Feed on
Posts
Comments

A commenter at Mangan’s linked to a recent 60 Minutes segment which discussed study findings that babies are born with a moral compass and innate biases against people (or things) not like themselves. In short, it would appear that in-groupism, and hostility to the Other, is inborn in all of us.

Favoritism for one’s own kind and racism are, not to put too fine a point on it, a property of human nature and not something “taught” or constructed out of whole cloth by mean parents, the KKK, or afrocentric studies professors. This property can certainly be amplified or dampened by cultural intervention, but it cannot be eradicated or wished away.

In-groupism has evolved for a reason, and that reason likely led to an increase in reproductive fitness for those humans who had the gene(s) for in-groupism. In-groupism is, from the gene’s point of view, a GOOD THING. Now whether in-groupism is still as fitness maximizing today as it necessarily has been throughout human history is another question, but no one can seriously argue that it’s a pointless emotional reflex only designated “bad people” (read: working class white men) possess. If you need the dots connected, tribal favoritism is as natural as love.

As I am a person who generally prefers to not make life miserable for the mediocre masses who are just trundling by trying to eke out a slice of joy without stepping on my toes, I instinctively recoil at those self-righteous social engineers who would attempt to reprogram certain classes of people (read: working class white men) to betray their essence as human beings in order to more properly mouth the hypocritical bleatings of the gated-community pompous elite. So, inevitably, when some malevolent leftists seize on these studies and deliberately misconstrue the message they should be taking from them to further their anti-human status whoring agenda, I draw my sword and level it at their throats.

Since beheading of one’s ideological enemies is not yet (again) in fashion, we must settle for the weapon of our words, and no verbal artillery is more powerful in today’s snark-soaked society than the insouciant reframe. A successful reframe will win friends and influence people, and, best of all, it will drive your foes insane with impotent rage.

To wit: the commenter at Mangan’s worried that our leftist overlords would misuse this study for their nefarious ends, instead of taking the proper lesson from it that their unpracticed worldview is a mile high pile of horseshit.

Babies are born to be biased against the other. And to listen to these PC Marxist Professors going ‘Oh no, we have to train these people out of this’. Instead of saying wait a minute–maybe I’m wrong about political correctness.

How would your typical ankle-grabbing rightie like, oh, say, Rich Lowry, reply to a ruling class leftist who asserted that any proof of hard-wired racism meant that emotionally torturous reeducation must continue until morale improves? Likely, he would comply that steps must be taken to reduce the chance that inborn racism would lead to immigration restrictions, but that we must also be careful not to place any blame on [white men] for their regressive views because, after all, they were born with this original sin, blah fucking blah.

No doubt the mass of mainstream “””conservatives””” would fall right in step with their leftie tormentors’ frames, presenting their chafed rumps for yet another humiliating ramming.

Now how would this conversation go if the ruling class leftie had to confront an aloof asshole like yours truly who didn’t give a shit about clinking glasses with rancid anti-white leftoids at stiffly polite cocktail parties?

Leftoid: “Oh no, we have to train [white men] out of this.”

Demon’s Herald: “Sure, and while we’re at it, what do you think of training gays out of their homosexuality? It’ll cut down on the AIDS if the studies are to be believed.”

The masterful reframe uses the momentum of your enemy’s thrusting knife against him. Your goal with any reframe should be to either divert the withering mockery of the audience toward your opponent, or to ensnare your opponent in a logic trap which forces him to defend whatever blithe inanity he intones to lubricate his limbic folds.

It is similar in function to seductive reframes with women: you either redirect a woman’s alpha probing into self-conscious insecurity where she will revert to defending her attitude and become psychologically conditioned to perceive you as higher value than herself, or you make her feel the burn of mockery that is the undercurrent of teasing foreplay leading to sexual relinquishment to your obvious dominating presence.

Here’s another example. A commenter at Larry Auster’s accurately imagines what a typical anti-white leftoid (in this case, John Podhoretz) would say to a realist schooled in the facts of intransigent human nature and the evolved preference for tribalism:

You [Auster] wrote:

“But humanity does not consist of universal individuals. It consists of various cultures, ethnicities, and races all of which have particular identities, characteristics, ability levels, values, and agendas which are different from those of the host society. As a result, the mass presence of those different groups in the host society, far from advancing right-liberal equal freedom, empowers their unassimilable identities, characteristics, ability levels, values, and agendas, and thus changes the host country from a right-liberal society into a multicultural, left-liberal, racial-socialist society whose ruling principle is equality of outcome for all groups.”

To which Podhoretz pere et fils would surely reply, “Why do you hate freedom?”

How does a weak-willed, supplicating, betaboy “””conservative””” like, oh, say, Jim Geraghty, respond to this all-too-realistic, imagined Podhoretz coercive frame? Probably something like this: “I don’t hate freedom! Really, I don’t! Look, some of my best friends are freedom lovers. And I promise never again to use the word slut, no matter how applicable it is. Be kind to me?”

Lame. Podhoretz owns the frame, and Geraghty is just playing within its bounds.

Now how would this imagined yet highly probable conversation go if Podhoretz were trying to box in a mischief maker like yours sincerely?

Pod: “Why do you hate freedom?”

Demon’s Padawan: “Why do you fellate goats?”

Leftoid’s frame destroyed, razed by brutal and vicious ridicule, and, should the demonic horde so choose, seamlessly replaced with a frame of their comfortable choosing.

Some GOP operatives who shall remain unnamed have written here asking for ideas about reframing against the media-dominated leftism that rules the airwaves and the shit channels. Well, here are some ideas. I could give more, but I don’t feel much like it, mostly because I have my suspicions that the lot of the mainstream right isn’t really interested in LISTENING and WAKING THE FUCK UP, but instead would prefer the glass-clinking route until either the whole thing goes down in flames or they can grab the coattails of a truly brave leader and say “See, I was right there with you all along!”

Fucking puling waterboys. Ass-lapping company men.

Anyhow, I leave you with this final thought: Mockery.

Mockery.

And more mockery.

This is the age of superficiality, of winning through intimidation, and the only way the right is ever going to defeat the left in any meaningful manner is to mock them relentlessly, mercilessly, sadistically. You cannot defeat snark — the leftoid’s debate tactic of choice — with logical exposition or appeals to civility. You only kill it by turning it on itself. If you think this is a sorry turn of events… well, it is, but it’s the world we live in. Abide reality, or abort. The reality is that three huge branches of mind massaging — the media, academia, and government — are in control of the discourse, and it is blatantly against your interests as a realist thinker and lover of truth and beauty.

Appeasement is a luxury of winners.

Even then, even if the right took all my advice and gamed the shit out of their media cockblocks and the LJBF electorate, there may be no saving this sinking ship. Even the tightest game is no match for a demographic tsunami that is constitutionally wedded to the idea of Big Daddy State and Bad, Beta White Man.

As always,

yours in poolside.

[crypto-donation-box]

Women love to cavalierly toss out all-purpose smears like “creeper” and “stalker” to ear tag the beta males solemnly grazing around them who rumble a little too close to the edge of their pen enclosures, because a punchy insult is always preferable to a more articulate rationale for describing the ways in which the innocuous characteristics of the beta male are so dismaying and unattractive to women, the sex, if you will ponder, which prides itself on its wellspring of compassion.

Interestingly, this reflexive psychological burp of women can be retrofitted by the cunning womanizer as a tool to disarm women’s natural defenses against putting out too easily, or feeling regret for having put out too easily.

Reader walawala recounts a text exchange which demonstrates this inverse psychology tactic:

just had a text exchange with a girl I just banged last night by maintaining frame…

Me: cab driver just spit a loogie into a roll of toilet paper

Her: thanks for sharing

Me: keep change lah

Her: I just googled you and found a story you were quoted in

Me: u cyber stalker

There was a danger here that walawala would get sucked into this girl’s frame when she opened that can of worms about googling him. His response was classic frame control: “u cyber stalker”. (Note alluringly aloof lack of punctuation.) By using one of her natural womanly words of exclusion against her, he effectively put her in the defensive crouch, where she is tempted into qualifying herself to him. Most women, because their modernist Western egos are so rapaciously overinflated, cannot resist this temptation.

A very quick and dirty way to break a girl’s frame, or reinstitute the primacy of your frame, is to accuse her of being a creep or a stalker. Women respond viscerally to these accusations because they are intimately familiar with the power of these slanders to utterly castrate beta males and render them harmless environmental accoutrements. The last thing you want is women categorizing you as a harmless accoutrement. And sometimes, the only way to avoid that is to give them a taste of their own exhilarating medicine.

[crypto-donation-box]

Reader Ace recalls some text and messaging conversations he had with a couple of girls:

Conversation via facebook with ex (HB 8). I’m new to game and recently unplugged from the matrix.

Me: Read through some old messages on MySpace. Fun stuff
Her: O gosh. I can only imagine!
Me:You had quite the attitude punk! And I was such a charmer
Her: Probably… and no. lol
Me: Oh really? It’s no wonder you fell for me SOO hard. Lucky girl
Her: Haha whatever you say
Me: 100 reasons why you love (My name) Found that the other day. You make me out to be a badass ha
Her: HAhaha I was sweet. I remember my little notes you wrote me everyyyyday
Me: Yeah you were. I know, I was a tool
Me: Pretty sure the biggest reason we dated was because our lips fit really well together.

No response. I know I shouldn’t have initiated contact with an ex because I should be spreading my demon seed to other girls.
Jacta est.

Conversations via text with HB 9 from work. Had a boyfriend during the first two conversations.

Me: Am I going to see you at the cliffs tomorrow?
Her: No I got class 9 to 4
Me: Skip class, I’m much more fun
Her: I skipped last week lol. I don’t want to have to make up my hours again.
Me: Well I think you should, it’d be for a good cause. What’d you skip class for last week?
Me: And by good cause, I mean you would get to see me
Her: For extra sleep lol
Me: Haha your excuse for missing class tomorrow is much better

Conversation with the same girl via text after I ran into her earlier that night at a club.

Me: You wobble like a white girl babe
Her: Yeah because I have no butt!!
Me: Lol true, which means you’re just gonna have to win me over with your personality
Her: Haha! I already won.
Me: Lol and what on earth makes you think that?
Her: I am kind of a genius lol
Me: Lol well if that’s the case, that’s a definite plus, but don’t think for a minute that just because you’re easy on the eyes that I’m impressed
Me: If you want any chance of “winning” I need to know more about the setup you have going on in that genius head of yours
Her: I have a boyfriend so I must be doing something right lol
Me: And I have a dog, that doesn’t necessarily mean that I’m doing something right lol
Her: dog? boyfriend? … difference lol.
Me: Both entertain you when you’re bored, both keep you company when you’re alone, both do what you tell them to lol
Her: HAHAHAHA! I love that comparison, but I don’t keep my “dog” on a leash lol.
Me: Lol fair enough, but I still wouldn’t say you’re winning..he’s not me
Her: You must not know him then because he is bad ass lol. trust me I am winning.
Me: Lol but be that as it may, he’s not me. That aside, I just want to be friends
Her: Well duhh I know that. You just like picking on me lol.
Me: Haha cause youre such a good sport, and you fire back occasionally, which i like
Her: HAHA! yeah I bet you do lol.

Conversation after I ran by her on the trail.

Me: You looked like you could use a running buddy today
Her: Haha! I thought that was you!!
Me: Honestly, I kind of thought you were a black girl from afar…except for your butt!
Her: Shut up hahaha!

All of these conversations were prior to my unplugging.

“Prior to my unplugging” means, I presume, prior to his introduction to game concepts and material. “Ace” may correct me if I’m presuming wrongly. And so what we have here are texts and messages that Ace sent in his pre-game state to girls, and he wants to know if they are exemplary of natural alpha male mojo.

There’s no need to bother with a line-by-line analysis of Ace’s badinage. The alphatude lessons contained therein aren’t specific to any one line; they are derived from a general vibe that his conversational technique emits.

And the lesson I take from this stream of conversation is a simple one: Teasing, playfulness, negs and challenges cannot make up for a loss of frame.

It’s frame first, frame now, frame forever. You lose the frame, and you are perpetually crouched in the defensive posture, playing by the girl’s rules, dancing to her beat, singing her tune, spasmodically twitching on her puppeteer strings, and all the while driving her desire into a ditch.

Some of you newbs may be wondering what I’m talking about. You read Ace’s “comebacks” and you think it shows tight game.

“It’s no wonder you fell for me SOO hard.”

Newbie says: He’s challenging her and flipping the script, making it seem like she chased him! Isn’t that game?

Well, yes, that is game, in the particulars. But it has to be viewed in context, and the context here is of a man trying too hard (and too frequently) in his insistence that his ex couldn’t get enough of him.

“And by good cause, I mean you would get to see me”

Newbie says: He’s making himself the prize. Isn’t that game?

Again, context matters. Yes, having an “I am the prize” mentality is a core game concept, but in this context it falters because Ace has had to repeat his assertions of prize-worthiness to an obviously uninterested girl. Prize-worthiness is best left implied rather than forcefully asserted.

“Lol fair enough, but I still wouldn’t say you’re winning..he’s not me”

Newbie says: Boyfriend destroyer! Aloof attitude! That’s gotta be tight game.

A man indifferent to a woman’s “I have a boyfriend” shit test is not a man who writes, count ‘em, four lengthy texts telling a girl how much her boyfriend doesn’t matter to him. Yes, he’s cocky and funny and unapologetic, but he’s also giving the impression of a guy who can’t stop himself from parrying a girl’s volleys, even as she is clearly enjoying the back and forth.

“That aside, I just want to be friends”

Newbie says: Disqualification! Come on, that’s definitely game.

Sure, when the disqualification is not appended to the end of a huge text conversation where he pretty much tacitly confessed his sexual interest in the girl. DQs simply don’t work when burdened by such incongruence.

“Honestly, I kind of thought you were a black girl from afar…except for your butt!”

Newbie says: Neg! Gotta be game.

Yes, it was a neg (sort of)… which reminded her that he remembered their earlier conversation about her butt. She knows he’s smitten.

In the final analysis, Ace’s pre-unplugged game is a great example of an aspiring womanizer “getting” the nuts and bolts of game, but not being able to assemble the pieces into a coherent whole. Both girls established the frame and held it almost the ENTIRE TIME. The result is that Ace managed to come off like a superficially suave man of great earnestness who was happily obliging the girls’ conversational maneuverings and performing for their applause. Not a beta, not quite an alpha.

If a girl has set the frame, your job is to avoid getting entrapped by it as quickly as possible, and often this will mean completely changing the subject if you are not getting the desired responses from the girl. For example:

Her: I have a boyfriend so I must be doing something right lol
You: And I have a dog, that doesn’t necessarily mean that I’m doing something right lol
Her: dog? boyfriend? … difference lol.
You: [next day] gonna be at [place x]. go there, we’ll chat like humans.

Or:

Her: I have a boyfriend so I must be doing something right lol
You: [hours later] saw a man get a pedicure today. not sure what made me think of that.

A lot of guys new to game get so excited with the powerful pickup tools at their disposal that they tend to overuse them at the cost of missing the context in which they are being used. What then usually happens is that girls enjoy their unconventional rapport but never quite feel that rush of burning desire that truly aloof men effortlessly evoke in them. Eventually, the barrage of overworked game tactics veers into spergland, and the girl will actually start to get turned off by this “go nowhere” man who shucks and jives like a properly trained court jester.

Setting the frame and avoiding antagonists’ frames are critical to seduction, both of women and of electorates.

UPDATE

How could we forget the best frame setter/frame breaker/frame interruptor ever?

Her: I have a boyfriend so I must be doing something right lol
You: gay

[crypto-donation-box]

A reader passes along this personal anecdote:

I wrote you about a year ago with a tale about a birthday dinner with a girlfriend where I showed up late, had no present, and subsequently violated her in wonderfully new ways that night as a result.  The main reason I wrote at the time was because I owe a great deal of how my life has changed, both at work and with women, to your blog.

Today I have another entertaining story that proves yet again how right your posts are.  I’ve been talking to a married woman for about a month now.  Her husband is well off, but about 15 years older and has made no effort to take care of himself.  He also has very little sex drive.  She does modeling and acting.  I’ve included a picture so you can make your own assessment of how attractive she is (please don’t post that if you do comment on the blog about this.  I’m really not looking to affect her career with this). [ed: she’s sexy.]

I’ve been working her pretty hard the last month.  She gets approached by men EVERYWHERE.  She even has pro athletes trying to hook up with her.  So I  had to go a different route and ride that line of being somewhat supportive when she complained about her husband, but frequently make sure she knew I found her sexy as hell, and wanted to violate the hell out of her.  Halloween, that tension build-up all paid off.  We were both at a party at a bar, friends of hers all over, and after just one drink, she didn’t care who was watching.  We didn’t even make it to midnight before I was violating her in the parking garage.  The thing that was most striking to me after that, was how hard she was working to try to get some indication of commitment from me to assuage any doubts she had about what had happened.  She clearly wants out of her marriage, but that old hypergamy makes her want to know she can jump straight from one secure place to another.

The saddest thing is that her husband effectively all but told her to go fuck me.  She’s spent years trying to get him to go to the gym, go do things with her instead of sitting on his ass, and be affectionate to her.  He basically gave no alpha, and didn’t even give any supportive beta either.  As she’d describe her marriage, he honestly sounded more like your typical housewife (let himself go, believes she should just love him for who he is, etc.) than a man.

I wonder if this kind of thing happened with any regularity in Medieval Europe?

Women simply cannot be trusted to act virtuously. Their sexuality must be constrained to some degree by the operating patriarchy if civilization is to flourish. In times past, the threat of lethal cuckold revenge struck fear into the hearts of whorish wives and alpha male interlopers. Today, the State ensures the cuckold foots the bill for any bastard spawn the whore may have with her itinerant lovers.

How far we’ve fallen.

But I digress. The photo the reader included of the cheating wife was quite telling. Some girls just have the “eye of the trollop”; their intense, smoky glare broadcasts far and wide “I act before I think.” I’m not surprised a rich man married her; rich men tend to be both ignorant of female nature (they can’t be bothered to learn) and hooked on the thrill of possessing a dangerously sexy trophy wife. Rich men are under the mistaken assumption that their wealth is enough to keep a wife fulfilled and satisfied. We here who study the crimson arts know better. Perhaps they deserve the cuckolding they get.

The “love me for who I am” platitude has got to be one of the most self-destructive pretty lies a person can sincerely hold. If you believe that, and act in accordance with that belief, I can practically guarantee you will suffer in love. Even the most naturally natural alpha males who strut with conviction that they are Satan’s gift to the world know that women require certain emotional stimulations to respond sexually and to fall in love.

What can we learn from this reader’s story? Well, if you like the idea of fucking sexy, bored housewives in nightclub parking garages, you should be aware of the following:

1. Does she give off that wonderful whore vibe? Watch for the eyes and the walk. Women who love da cockas have a certain way of walking. And if she glances even for a split second at your package, she’s pre-lubed.

2. Has she been drinking? Really, it helps.

3. Does she complain about her husband or boyfriend within the first five minutes of meeting her? Now you may think this is a recipe for being her emotional tampon so she can bitch about the asshole she loves, but the benefit to you depends greatly on how you handle her whining. Too much concern, you’re beta toast. Too little, you give her no excuse to find salvation in your crotch. Also be cognizant of the style of her complaints; if she’s down to fuck around, she’ll sound more coldly dismissive of her husband or boyfriend rather than earnestly despairing.

4. Do her friends all seem like sluts? Slutty female friends are rarely cockblocks. Do you know why? Because sluts love it when their friends are sluts, too. It means no chance of being judged.

5. Is it Halloween? If it is, double your odds of closing the deal on the same night.

Whatever you do, never give your real name, address or phone number to a married woman. The last thing you need is a shotgun in your face when you open the front door.

[crypto-donation-box]

taterearl writes:

Narcissism = higher value in yourself…taking women off the pedestal
Machiavellianism = pretty much game…using women’s nature to get what you want
psychopathy = aloof and unconcerned when a woman gets flighty with her emotions

You don’t need to turn into a serial killer to get women…just understand these personality traits do have some benefit to your personality.

The Dark Triad are the component parts of the one overarching attitude that most defines and forges the successful womanizer: overconfidence.

***

Runner-up comment winner

Jacob Ian Stalk has this to say about that:

The Dark Triad is the clarion call that has replaced outmoded concepts of honor, virtue, chivalry and self-sacrifice as the organizing principle which motivates and galvanizes the post-society American man. It is the ultimate expression of untrammeled individualism. A society crumbling into atomizing modernism is both symptomatic of growing psychopathy in the population and causal of more people turning toward the psychopathic dark side. When truth is exiled, the allure of cold-blooded self-concern is evident.

This, right here, is the result of 50 years of feminist influence. Decivilisation. Decivilisation by the hand of the Mother Goddess and her evil handmaidens. That’s Game – a roadmap to her altar with Google-Maps-direction-finder efficiency.

Game is like a gold ring through a pig’s snout – it lures unwary men onto the altar of the sacred feminine. Feverishly we mount her handmaidens and cast the pearls of our manhood before her swine.

No need to wonder how to get there, or look for street signs. Here’s the way, spelled out for us in 100 words or less. Go straight to the Devil. Do not pass God and do not collect salvation.

Fights to the death for a womans favour is the only possible eventuality of Game. When men unbind from each other and abandon brotherhood feminism has won. Man is reduced to his animal nature. If feminism wins, the Alpha will be kept in a cage, released only to kill the Beta, then used for sexual gratification and breeding stock.

A better roadmap to the jungle doesn’t exist than right here in these pages. The blogger knows it. The reader knows it. And the Devil knows it. If our last rallying point is a pact with the Devil then We. Are. Done.

It’s a strange mental contortion when getting all the sex and love from pretty girls one could want is considered a victory for feminism.

My take on this issue which crops up regularly on this blog can be summed up in a simple rhetorical ploy:

What do you call a man who sacrifices for a country and a culture which is indifferent to him at best and hates him at worst?

A fool.

I say, bring on the jungle.

[crypto-donation-box]

A reader writes amazedly:

I like sex as much as the next guy, but I’m amazed at what men will throw away to get it: a Presidency (B. Clinton, DSK), a 38 year career, CEO positions, money, respect, freedom…it just doesn’t make sense. No matter who she is, she’s not worth it. IMHO, obviously.

He speaks of Generals Petraeus and Allen and their Lebanese immigrant, faintly masculine mistresses (last I checked of this labyrinthine lovers’ octagon.) Yes, the scent of an attractive, height-weight proportionate woman is strong, stronger still when her surroundings are populated by bloated pustules formerly known as women. Scent of a Womb, you could call it. Men sniff it in the air, like a wolf picking up the odor of prey animals, and they are sprung to action. But it is useful to remember that as strong as that fertile pussy odor is to men, equally strong is the alpha male odor to women. Perhaps even stronger in women, since alpha males are so much rarer, and thus more exciting when discovered, than are young fertile women to men, who need only stroll around a SPWL neighborhood for a few minutes to ogle ten or fifty babes who can adequately stiffen the staff.

A woman in a room with a four star general is as overtaken by powerful urges to FUCK AND FUCK NOW as a man is when in the company of a pretty, young woman with suppleness in all the right places. You just don’t fiddle with the god of biomechanics and expect a slurry of sexual harassment lawsuit threats or career-ending consequences will keep His Dark Eminence at bay and the work environment safely borg-like and aridly void of sexual tension.

Feminists can screech and shriek, manboobs can pule, white knights can huff and puff, but, like all of us, their knees too will bend to the cosmic prime directive.

The scandal itself — so mundane in its predictability* — is only noteworthy for three reasons:

1. The conspiracy angle. It’s hard to avoid suspicions that Petraeus was not going to be fully cooperative on Benghazi and was therefore summarily deep-sixed by timely revelations courtesy of Team HopeandChange.

2. The male archetype on display of the “beta male in alpha clothing”. Too many people readily confuse occupational status for alpha maleness, when it’s a man’s attitude, first and foremost, which imbues him with the alpha allure. Although very high social status and alpha maleness correlate, it is by no means exact. Petraeus’s (or was it Allen’s?) self-incriminating email avalanche is some proof that he harbors the soul of a beta. A real alpha male does not do the email equivalent of gushing like a lovestruck schoolgirl, unless he really was lovestruck. (More on that later**.) He especially does not do this when he is high ranking military brass with a lot to lose should his illicit effusions be discovered.

As for the archetype of Beta Males In Alpha Clothing, these types of men get action from women entranced by their status, but then quickly lose these women’s interest when their betaness reveals itself in manifesting clinginess. The leader of men can be just as blind to the nature of women as the celibate omega male or the cloying beta male. Leader of Men beta males are often victimized by their mistresses because the women don’t have the strong feelings of love and loyalty to them that they would have to attitudinal alpha males.

3. The game lessons contained therein. Petraeus and Allen both miserably failed the Jumbotron test. You do not write tens of thousands of sappy emails to your mistress that you wouldn’t be comfortable airing on a Jumbotron for the world to see. That goes doubly for CIA directors. I like to follow the KISS principle in matters of the heart: Keep It Scarce, Stupid. And for God’s sake — the Draft folder? Have you dumbasses never heard of anonymizing remailers?

There are many tawdry twists and turns in this saga soon to come, I’m sure, but you really only need to see two pictures to understand pretty much 99% of what’s going on.

The wife…

And the mistress…

Wow, notice that masculine digit ratio she has? That, plus the squared off, clenched jaw and forehead zit are leading indicators that this broad is well on her way to breaking a land speed record for cock gobbling the alpha males in her midst.

How in tarnation is Petraeus’s potato sack poster wife for Puritan living supposed to compete with this fuel-injected sex machine? There isn’t a man alive who would pass up a chance at tapping that harlot if his only alternative was Miss Massachusetts 1687. You may as well dangle a chunk of raw meat in front of a starving lion’s maw and expect it to sit still for twenty years.

Look, I’m not claiming Broadwell is any raving beauty. She’s probably around a 7, adjusted for age. And she has that incipient manjaw going on, a classic tell of the late stage America, careerist shrike tankgrrl female with clit dick. But in relation to the wife, she’s a hard 10. Hard enough to cut diamond. If your wife — and I say this with the utmost clinical detachment — is utterly unbangable, then a 7 prancing around your office day in and day out, year after year, in high heels, pencil skirt and a sexpot squint will test the resolve of the most religiously indoctrinated or divorce theft-averse man. Every day you don’t expel yourself in the tramp’s come hither wicker is one more day you drag yourself home to suffer in stark contrast the sad, depressing sight of the Michelin Ma’am dutifully holding down the home post. Your guilty thoughts will eat you alive either way, so you may as well enjoy the benefits of the burden of that guilt.

The God of Biomechanics does not reward virtue. His works are Total Gonad.

I find the notion coming from some quarters (feminists and white knights and manboobs, oh my!) that Petraeus ought to have been more virtuous absolutely laughable. The man’s station in life, if nothing else, made him a rock star in his milieu. Women would have made their sexual intentions known to him rather blatantly. Virtue is easy when there is little to realistically tempt one to vice, as is typically the case for nearly all omegas of either sex, and betas of the male sex. This was not the case here. Petraeus had the equivalent of a thousand attractive men’s temptations thrown in his face every day. A choir of heavenly saints would have trouble keeping the Boner of Light in their pants under such circumstances.

Which brings me to my next jeremiad: Tossing men and women together in the workplace is a recipe for dissolving marriages, sexually dispossessing beta males, and corraling women under the banner of a few industry captain alpha males. Men and women in a putatively monogamous society are simply not meant to be in each other’s company, away from family, all the day long and night. Is it any wonder, really, that female infidelity rates are now approaching that of men’s rates? The gender neutral workplace experiment has brought alpha males and fertile females together like no other arrangement yet devised by man. And it happened under everyone’s noses, because no one bothered to note that human nature is real, and it isn’t going anywhere soon.

There is a reason why newly minted wives rush their husbands out to the suburbs, and it’s not just to get their kids into good white schools: it’s to sequester their men from the sea of luscious young pussy that swims the streets of the cities. Similarly, most husbands are much happier when their wives either stay at home or work in jobs where they are mostly surrounded by other women or beta males, like teaching or accounting. The goal for each is the same: to reduce excessive alpha male/hot female temptations.

Of course, don’t bother telling feminists this undeniable aspect of society: they’d rather stuff purple saguaros in their ears than contemplate the merciless, gender aneutral reality of humanity. Their willful ignorance is rivaled only by their catastrophic stupidity.

*How predictable was this affair? Very. The greater the sexual market value disparity between a husband’s wife and his female coworkers, the likelier the odds of his having an extramarital affair with a woman closer in SMV to himself. This postulate is best expressed graphically:

A high status man whose wife is a full 10 points lower on the looks scale than the women he works with is guaranteed to cheat, and cheat a lot. You will notice that some alpha males advanced in the ways of self-abnegation can resist the temptation to cheat, so long as the other woman is no more than a couple points better looking than the wife. But once the other woman crosses that threshold from “kind of prettier” to “yup, she makes my wife look like a duffel bag of laundry”, the infidelity is set in stone. And only those who loathe male desire will see fit to condemn such a man for his actions.

For the recent members of the studio audience: Feminists and their lapdog beta supplicants tend to be the types to nurse an irrational loathing of natural, normal male desire.

There are those tricky little trolls who will innocently(!) ask “Don’t you feel sorry for the wife? What did she do wrong?”

I do feel a twitch of pity for her, but it stops there. She did nothing “wrong”, in the Biblical or PC sense, but the fact that she obviously felt it reasonable to so fully let herself go is evidence that she cared not a whit for her husband’s animal desires, and was probably up to her ears in feminist ideology about the uselessness and evil of appealing to the visceral demands of men for physically attractive, slender lovers. Had she stayed thin (something which is entirely possible, barring very rare physiological ailments), she would have enjoyed more loving sexual attention from her husband. But she is undoubtedly a creature of the zany zeitgeist, and as such was likely imbued with latent hatred for the idea of pleasing one’s husband in the way that husbands prefer to be pleased.

There is also the matter of expectations that are inevitably placed on women who have managed to capture in unholy matrimony a rising star alpha male. The pressure to stay sexy and feminine will be much more strongly felt by a wife hitched to a valuable alpha male. After all, he has options most men don’t. The luxury of resting on her wifely laurels to scarf down a pint of Edy’s is not in the cards for such women. To put it mildly: Ladies, if you want the alpha male, be prepared to put in the hard work to keep him amused. If you don’t want that responsibility, then go marry a beta male who won’t have the SMV leverage to complain or seek alternate humanistic outlets for his needs.

Naturally, some of you women will balk. But try this thought experiment on for size:

The fat wife of an alpha male is the SAME THING as the unmotivated, dull, needy husband of an alpha female.

If you would be hard pressed to place full blame on the alpha female for her succumbing to infidelity, then so should you think twice before placing full blame on the alpha male for his succumbing to infidelity.

If you cannot grasp this elementary logic, then you are either a raving feminist loon, or a very feminine woman who confuses feelings for reason.

**Was Petraeus in love? I bet he was. Broadwell was considerably younger than him, and considerably sexier than his wife, and those two things are prerequisites for illicit love to bloom in the heart of a man. Feminists often sputter angrily when they see a much older, powerful man with a younger woman, a reaction which arises because they are aware that what they are seeing is an asymmetrical power relationship, but even worse, that the subordinate woman in the relationship ENJOYS IT! The man likes having a pretty girl look up to him, and the woman likes having a powerful man to look up to.

I think it is within the realm of possibility, then, that Petraeus really loved Broadwell, and saw her as much more than a fun fling. He returned her love, though in the end it appears she didn’t get what she wanted from him, and her knives came out.

Will anyone in the media beside this blog talk about the genuine love Petraeus, or Allen, had for their respective mistresses? No. The belief that a man cannot love more than one woman at once is ingrained deeply in the psyche of the masses. Most cling tightly to hopes that non-monogamous relationships cannot be loving. And who wants to believe that an older man can truly fall in love with a younger woman? Certainly not the legions of older wives!

Then there is the uncomfortable fact of female nature: who among the media elite really wants to confront the reality of the base desires of women, of their yearning for powerful men, and of their natural inclination to happily assume the subservient role to such men? Who will mention how cavalierly women will dismiss the far-reaching consequences of their actions if such actions bring them closer to joyful fulfillment in the arms of their married lovers?

Love can thrive in relationships where lust is the driving force. When I read that Petraeus was having an affair with Broadwell, I was happy for him. Imagine the torment such a man with his temptations must suffer, just to keep up appearances in service to his political career and his dreary family life. But he went ahead with his affair anyway, and he did it for love. He put love ahead of duty and the wrath of the PC Kommisars. He chose to live not as the mass of men live — empty of any joy. Petraeus may be a fool and betrayer, but he is also a bold, exuberant romantic. A man willing to risk it all for a pretty woman’s love, the best thing that there is in this godforsaken world.

In the final analysis, the magnetic appeal of this story is clear:

Petraeus is us.

PS I predict that the cuckolded beta male hubbies, both of whom are “conventionally alpha” doctors, of Broadwell and Kelley will be the least examined aspect of this story by the media. Remeber, folks, men are expendable! And that goes triply for beta males. They are the forgotten lepers in the wilderness of unspoken tabulations of human worth. We will hear a never ending tale of woe about Mrs. Petraeus, but hardly a peep about the sad sacks who suffered their wives’ unfaithfulness. Some sexes are just more equal than others.

[crypto-donation-box]

What if the seduction is sincere?

Maxim #1: Game is learned charisma, streamlined seduction. Game is as sincere as its practitioner’s intent.

Game is the honest presentation of an idea, a thought, a suggestion in a way that makes it likely to be believed by the object of desire. If game is manipulation, or cheating, then so is all art, for which the object of desire is the viewer’s or listener’s engagement with its message. Do you really believe art is cheating?

[crypto-donation-box]

Marriage Vs LTRs

Let’s compare two men.

Man 1 abjures marriage. He grows older moving from one long term relationship to another, experiencing relative instability in his love life but also the thrill of the hunt and the popping freshness of pussy varietals. As he ages, the number of women who are willing to abide his no-marriage clause shrinks, as does the youthful quality of the women. But he partly compensates for this inevitability with tight game and a charming, devil-may-care attitude, which allows him to punch above his weight well into his dotage. He has no heirs that he knows of, and for some reason this does not bother him as much as people tell him it should, but the fact that he is not bothered does bother him. He wonders, often now that the years ahead of him are far fewer than the years behind him, if one of those women he loved was one to hold to the exclusion of all others. At the end, he wheezes his last with memories of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of women — of their loving ministrations and tender caresses and fleeting intimacies between window blind shafts of sunlight — dancing through his head, and in the company of a nebulous regret that refuses to dislodge.

Man 2 abjures bachelorhood. He marries at 30 after a trio of lukewarm short term relationships, and because he is a good man (or, more likely, because he is a man of middling status and dull personality with limited options in the sexual market which alleviates any threats of temptation against his virtue) he never cheats and puts his heart into pleasing his wife, who, because of her biology, inexorably grows less interested in sex with him, as her own attractiveness subsides in accord with her fattening waistline. He is healthy and content, all things considered, and he grows old fondly remembering his wife as she was many years ago, sexy and slender and whimsical, while the allure of her pussy — the only pussy he has seen and felt in twenty years — gradually diminishes, until the time comes he would rather caress pretty strangers with his eyes than caress his wife with his hands. He has two children, of whom he is very proud and loves very much, but still their existence does not relieve the gnawing that grips him in the chest when he thinks of love, and desire, that left him long ago. At the end, he wheezes his last in the company of his old wife’s tears and clouded eyes, and he drifts off to forever with memories he wished he had, and memories so distant they have receded to mere imagination.

Now… ask yourself: Which of these two men had it better?

[crypto-donation-box]

Possessing a “dark triad” personality is good for attracting women. It’s also good for getting what you want out of life in realms beyond those of acquiring pussy. Reader moses passes along:

The Dark Triad ain’t just for seducers. It works in real life too.

From the WSJ book review on “The Wisdom of Psychopaths” by Kevin Dutton:

“Mr. Dutton, with his tongue not entirely in his cheek, develops a skill set he calls the Seven Deadly Wins, “seven core principles of psychopathy that, apportioned judiciously and applied with due care and attention, can help us get exactly what we want; can help us respond, rather than react, to the challenges of modern-day living; can transform our outlook from victim to victor, but without turning us into a villain.” His seven are: ruthlessness, charm, focus, mental toughness, fearlessness, mindfulness and action.”

This is absolutely correct. In my business career I’ve seen people with these traits win again and again, often by screwing others over.

I’ve employed a few of these traits myself to great effect.

Ruthlessness

Demand a pay raise. Don’t wait for it.

Escalate to a fuck close. Don’t wait for it.

Charm

Avoid defensiveness in favor of amused dominance. You will win more allies by directing their emotions toward deference instead of away from deference.

Avoid argumentativeness in favor of playful teasing. You will win more women by directing their emotions toward pleasure instead of away from pleasure.

Focus

Don’t get distracted from your career goals. Avoid dead weight who would hold you back.

Don’t get distracted from your sex goals. Avoid cockteasers who would LJBF you.

Mental Toughness

Never let a critical boss, coworker or client fill you with self-doubt.

Never let a woman’s caprice or shit testing shake your frame.

Fearlessness

You will pursue those things which you want despite the risk of failure.

You will approach women despite the risk of rejection.

Mindfulness

You will work to neutralize threats from competitors, through force or guile.

You will work to improve your social savviness, and avoid incongruence in the pursuit of women.

Action

Contemplation is for closers.

Fantasizing is for fuckers.

There is but one thing in this world which feels better than a brain shattering orgasm released into the warm wet vagina of a pretty girl, and that is the rush of power that flows like the Orinoco through a man’s arteries when he commands his environment and those who dwell within it.

Heartiste, what is good in life?

To crush beautiful pussy, see them love you for your power, and to hear the lamentation of their LJBFed beta suckups.

The Dark Triad is the clarion call that has replaced outmoded concepts of honor, virtue, chivalry and self-sacrifice as the organizing principle which motivates and galvanizes the post-society American man. It is the ultimate expression of untrammeled individualism. A society crumbling into atomizing modernism is both symptomatic of growing psychopathy in the population and causal of more people turning toward the psychopathic dark side. When truth is exiled, the allure of cold-blooded self-concern is evident.

[crypto-donation-box]

Famed commenter gig (a Chateau VIP) passes along this story from a friend:

Fun story, not mine, from a friend.

He was in first or second year in college, and dating a girl still in high school. He’d started working, unlike her. So he had much more money than her. And he gave her a very nice gift for Christmas, in her view. But the girl got embarassed because she couldn’t match his gift. And they started talking about how could she “repay” him.

Well, after some talk, he came to the answer. Everything would be settled, and she would have no reason to be embarrassed, if she gave him her ass for his birthday, several months ahead. He argued that her ass was something very special for him that it would cement a very strong bond between them and make their relationship much deeper. If you know what I mean….

So he spent the next months “dreaming” about the day. And the day came. But the girl said that she couldn’t do it, it would hurt her, she was not of that type, she couldn’t do it. He decided to break up with her because of that.

fast forward a couple years. They meet again. He asks her to come to his new apartment. He didn’t ask anything, just went for the kill. And he got her ass. I did try to find some moral teaching here, but I have failed so far….

Moral of the story: You don’t barter for a woman’s sex; you occupy it.

That’s what women secretly want you to do, but they don’t like having to spell it out for you. Unfortunately, most betas are socially dyslexic and need it spelled out, which of course ruins the romance.

[crypto-donation-box]

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »