Feed on
Posts
Comments

The Era Of The Apex Alpha

Men throughout history have known that the top dog attracts women. They saw it when their wives made shiny eyes at the circus ringleader. They saw it when politicians came around to give stump speeches. They saw it in school when the athletic boy or the dangerous boy magically acquired a doting harem of admirers, like some Poon Piper.

So the fact of female hypergamy wasn’t a mystery to at least a large minority of men, even if those men couldn’t put to words what they were seeing. There had to always have been a sense among the common man that women feel an instinctive attraction to powerful men. But that sense was circumscribed by the limited availability of provocations which could stimulate unrestrained raw desire in women. There weren’t that many powerful men to go around in, say, 1850 America, and of those there were, the communication mediums to transmit their sexy power to potential throngs of adoring female fans didn’t exist in any meaningful form. If a powerful man passed through your small town, you were one of the few (un)fortunate local men to witness first-hand how women would veritably kneel before this exotic stranger from afar.

That all changed with the advent of rapid transportation, radio, TV, and stadium amplification.

Commenter Chairman of the Board excerpts,

“What Girls Want: Seventy Years of Pop Idols and Audiences”

“When former bobby-soxers remember Frankie of the bow-tie years, they emphasize that the Voice was seductive. Janice Booker saw her generation of bobby-soxers using Sinatra to express the beginnings of feelings otherwise inexpressible. Writes Booker, “[h]e was safe because he was unattainable; unattainable because he was a celebrity, and unavailable because he was married with children” (74). [ed: laughable. sinatra’s marriage wasn’t stoking sexual frenzy in his female fans.] Martha Lear recalls a feeling less proto-sexual and more actively sexual: “Whatever he stirred beneath our barely budding breasts, it wasn’t motherly. And the boys knew that and that was why none of them liked him, none except the phrasing aficionados… [T]he thing we had going with Frankie was sexy. It was exciting. It was terrific” (48).

In the highly restrictive prevailing sexual mores of the 1940s, girls’ options for exploring their sexuality were severely limited. Through movies, radio shows, and popular novels, girls were taught that sexual intercourse was for marriage only. Their own magazine, Seventeen, instructed girls to be extraordinarily careful about the liberties they allowed their dates to take; the magazine advised against necking and petting—and anything further down the line was definitely out of the question. Discouraged from loving in private, teenage girls did love in public—they loved their Frankie, fiercely, unashamedly, loudly. They made a spectacle out of themselves, they made a star out of Frank Sinatra, and they made a social space into which generations of girls following would continue to scream and faint.”

Right around mid-20th Century America, the era of the apex alpha male began, an era that could rightfully be called something new on the scene, for there were few comparable eras in human history, save for ancient empires ruled by khans on horse and emperors in palaces.

Reader PA writes about one mid-century American apex alpha,

Another bullet to DoBA’s list of [Charles] Manson’s accomplishments — the girls stayed loyal to him through their own murder trials. They didn’t plea bargain or confess for a sentencing deal.

I wonder… a decade earlier Presley set off a mass hysteria just by shaking his hips. The Beatles had girls scream-ovulating. Was there a … female hunger in apex-America that some musicians and sociopaths tapped into. Their success suggests a low hanging fruit effect. No rocker today makes girls scream quite like that.

Mid-century America — circa 1940-1970 — was the time of the “Great Compression”. Economic and social equality were high among whites; the American Beta Male was in the primacy of his rule. All that equality is a turn-off for women; it’s bad business for female desire. There must have been a craving among young women during that time period for a big cheese, a kingpin, an aristocrat, a head honcho, a cult leader, a proto-Obama… a man who stood shoulders above other men. A…. rock star.

If the sexes were reversed, that time in America, (if you’ll allow me a loose-fitting analogy), would look like a time of great equality among dumpy plain janes, and no stand-out beauties to inspire men to reach for greatness. It’s not a great analogy, because, well, it’s hard to imagine any culture in which men faint in the presence of a hard 10. Abject veneration of HSMV members of the opposite sex is primarily the wont of the female of the human species.

Imagine how the masses of mild-mannered, provider beta males experienced mid-century America: Their shock and confusion watching their best women literally throw themselves at pop culture icons, begging to give their sex away for free to unapologetic cads. This was something new, something beyond the conventional wisdom about female nature, and it must have royally fucked with the heads of men. What lesson did our mid-Century forefathers learn? It wasn’t an idealistic one. In twenty years, a Western civilization’s worth of pussy-propping pedestals got knocked over, never to stand upright again.

Commenter Arbiter writes,

this is something I often make a point of, and it’s one of those things that move people’s circles. Women screamed and fainted at Beatles concerts. Men never screamed and fainted at Madonna concerts.

Feminists say behavior is programmed by capitalist media, for whatever reason that would be. But what media ever told women to scream at concerts? None. What media ever told men not to do so? None. Feminists can at the most claim that women “are made to desire the men in the band”, but the screaming would be completely unnecessary for that purpose.

Those who claim media can mold raw sexual desire are either lying or old and so far removed from their youthful yearnings that they have forgotten what it’s like to experience a sudden rush of lust for, if a man, a cute girl or, if a woman, a socially popular man. No media was responsible for that first thermonuclear blast of lust when my stripling teenage eyes saw the red-headed girl’s pert tits and round ass in a whole new light. That was a fire that started deep inside, and has smoldered there since.

So it is with women. Their hypergamy isn’t a media creation; it’s God’s creation. The media at best can only poke and prod the dangerous beast from its slumber.

So what lessons did our mid-century beta males take to heart as they had to endure watching pathetically from a corner their women en masse essentially cuckolding them with their ids (and many with more than that). As the romantic insults piled higher, I bet America’s beta males — some of whom invented space exploration and high def porn — began to share a general outlook on life and on women.

We gotta install microwave ovens
Custom kitchens deliveries
We gotta move these refrigerators
We gotta move these colour TV’s

Now look at them yo-yo’s that’s the way you do it
You play the guitar on the MTV
That ain’t workin’ that’s the way you do it
Money for nothin’ and chicks for free

The Sexual Devolution of the late 60s was as much or more a reaction of men to the change in their women’s comportment as it was a protest by women against cultural restrictions on their sexuality. The Kraken was released from its subterranean prison in women’s hindbrains, and once surfaced it wrought psychological destruction on a mass scale. Profoundly disillusioned and not a little nauseated, salt-of-the-earth mid-century men must’ve thought, “And I’m supposed to slave away for something these yapping faggots are getting younger, hotter, tighter, and for free?!”

It’s an irony of human experience that the golden ages of great civilizations, the heights of their power, immediately precede their sudden and rapid collapses. It’s becoming clearer with time that America’s Golden Age was the 20th Century, a Golden Age which coincided with a Golden Boy Age, and that had our fatherly forebears the wisdom they would have more readily perceived the omens in two generations of their women prostrating themselves in worshipful sexual abandon at the feet of the apex alpha demigods of the day.

Spread Christmas Cheer!

Comments RSS

Rivelino explains,

GAME is all the techniques and strategies to get better with women, including negging, cold reading, push pull, frame control, but also self improvement topics like working out, better posture, career development. the RED PILL, in contrast, is the deeper understanding that women are not sugar and spice and everything nice, that they in fact have a strong need to be sexually overwhelmed and dominated, that they are fundamentally emotional and childlike, that their concept of truth is not the same as that of men, and that their core nature is not to be loyal. the red pill teaches men to love and appreciate women as they are, not as we want them to be.

That’s about as clear and succinct a definition of the two value systems as I’ve read anywhere.

There is, of course, plenty of overlap between Game and Red Pill. It has to be, because the Red Pill is the child of its father, Game. Game came first and opened possibilities to explore human dynamics in a new and fresh way. In fact, the Game “worldview” predated the exact same Red Pill worldview. Most of the well-known and well-regarded Game tactics are grounded in Red Pillian (or, for you true old skoolers, evo psych-ian) theories about female nature. These theories received a thorough working-out in the field (see the old fastseduction.com forums for testimonials from tens of thousands of men over the past decade or two), and the experimental process was efficient at sorting the successful seduction strategies from all the competing hypotheses.

Not to butter my own whole grain bread, but I believe with oh-so-innocent earnestness that it was Le Chateau that first made the connection between Game and the wider culture.

Spot The Overgaming

If I pounce on readers, it’s because I want you to grow as men and as Lotharios. Tuff luv. So I had to take a swipe at this text convo that reader “rlcooper” passed along.

Been reading your stuff for a while but recently realised how fucking necessary this stuff is. Just wondering if you have the time to critique some text game, free to publish. I’m a dumb ass, I know.

me: depends on what i can expect
her: hahaha nah idk. do you have expectations
me: nope, i’ll just let whatever happens happen
her: that
her: that is always a good plan
me: you know from experience huh
her: i just reckon life is better that way
me: maybe cos it is
her: true 🙂
me: you’re doing well, i like compliments
her: hahaha
her: dont want your head to explode
me: wow, never heard of a woman so frigid
her: what?
me: i’ll keep the euphemisms down
how cute, you don’t get it

Ok, spot the exact moment when he overgamed.

Take your time.

.

.

.

Got it?

It was here:

wow, never heard of a woman so frigid

Push-pull is a powerful seduction technique. Push-push-pull is good, too, in certain circumstances and in limited doses. But push-push-still pushing-woops time for a desperate hail mary pull is toxic overgaming. If you tease and taunt a woman long enough, she’ll eventually think a) you aren’t really interested in her or b) you’re a prick, and not the sexy kind of prick.

Right after she texted

dont want your head to explode

was the perfect time for easing up on the jerkboy gas and reeling her in gently.

no worries, i can take all the flattery you can dish out

I don’t know what happened after this chat, but I bet it wasn’t as good as it could’ve been. Constant pushing (or “going cold”) is a tell of insecurity; women have hindbrain antennae exquisitely tuned to pick up the slightest perturbations in male self-confidence. This is the art part of the art and science of seduction. You’ve gotta know when to hammer strike, and when to stay your hand and give the helpless nail a little kiss on the head.

One other observation. When he said

you’re doing well, i like compliments

it was in reply to something she wrote which wasn’t technically a compliment. But logic isn’t all that crucial to a right proper seduction. Women value feelings far more than they value internally logical conversation. The lesson here is that you shouldn’t fret too much about making sense to a woman as long as whatever you’re saying is delivered with a stout-chested bravado.

Recall the CH definition of feminism:

The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.

The goal doesn’t have to be consciously intended for it to be operative. Most feminists aren’t thinking, “I want to enlarge the sphere of acceptable expressions of female sexuality and shrink the sphere of acceptable expressions of male sexuality.” But conscious awareness isn’t necessary for subconscious desires to percolate up through the prefrontal cortex and get rationalized as a moral crusade for an invisible sex inequality.

Taking their actions and their steady stream of contradictions at face value, it’s evident that feminists loathe male desire. How else to explain the facility with which feminists hold competing and incompatible worldviews in their frazzled hamster brains?

Vanity Fair had a very favorable write-up of Strayed in a recent issue and at one point states that Strayed “is a champion of promiscuity”.

In the very same issue, VF has a profile of Russell Brand, and gives us this gem:

Which brings us to a sticking point: for all his talk of prayerfulness and humility, there persists an image of Brand as a bounder and a cad. Does this compromise his credibility with women? I put this question to Suzanne Moore, a liberal, feminist columnist for The Guardian who is, in many respects, politically sympathetic to Brand. “It’s funny. I have a 13-year-old daughter, and she absolutely adores him—he seems designed for young people who are just getting into politics,” she said. “But he still has this history, no matter how much he cloaks his sexism—and I’ll call it sexism—in this new spiritual talk. He plays this double game, being very self-aware of his past misdeeds, but I don’t know how much respect he has or shows to women.”

Which begs the following: How would VF cover a Strayed-Brand hookup? Champion of Promiscuity Hooks Up with Misogynist Pig, seems about right.

The feminist schizophrenia in terms of liberated promiscuity coupled with our “rape culture” brings to mind that classic scene in Little Shop of Horrors with Steve Martin as the sadistic dentist and Bill Murray as his masochist patient.

Further proof, as if it was needed, that feminists and weak-minded women who chant along monotonically with their idiocy, really only have as their purpose the construction of a world where men are harangued and shamed for their natural male sexual desire and women are exalted for theirs. Thus, we get nonsense like relabeling skanks as “champions of promiscuity”.

Why do feminists want this world? Because most feminists are ugly, sexual marketplace losers who have to give away their putrid pussies for free to get any action, and they take out their resentment on men and on the normal women who love men as men and want to satisfy men in the way that only feminine women can.

A Norwegian regular reader passes this along.

Major Norwegian newspaper VG (vg.no) today have prison authorities confirm that mostly women send letters to Anders Breivik, the anti islamist who killed 77 people in 2011. Many of the letters are love declarations.

In the paragraph “Get [receives] letters from all over the world”:

It reads:

– He gets all kinds of letters. Senders [“Spammers” like Google Translate suggests is not the word used] are from all continents, some are very young, most of them are women, he gets some declarations of love, but the majority of the letters express support for his political views, says Hillesland.

Original link in Norwegian:
http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/terrorangrepet-22-juli-anders-behring-breivik/fengselet-stanser-breiviks-massebrev/a/23360188/

chicks dig jerks
yes they do
a jerk in jail
is extra diggable too!

Breivik is no Don Juan in the looks department, but he still gets more marriage proposals behind bars than a law-abiding beta male will ever get buying drinks for girls at bars.

Exhibit Anders in reflexive female desire for killer men should be heartening in at least one small way to dissident rightists: You can put to rest any theory that states young, fertile women must be won over first for a revolution to get off the ground. Nah. Assert your principles, start the revolution without the women, and the women will follow once you burnish some serious badboy iconoclast cred. Add a dollop of charm and a reckless disregard for the feelings of others, and the women will come running.

In totally unrelated news, J.K. Rowling has no idea why so many Harry Potter fangirls LOVE LOVE LOVE morally dubious badboy Draco Malfoy.

Men instinctively know to avoid single moms and BPD headcases. No man wants to help raise another man’s kid, and crazy drama whores aren’t much fun after the post-coital glow wears off.

Now we can add another archetype to the list of women to avoid: The Credentialist Whore.

Reader Dr. Giggles explains,

Perhaps we’ve found another type of woman who, like the single mom, should be avoided by men at all costs. Call her the credentialist bachelorette. She carries baggage like the single mom in the form of spiraling college debt which you end up subsidizing, by either paying for everything during the relationship, or outright paying the debt itself once married. Unlike the bastard spawn you can kick to the curb once it turns 18, the debt may last into her golden years, according to a recent Beta times article.

A woman who whores herself out for useless college credentials like an MA in Vagina Pondering, and amasses a mountain of debt on her quest for status feels and anonymous urban fucking, is a horrible long-term relationship prospect. Not only will you invariably get stuck directly or indirectly paying off chunks of her debt, you will have to deal with her insufferable “credentialed girl” entitlement lovingly honed from years fobbing her bills off on her daddy. If you’re really unlucky, she might be the type of CW to unload on you about the patriarchy during a first date.

File the Credentialist Whore, along with the Single Mom and Crazy Bitch, under “pump and dump”, and don’t even think about moving in with her. Sex is a lot more satisfying when you’re not paying for it in some form or another.

Read Full Post »

The Iconic SJW Face

It’s hard to choose one face that stands — or scrunches — above the rest as the iconic social justice warrior (SJW) face. But I believe I have found it.

This Harry Potter tranny was snapped at a Ferguson protest in Portland. Like most SJWs, she is a raving beauty. That knitted brow which will never unknot. Those beady, judgmental eyes. The boycut. The thin, sexless lips pressed into a perpetual Puritan’s scold.

The overall impression one gets is of that fat judge with the testicle chin in Pink Floyd’s ‘The Wall’.

All she(?)’s missing is the pitchfork and torchlit mob, and a witch to burn for heresy against the Church of Anti-Racism.

If only degenerate SJWs could see themselves the way others see them…. I doubt anything would change. Cult religions and their followers are immune to the emotions and sympathies that sway normal people.

Balancing Comfort With Unease

Lurking_Gorilla asks,

I have a game question. Where is the balance between her being nervous around you versus her being comfortable around you (to open up sexually)?

CH Maxim #44: “Women can’t feel impassioned without also feeling a little unease.”

No doubt. It’s better she feels a little nervous around you, and afraid to say the wrong thing, than to have the kind of lazy comfort you see in long-term couples.

But what’s the right mindset for keeping her in that state of butterflies and excited nervousness (different from the infamous “dread”) long term, while also getting her comfortable and feeling a connection to you? Comfort is especially important when going for the bang. But beyond that, too much comfort is a passion killer.

A smart game question. The comfort phase of pickup gets short shrift compared to the attraction stage, but the reality for most men is that if they blow it with a woman, they will likely blow it at some point during the seduction when a woman needs to feel emotional connection and trust. Typically, this “blow it” point will fall somewhere between one hour after meeting and the third date. (You’ll know you blew it on the second date when she greets you with a hug instead of a kiss on the third date.)

We’ll talk more about the comfort phase for getting the bang in future posts, but for now let’s focus on striking that balance between comfort and unease in LTRs, because it is true that women respond most delightfully to men who can at once arouse and soothe their anxieties.

In order to pull off this feat effectively with a woman you have known for a while, you have to be just a little bit sociopathic. A rom-com sociopath. The grist is push-pull (or hot-cold): You say one thing one minute, and it’s seeming opposite the next. Or, your words and behavior don’t match. In an LTR, what this means is that you’ll want to acquire a patina of unpredictability. Just a patina, though. Too much comfort is a passion killer, but too little comfort is a relationship killer.

My go-to hot beef injection of exquisite unease usually takes the form of flirting with other women at social events I’m attending with my girl. Plausible deniability, a bit of earshot-buffering room space, and a good sense for timing the exit of an illicit conversation are all valued skills in the art of keeping your woman hanging on those tempting tenterhooks.

If you have some natural social grace and charm, you won’t even have to seek out the attention. As a pre-selected man feeling no particular urge to GET LAID NOW, other women will gravitate to your side. Don’t underestimate how villainously competitive women can be when naughty thoughts of stealing away a taken man intrude. There’s a reason a woman fearful of abandonment with save her sharpest claws for the other woman casting eyes upon her man.

Naturally, you will abide these mischievous trollops. You are a man, after all, who enjoys the company of women after 5 PM. That such company might simultaneously inflame distress and lust in your main mama is a quirk of the female sex which you have no moral duty to police.

Later, when you are tasked by your stressed-out girlfriend to describe “who” it was you were talking to, and “what” it was you were saying (and all the while she will attempt, O wonderfully frail and transparent creature!, to hide her concern under a facial smear of detached inquisition), you will by no means readily disabuse her of the notion that another woman, heaven forbid!, was interested in your scintillating presence. Instead, you will smartly express feigned naivete as you gleefully, even recklessly, recount how interested the interloper seemed in your goings-on and your collegiate sense of humor. Or, if you’re the sly type, you might just shrug off your girlfriend’s questioning with an opaque, and slightly distracted, “She’s a nice girl.”

If your girlfriend is a sensitive Susie, you’ll have to pull back on the reins a bit more than you’d at first like. The sensitive girl can easily let her imagination, or nightmares, get the best of her. In that case, a gentle, but masculinity-affirming, “You have nothing to worry about, baby”, will suffice.

If your girlfriend is a real tough nut (i.e., a road-worn slut), you might happily upbraid her when she slips on her inquisitrix robe. “Somebody’s jealous.” Or, “This insecurity doesn’t sit well on you.” For added punch, don’t leaven your words with a chuckle of camaraderie; speak them with a poker face.

This is the end of Lesson One in How To Balance Comfort and Unease in Your Woman. The next lesson will publish precisely one month after the first commenter bitches about there being too many politics posts too many game posts.

Max from Australia writes,

“what’s the best strategy to prevent a FRA when leaving her place”

Borrow $10 from her in the morning – she will text you later that day asking for it back faster than the debt collectors at Mastercard….keep that text and give her back the $10 in a public place with CCTV..

Yes, saving text messages has proven to be an effective means of protection against malign women on the false rape make.

”or start prattling like a beta to make her want him to just go away and completely out of her life?”

Stage a fake Asthma attack and ask her to drive you to the hospital..you’ll never hear from her again.

Heh. As fun as this sounds, it’s also a lot of work just to prevent a low-risk FRA blindside. A cheaper — in terms of time and energy spent — alternative is to do the bare post-coital minimum of chivalrous behavior that would avert the disaster of sending psychologically fragile crazies over the edge into Regret Rape fantasia. That means, stick around until the morning. Don’t dodge out at 2AM. Tell her you had a great time, and you’ll keep in touch, even if you don’t mean it. Try to be careful about parading your other girl around the day after, if you all live in the same neighborhood. Don’t remind her that she was “SOO drunk last night.” Don’t hop on the video game console after you’ve jizzed in her general direction. And, most importantly, don’t get tangled up with nutty whores who religiously follow Lena Dunham on Twitter.

An ounce of prevention is worth a town of pound!

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Also reachable over Tor: roissyrwpgxawb3etwznvay4eelbws4lkdtr4tt2r7wxb6adq6pajtqd.onion