Feed on
Posts
Comments

Reader Mailbag

Oct 3rd, 2008 by

As I’ve mentioned before, if you do not want your question made public on the blog, say so specifically in your email, and I’ll send my answer to you privately. Honor among players, and all that.

Email #1

I am a senior @ Princeton.  I read your sight daily and need your help.  I am ultra-beta…and can’t get any girls as a consequence (in college!).  Need tips on how to change…I’ve read all the literature, done most of the stuff.  I just need fundamentals on becoming beta (fuck, even my e-mail address is fucking beta).

I try to act like an asshole, but that just pisses girls off and they get aggressive or storm off.  I’ve read Cajun’s stuff, but all I can manage to generate is asking beta-casual questions or acting nonchalant (which gets me zero attention…I’m not that attractive, just 5’5”).

Any words of advice?  Anything?  I could really use help…I’ve read all your archived shit, read the comments on a regular basis.  I just need fundamentals.  Where the fuck do I start?

Thanks in advance (I hope)…

-[initials withheld]

Ah, Princeton. I spent quite a few weekend nights in that leafy town prowling for smart co-eds. Birthplace of Thomas Sweets ice cream. Sir, technically an “ultra beta” is a lesser beta. Please brush up on the terminology.

Let’s get the harshness out of the way first. If you can’t get laid in college, you are going to get laid even less after you graduate as a lesser beta. Why? Because it is ridiculously easy to get laid in college, if that’s all you want. Maybe WASPy Princeton girls are especially frigid, but regardless you should consider your failure to score as a college student an unused condom in the coalmine. Troubles lie ahead.

Your attitude is very negative in this post. You remind me of a lot of beta friends I’ve known — always beating themselves up, pinning everything that goes wrong on their own stupidity or cowardice, never seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. Realism is an important first step to begin your self-improvement journey to respectable womanizer, but you need to leaven realism with optimism. Your inner game will shrivel if you’re negative all the time. “Fake it till you make it” isn’t just a slogan. It works.

I just need fundamentals on becoming beta (fuck, even my e-mail address is fucking beta).

Perfect example. I’m going to demonstrate how you should have written the above to train your mind to begin thinking like an alpha.

“I just need the fundamentals on becoming a James Bond-like pickup alpha machine the girls can’t keep their hands off of (fuck, i might even change my email address so girls get wet reading it).”

See, isn’t that better? Now don’t ever soil my inbox again with your puling betabitch self-pity whines. David Alexander has that territory covered.

I try to act like an asshole, but that just pisses girls off and they get aggressive or storm off.

I’m guessing you haven’t shed your beta body language, so when you act like a pure asshole you come off incongruent. Girls hate nothing more than incongruence, because it triggers their “false alpha flag” reflex. Here’s a handy asshole chart I’ve devised to help you understand the nuances of assholery:

Asshole + Alpha + Charm = get laid like gangbusters.
Asshole + Alpha = get laid regularly.
Asshole + Beta = get laid occasionally.
Asshole + Lesser Beta = don’t get laid but win moral victory in face of rejection.
Asshole + Omega = she gets her guy friends to beat you up.
Asshole + Lesser Omega = she gets her girl friends to beat you up.

So you can see the power of assholery is somewhat relative to the sexual market value of the man. I like that you are channeling your inner asshole, but you need to get a handle on your other game skills before you start spewing insults like a bum with Tourettes. Being an asshole works best when used as an adjunct to good game.

I’ve read Cajun’s stuff, but all I can manage to generate is asking beta-casual questions or acting nonchalant (which gets me zero attention…I’m not that attractive, just 5’5”).

Cajun is excellent. I don’t believe half of the stuff I hear about pickup artists, but from what I’ve read, seen, and been told Cajun has the goods. Stop asking casual questions. If you must ask questions, make them quirky. “Do you know where I can buy an eyepatch? I just found out my grandfather was a pirate and I want to keep up the family tradition.” You get the idea. Also, acting nonchalant does you no good if you’re invisible to her. And don’t worry about your looks or height so much. Despite what many men think and what some women say, looks are not that important once you have good game. You may not get the hottest chicks, but the skills you’ll learn will allow you to bang chicks one to three points higher than you on the looks scale, which I believe is every man’s birthright and, indeed, every man’s duty. And if your height is holding you back, there’s a simple solution: Hit on girls shorter than you. There are plenty of them.

I just need fundamentals.  Where the fuck do I start?

Start with these:

Mystery Method e-book (still the Bible as far as I’m concerned)
David DeAngelo’s cocky/funny series and interviews with the gurus
Pickup 101’s Fearless First Impressions, Attraction Secrets and Art of Rapport DVDs
Stephane Hemon’s Ideagasms Squirting (you’ll eventually need this) and GTP program
The Real Social Dynamics and Stylelife internet forums
Badboy ebook and DVDs
Carlos Xuma and Zan DVDs
Robert Cialdini’s book “Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion”
Robert Wright’s evospych book “The Moral Animal”
Matt Ridley’s evo book “The Red Queen”
Also, let me put in a plug for Roosh’s book Bang, which is an accessible compendium of solid game strategy.

Get out in the field while you are plowing through all that material. Don’t become a keyboard player. The first challenge you must overcome is building immunity to rejection. All else flows from that critical initial step. Immunity comes with repeated exposure. Memorize TWO solid openers, THREE negs (or pebbles, as Style calls them. I.e., “Wow, who brought their little sister to the bar?”), THREE ready-to-go lines for common shit tests you’ll get from women (“You have a BF? Great, so does my girlfriend.”), TWO value generating stories, TWO rapport building routines, and ONE venue change line (“I’m thirsty. Are you thirsty? Let’s go back to my place and sample some fine tap water.”)

I want a progress report in three months.

Email #2

Long time reader, etc, etc.

Here’s one for you; maybe even worthy of the mailbag.

I (28) just started working at a big law firm in NYC. As soon as I got there, I hit it off really well with one of the research assistants (26, carries conversations intelligently, a certain 7 and occasional 8 ) . We had a pretty flirty couple of weeks, but the firm has pretty strict rules against inter-office dating. However, she quit the firm during my second week to take a better job elsewhere, so I invited her out. One minor shit test easily passed, things are going really well, I poked the appropriate amount of fun at her flip flops, her eyes are twinkling … and I get a call that my uncle, who raised me since I was 6, has passed away. I didn’t collapse into a puddle of blubbering goo, but my eyes definitely got moist and I may have had a Michael Johnson style lone tear or two trace a path down my cheek.

She was very sympathetic when I told her the news and gave me a long, full-frontal hug before I broke it off, put a few bills down, told her that I wanted to be alone, and left. She sent me an email two days later to ask how I was doing.

Here’s the question. Normally, tearing up is anything but alpha behavior and simply ruins the prospects with the girl. Does this circumstance count as exceptional? It has been a week and I certainly would like to ask her out again, but I won’t bother if this is going to make her see me as overly sensitive and, well, a herb.

What do you think?

– P.

Lawyer chicks? Man blubbering? I have two things to say to you.

One.
Two.

Ok, three.

Seriously, though, this can only work in your favor. Stop overthinking. Unless the chick is a hardcore ballbusting nutneutering scrotesmashing alpha lawyer-wannabe bitchbot, your show of emotion under the circumstances was a turn-on for her. The only thing herby about you is worrying what she thinks of you.

Sometimes I get the feeling you guys already know the answers to your questions, but just like to write it out and email a complete stranger for a sympathy hug and three pats on the back. Paging Lemmonex…

Email #3

I need some advice.  I’m probably a pretty unorthodox visitor to your blog, so this is probably an unusual question for you, but I would like your perspective.

I’m a 20-year-old girl in college.  I’ve been badly in love with a close friend K. (my age) for two years.  From time to time I’ve sort of managed to talk myself out of it, but then there I am again, alone in the evening and missing him desperately, or waiting for him to come over and then falling all over myself to carry his suitcases and fix his tea.

He hasn’t been interested. Or rather, he’s been interested in a way (we kissed twice, and once he wanted to hook up) but not interested in a relationship.  That was all right; we stayed friends.  But now he calls me all the time, and I find myself dropping everything to see him, and this is trouble.

A little bit about me: I never got any attention from guys as a teenager (I’m nice-looking enough, but I was always too shy and serious) so this is a new, strange world for me.  Suddenly I get asked out with some frequency.  And now I’m trying to get into some fiendishly competitive grad schools (math and economics) so I’m going to have very little free time.

The trouble with K. is that he’s kind of messed up – he had to leave school for a semester due to depression – and sometimes he doesn’t seem to be serious about his own future.  I know this makes me sound like a terrible person, but I’d be embarrassed to tell my friends and family about him.  I need some kind of nice, clean-cut, ambitious guy who takes me out on standard dates.  And yet I’m attracted to K., my dear friend, who’s nerdy and messy and constantly shooting himself in the foot.  Even nice girls get horny sometimes, and I have spent years restraining myself from what I’d like to do with him.

What do I do?  Any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks,

S.

First, send me a jpeg, full body shot, high resolution, naked or in lacey lingerie. I’ll need this to thoroughly evaluate your, uh, character traits.

This email was sent via a Princeton edu address. What’s up with Princeton? It sounds like students from there have forgotten how the penis and vagina fit together. It’s supposed to be a school for smarties. Maybe that’s the problem.

You mentioned two things that jumped out at me. One, you haven’t had sex with him yet, and you rebuffed him the one time he tried to hook up with you. Two, you’re “nice-looking enough”, which, translated into manspeak, means you are probably a 6. Coupled with your major in math and economics, your score could even be as low as a 5. So I will now give you a rare glimpse into his mind, the mind of a man:

“She’s not putting out and she’s not hot enough for me to make any effort.”

Hold my hand, child, it gets worse.

So why is he calling you now so frequently? Ah, good question. Most of the time, when a man re-engages a woman he used to be lukewarm about, it means he is horny and lonely. Your mediocre vagina now seems a better choice than his calloused hand. Maybe he tried picking up a hotter chick and failed, so running back to you looked like a good option. You certainly have made yourself accessible to him, so there’s no real challenge for him to earn your emotional support.

Or maybe he had a revelation that he has always been in love with you and it was time to show it…….. NOT.

It is obvious to me that you like badboys. You write that K. is “nerdy and messy and constantly shooting himself in the foot” and that you have tried to talk yourself into being attracted to clean-cut nice Abercrombie boys. But those boys don’t excite you like the way K. does. K. refuses to conform. He is a rebel, a social renegade, a self-destructive energy vampire who plays by his own rules, and that autonomically moistens your muff.

Here is my advice. Stop trying to fight it. Fuck him, get it out of the way, then move on, because fucking him will not cause him to love you forever and ever. I know these types of guys. Hell, I once dabbled with playing this type of guy. They live to validate their self-esteem through others, that is why they are energy vampires turning the self-pity trick. It’s him against the world, right? And you want to save him, to join him on his path to redemption. Am I correct?

Yes, yes I am.

He thrills you because, deep down, you know your “relationship” with him is doomed. Your need for drama is perfectly complementary to his need for validation. You have to clear your mind, S., and drop the savior act. Know that nothing permanent can come of your time with him, and in that knowledge you will finally free yourself to love him with everything you have, and to savor the moments you share, without the burden of expectation.

Make love when you can, because it is good.

Yours in the Light of Lucifer.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Reader Mailbag | Comments Off

What You Can Learn From A Beta

Oct 2nd, 2008 by

I’ve written before that I learned a lot about game by carefully observing men in the field who were naturally good with women, at least as much as I’ve learned from books and internet forums. Every man growing up should have an alpha male mentor, or at least should be part of a social circle that has at least one alpha male so that he can watch and take mental notes about what works with women. I’ve had a few of those guys in my life and they were indispensable to figuring out what behaviors cause women to respond positively.

There is a flip side to that coin. You can learn just as much about what *not* to do by meticulously observing betas getting shot down. Not only will you see which behaviors are counterproductive, but you will get a better feel for those subtle changes in facial expression and body position that girls who have suddenly lost interest will convey.

Here are some of the things I’ve learned by watching betas at the exact moment they got rejected, like the sad but amusing moment Ralph Wiggums suffered Lisa’s rejection.

  • Betas smile too little and smile too much

Yeah, it seems contradictory, but betas never have a firm grasp on when and how often it’s personally advantageous to smile. They don’t smile when they walk into the bar or before they’ve started talking to a girl, and they smile too much once they are in a conversation with a girl. This behavior reveals their tormented beta soul: They are unhappy to be there until a girl’s presence makes them happy. Would an alpha relinquish his state of mind to another person? Especially a woman? No. His joy is self-generated.

  • Betas are reactive

You can tell a lot about a person by how quickly they answer a question. When a girl asks a beta a question, he answers promptly and enthusiastically. When someone taps him on the shoulder to get his attention, he spins around immediately, looking almost shocked by the intrusion into his personal space. This is reactive behavior. The first says “Wow I can’t believe a girl is talking to me!” The second reaction says “I am skittish because I doubt my ability to calmly handle these high pressure social situations.” Alphas always pause a second too long before responding to a girl, pushing her to the brink of slight discomfort. This makes her intrigued. Alphas also do not react hyperdefensively when another man confronts him. They take their sweet time, savoring the buildup of tension. This allows them to think of the best thing to say, and to take stock of the situation.

  • Betas play it straight

Betas seem to have forgotten what childhood was like. They take life too seriously, and they take girls even more seriously. They always answer questions straight, as if life were a final exam with right and wrong answers. This mode of thinking is toxic to pickup. Girls secretly don’t want you to answer their questions; they want you to tease them mercilessly, at least until she is attracted to you. Alphas instinctually understand the art of playfulness.

  • Betas push themselves on people

When someone gives the beta the time of day, that person becomes the center of the beta’s universe. I have often seen betas lunge into the personal space of women, like an aardvark snuffling for termites, who were initially friendly with them. Betas quickly manifest the stink of neediness given the chance. Their focus is too intense too soon. Alphas, by contrast, keep their bodies loose and uninvested in the conversation, until they have decided the time is right to divert all their valuable attention on the person in front of them.

  • Betas can’t stop looking around

The next time you watch a beta standing by himself holding his beer up to his chin, notice how often he lets his head swivel around the room. Back and forth, up and down, all around. This behavior shows too much concern with his environment. The alpha gets the lay of the land early on, then minimizes his head swiveling. Think about it, how much does the king who sits on his throne swivel his head around the castle room? Not often, because he is the center of attention, and people’s heads swivel to him.

  • Betas are defensive and apologetic

Sometimes a girl will call the beta out on something he said. She will challenge his story or make fun of his opinions. The beta invariably bristles, defensively correcting her or huffily and spastically clarifying whatever point he was making. Often, he will simply apologize in so many words. Girl: “I can’t believe you like that band! They’re so derivative!” Beta: “Well, I didn’t say I liked them that much. They can be a little derivative, that’s true.” Compare how an alpha would handle this. Girl: “I can’t believe you like that band!…” Alpha: [cutting her off] I take it you’re a Britney Spears fan, then? Explains a lot.”

  • Betas always look like they have a load in their pants

Are betas incapable of finding pants that fit them? It would seem so, because they all wear ill-fitting pants and walk in a way that suggests they loaded their diapers. Alphas seem to know how pants should fit on a man.

***

Before I was exceptionally good at meeting women, I once caught myself in a bar wall mirror talking to a girl who was slowly losing interest in our conversation. I was appalled by my awkward body language, and sufficiently stirred to action by the reflection of my betaness to change those behaviors that were holding me back.

Every man should hit on a girl in front of a mirror, and stop to observe his posture. Better yet, he should have a buddy secretly film him in the field. The wake-up call will leave him stunned.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Beta, Game | Comments Off

Evil Baby Shower

Oct 1st, 2008 by

I got roped into a baby shower for an acquaintance. I’d never been to one of these seminal events, though I’ve heard about them. It was as bad as I imagined, maybe worse. Between the pink ribbon-wrapped gifts, blankies, snugglies, baby bouncies, belly-rubbing, earnest discussions of contractions and labor, and torrents of sympathy sludge, I felt like I would suffocate on the maternally estrogenic fumes.

GIMME BOOB MILK!

GIMME BOOB MILK!

I saved my mental health by fantasizing what it would be like to make gentle love to a third trimester pregnant woman. This is a mountain I’ve yet to climb. It couldn’t be any more challenging than this. Or this.

The best gift by far was two small jewelry boxes. One was engraved with the words “My First Tooth” and the other with “My First Hair Curl”. This was a great gift because it put a smile on my face as I pondered the milestones that a bunch of my own engraved jewelry boxes filled with mementos of my past conquests would have celebrated.

“My First Forgotten Panty” — It’s pleasantly surprising waking up the next morning, after she has left in her drunken state, to stumble across her panties lying on the floor that she forgot to put on. *sniiiiiff*

“My First Hidden Video” — You never know, she could become famous. And you’ll need masturbation material for when you’re 80. Watching yourself fuck your girl in the bloom of youth >>>> internet porn.

“My First Period Fuck” — Put that bloody used condom or red-stained towel in the box, champ! You’ve earned it.

“My First Threesome” — See: “My First Hidden Video”.

“My First Close Call” — In here you put the abortion clinic receipt.

“My First Anal” — Awkward. You don’t want anything smelly in your box. An audio recording of her yelping in pain is acceptable.

“My First Russian Anal” — An audio recording of her yelping in pain in Russian. (It sounds like this: “Aye, aye aye, Ee ee yi yi yi!”. Music to my ears.)

“My First Raw Dog” — Take an after photo of your cock crusted in dried vaj juice.

“My First Facial” — Tough one to document. Wipe her face with a towel to capture the jizz and makeup in a Turin Shroud-like imprint. Put in box and pray to nightly for the blessings of future facials.

“My First Virgin” — See: My First Period Fuck. You might need a biohazard hymen container for this one.

“My First Fat Chick” — Empty.

“My First Psycho Bitch” — Restraining order.

“My First DC Lawyer Chick” — One silver bullet.

“My First Bartender” — STD fact sheet.

“My First Cunnilingus” — One gnarly pube.

Darwinianly-speaking, women huddle like pinkiron midwives around the expectant QB mother to fulfill a deeply subconscious group coherence bonding mechanism that works to assist the tribe raise its young. Since most women are going to get pregnant at some point in their lives they don’t worry about exerting effort helping out another woman’s child. Men don’t have the luxury to waste resources like this; they could easily lose out on the chance to pass on their genes if they spent time and money on a rival’s kid.

I walked out of that baby shower feeling grateful for being a man.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Funny/Lolblogs, Ridiculousness, Self-aggrandizement | Comments Off

What A Religious Cult Looks Like

Oct 1st, 2008 by

Before this gets taken down:

Check out the glowing “O”-face of the SWPL whiter person at 1:19. Really, you can’t make this shit up.

In other news, scientists discover evangelicals aren’t the only species of fundamentalist wackos.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Psy Ops, Ridiculousness, Tool Time, Videos | Comments Off

Similarities Between Now And The Great Depression

Sep 30th, 2008 by

With all the recent talk of “moral hazards” and “socializing the loss, privatizing the profit”, it seems the time is right to look for any parallels between the current mess and the Big One of 1929. This article lays out a pretty persuasive case that there are enough similarities between now and then to wonder whether we risk careening into a new Greater Depression:

Creating a Great Depression

Given the grim political prospect ahead of us, we can now examine the checklist for Great Depression causation, and see how many we can check off for today’s leaders:

1. Asset price crash: Check! We’ve already had the crash in asset prices, twice, in 2000-02 with stocks and now with housing. As the stock market crash of 1987 demonstrated, asset price crashes don’t necessarily lead to Great Depressions, but they do thoroughly shake the financial system and reveal hidden weaknesses. This time around, there have been plenty to reveal.

2. Protectionism: Yes, but less severe. Protectionism is definitely reviving, but to nothing like the level of the Smoot-Hawley tariff. Obama’s threat to renegotiate NAFTA, combined with a substantial recession, could produce a substantial leap in protectionism. We can however have at least moderate confidence that Obama has no intention of actually doing anything so foolish as to reopen trade agreements in the middle of an economic downturn.

3. Bank failures: Check! We need an actual bank or two to go under however, not just these investment banking houses of cards, and we need an international bankruptcy along the lines of Creditanstalt. My money would be on one of the thoroughly opaque Chinese behemoths. The Fed and other central banks will doubtless try to avoid a collapse of the money supply following a bankruptcy; they may simply produce hyperinflation, a problem we didn’t have in the 1930s.

4. Expansion of the public sector: Check! Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson’s $700 billion housing bailout fund certainly qualifies here. Commentators have noted the similarity to Hoover’s Reconstruction Finance Corporation, without noting that the RFC was a colossal economic failure. It diverted resources to politically selected companies, increasing the level of Federal debt raising and thereby crowding truly private sector entities out of the capital market. The diversion of resources from the private to the public sector was itself deflationary, weakening the system’s productivity growth potential and deepening the downturn. Paulson appears to be operating on the basis that federal resources are essentially infinite. A $700 billion bailout and the $1 trillion deficits to which it will lead will “destruction test” this bizarre theory. Obama’s spending plans, which presumably won’t be abandoned altogether, will also be a problem here, Indeed it is likely that by 2012 the ratio of federal spending to GDP will be at a new high level never before seen in peacetime. As with bank failures, this time around an excessively accommodative Fed is likely to monetize the additional debt and thereby cause rapidly accelerating inflation.

5. Tax increases in a downturn: Probable. Obama has already promised tax increases, which he will probably make larger than planned to attack the $1 trillion deficits. That’s precisely the mistake Hoover made. McCain hasn’t promised tax increases, but appears to have no great philosophical objection to higher taxes and a commitment to reducing the deficit – it thus looks like tax increases will be forthcoming from him, too.

6. Abandonment of Capitalism: Probable. The principles of capitalism will have little popular support in the years ahead, as in the 1930s. Hence there will be no immediate opposition (other than from politically discredited industries) to daft new schemes of regulation that destroy market incentives. Obama has some idea how markets work, but the barons in the Congressional Democrat majority don’t, so there is likely to be some truly damaging legislation in our future. Even if McCain becomes President, he appears to have no instincts as to which controls and restrictions would wreak most destruction so “compromise” legislation with Congressional Democrats might be as bad or worse than under a President Obama.

7. Destruction of Capital markets: Possible. This is the big question-mark. In the 1930s, the Glass-Steagall Act, by separating investment banking from commercial banking at the bottom of a recession, when capital was scarce and entrepreneurial spirits non-existent, produced investment banks that were truly undercapitalized and indeed unprofitable – even Merrill Lynch, among the largest of them even then, lost money over the decade of the 1930s and survived only through subventions from Charles Merrill’s mother’s trust fund. The result was a level of capital raising in bond and stock markets throughout the late 1930s that was below that at the bottom of the 1920-21 recession, in a much larger economy. It is not unimaginable that draconian legislation along the same lines, backed by popular outrage against Wall Street, might have a similar effect.

What’s needed now is calm and a step back from hysteria. I don’t believe a couple guys (Bernanke and Paulson) cooking up huge backroom buyback schemes to ostensibly save the country from itself would have better answers than a market allowed to adjust on its own.

Thus not all of these factors operate to repeat the 1930s exactly; on the other hand, some of them merely promise a more inflationary version of that sorry decade, which would probably be even more unpleasant. While a re-run of the Great Depression, with or without hyperinflation, is still by no means inevitable, we are a lot closer than we were a month ago.

If we’re heading into an inflationary spiral and peak oil, then I’m putting my money in frontline suppliers like oil, food producers and utilities.

Here’s a guy who says the right answer is bankruptcy, not a bailout.

This bailout was a terrible idea. Here’s why.

The current mess would never have occurred in the absence of ill-conceived federal policies. The federal government chartered Fannie Mae in 1938 and Freddie Mac in 1970; these two mortgage lending institutions are at the center of the crisis. The government implicitly promised these institutions that it would make good on their debts, so Fannie and Freddie took on huge amounts of excessive risk. […]

The fact that government bears such a huge responsibility for the current mess means any response should eliminate the conditions that created this situation in the first place, not attempt to fix bad government with more government.

I agree. The bailout was a terrible idea and I’m glad it collapsed. It ignored a fundamental principle of human nature — when you shield someone from the consequences of his failures, he is more likely to repeat the same mistakes.

The fact that government bears such a huge responsibility for the current mess means any response should eliminate the conditions that created this situation in the first place, not attempt to fix bad government with more government. […]

So what should the government do? Eliminate those policies that generated the current mess. This means, at a general level, abandoning the goal of home ownership independent of ability to pay. This means, in particular, getting rid of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with policies like the Community Reinvestment Act that pressure banks into subprime lending.

The right view of the financial mess is that an enormous fraction of subprime lending should never have occurred in the first place. Someone has to pay for that. That someone should not be, and does not need to be, the U.S. taxpayer.

The federal government is an evil gluttonous behemoth like it has never been in American history, and I place most of the blame for this suffocating clutch of tentacled anti-liberty at the exact moment women were given the right to vote. It was virtually inevitable that women, being the sex more concerned with security and stability and less enamored of freedom and risk, with the help of their alpha male co-conspirators and lickspittle beta male suckasses begging for a pussy handout, would vote in more government-as-daddy-and-husband-substitute, with the attendant confiscatory and redistributive taxes, regulations, and government intrusion that entails.

We are now reaping the girlwind.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Current Events, Self-aggrandizement | Comments Off

‘Family Guy’ On Dating Older Women

Sep 29th, 2008 by

37 year old woman: “So you just got out of prison? For killing a guy? Ha ha, that’s all right. I’m cool with that. I’ll buy dinner this time, and maybe you can get next time? Or not, I could just get it next time, too. Aren’t we having fun?? Fun fun fun!! Me and my three eggs are having the best time!”

It’s funny cause it’s… no, no, wait. It’s not funny at all. It’s just sad.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Funny/Lolblogs, Hitting The Wall | Comments Off

Supermodels Are Not Hot

Sep 29th, 2008 by

At least, not the ones who work as fashion models on the runways of Paris and New York. Check out the weird combination of masculine jawline, flairing nostrils (the better to snort four lines at once), and uberfeminine saucer plate eyes on this chick, model Masha Tyelna.

if she made a baby with billy joel how big would its eyes be?

Clearly, the gay guys who run the fashion world are choosing curveless, geometrically angular androgynoids to model their clothes. So the next time some dude brags that he’s dating a supermodel ask him which industry — Victoria’s Secret? Playboy? SI Swimsuit Issue? He’s banging a winner — those kinds of models are chosen for their direct appeal to men or their ability to model very feminine clothing (i.e., lingerie). Milan runway? He’s banging a prepubescent boy.

I don’t want to mislead the typical woman into thinking that she’s hotter than catwalk models. She is not. The haute couture model, despite her strange appearance, is still hotter than 80% of all women, given that most American women are plain-looking at best and ugly fatties at worst. Quite simply, the obesity epidemic is skewing the 1 – 10 looks scale upwards, so that the 7 in the above photo can afford to get paid like a 10. But compared to the cute hipster chicks and WASPy blonde darlings I see daily, Masha would get lost in the shuffle. I saw at least ten girls hotter than her in one hour this past Saturday night. Of course, I’d never tell them that. Their heads are already big enough.

I once got into an argument with Clio that makeup can, at best, raise a woman’s looks score by one point max, and that a woman’s true score can’t stay hidden from a man for longer than a few dates or one night together. The makeup-less cold hard light of morning after analysis reveals all.

I based my judgment of the value of makeup in boosting a woman’s looks on personal experience. I have rarely been with a woman who gained more than one point by makeup. Part of this reason is that having been with enough women, I can more accurately assess when makeup is hiding something. Another part of the reason is that women consistently overestimate how much makeup can help them. Call it the wishful thinking syndrome.

But after seeing before and after photos of runway models like Masha, I have to make an exception. Makeup goes a long way to feminizing the looks of odd-looking, yet not necessarily unattractive, androgynous girls like her chosen for their peculiarly striking looks. For instance, Gisele Bundchen looks like an 8 without makeup and hits 10 with it.

In the interest of clearing the confusion on the matter of makeup, here is a handy chart I’ve devised (it’s been a while since I’ve done a handy chart):

Looks Rating                Makeup Boost by Points
0                                   0
1                                   0
2                                   0
3                                   0.5
4                                   0.5
5                                   1
6                                   1
7                                   1.5
8                                   1
9                                   0.5
10                                 0

Conclusion: Ugly women have no use for makeup; theirs is a lost cause. If anything, makeup can actually draw more attention to their unfortunate condition. Magnificent ugliness radiates out from the face like blast of cosmic rays, overwhelming even the best makeup applications.

Around 3 and 4, where ugliness shifts into mere unattractiveness, makeup provides a minor improvement. For the girl, it could mean the difference between being ignored and savoring the glorious experience of getting pumped and dumped by a beta.

Makeup really hits on all cylinders for semi-attractive girls who aren’t quite in the running for genuine hotness. The 5s and 6s will see a solid 1 point boost. The biggest effects are on the 7s — those girls who are attractive enough for girlfriend material but have one or two facial flaws that keep them out of the “Props, man, you’re dating a hot chick!” category. Interestingly, when you move up the ladder to 8s and 9s, the trend begins to reverse and you don’t see the same major boost from makeup. By the time you are at a bonafide 10, makeup can add nothing to her already perfect beauty, and oftentimes will detract from it.

The catwalk models are an exception to the above chart. As far as I can tell, they receive a 2 to 3 point boost from makeup. Their angular boyish faces respond well to the softening effects of makeup.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Fashion, Girls, Hungry Hungry Hippos, Vanity | Comments Off

Palin Will Step Down

Sep 28th, 2008 by

A couple weeks ago, I predicted that Joe Biden would step down as VP candidate and allow Obama to nominate Hillary or a Hillary-clone in his place, to counter the Obama-neutralizing advantages Palin brought to the McCain ticket.

Recent events have been illuminating.

I had the right idea, but the wrong VP candidate. Palin will step down.

Tell everyone you meet you read it here second.

ps: I recommend Mitt Romney as a Palin replacement. And then I recommend McCain switch places so that Romney is at the top of the ticket and McCain is attending third world dictators’ funerals. Now we’re cooking with gas!

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Biomechanics is God, Current Events | Comments Off

A Test Of Your Game: The Judging

Sep 26th, 2008 by

In yesterday’s post, I challenged you to describe how you’d go about meeting Coffeehouse Girl. The challenge brought out the creative side in many commenters. There were a lot of suggestions to neg her for using a Mac, which runs the risk of pegging you as a PC nerd if you show any amount of hostility to her choice of computer. Plus, it’s weak sauce. Commenter “Hardcore” suggested the sketch routine, which will work especially well in a relaxed lounge environment. Another commenter would tell the girl to “watch his stuff for a second” while he flirted with the barista on the way to the bathroom. This is known as compliance, and is a common tactic of PUAs *after* they have built attraction. It would not work as an opener. Others noted that if you crashed and burned you would be stuck there sitting in a sofa across from her, creating an uncomfortable vibe. To this I say, are you a man or a David Alexander? Who cares if she’s uncomfortable? If you flame out, just go back to your couch and laptop as if nothing was wrong. Her discomfort is not your moral crisis. She might even like you more for it, and re-open you later.

I’ve picked out a sampling of answers that illustrate the main schools of thought and strategies in dealing with the scenario I laid out.

Pope Goaz D’Weezil wrote:

I put on my robe and wizard hat.

Yes, peacocking will work to grab attention and build intrigue. But where do you go from there?
Grade: Fail, with flair.

Mu’Min wrote:

What would I do? Simply get up, put my Thinkpad down, walk straight over to her, introduce myself and invite her to join me.

I like the boldness. Direct game has its uses. But this approach relies too much on your looks and the six feet of space you have between you and her to demonstrate your alpha body language.
Grade: Gentleman’s C

Hope wrote:

With laptops at the ready, just use music sharing as a pretext. Say you are excited about this piece of music you just discovered, and since she has a laptop, too, you wanted to invite her to listen.

This is great for the rapport building stage of attraction, but useless as an opener. Why would she care about some random guy’s taste in music? She will feel like he is forcing a connection before she has had a chance to evaluate his value as a potential mate.
Grade: D, on a girl curve.

giesen wrote:

That’s the old school way of thinking: hoping to strike up a connection by blindly approaching a hot stranger that you have no other reason to talk to.

If you want to strike up a new romance, be more social and outgoing in your day to day life, or change your routine so that you are around more people.

I’ve chosen some of these comments because I want the men here to witness firsthand how utterly self-deluded women are about game, pickup, and their own sexual desire. Because outside of business settings, men DON’T have a reason to cold approach and talk to women unless it is to get in her pants, or pawn her off to get in the pants of one of her hot friends.

So giesen instead recommends retrofitting your entire life trajectory to become more “social and outgoing”. Yes, screw game. It’s better to busily scramble after a nebulous concept. I think girls spew these kinds of useless empty platitudes because deep down they understand it will keep the betas running endlessly on their hamster wheels, thus ensuring the dating pool of “genuine” alphas stays uncorrupted.
Grade: Epic fail.

Brandy wrote:

For the average guy I would recommend letting 5-10 minutes pass without acknowledging her. This will keep you from being perceived as being too eager and aggressive and also allow her a moment to relax and let her guard down.

Then after the 5-10 minute cooling off period has passed, look for a natural opportunity to say something clever without being offensive. Smile and make eye contact. If she reciprocates and doesn’t get up and walk away – put your laptop aside, sit up, maintain eye contact and a smile and make conversation. If she reciprocates again – slowly and delicately introduce an appropriate level of game, but don’t completely turn into something you’re not – and don’t get so wrapped up in your own performance that you lose sight of how YOU feel about her as you get to know more about her.

The problem with waiting for her to “settle in” is that you risk get pegged as a cowardly beta ogler. Better to not wait long enough than to wait too long. The rest of what Brandy wrote is fine as far as traditional, passive game is concerned — make eye contact, wait for reciprocation, smile, wait for reciprocation, strike up a conversation, wait for reciprocation. It’s the game of second-place finishers who don’t want to stick their necks out and reach for the brass ring. I can tell you that if you play the game by these “girl rules” you’ll wind up banging the easy marks — the girls who like you, rather than the girls you like. You’ve gotta risk rejection to get what you really desire.
Grade: Passing, barely.

Chris wrote:

My favorite thing to get a girl interested after an introduction though is asking her a question – something innocuous like what she’s working on or what she’s drinking, and then generally regardless of her answer saying something like “Oh, so you’re one of THOSE people.”

Don’t ask innocuous questions as an opener. Again, this falls under forced rapport, and will aggravate her. Johnnyfive suggests in the comments that you *begin* with “OH, so you’re one of THOSE people.” I agree.
Grade: Mincing little fail.

Sebastian Flyte wrote:

Pretend you just got an email a second ago then use a conventional opener off of it. Laugh a little, as if you’re just reading it, then spontaneously look up and say ‘Hey, my friend was really drunk the other night and texted an ex saying he loved her, he just emailed/aimed (aim-ed might be more realistic) saying that he told her it was just the alcohol talking… I’m not sure though, do you think drunk I love you’s count?”

This is a good opener, but remember that she is sitting six feet from you in a large, acoustically-unfavorable room. You’ll still have to get her attention somehow and then talk loudly across the coffee table. If she leans forward to listen, you’ve gotten an indicator of interest, but what if she remains slouched in her sofa, straining to hear you?
Grade: B

Animus wrote:

“Don’t you find it difficult?”, “Uh, find what difficult?”, “Getting anything done in this place. I saw you poring over your laptop trying sooo hard to shut it all out. *impersonates via exaggerated brow furrowing* Like that girl in 8th grade who’s trying to take notes on the goofy cartoon movie dubbed in French, but can’t because Donald Duck sounds even more psychotic in Francais.” Smirk.

The problem with the clever opener is the risk of being perceived as trying too hard. This is particularly the case if your clever line requires a teleprompter and ten minutes to spit out. Sure, she’ll admire your impressive intellect, but that doesn’t always translate into wet pussy. Stick to cocky, short and sweet.
An improvement on this opener:
“Don’t you find it difficult?”
“Uh, find what difficult?”
“Writing the next great American novel while trying to catch guys flirting with you.”
Grade: C for the exaggerated cleverness.
Grade: A for the smirk.

T. wrote:

I’d walk over and say “Yo, gimme your email so I can walk back to my seat and spam the SHIT outta you.” with a dead serious expression.

T for the win.
Grade: A

Jesus Lizard wrote:

I would very surreptitiously take a peek up her skirt and get a panties shot – this is very important. (C’mon, this is a hypothetical and in my world its a girl in a very short skirt and her Macbook is providing me excellent shield). If I like what I see, then I take it to step two of my two step process, which is, look over at her, get her attention, maintain eye-contact for 1, maybe 10 seconds longer than that which is comfortable for her (again, in my hypo I can mesmerize women), then ever so slowly raise my right hand in the formation of a faux-claw pointed in her direction, and in precise unison, do a cat-like swipe, purr-hiss combination right at her. Let me just say this.. it works.

You should always screen a girl by peeking up her skirt.
Grade: F, but I laughed.

Affe wrote:

Leer, then query “Am I the only one with a itchy poop-chute in this joint ?” in a knowing fashion, while attempting a wink that winds up looking like an uncontrollable facial tic.

The spastic wink where both eyes close is especially effective.
Grade: A, if she’s an anal-obsessed freak. Otherwise, F-.

Racer X wrote:

The best game is this: ignore and conquer. Being the one guy in the room who shows no interest in her will make her think about you all the more.

Feigning indifference won’t work on indifferent girls.
Grade: A, if this was meant to be sarcastic. Otherwise, D- for relying on your looks.

Kick a Bitch wrote:

I’d shit my pants and throw feces at her.

If you play the Law of Large Numbers game, then there’s gotta be a 1 in a billion girl who would fall for this.
Grade: E for effort.

Anonymous threatened female posing as a guy wrote:

Personally I see you “alpha/game males” as huge fucking losers. Especially the ones “learning the game” and spouting off your little quotes and theory. You always seem to be adopting different personalities. I’ve always believed if you have to change who you are to get the attention of a woman, you lose. Plain and simple.

One thing I’ve noticed from reading this webpage (and the comments especially) is it seems to me that many “students of the game” are hyper-overanalyzers (yes, that is redudant, but you guys overanalyze SO much) and seem to think/feel/need extraordinary structure in terms of “what to do” in order to be able to function.

What if who you are is the cause of your celibacy? Then change is warranted, no? Should Charles Manson have stayed “who he was” because by doing so he would have adhered to your righteously moralistic worldview? Or should he have tried to be a better, non-murderous person? It’s easy to preach from the dichotomous pulpit you’re glued to — you’re either a natural comfortable in his own skin, or a loser learning game and being someone he’s not. But that is a false premise. Learning game is like learning a foreign language. You don’t become a different person just because you taught yourself German. Dummkopf!

This pseudo-argument you’re presenting has been knocking around in the heads of the sneering disbelievers for a long time, so I don’t expect you to see the light. But I do want to make an example of you so betas who might fall for your inane bromides aren’t sucked into believing their fates are hopeless.

Let’s be clear. The only difference between a natural alpha and a “student of the game” is level of self-awareness. Some guys do allow their systematizing nerdiness to carry them off into overanalyzing creepland, but that is not evidence that game doesn’t work. There is a learning curve, and after enough practice the skills become so second-nature that you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between a natural and a guy who made a conscious, deliberate effort to learn how to pick up women.

and he also showed me this cube game about 2 years ago, and it was ridiculously stupid.

That “ridiculously stupid” cube game is chick crack. But you’d know this if you weren’t an ugly girl posing as a guy who felt threatened by guys learning game and exercising the choice of ignoring you in favor of higher quality girls.

***********

What I did:

Me: [Getting up and walking over to her side of the coffee table] I noticed you’ve been hoarding the sugar packs over here. [Grabbing one] If you wanted an excuse to talk to me, you could have just said Hi.
Her: [smiling] I’m pretty sure those were here when I got here.
Me: Likely story. I’m gonna go sit back down and answer some important emails from people seeking dating advice. I may ask for your opinion later. Sometimes a girl’s perspective helps. [Walk back]
Her: [10 minutes later] You still gonna ask me about your emails?
Me: Hmm? Oh, yeah… you won’t believe this one. Come here, check this out.

You’ll have to amuse yourselves with what happened next.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Game, Psy Ops | Comments Off

David Blaine Is A Toolbelt

Sep 25th, 2008 by

And all those suckers camping out to watch him sit in a box are his tools.

Drop the retarded endurance test “magic stunts” and stick to card tricks, dude.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Ridiculousness | Comments Off

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »