Seriously folks, New York City is as Queenie as it gets.”
That is a very important point right there. Jung made a major mistake by engaging in broad judgments about all of America because of what he saw in NYC, which was (and still is) quite unlike much of the rest of the USA because of various factors.
In pre-WWII America, the vast majority of Americans still lived in small/medium-sized towns or on small farms where traditionalist lifestyles and gender-norms were still commonplace.
While Jung may have had some astute observations about the state of gender relations in a huge American city such as NYC, what he wrote probably did not apply at all in regards to the majority of the American population (75+%) which did not start becoming substantially urbanized/suburbanized until the post-WWII era.
–
To repost a comment I just made over on Ross’ blog:
Jung was probably biased by his small sample size. He likely only observed and talked to American men who lived and worked in big anonymous American cities like NYC and not the American men who lived/worked on small farms or in small/medium-sized towns (who were still the vast majority of the American population in the pre-WWII era).
The best strategy for overcoming the increasing dispossession of Western men is for Western men to start working locally again where they can then keep a more watchful eye on what’s happening on the homefront and provide equal input alongside their women and children.
Before the precipitous rise of anonymous urban/suburban industrialism in early-to-mid 20th Century America, EVERYONE in the family (men, women, children, extended family, neighbors, etc) all worked, lived, learned, and loved in their immediate local community, and thus there was much less of a split between the public and private spheres of life. Most Americans back then (again, the pre-WWII era) lived on small farms or in small/medium-sized semi-rural towns, with the men not going ‘away’ to work but rather working around their homestead or local township/neighborhood. There wasn’t this deep divide between the home and the workplace that is so common nowadays because home and work were often integrated to a great degree – in my opinion, it was this rapid splitting up of the local community/home and the workplace that has caused so much personal, familial, and communal havoc and dissolution in modern times.
We should seek to return to much more ‘localist’ ways of everyday living because it’s by far the healthiest way to build and maintain strong personal relationships, marriages, families, and communities. We should to ‘relocalize’ our lives as much as possible and cease being superficial materialists/consumerists and rootless cosmopolitans who merely flit around from one thrill to the next and thus never build any deep connections or roots in a community.
26 novaseeker // Aug 14, 2009 at 7:42 am
Welmer–you will have to explain yourself better. I said that when a man is kind, etc, it makes me take notice of him. I respond to his courtesy, chivalry, etc. What do YOU mean by yield? I’m not going to “yield” to a man who doesn’t seem to care and plays games. When you are being gamed, there is nothing to yield to because games are crap.
I think it’s probably a misunderstanding about terminology here.
Game is not really “playing games” — all it means is men acting like men, displaying mastery of something, having options, being flirtatious but a bit edgy and interesting. Most women find this behavior irresistible when it is directed towards them and the guy otherwise “fits” (to get to Beltain’s point). That’s what Welmer means, I think, when he mentions “yielding”: do you find the guy irresistible or not. Game is designed to push women’s attraction buttons simply by behaving like a man, rather than a wimp, because it’s been pretty much quite well demonstrated that many women respond to this very positively, as Jung points out here.
I think what you are saying is that you notice men who are kind and chivalrous — they stand out from other men for you. That makes sense given what I know of your persona and so on. But the question Welmer is asking is whether you have ever come across a man that you found utterly and completely irresistible, and perhaps were even surprised that you did? That’s the impact of Game. It isn’t the guys who you woul necessarily pick out of the crowd, or who you would notice due to their kindness or chivalry, but the guys you wouldn’t have really thought that way about yet nevertheless as you are interacting with them you find them irresistible, and you’re surprised that you do. You may very well have never come across such a guy — I’m guessing you haven’t. And if you had, you wouldn’t have experienced it as the guy “playing games”, but rather as a strong and unexpected attraction.
27 BeltainAmerica // Aug 14, 2009 at 8:27 am
Nova explains it very well Savvy.
So many times I have heard women say they can’t stand their boyfriend, husband what have you. Then in the same breath admit they are so attracted to them. So many times I hear a woman bitch and complain about a guy loudly like he is her worst enemy only to shortly find out she has been bangin his lights out daily.
Yet if a man is in a volatile relationship he can always point to the good reason he stays in it with certainty.
28 Lukobe // Aug 14, 2009 at 9:22 am
Eman wrote: But-but-but Jung was an EEEEEEVIL NNNAAAZI! Or at least that’s how modern (Jewish-dominated) American historiography has come to view him.
Is modern American historiography really Jewish-dominated, or is it simply disproportionally Jewish, as I expect is the case for much of academia? What’s your basis for this?
As for Jung being a Nazi, no, he wasn’t; neither were Wagner and Nietzsche proto-Nazis.
Still though, Jung was a definitely a brilliant psychologist. His ideas and theories have outlasted and proven more resilient than Freud’s and Jung will surely continue to have a strong sociointellectual impact well in to the future, long after Freud has fallen in to relative obscurity and disrepute.
Freud will never fall into obscurity, even if his ideas fall into disrepute (which they actually did for a while). Remember the trinity of Freud, Darwin, Marx? They’ll be remembered down the ages. Not to belittle Jung, but Freud paved the way for him and is unlikely to be forgotten anytime soon.
29 Splat // Aug 14, 2009 at 10:55 am
>>Welmer–you will have to explain yourself better. I said that when a man is kind, etc, it makes me take notice of him. I respond to his courtesy, chivalry, etc. What do YOU mean by yield? I’m not going to “yield” to a man who doesn’t seem to care and plays games. When you are being gamed, there is nothing to yield to because games are crap.
I’ve heard a PUA analysis of why chivalry works for some guys – basically, the claim is that a chivalrous alpha can pull off what appear to be gestures of deference because you can attach expectations to your actions. When opening the door for her, you expect her to go where you say to go, subtly leading her. This is opposed to tripping over yourself to open the door, whether physically or emotionally. One is alpha and manly, the other is submissive and beta.
If you’re doing chivalry alpha-style, it’s an expression of (a) control over her and (b) a reminder of your superior position of control the relationship. You are strong, she needs to be taken care of, and because of this you take care of her. Alpha chivalry means making her wear your suitcoat not because you want to make her warm, but because as the man you are hardy enough not to need one.
Alpha chivalry works very well for me; however, it doesn’t quite fit with traditional PUA methods because PUA techniques rely mostly on presenting a cocky, funny personality type while chivalry requires a calm/strong/reserved kind of personality.
30 novaseeker // Aug 14, 2009 at 11:03 am
Alpha chivalry works very well for me; however, it doesn’t quite fit with traditional PUA methods because PUA techniques rely mostly on presenting a cocky, funny personality type while chivalry requires a calm/strong/reserved kind of personality.
That’s a great point as well.
Game is not monolithic. There’s PUA Game, which is the most visible type. But there’s the kind of chivalry Game you are running there. There’s LTR Game. There’s what some people call “day Game” (the art of relating to women outside bars and clubs). And so on. It’s something that needs to be well tailored to your personality type, your locale, and the type of women you are interested in, and their interests and preferences. PUA Game a la Roissy is only one subset of it, and one I don’t personally support (casual relationships are not interesting to me in the least).
31 Savvy // Aug 14, 2009 at 12:20 pm
You guys have terminology that I don’t know. It’s the PUA game that I pass up. Roissy is dealing with women who have absolutely no class or social skills. I certainly don’t talk to men that way.
Eman got what I was talking about with NYC being Queenie as it gets. NYC’s 5th Avenue then and now is one of the wealthiest areas in the world. Were all the women he saw looking for a mate? Were they transplants looking for “love and labels”? Did he only go on visiual impression? I dated European man who was mild mannered and yet knew how to use a gun, but I should have been “shit testing” him because he thought I didn’t care because I didn’t pressure him about the relationship. Then he got angry with me for playing “little girl games” like not being available. I made some mistakes in that relationship, but he did too.
Jungs views are distorted, but he has interesting philosopies.
I think I’m different than most women. Though I’m attracted to a broad spectrum of men, I am looking for the total package of attraction, some spirituality/church attendance and readiness for a relationship. The attraction has to be mutual. I like those slightly nerdy ones because I feel like they need me, too.
Irresistible man? Nah. There isn’t one so far.
32 novaseeker // Aug 14, 2009 at 12:49 pm
I think I’m different than most women. Though I’m attracted to a broad spectrum of men, I am looking for the total package of attraction, some spirituality/church attendance and readiness for a relationship. The attraction has to be mutual. I like those slightly nerdy ones because I feel like they need me, too.
Irresistible man? Nah. There isn’t one so far.
You probably are a bit different from secular mainstream women, that’s true.
Perhaps someday some guy who knows spirituality Game will meet you and bowl you over, to your surprise?
“Shit testing” isn’t always game playing. For example, perhaps the most famous of “shit tests”:
“Do I look fat in this?”
Women ask it in earnest, for certain. But the evaluation of the answer is very puzzling. Either yes/no answer is bad, because if the answer is “yes” then she is annoyed, but if the answer is no, she is also annoyed because she wouldn’t have asked it if she didn’t think she was at least possibly fat in the outfit. So the only answer that will impress (or avoid annoyance) is a swift on your feet answer which deflects it somehow. And when that kind of answer comes, the woman is impressed, and the “shit test” (even if unconscious) is passed.
Game theory doesn’t posit that all women consciously “shit test”. Not at all. But all women do it at some stage, even unconsciously.
33 Welmer // Aug 14, 2009 at 12:57 pm
It’s true. Without Freud, Jung never would have risen to the heights he did. Freud was a real pioneer, even if he wasn’t right about everything.
As for the Nazi hysteria that dominated much of the 20th century, thank God that is finally winding down.
34 Savvy // Aug 14, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Savvy’s version:
Do these jeans make my butt look big?
Do they?
Say yes– cause if they don’t, then I didn’t buy the right jeans.
35 Welmer // Aug 14, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Good point about the spirituality Game, Nova. The original meaning of chivalry was something of a holy warrior — a divinely anointed protector of the faith and the defenseless.
However, as so often happens, it degenerated into a fetish fairly quickly, and by the 16th century or so was being lampooned in its European homeland – Spain – by none other than Cervantes.
But real spirituality Game is the most potent of all. It isn’t so much “Game” as it is the evocation of the true human nature that lies hidden in our subconscious. The fascinating thing about the divine, or spirituality, is that it speaks to us in ways that we cannot always understand rationally, or even consciously. Therefore, it can appeal to us in ways that we cannot consciously or rationally resist, even if we try.
This may be why Jung advocated a spiritual cure to addiction. This idea, after filtering through a few people, made it to Bill Wilson, who founded AA. Jung reasoned that only spiritual revelation could rival a force that the rational mind could not resist (i.e. alcoholism).
Therefore, one would think that a spiritual appeal to a woman’s desire might be the most powerful and irresistible of all. What I see in Savvy is a woman who has developed a spiritual archetype through her Christian faith, and that is what she has fallen in love with. I think this is a bit dangerous, because this archetype is not a real man, and a real man’s true human will cannot have the same stature as the divine subconscious husband.
36 Lukobe // Aug 14, 2009 at 1:52 pm
“Nazi hysteria”?
37 novaseeker // Aug 14, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Savvy’s version:
Do these jeans make my butt look big?
Do they?
Say yes– cause if they don’t, then I didn’t buy the right jeans.
Well but you see there is a shit test. A man knows better than telling a woman she is fat. So if he thinks he knows you look fat in it, and says so, he may pass *your* shit test. But that answer is risky, because he doesn’t know that you want that answer, and he does know that most women do not.
So the better answer is to deflect in a clever way which both changes the subject and gets her attention. That is kind of the essence of game. Not manipulation, but interaction that women find interesting and intriguing.
38 Welmer // Aug 14, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Obsession with Nazism, both pro and con.
39 Lukobe // Aug 14, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Well, obsession is generally a bad thing, and I’m glad to see pro-Nazi obsession especially disappear. But surely you can understand a bit of anti-Nazi obsession among Jews. Anti-semitism is indeed alive and well, and the sight of a swastika still stirs different feelings in Jews than it does in others, even if they weren’t present in Europe in the 1930s and 1940s.
40 Justin // Aug 14, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Sorry, Nova, I think you got it wrong. Only a beta cares about what a woman thinks, or what her reaction will be. An alpha answers HIS answer, she adjusts.
This is the paradox of Game and the PUA: it is really almost always underhanded beta manipulation, trying to out-think the females, which relies on you being both smarter and more dominant than your female target.
Real alphas do their thing, and out of the sheer power of their will and charisma, the female follows. No matter what his answer is, she will like it.
41 Savvy // Aug 14, 2009 at 2:56 pm
nova–My “test” makes fun of these “tests” because I actually don’t care. If he doesn’t like me and my big, smart@$$ tough.
42 novaseeker // Aug 14, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Sorry, Nova, I think you got it wrong. Only a beta cares about what a woman thinks, or what her reaction will be. An alpha answers HIS answer, she adjusts.
Sure.
But natural alphas don’t need Game. They are Game, naturally.
The whole point of Game is for non-alphas to become synthetic alphas in a way that is appropriate for the context.
Your philosophy is: “real” alphas (naturals) get women, and everyone else … gets nothing.
The point of Game is to get “beta” men to be alpha enough to attract and retain women.
What you are saying is like saying: really pretty women do not need to dress or wear makeup or heels or anything else: men notice them and are attracted to them.
True, that. But the vast majority of women who are not *naturally* like that do, in fact, enhance themselves. Game is the same on the male side.
Men like you who would suppress it are really just relegating most men to a life of celibacy for no reason: women are also enhancing themselves in a way that is appropriate for them.
43 Welmer // Aug 14, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Well, obsession is generally a bad thing, and I’m glad to see pro-Nazi obsession especially disappear. But surely you can understand a bit of anti-Nazi obsession among Jews.
Sure, it’s understandable, but I’m glad to see it fading into history anyway. It had some unfortunate effects on our national dialogue for a long time.
44 Lukobe // Aug 14, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Sure. Let the obsession go, but not the remembrance or the vigilance.
45 ztp // Aug 14, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Do these jeans make my butt look big?
In Ethiopia.
46 Lord Byron shows you how to deal with the ladies « In Mala Fide // Aug 15, 2009 at 4:10 am
[...] Literature, Sexuality, Women | Tags: Literature, Lord Byron, Sexuality, Welmer, Women I left this comment on this Welmer post: The precepts of game have been around longer than most people know. A full [...]
47 Glengarry // Aug 15, 2009 at 6:05 am
BeltainAmerica, great comments on a great post.
Even the worst salesmen have to prequalify their prospects. Identify the low hanging fruit and start there …
48 whiskey // Aug 15, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Jung is IMHO clearly wrong about Western women. Historically, Western Women were always far more independent that others, with far less mate guarding (since women themselves internalized religious rules on fooling around and faced censure by other women) making one Western woman the equal of say, four Muslim wives. The Western woman would be the most intimate counselor of any man, always back him (in public, though she might rebuke him in private), help carry his burden of business affairs (she often read and wrote and did the books, providing skilled family labor loyal to his family, and not an apprentice with his own interests) and provide a romantic ideal of an equal not a slave. Her love, won as an equal, was worth more than the fawning admiration of slaves. Thus for example, Andrew Jackson’s wife Rachel or George Washington’s wife Martha were both critical to their success, encouraging them through black moments, being their most trusted advisor, and carrying part of the burden of their business affairs. Going back to Roman and Greek times, this has always been the model of Western Women.
And not co-incidentally why Western Men were greater than other men — they had the love of one woman which was worth more than the passing affections of the Seraglio combined. Jung not being American gets some things right, with insights that natives miss, but is often spectacularly wrong on others.
I disagree with Jung’s diagnosis, particularly regarding female independence. Western strength is founded upon it. But “with great power comes great responsibility” and women have evaded responsibility at every turn since Suffrage. Rachel Jackson by all accounts was a strong and independent woman, and even married to another before she married Jackson (allegations of the shoe-leather divorce plagued her). Clearly she was Jackson’s strength. This was typical for Western leaders up to about say, 1960 or so.
But an equal mate MUST shoulder her responsibility. Her kids must come first, over her sexual satisfaction, something lacking in the Lohs and Ehrenreichs. Her husband must be as important to her as she is to herself (and vice-versa). TWO are stronger than one, just as the lesson of the fasces gave Rome its strength, and foundered when it was forgotten. [And misunderstood totally by the Fascists later.]
Women can and should have their own careers, education, independence, and other things that make them a man’s equal. But with all that comes words that are foreign to the vocabulary of Modern Women (but not to those born before 1950): Duty, loyalty, fidelity, family, responsibility, and yes, love. Not the burning passion of eternally teen-age “Twilight” or “Buffy” vampires, which is literally the horrifying desire to be a slave, but the mature love of people understanding mortality and the fragility of human existence.
Game is needed, but it is needed because Women abandoned responsibility in the West. The West is mortally weakened because of it.
With women being hypergamous and no female structure in place to curb that innate desire, we’ve got disaster. It’s no accident that one of Roissy’s tenets is urban anonymity. It’s a bit harder to drag home the Alpha of the week if the neighbors, the boss, the parents, and so on see and disapprove.
The desire to be “dominated” is basically, a total abdication of female responsibility, wanting the man in the driver’s seat 24/7 for stimulation and excitement. Like he’s a living video game. Which pretty much explains female attitudes towards men.
49 SFG // Aug 16, 2009 at 7:42 am
The Fascists’ big mistake was to lose.
Germany may have been a powerful country but their strategic situation (surrounded by enemies) wasn’t right for the sort of aggressive military expansion they wanted to do; they had to fight a two-front war. The Russians were just as nasty and they managed to get and hold a large empire for another 50 years.
If Germany had been the democracy and America had been the fascist power we would have been hearing about the weakness of democracy for the past seventy years now.
50 whiskey // Aug 16, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Mussolini and Hitler’s mistake was fundamental, not understanding the strength of the fasces. The binding was voluntary, and self-controlled not a master-slave relationship that characterized Fascist Italy or Nazi Germany.
Rome lost about 32,000 at Trebia, and around 24,00o0 or so at Lake Trasimene, and around 47,000 at Cannae. And still fought and won. Hannibal, a general greater than Alexander, pushed Rome to the very edge, but Rome still won, and won because of the Fasces lesson. That all were greater than one. Even Hannibal. Losing about 103,000 men, Rome was still able to get small farmer after small farmer to fight. For themselves. Together, as one.
The true inheritor of the lesson of the Fasces was America. Reeds bundled together, by custom, brotherhood, language, values, customs, and their own station in life. The Fascists, Italy, Germany, and Japan, were Big Men like Hannibal, brilliant and well armed, with able soldiers, sailors, and airmen, but hampered by a system of Emperorship. They were like Hannibal — Brilliant but doomed against the lesson of the reeds.
51 Lukobe // Aug 16, 2009 at 7:35 pm
And, of course, the U.S. has acknowledged this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasces#The_fasces_in_the_United_States
52 Dialog with a skeptic « In Mala Fide // Aug 24, 2009 at 3:02 am
[...] and behaviors that Roissy does. One of my fellow bloggers, Welmer, wrote a recent post entitled “Carl Jung: Founding Father of Game.” My point: you don’t need to be a Darwinist to accept that game is [...]
53 Social Conservatism and the Lot Complex | Welmer // Aug 26, 2009 at 1:49 pm
[...] my article on Carl Jung and Game, I quoted Jung and his analysis of American marriages. One theme that Jung found particularly [...]
54 Lupo // Aug 27, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Excellent post, Welmer. Thanks kindly for putting it together for us.
Leave a Comment