The relationship. The long-term relationship. The Holy Grail for some. Purgatory for others. Serene limbo for most.
The relationship — aka marriage, when in its most loathsome permutation — is supposed to be the culmination of romantic transcendence. It moves lovers beyond lust into the realm of silent covalent bond. But this bond, unspoken and understood, can’t form out of any primordial soup; it requires the presence, and the absence, of specific ingredients. The rarity of the founding broth is the reason why poets elevate inviolate love to the sublime. One isn’t liable to effuse about the commonplace or the trite, which can spring like weeds from the craggiest soil.
In every relationship, there is a transition period; that window of time when a man senses he has crossed a boundary from experimental abandon to tribute paid in increments of freedom. A man stands at the Gates of Pudenda and makes his decision for Eros: to step through, committing himself to a revised moral code etched with broad brushstrokes of obligation and the peculiar rewards accrued therein, or to turn back to gallivant another day.
The decision at the moment of transition is not the same for every man. If you haven’t experienced multiple lovers, your transition into an LTR will be easier. You won’t sacrifice much in leaving behind your life of infrequent elation for the rhythmic reassurance of content stability. Players with a lurid, technicolor memory plate filled with many women will find it harder to accede to the straitjacketing of an LTR because of an acute sense of something missing, of what could still be had for the taking, and of withdrawal from the thrill of the hunt. The man who has bedded in his lifetime more than two or three lovers (the average number for the typical beta male) has a feature length film of past and present conquests running in a continuous loop, instantly evoked, as H.H. would say, on the “dark innerside of his eyelids”, in perfect optical replication, to effortlessly remind him of the incomprehensible pleasure of vulvic variety and of all the women waiting in oblivious anticipation for the arrival of his plunderprong.
The memory and the knowledge are the curse of the player. Memory stokes the wanderlust with insistent, torrential recall of scores of curvaceous bodies and rippled vulvae. Though in theory one vagina is no different than the rest, in a man’s mind each furrow is an ecological feature etched into strange planets across the galaxy. Every vagina is a new world to a man, some more exotic than others, and the unbridled enthusiasm he will feel planting his flag on fresh colonizations is no accident of evolution. Contrary to feminized misappraisal, this is not the pretentious joy of shame or escape; it is the sincere joy of pleasure that needs no reason.
The knowledge that the player possesses at his whim the skill to seduce women is the twin sabotage that undermines relationship endurance. A player will see the world of women lit from every angle, exposed to his exploration, if he knows, through experience, through the touch of a thousand fingertips, that he can bed women fairly consistently, and with manageable effort. The psychological emollient of knowing this power is his is enough to burden the heart of a man contemplating even a facsimile of fidelity. Bound to his lover by, in turns, conscience, social opprobrium, and legal sanction, the streams of waiting conquests slipping past like rivulets of glimmering intimacies, taunting his parched loin loosely moored to the ballast of loyalty, is the torture of a lifetime of short-circuited ejaculations.
In contrast, to be the grateful man with no history of sexual plenitude, for whom omnipresent sensual possibilities seem as remote as the twinkling stars in the heavens and thus unlikely to stir his ancient calling, is to be released with the gift of the constrained vision. Where possibility is dead, or unfathomable, so is dangerous yearning. He is now free to step back from the beautiful painting and dryly ponder its geometric contours. When this man falls in love with an accessible work of art, one he can call his own, he has little else to compare its grip on his imagination. He cherishes his chosen muse, blissfully ignorant of the carelessness and glibness with which he would succumb to, and love, the millions of competing muses were they to be more tangible to him than airbrushed magazine cover placeholders.
The curse of the player, then, is ultimately illumination, tactile and cerebral. His own success in love betrays his quest for the ultimate love. He has seen vistas he cannot unsee.
He is not a disbeliever in everlasting monogamous love, quite the contrary; but his eternal search for it has corrupted the destination. Each step of his journey lands like the heavy stamp of slash and burn machinery, decloaking the mystery of the source at the mouth of the tributary. He is as certain to destroy underfoot the elixir of redemption as he is to finally catch it, leached of its nutrients.
Ironically, the man (or woman) best situated to find divine love is the one whose efforts aren’t excessively profitable.
A “relationship advice” guy who writes for Yahoo/Match/Tyrell Corporation published letters from readers who described the crazy things they did for love. Now, there is an alpha way to do crazy-in-love, and there is a beta way. Read this first letter and see if you can identify the tells that mark the writer of this letter as a beta male.
I went to bat for her engagement ring
“My girlfriend and I had been together for about three years, and I was sure she was the one I wanted to marry. Problem was, I didn’t exactly have enough money to get her a good engagement ring. So, in order to raise funds, I put my collection of baseball trading cards on eBay. We’re talking a collection that spanned, like, 20 years, thanks to some cards handed down by my dad. I was totally bummed to part with them because they were so important to me, but I really, really loved this girl. I ended up making more than enough money to pay for a ring. Problem was, when I got down on one knee, she told me that she couldn’t see spending the rest of her life with me. I should’ve stuck with Shoeless Joe Jackson.”
— Owen, 26, Chagrin Falls, OH
Chagrin Falls is appropriate. Often, when reading these sad sack stories, one has the nagging feeling that a better grasp of the market value of the players would clarify why this or that venality visited the protagonist. Discerning the sexual market value of a woman online, when no photo is available, is tricky; women will aggressively lead the reader to believe, absent hard visual evidence, that they are desired by most men. The sexual market value of men is a bit easier to root out in written, online mediums because I find that men are a little more careless about revealing their beta cores. Reading between the lines for male and female beta tells is a fun pastime that I heartily recommend.
Back to the letter: you might be tempted to think that getting a girl an engagement ring is pure beta male, but because so many men fall into the diamond industrial complex trap, it’s not quite the tell that it should be. Instead, the big tells are the writer’s baseball card collection, his willingness to trade one of his most valuable possessions for a rock to slip on a girl’s finger (betraying his father’s love in the process), and, worst of all, his bended knee proposal.
Collections of the sort that are particularly unappealing to women are leading indicators of betaness, because a man who is good with women and able to get sex will not have the patience or motivation to amass piles of mostly useless junk that don’t add to his attractiveness to women. Baseball cards are the province of little boys and grown betas.
But it’s a forgivable tell. Alpha males have the systematizing instinct as well, and collections that can be categorized and subcategorized are addictive to all kinds of men. The bigger beta tell was this guy’s willingness to sever a holy bond, via baseball card, with his father to enrich his girlfriend. The man who sells off a bequeathed treasure from his dad to please his woman is an unprincipled cipher of beta provisioning. No woman with the least bit of character would, if known to her, allow her boyfriend to hock his pop’s heirloom for a blood diamond. Most American women don’t have the least bit of character.
Finally, the cringe-worthiest beta male tell was the bended knee beggary. If anything, since men give up more to get married, it’s women who should drop on bended knee thanking their boyfriends for making honest whores out of them. I don’t care how super alpha you are or how much self-handicapping you can endure without penalty, dropping to one knee is exquisitely, insufferably BETA. Ignore my advice to skip the nuptials for loving LTRs, but for the memory of millions of ancestors who harnessed the power of testicular fortitude to usher you into this world, don’t get down on your knees before a woman. You’re just asking to be treated like the dog who waits dutifully at the door with the leash in its mouth.
Three beta male tells, each worse than the last. The coda to this miserable letter should surprise no one, but I bet it surprised the letter writer. No woman wants to share her life with a man she has to look down at to see.
For shits and giggles, here’s another letter that represents the exact opposite of the one above.
I found out the hard way that our love wasn’t going to go the distance
“My boyfriend of a year and four months had to move for his job. It wasn’t dramatically far away, but it was still three states over. I was living in Ohio then, and he had to move to Maryland. We talked on the phone, wrote letters and all that, and I could tell that he was getting increasingly homesick. I decided to surprise him by ducking out of work early one Friday, driving over to see him — it’s about five or six hours by car — and cheering him up. Turns out I didn’t need to, though, because when I showed up at his apartment that night, I found him having dinner with a woman he met at work. At least I didn’t need to worry about staying awake on the long drive home — I was too upset to fall asleep.”
— Jackie, 27, Manhasset, NY
Spot the alpha male tell. Lessee… was it when he got himself a new woman who would be locally available for poundage sessions, so he wouldn’t have to spend months of his valuable life celibately pining for faraway pussy? Could be!
If you aren’t touching women early and often during a pickup attempt, you’re handicapping yourself.
Even non-sexual social contact can raise body temperature.
Researchers at the University of St Andrews found that non-sexual social interactions with men caused a noticeable rise in the temperature of a woman’s face, without them even noticing. […]
Lead author Amanda Hahn, explained, “We used a thermal camera to record skin temperature during a standard ‘social interaction’ where we measured participants’ skin colour at ‘non-personal’ (i.e. the arm and palm of the hand) and ‘personal’ (i.e. the face and chest) locations on the body. The thermal response was dramatic when the male experimenter made contact at ‘personal’ locations.”
While it may not be surprising that people have a physiological response to social contact, the size of the reaction was surprising. Hahn commented, “We observed some women whose facial temperature increased by an entire degree (Celsius) during interaction with the male experimenter.
“This thermal change was in response to simple social interaction, without any experimental change to emotion or arousal. Indeed our participants did not report feeling embarrassment or discomfort during the interaction.”
The study, published later this month in Biology Letters, shows that gender alone influenced the reaction of women, who showed no response to interaction with other women.
Sexual arousal and body temperature fluctuations (the literal manifestation of “buying temperature”) are intimately entwined, so much so that neglecting to elicit body temp spikes in women will make the process of seducing them more difficult. If your hands aren’t exploring a woman’s body while talking to her, you are flirting with the disaster of getting friend-zoned.
It’s already been demonstrated that touching a woman lightly on the arm will increase the odds that she will give you her number. Now we have scientific evidence that touching will dramatically raise a woman’s body temperature, especially in the facial region. Note that the women in the study did not respond to the touch of other women; it was only the wandering hands of men who got them flushed in the face. Note also that none of the women claimed to feel discomfort when the men touched them; their body temp rise was unrelated to any feeling that they were being threatened or their personal space was being invaded.
The difference in temperature rise between getting touched on the palm/arm and the chest/face was large, although there was a small rise elicited from simple arm touching. Game theory is very clear on the importance of kino and how it should progress (by “escalation”), so these studies are simply gravy on top of what is already experimentally proven by thousands of men running game in the field. To recap:
– It’s better to touch a girl more than you think is comfortable than to avoid touching too much because you think it would make a girl uncomfortable.
– Always touch sooner rather than later, and more often rather than too infrequently.
– Begin your touching on innocuous parts of a girl’s body, like the forearm and hand, and gradually move to more erogenous zones of her body, like the small of her back, the upper arm, the thigh and even her face. Also gradually increase the duration and pressure of your touching.
– The “slow boiling frog” principle is at work here. If you move too quickly from “safe zone” to erogenous zone, you might spook a girl. But more gradual kino escalation will allow you to touch “danger zones” with impunity.
– Don’t touch extremely charged body areas in public spaces. There’s too much risk of activating a girl’s anti-slut mechanism. Save the petting for private areas.
I’ve often wondered (well, not that often) why, if kino is critical to success with women, so many beta males (who, as a reminder, occupy the bulk of the male population) are so skittish about touching women? Now I have a theory. Lacking the confidence of their caddish convictions, it makes sense to betas to avoid boldness in action with women who are less likely to assume their impertinences. There is a real risk, in other words, of a crippling incongruency should the beta male decide to kino with a fury without the requisite overconfidence to sway the ladies and gird his fortitude.
From the female perspective, instinctively welcoming kino at a deep physiological level — that is, readying herself for sex in the most shamefully unfeminist manner — is actually a sub-subconscious biological shit test that signals to a girl who among the men hitting on her has the alpha goods. If her vestigial vellous hairs rise automatically at the touch of a man’s hand, any man’s hand, and her cheeks glow a rosy hue, then it’s a simple evolutionarily-greased leap of logic to be more open to the entreaties of men cocksure enough to touch her than to the hovering hands of “creepy” beta males. The act of touching — especially if exercised with devil-may-care élan — is sort of a preselection for alpha attitude that women use to screen men into despondent categories of desirable and undesirable.
As always, a jaunt through the female hamster brain is illuminating. We’ll compare what escapes like a hissing balloon out of a termagant feminist’s mouth to what the gentlehamster underneath it all actually thinks.
Asply-coiled feminist: “Unwanted touching ANYWHERE on my body is sexual harassment!!”
♥Hamster♥: “I can’t explain in socially approved turns of phrase why I feel closer to this guy.”
Misfiring pistoned-feminist: “You WILL respect my boundaries!”
♥Hamster♥: “This guy hasn’t touched me once in a half hour of talking to me. So much respect, but so little chemistry.”
Yoko Ono in a chokehold mid-warble feminist: “Check your male privilege at the door!”
♥Hamster♥: “This man is very comfortable touching me. That shows confidence. Which must mean he has a lot of experience with women. Which really turns me on.”
♥♥Hamster’s hamster♥♥: “…thus improving the odds that any son I have with this man will grow up to inherit the same pussy slaying skills, spreading my genes yonder and hither.”
As most of you are beta males, you should take this post to heart and begin training your reflexes away from automatic discomfort at the thought of touching women and toward taking liberties with their personal spaces. You may think you are disrespecting women, but in fact you are respecting their vaginas. Don’t be surprised if, after a few months of violating every known feminist taboo, you wind up not in a diversity seminar, but between the sheets with a very satisfied woman.
To praise, or not to praise? “seeking truth” asks:
The transition from sleeping often with women of assorted beauty and quality, over the past 8 years, to recently establishing a longer-term serious relationship with what I consider quite a valuable women is an interesting dilemma. Clearly there are long-term issues to excessively praising a woman, as constant exposure to praise will naturally lead one to lower the value of praising party, through over-exposure. However, when one is happy it is easy and natural to express the reasons for ones happiness. What is the balance?
What is your take on the long-term potential of a relationship strategy that involves praise for a woman’s strong points – Fun loving, Funny, Quick, Smart, Loving, Affectionate, and Attractive in large helpings of each, with a somewhat raunchy, nasty, perverted objectification of her as a sex object required to submit/please, along with occasional reminders of how successful and easy it has been to create hook-up situations?
For example, saying i love you and the same breath telling her to practice stretching so she can be manipulated for an easier pounding during an upcoming trip. Does the sexual objectification offset the Betazoid aspects of praise?
I am finding the application of game interesting and looking to better understand its various implementations to sort out a comfortable role for it in relationships.
Here are three key seduction maxims to live by.
Better to err on the side of too much boldness than too little.
Better to err on the side of too much assholery than not enough.
Better to err on the side of too little praise than too much.
Do you know what happens to guys who cravenly praise their girlfriends day in and day out? They get dumped. Or tossed into sexual solitary confinement. Or taken for granted, if they’re lucky.
Do you know what happens to guys who are stingy with their praise? They get more sex than they can handle. They also get some drama, but… would you rather deal with drama or getting dumped?
I hope this lesson has reached home. Man, I have known guys who:
1. never complimented their GFs’ looks
2. never complimented their GFs’ smarts
3. never complimented their GFs’ personalities
but who had their GFs wrapped around their fingers. Even funnier, their GFs complimented *them* all the time, and all they answered in return was a head nod or a “you bet”. Isn’t love grand?
Now this doesn’t mean you have to go ice cold aloof ninja to sustain a loving relationship. As men, when we love a woman, we feel urges to compliment her. It’s a natural by-product of wanting to sex her hot bod with extreme defilement. And, it makes us feel good to throw her a bone of flattery. But betas completely surrender themselves to this urge, and it costs them. Alphas channel this urge, and it pays dividends. The Goldilock’s Principle is definitely in play. Allow me to open a window into a woman’s head, so you can see how your praise is received by her subterranean neuronal rhythms.
Excessive praise ===> “I can do better than him”
No praise ===> “He doesn’t love me”
Just the right kind and amount of praise ===> “I love him”
The first one will corrupt your LTR. The second one will corrode your LTR, but only after a very long time has passed. The third one will feed her hamster juuuuust enough pellets to keep her wondering, guessing, loving, and desiring.
There is a flattery balance to strike that won’t DLV yourself, and here are some guidelines to reaching that balance:
1. Never praise your girlfriend from a position of weakness.
There’s no worse time to lavish your woman with compliments than when she’s giving you the cold shoulder. But, men being men and unable to comprehend the maddening illogic of the female mind, that’s usually the time when they can’t stop praising their girlfriends. She’s snapping at you? Butter her up! She’s withholding sex? Ring up the excessive compliments! She’s being a raging bitch? Tell her how great she is! And then plead forgiveness of your sins!
Lord almighty, is this what the church of white knightery teaches men nowadays? You couldn’t do more harm to your cause had you tucked your junk between your legs, kneeled and begged her to touch your pee pee from behind.
The absolute WORST time to flatter your girl is when she is making your life miserable. Why would you reward bad behavior? Make like the pussy whisperer and train your woman not to crap in your face. Betas have no game except cloying flattery and “””supportiveness”””, so their instinct is to turn to that in times of turmoil and layer it on thick as can be. And you know the gruesome results of that: the woman feels even more repulsed by his presence.
No, when you praise or compliment or act supportive, ALWAYS do it from a position of strength. If you’re wondering when that is, it’s when she’s fawning over you, or begging you to irrigate her furrow as you brush your dick tauntingly across her pink eggplant, or singing your praises to her friends, or just generally acting like a sweet, feminine woman in your company.
2. Never be consistent in how, or how often, you flatter your girlfriend.
Two predictable compliments a day, like a doctor’s order, is going to get tiring real fast. She should never know when you might deign to make her feel loved. And she should never hear the same damn turn of phrase every day either. The best times to praise your girl are when she least expects it, and that is usually when something else is happening and her attention is distracted from “you and her”. I like to toss out a compliment when she’s just dribbled food onto her blouse, or whisper a loving bon mot in her ear as she’s trying on clothes in front of the mirror. Unpredictability is as arousing to women as full firm tits are to men. Which leads to…
Maxim #55: The training of the woman distills to this essence: Punish her bad behavior consistently, reward her good behavior intermittently.
Enjoy your vagina deluge.
3. Flatter her in public.
You know what really flutters a girl’s heart? When you say something nice about her in front of her friends. That’s a relationship boost and a social status boost in one. Nonsexual public praise is the safer bet, but sexual public praise, if done right, can make her heart explode.
4. Praise those things about her that will redound to your benefit.
Sure, it’s easy to lapse into praising a woman’s most obviously enticing features, like her eyes or luscious lips. But she has little control over those advantages she enjoys. But if you praise her attractive behavior… “I love they way you’re so affectionate. It’s really sexy and so rare to find in a woman nowadays”… you encourage more of that positive behavior from her in the future.
Similarly, if you go the physical route, praising your girl’s ass will have the most impact when she just got back from the gym. She’ll want to keep going to the gym to earn more of that praise.
5. Use adjectives.
Chicks dig the adjective. Lots of them. Nice eyes? Meh. Orbs of liquid blue allure? Plow me! Caveat: Lawyercunts tend to balk at adjectives, because they are unfeminine and have incipient clit dicks. Just tell them you’re gonna rape them in two, and watch their love pour forth.
6. Always substitute nonverbal praise for verbal praise when you can.
Pinching her ass and smiling is more effective than telling her she has a great ass.
7. Substitute “we” for “you” in your compliments, when you can.
It’s the difference between putting her on a pedestal, and leaving a spot for her on your pedestal.
8. Romantic contrast is king.
If you always tell your girl “you’re so pretty”, she will expect the same endearment next time. If you always tell your girl “you’re ass is so righteous I’m gonna fill it with my religion”, she will expect the same perversion next time. But if you sweetly woo her “I love the way we kiss” as you’re leaving for work in the morning, and then hoarsely whisper to her “your ass is so hot my dick wants to wear it as a sombrero” when you return in the evening, she’ll have two orgasms, one for her and one for her hamster. Squeak!
9. Rarity is the glow of clits.
If you get a great reaction from your flattery, don’t beat it to death. Stop, drop and change the subject. You’d be amazed how many betas will sabotage their brief moments of glory by returning over and over to the same well. Any sort of praise of a woman ought to be, by natural habit and sincere discernment, a rare and welcomed thing. Most men have the problem of overestimating the right amount of praise. The right amount is much less than men think. If I had to estimate, one week between compliments is a good rough number to shoot for within an established LTR. Whatever number, it should never be more than the number of compliments *she* lavishes on you. Abide the Golden Ratio (see the 16 Commandments at the top of the blog). Note: raunchy talk is technically not praise, so you can raunch it up often without worrying about DLVing yourself, though it’s a good idea to dish that out irregularly, for the same reasons you would be spare in your nonsexual flattery.
10. Finally, praise feminine qualities, not masculine qualities.
Do you want to turn your sweet petunia into a proud feminist with a jagged fault line running straight through her soul? Then why are you complimenting her “ambition”? Men with no clue often think women want to hear what they would like to hear. No. Women want to hear that you acknowledge and love their unique gifts — their femininity, their generosity, their softness, their sexiness. It’s similar to how men get tired of hearing their women praise their “muscles”. Ladies, you really want to strike the gooey center of your man’s heart? Tell him you love how he commands a room. Bam. You’ve just won an extra 30 seconds of lovemaking.
I hope this clears the matter for you. Compliments are garnishes, not the main dish. Nobody wants to eat a full plate of parsley. And remember, disapproving of her flaws is as crucial to LTR management as offering praise of her… talents. More crucial, I’d say, because a missed compliment won’t lower your value like a missed reprimand will.
A reader quizzically wonders about something I asserted:
I was reading the post about men’s smarts and their value. You made a comment about women not wanting a guy hotter than themselves. I understand what you meant, but wondered how far you could carry that logic.
That is, women do not want a man who is hotter than her because hotter women will hit on him and she has a fear he might step up to a new woman. Having said that, is the implication that the hotter women will go for lesser looking men?
The examples I see are Goldie Hawn, being with Kurt Russel. Russel is an alpha male, as demonstrated by his life, but his boyish looks died years before he got with her.
Another is Demi Moore, in that for years, she was with Bruce Willis…another alpha male, but whose looks were never on the Ashton Kutcher level. Speaking of which, I suspect it was him who made the split…and that she is batshit crazy. But, that also points to the fact that after she hit the wall is when she went for the looks guy over the alpha male.
What are your thoughts?
Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore are were the notable exception to the rule — there is a lot of talk about them in the media and amongst wishfully thinking aging cougars because their arrangement is was so rare and, hence, conspicuous. But as the invisible groin of the sexual market worked its self-regulating magic, Kutcher eventually cheated on his older lover with a bevy of much younger cuties, driving Moore insane with self-loathing and fear of her rapidly encroaching sexual obsolescence (which she desperately tweeted to the world in the guise of blurry, half-naked bathroom shots). Who can blame a prowly has-been?
Nevertheless, it is absolutely the case that most women prefer men, at least for long-term relationships, who are not physically better-looking than they are. The matter was discussed in this archived post. The referenced scientific study provided evidence for the curious real-world observation that there are a nontrivial number of couples featuring average looking men with cute chicks hanging off their arms. And the phenomenon of downright ugly men with beautiful women is, based on my steely-eyed observation, a good ten-fold more common than the inverse.
New research reveals couples in which the wife is better looking than her husband are more positive and supportive than other match-ups.
The reason, researchers suspect, is that men place great value on beauty, whereas women are more interested in having a supportive husband.
There are a few reasons for this sex differential in attractiveness criteria, some of which were mentioned in the study. I’ll clarify.
1. Very good-looking men have more opportunity to stray, so less attractive women would not want to risk being with them out of fear of investing themselves only to lose to a hotter interloper.
2. Very good-looking men have higher testosterone than less physically attractive men, and are thus more likely to pursue extrapair fornications. Women instinctively know this, and the less attractive of them avoid dating much better-looking men, influenced by their visceral grasp of the relationship power imbalance.
3. Men place more emphasis on women’s beauty than women place on men’s looks, and this innate predilection manifests as a willingness (and a honed ability) by men to strive harder than women for mating and LTR opportunities with relatively hotter opposite sex prospects.
But the most important reason, I believe, is egoism.
4. Men and women love to enjoy the privileges of their greatest strengths. It brings them happiness. For women, this means that they love the feeling of power that their beauty gives them. A woman who is with a better-looking man has that power robbed from her in subtle and in sometimes transparently humiliating ways; she has to deal with the attentions of female competitors, the attention her lover gives to female competitors, and the unspoken, but not any less felt, degradation of her number one asset. When a woman can’t leverage her beauty because the better-looking man she is with doesn’t value it as much as a less attractive man would value it, she loses a sense of purpose to her life.
It’s a similar dynamic to the stay-at-home dad married to the breadwinner wife. Maybe he thinks he scored by marrying a rich woman who can give him an easy life dusting up around the house, but over time nagging doubts about his masculinity and his wife’s faithfulness — even if she gives him no reason to doubt her fidelity — will eat away at his self-esteem. He will drift into an ennui of purposelessness and dreamscapes of receding chins and pendulous manboobs, because the soul-enriching feeling that comes with being able to leverage the natural male power which resides in providing, leading and dominating will have been stripped from him. Subcutaneous machinery of self-doubt will gradually shred well-intentioned insistent, mutual professions of love.
The reader asks if hot women will go for lesser looking men. The answer is that hot women will go for higher status men: an evasive answer befitting a misguided question. Women won’t actively seek out uglier men, but they will feel imperceptible compulsions to avoid dating men better-looking than themselves, which ultimately means that many women will wind up in the arms of less physically attractive (but perhaps higher status!) men. The study linked above suggests that all women, not just hot women, will gravitate into LTRs with men who are less good-looking compared to themselves. And they will be happier for it.
The study also implies women are more open to an uglier man’s game than men are open to flirting with uglier women. While ugly men won’t turn women’s heads, a bold ugly man can overcome the obstacle of his ugliness with the right attitude and seduction skill set. This is only true because physical ugliness is not the crippling deficit to a man’s dating success that physical ugliness would be to a woman’s dating success. It’s a difference of degree so pronounced that it almost qualifies as a difference of kind.
This doesn’t mean you can be an ugly man and expect hot babes to line up for the ego-boosting thrill of your comparative ugliness. You’ve still got to offer something women value, whether that’s money, charm, talent, game or social status. But it does mean that you can, and should, do better than your ugly looks have conditioned you to believe, particularly if LTRs are your goal.
This is all very good news for those uglier men who think game can’t help them date a point or two higher up the female attractiveness scale.
Maxim #214: Most men can get cuter girls than they think. False psychological projection of their own sexual attraction mechanism onto women blinds them to this reality.
High Fructose Postscript
Some of you have no doubt heard stories about, or experienced for yourself, women who seem to go for nothing but looks when choosing which men to date. You’re not imagining things. A minority of women — I’d estimate 10-15% of the fertile female population — place excess emphasis on men’s looks, almost on a par with the emphasis that men place on women’s looks. These women tend to be more masculinized than the typical woman. They aren’t necessarily unattractive, but they are less feminine than their curvier sisters. They usually have small tits and narrow hips, although their asses can retain their juiciness. They have manly personalities and are argumentative and horny all the time. They cheat without remorse. The sluttiest slut I’ve been with was one of these types who gun for the hottest guys in the room, and couldn’t be trusted as far as I could jackhammer her. (Which, proud to say, was clear across the lengthwise distance of the bed.)
If you meet one of these types, jump for joy. You’ve just gotten a ticket to ride her with minimal investment. They like sex, and they are easy to justify dumping for more loyal, less sexually predatory women. Be mentally prepared to catch her cheating, so when the inevitable parting of ways occurs, it’ll be no skin off your nose.
Interestingly, I have a pretty good hunch that a lot of female readers of sex-related blogs written by men, like Le Chateau, fall into this “looks-centric” masculinized female category. This explains the outsized vocal insistence by this minority of blog-traversing women that male looks are the most important thing in their suite of attractiveness criteria. Some of them are likely lying to score troll points, but some are telling the truth. Nevertheless, keep in mind that these women do not represent the majority of women you will meet in real life, offline. Most cute girls will not consider your average looks a dealbreaker, if you have some decent game or other compensating trait to woo them.
It’s a regular trope of feminists that male sexists are bitter, beta male losers. “Oh, you hate women because you suck with them”, and vice versa. It’s very comforting to feminists — actually, to all women — to believe that only resentful losers they don’t find attractive would harbor sexist thoughts. It’s very discomforting to feminists to entertain the thought that happy-go-lucky men who do well with women would be brazenly sexist.
But the truth, as per usual, falls squarely in the “discomforting to feminists” camp.
Research indicates that the endorsement of sexist ideology is linked to higher subjective wellbeing for both men and women. We examine gender differences in the rationalisations which drive this effect in an egalitarian nation (New Zealand). Results from a nationally representative sample (N = 6,100) indicated that the endorsement of Benevolent Sexism (BS) predicted life satisfaction through different mechanisms for men and women. For men, BS was directly associated with life satisfaction. For women, the palliative effect of BS was indirect and occurred because BS-ideology positioning women as deserving of men’s adoration and protection was linked to general perceptions of gender relations as fair and equitable, which in turn predicted greater levels of life satisfaction.
So if you are a benevolent sexist — that is, you believe men and women are psychologically different and respond to stimuli in different ways, and that women are the weaker sex deserving of male protection — you are more likely to be a happy person than the man (or woman!) who clings to a bitter feminist ideology that assumes biological and psychological equality between the sexes.
And that’s really got to stick in the craw of any feminist who comes ambling through the Chateau happy hunting grounds. Not only are sexist men happier in life, but women in the company of sexist men are happier as well! Paging sad vegetable lasagna Alex Pareene…
But that’s not all. Sexist men make more money than their manboobed counterparts. And, in what is sure to be a shot straight to the flabby feminist gut, women are more sexually receptive to assertively sexist men.
The popularity of speed-seduction techniques, such as those described in The Game (Strauss 2005) and advocated in the cable program The Pickup Artist (Malloy 2007), suggests some women respond positively to men’s assertive mating strategies. Drawing from these sources, assertive strategies were operationalized as involving attempts to isolate women, to compete with other men, and to tease or insult women. The present investigation examined whether hostile and benevolent sexism and sociosexuality, the degree to which individuals require closeness and commitment prior to engaging in sex, were associated with the reported use of assertive strategies by men and the reported positive reception to those strategies by women. It was predicted men and women who were more sexist and had an unrestricted sociosexuality would report using more and being more receptive to assertive strategies. Study 1 (N = 363) surveyed a Midwestern undergraduate college student sample, and regression results indicated that sociosexuality was associated with assertive strategy preference and use, but sexism only predicted a positive reception of assertive strategies by women. Study 2 (N = 850) replicated these results by surveying a larger, national U.S. volunteer sample via the internet. In addition to confirming the results of Study 1, regression results from Study 2 indicated that hostile sexism was predictive of reported assertive strategy use by men, suggesting that outside of the college culture, sexism is more predictive of assertive strategy use.
tl;dr — chicks dig sexist jerks.
None of this should come as a surprise to my alpha male readers (estimated at around 20% of readership). If you’ve spent any time in the company of other alpha males, or if you are an alpha male yourself, you know how sexist in-demand, high value men can be, whether shooting the unmonitored breeze with male friends or challenging the preconceptions of feisty girls. And you know how much women swoon for those sexist pigs.
Some of the best sexist jokes I’ve heard came straight from the mouths of top gun alpha males. Some of the most revolting, too. And you wanna talk about how badly men objectify women? Try listening to a player describe in delicious detail every nook and cranny of the broads he boffs. Bitter beta males bemoaning the unfairness of getting the shaft in divorce court are veritable wymyn’s studies graduates and honorary lesbians in comparison to their distant alpha male cousins.
Now don’t get the wrong idea; alpha males are breathtakingly sexist, but they aren’t spiteful about it, nor do they allow their cynicism to ruin a good time. They love women as women, not as substitute men, and if that imbues them with an air of condescending paternalism, then so be it. Chicks dig that, too.
The trick is to coat your sexism in a lacquer of smooth cockiness. Call it: sexism with a smirk. You never want to logically argue with a feminist, at least not in typical social situations; you want to mock her. Preferably mercilessly. You don’t want to launch into diatribes about the double standard of paying for drinks; you want to tease a girl asking you to buy her a drink if she’d like your debit card as well. You don’t want to make a fuss about holding a door open for a hot chick; but you do want to let it slam in her face if she’s ugly or obese. You don’t want to discuss loaded feminist topics on a first date; but you do want to chide a girl who gives you feminist guff over drinks. She’ll appreciate your refreshing boldness*, or she’ll become indignant. If the latter, you’ll know it’s safe to stiff her with the check. Or just stiff her.
*Most girls will appreciate the sexist’s boldness, because the type of girl who would be stupid enough to bring up feminist topics on a first date is usually the type of girl who, regrettably, dates way too many beta males and is sick of their sycophancy. She is testing the waters for real manliness, which means real sexism… the kind of Draperesque sexism that drives women wild with the opposite of closed-vagina indifference.
A hot brunette talking in a citizen of the world accent to a slumped shoulder herbling, on the sidewalk:
“American guys have an attitude that European girls all want to have sex with them. Just because we’re European!”
If an American man is going on a date with a European girl with the attitude that she is eager to put out and loves sex, then he is doing something right. When you have the attitude that you expect sex from women… you are more likely to get sex from women.
Perhaps this self-fulfilling alpha attitude partly explains why American men so often praise the femininity of European women compared to American women. Or it could just be that more American women are slovenly mounds of unrendered lard while more European women are slender babes.
[W]hen I first learned of game, I saw the videos of these dudes and thought what fags these dudes looked like! I wondered if these feminine-sounding PUAs actually liked the women or they were just playing a fun game like dress-up or doll-house.
A few posts back I submitted a link to a study that showed how women talk can reveal how self-centered they are (I can’t find or remember link right now) by using “I” so much. Ex. Upon asking them what the weather will be like tomorrow, they could say, “It will be cold,” or they could say, “I don’t know; I think I heard on the television it would be cold.” The girl that answers the first way isn’t self-centered. The girl that answered the second way, using three instances of “I” is self centered. Watch a group of hot girls talk. What’s the first response each of them says after one of their friends says something? It’s, “I know, I know right!” Isn’t that a trip!
So, I can neg the group with this concept in a masculine way, but when I highlight the examples of how women answer questions to reveal their self-centeredness, I can go all gaylike on them and mimic their feminine responses. Win/Win.
People like to talk about themselves; it’s fun and it makes us feel happier. The problem with identifying the self-centered girl in any group is that there are so many of them. Where to begin? Most women are self-absorbed by nature; it comes with the territory when you are, biologically and hence psychologically, the more valuable sex. This is why women should never have been given the vote; when the world revolves around you, it’s not a huge rationalization leap to decide that the world owes you lots of gimmedats.
But there are girls who defy even the bounds of their own sex and exhibit a level of conceit and self-focus that would shock even a bar top dancing whore. It behooves the master hamster seducer (where all seductions must begin) to know who these girls are, for they can be your greatest ally if harnessed correctly, or your worst enemy if left untended.
Find out which girl in the group is the most self-centered by listening for overwrought first-person singular pronoun usage, but also by watching for which girl is constantly interrupting someone else’s conversation to interject her opinion or exclamation, or which girl is moving her body forward into the group’s center of mass to draw attention to herself. This is the girl who will assuredly cockblock you if you don’t take preemptive countermeasures. (Example: “Who brought their attention-seeking little sister along?”)
Unusually self-centered girls are narcissists par excellence, and they love “screening” men for their friends and playing matchmaker, when they aren’t actively stealing those men away from their friends. This eternal cycle of drama feeds their insatiable egos, for the girl who self-loves more than she loves has a paradoxically fragile ego that requires a steady injection of external validation to keep it respirating.
BD’s suggestion to neg the ego-driven girls by mimicking their female solipsism is an ancient craft, and one I’ve used many times. Girls love it when you make fun of their girl-isms, and this can be in the form of aping their words or their mannerisms (easy to do if you have observed enough girls socializing and have a handle on their gender’s peculiarities). This is another one of those rapport-building techniques that is so powerful it can be easily overdone. Just a little to spike buying temps, and not more, or you risk sounding like a clown. And a gay clown, at that.
Or you could dispense with all this keen psychological acumen, and just drop a killa line on a girl like the one my buddy uses on occasion: “Does this fine pocket square smell like chloroform to you?” 1% of the time, it works every time.
I promised to do a review of Justin Wayne’s daygame video, because he is apparently a rising star in the proactive seduction subculture. (All life is a seduction, but only a few good men are proactive about the enterprise.) Wayne is an advocate of direct street game. In the video below, in which he demonstrates both direct and indirect game, you can see an example of his direct game starting at 2:25.
He makes his sexual intentions known up front, but then quickly “backtracks” with a nonsexual comment about her “artsy vibe”. (I will refrain from making jokes about chicks who major in philosophy and their sexual predilections.)
He uses a classic time constraint at 3:22.
He initiates kino (at 3:25) much sooner than most men would feel comfortable doing, and holds it for a long time. Critically, he defuses the inherent tension in prolonged kino (with, keep in mind, a total stranger on the street) by engaging in small talk. This is “contrast is king” type of game. As the liner notes to the video explain, her forebrain is logically engaged while her hindbrain is emotionally engaged.
At 3:41, he throws out a compliance test, which she obliges, thus establishing his dominance (girls love to be led).
At 3:48, he verbalizes the fact that he approached a girl on the street and notes its inherent strangeness; playful verbalization of outrageous seduction tactics can help deflect a girl’s suspicion and fear, and decrease the odds she will later flake.
At 4:05 onward, he shifts into persistence game, which is hard to pull off if you aren’t rock solid confident and congruent with it (a lot of men will cave way to early in the process, thus blowing themselves out). Persistence game is dangerous; it can EASILY come off as creepy and needy if you don’t know how to do it right. When I think of persistence game gone bad, I think of drunk frat boys forcing themselves on recalcitrant girls, not taking the hint, and then insulting the girls when they get blown out.
At 5:00, he contrasts his bold kiss maneuver with some neutral, nonsexual small talk again (this gambit reduces the risk that she will perceive him as a player.)
5:47 — “ANYway…” I don’t like the way she said “anyway”, harsh and staccato. It sounds like she’s punctuating a desire to get away.
5:50 — Or not. She gives him her number. But is this an expedient, insincere number close, or a genuine desire to get in touch again? I can’t really tell without seeing her facial expression up close. Would love to know the follow-up to this.
Verdict
This is great game for natural extroverts. If you approach ten chicks this way on the street each week for one month, I guarantee you WILL get laid, even if you’re short and below average in looks. But I suspect a lot of my readers are natural introverts, so they probably shuddered at the thought of doing what Wayne did to pull that chick. I’m not going to sugarcoat this for you wallflowers; if you’re an introvert, it’s going to be extraordinarily taxing on your psyche to direct game girls the way Wayne does. 1,000 approaches might help you control your fear and anxiety, but it won’t ever get rid of it. Introverts who use direct approaches are quite literally warring against their own brains. An introvert has to control not just the girl’s perception of him, but his own perception of himself.
I really don’t expect introverts to do this type of direct game with ease, or with any regularity. I think for them, indirect daygame is the way to go, and Roosh’s “elderly chat” system of warming up a girl in conversation is better suited for the natural introvert who balks at doing direct sexualized approaches. Unfortunately for introverts, success in game is going to require some amount of stressful social interaction with random girls. The days of waiting for your extended family to set you up with a girl who works at your mom’s friend’s cousin’s office are over. Indirect game minimizes the stress of the random approach, but won’t eliminate it. You shy guys will just have to grit your teeth and learn to handle a bit of discomfort. The much-derided game routines can serve as a crutch to help you navigate these inherently tense pickup scenarios.
***
Ok, moving along to the second part of the video, at 6:56 begins the “Indirect Day Game” portion, where Wayne approaches a Slavic siren in the mall. The indirect opener he used was “Excuse me, from the way you’re dressed, you seem like you do something artistic… what do you do”. (I missed the “tester” he throws out to determine how receptive she was to his approach, so I can’t comment on that. The tester concept is interesting as it allows you to switch from direct to indirect on the fly, depending on how friendly she is to your direct opener.)
Just like in the direct approach above, he asks the girl’s name before he has built any attraction. This is not my style, as I typically assume that asking a girl’s name is an indicator of interest best left for later when she has earned my interest, but it doesn’t seem to hinder Wayne’s progress with the girls. Maybe asking for the girl’s name early on is necessary in day/street game.
At around 7:30, he goes on a long-ish elderly chat-style ramble about some story of this girl he knew who eats chalk. The point of the story is to move the convo from awkwardly formal to comfortably casual. He then calls himself out for his “weird association thing” relating her name to his story. Calling yourself out to a girl is a great way to neutralize potentially awkward social interpretations that a girl would normally have in the middle of a convo with a guy she just met who is talking about a girl who eats chalk.
8:22 — the kino half-hug. But this hug is less about escalation and more about gauging her receptiveness and comfort. He then offers words of encouragement as she talk about her job search (btw, this chick is hot, just noticed that), and she begins to open up.
9:15 — DHV. Well-played, not too obvious. A great way to frame DHVs is to speak them quickly, so that she does not have time to doubt your sincerity as you will not be perceived to be waiting for a positive reaction from her. Quick release DHVs embed your value in her subconscious.
9:41 — “You seem kind of cool.” His first qualification line. (Although, tbh, she doesn’t seem kind of cool at all. She seems like a stick in the mud.)
9:58 — Very subtle neg. Accuses her of having a baby face and looking fifteen. This moves the convo in a more seductive direction.
10:20 — “I’m shy.” Vulnerability game. It’s obvious he’s not shy, so admitting to shyness doesn’t lower his value.
At 10:40, she qualifies herself. “But I write poetry!” He validates her with a hug and an exaggerated “I love you sooo much”. She smiles genuinely for the first time.
11:05 — Wayne says, “I graduated college.” See postscript below.
11:56 — IHAB objection! This is the first shit test she throws out, which means the interaction is heating up. (Girls don’t shit test guys they are completely indifferent to.) He passes her shit test when he says “It’s Ok, we can just make love!” Now he switches to direct game because the shit test signaled it was time to drop the social chit chat.
12:20 — She goes to give her number. She seems to be hesitating, fumbling for a phone she says she doesn’t have on her? I can’t make it out. Again, I wonder if this is a sincere number close, or an excuse for a quick exit?
12:49 — “Do you remember my name?” Isn’t that a DLV? I wouldn’t have asked that, even if I suspected she forgot my name.
13:00 — “I’m Prince Charming.” Nice save. Did she get it? These foreign chicks sometimes don’t get American culture references. When they don’t get them, they stammer around feeling foolish, which may or may not be good for the pickup energy.
13:07 — “Where are you from?” This is the first major IOI she throws out. Lesson: It can take a good five to ten minutes of day gaming a chick before you crack her default bitch shield and earn an IOI from her. So don’t be discouraged by slow progress in the daytime.
13:10 — “Where do you think I’m from? Come one, you’ve been around, you know where people come from.” This is a better answer than simply saying where he’s from. It’s challenging and cocky and unpredictable, the opposite of how a beta would reflexively reply.
14:14 — Hug close. But the hug is weak. A two-finger hug. Her departing words are “Take care. Ok, Ok.” Ugh. Dry and patronizing. But again, that could be a peculiarity of her East Euro opaqueness. And her boyfriend was lurking nearby, out of sight, so she may have been extremely cautious about showing too much interest in Wayne.
Verdict
How much did this “indirect” approach really differ from the previous direct approach pickup attempt? I couldn’t see much of a distinction, except in the details of the opener. Everything else in the two approaches followed the same over-arching game script. I suppose the pacing of the indirect approach was slower and more deliberate, less sexual in tone and far less touching, and that accounts for the longer time it took to close EE chick than it did for him to close philosophy chick.
EE chick’s body language and facial expressions did not scream “aroused and intrigued” to me. She seemed curious and perplexed, and a bit ashamed, which is understandable since she was talking to a strange man within room-shot of her boyfriend. Nevertheless, numbers were exchanged, so you have to give Wayne credit for that.
******
Debriefing
I don’t know if Wayne was able to follow-up with these two girls later and achieve the bang, although supposedly there is video out there of both girls on follow-up dates with him. My impression is that the closes were not particularly strong, if we measure close strength by the girls’ demeanors. The first girl, philosophy chick, giggled a lot, but it was the sort of surprised, awkward giggle that girls do when they feel uncomfortable or unable to fully comprehend what is happening to them. It didn’t sound to me like the loose and unforced giggle of a girl releasing pent-up sexual tension.
The second girl just seemed out of it, as is the wont of East European ice princesses, and although her receptiveness grew as the convo progressed, her body language remained somewhat cold. And she did leave arm-in-arm with her boyfriend, which suggests a future flake is likely.
Finally, I didn’t see a lot of reciprocated touching, flirty badinage, or other body language giveaways by either girl that would indicate growing sexual interest.
However, both pickups, judged by the standards of day game success, were pretty good. (It’s tougher to inspire sexual interest in sober girls during the day than it is at night in bars or clubs when girls are not only drinking, but in an expectant mental space where seduction is anticipated and welcomed.) The first girl did relinquish a kiss to him, after all. How many of you have done that with a girl within five minutes of meeting her on the street? And the second girl exchanged numbers. As day gaming goes, that’s a roaring success. Especially since the second girl’s boyfriend WAS ON THE FUCKING PREMISES when she offered her digits.
Wayne’s forceful, persistent, direct style of approaching girls on the street or in the daytime is a high risk, high reward strategy. You will get blown out a lot more than the guy using indirect, “slow boil” game, but you will get the lay quicker with those girls who love your direct style. As far as lay rate goes, I couldn’t tell you which tactic is more efficient. I tend to rely on indirect game. I don’t like pestering a girl with “Let’s just go for coffee, it’s right over here” ten times in a row. You could say I don’t have the stomach for that, but I prefer to think of it as cutting my losses to find less obstinate prospects.
All in all, I think Wayne’s style of day gaming — on his feet, cold approaching girls in neutral, nonsexual settings — is really designed for extroverts who get thrilled instead of fatigued by social interactions that ratchet up in complexity. For more unassuming guys, the coffeehouse or a restaurant rather than the street or the mall would be better venues for them to try out day game tactics. Indirect style seems a better fit for guys who won’t feel comfortable holding a girl’s hand for a full minute on the street and doing an eskimo kiss.
PS It would be remiss of me not to note that one of the reasons Wayne does so well with these cute white chicks is because he sounds like an intelligent white guy. Had he come across as some ghetto baggy-pants wearing black dude speaking ebonics I strongly suspect most white girls would clutch their purses and move away from him rapidly. I’m pretty sure he knows this, too. But then, this gets back to the power of contrast game. Fucking with a girl’s perceptions is almost as good as actually fucking them.
PPS Some of you are probably itching to ask if Wayne’s game is typical of “black man game”. That is, direct, insistent, sexual, won’t take no for an answer game. Kind of like a classier, upscale version of “Come on baby, you know you want it” ghetto game. To that I say… maybe. I do think black guys take to this style of game better than white guys. (And way better than Asian guys.) It comes more naturally to them. But I’ve seen plenty of white men run similar direct game like Wayne does here, and with a lot of success. Even though Mystery is technically not a “direct daygamer”, you can’t say his approach style was for the faint of heart. Same with Tyler. And Yad runs a very smooth quasi-direct day game approach. And then there’s that white guy from New York whose name escapes me who approaches a lot of chicks in the middle of the day and goes direct on them.
PPPS I went over some direct game essentials here. My suggestion to go “direct-indirect-direct” doesn’t differ much from Wayne’s approach system.
Some of you naive souls may be thinking, “Oh, I know the answer! Me! Me! Look over here!…. ‘I love you’. Did I win?”
No, you did not. You LOSE, madam. You get NOTHING. Good day to you.
The answer is this: “How can you be such a jerk and so lovable at the same time?”
Gentlemen, if you hear that from a woman, particularly a girlfriend or wife, you will know you have penetrated her heart and mind to the soft, chewy center of her hamster’s id, which is one id level deeper than her own human id. You cannot possibly hear anything more flattering from a woman unless it’s a breathless demand to scour her cervical wall with your proud protuberance.
“How is being called a jerk more flattering than just being called lovable?”
Oh, you silly, anatomically ambiguous acculturated automaton. Don’t you know how to read girlcode? It’s like hieroglyphics, except less understandable to the average man. When a girl calls you a jerk, you have enflamed her vagina. When a girl calls you lovable, you have palpitated her heart. When a girl calls you a jerk AND lovable, you have made a slave of her. Recline in the pillow-soft comfort of your testicular allure, because from that point forward you can do no wrong.
Agreed, but the primary threat of empire decline and collapse is that it takes the nation with it. History is littered with tragic examples of the founding stocks of various collapsing empires becoming subsumed into racial miscegenation or eliminated by the barbarian overrun. The result is that the nation never quite matches its previous glories, if it doesn't change entirely into something unrecognizable.
The good news is that there are also examples of new nations rising from the ashes of empires, birthed into existence by the remnant rural outposts of native stock left untouched by the turmoil in the more populated regions of the former empire.
If we somehow lived in a world where our media signal-boosted and rhetoric-embroidered every depraved nigger-on-White attack with the same devotion to the craft that the media in reality shows for unsavory characters like Fentanyl Floyd, the anti-White imperium would collapse overnight.
And it wouldn't go without a spectacular denouement.
Dearborn has been full of Arabs since Henry Ford let them in to work his factories. This isn't really surprising or worrisome, unless the practice starts to spread outside Dearborn. (Which it will)
Atheists could actually use niggers as the best argument against the existence of a benevolent God, but they won't do that because all avowed atheists are leftoid System enforcers.
Glubb lamented this very question about humans avoiding the cycle of empire birth-life-death. He believed as you wrote, that the answer would need to be, first, knowledge of the empire life cycle, and then a willing renunciation of power by the elites. A "drawing-down" of empire into more human-scaled and virtue-encouraging, ethnically homogeneous sub-states.
He concluded his paper on the fate of empires with a dopey kumbaya entreaty to love one another. The answer, somehow, would be found in love. I interpret that as him raising the white flag of surrender, because he knew that human nature precluded any possibility of the empire's rulers giving up their power, or of the subjects of the empire willingly giving up their entitlement expectations or their striving for status.
We are doomed to repeat the cycle for all time, because we are doomed to be human.
