Where pretty lies perish.
Dec 29th, 2011 by CH
Sinead O’Connor’s first marriage at age 21: 5 years
Sinead O’Connor’s second marriage: 1 year
Sinead O’Connor’s third marriage: 8 months
Sinead O’Connor’s fourth marriage at age 45: 16 days.
Sez it all, really.
(The typical benighted SMV trajectory of women is even worse when you consider the quality of men with whom Sinead progressively got hitched, which, if photos and lifestyle status are any indication, demonstrates that Sinead had to gradually settle for ever more beta lovers.)
Dec 29th, 2011 by Heartiste
This is what happens when a woman who has passed into sexual worthlessness has to contemplate the stark reality of divorce from a cheating alpha male husband who fathered a child with his mistress, but who still tingles his wife’s tangle.
Is Maria Shriver having second thoughts about divorcing Arnold Schwarzenegger?
That’s what we heard.
Tipsters cite the Kennedy princess’ strong Catholic faith as one of the main reasons she might be reconsidering tossing the husband who cheated on her.
The religion excuse is squid ink. Maria has lost her looks and is facing the merciless indifference of the zero sum, free-for-all dating market as an aged divorcée. She knows, on some deep primitive level, that as a newly single woman she could very well wind up living out her years unloved by any man. Or at the least unloved by any man even close to Arnold’s level of alphaness.
A woman in this position, and swirling with these feelings, can forgive a lot. I mean, A LOT.
Arnold, for his part, is reported to be treating her nicely. What’s that sound… cha ching.
It’s almost as if there is a powerful sexual market guiding people’s decisions. Weird.
Dec 28th, 2011 by Heartiste
Imagine you are at a club and you are confronted by this three set:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. (nsfw ascii bread crumbs added to fool wandering eyes)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Let’s examine what we have here. I’ll wait while you finish up fapping your comatose seed into oblivion.
Ok, the specs.
Readers’ rankings may vary 0.5 to 1 point in either direction. Don’t make a production out of it. The rankings are reflective of general consensus among the male population.
I know, some of you are asking how the third girl can have a higher chance of being a superslipperyfun slut than the first girl. Gentlemen, don’t confuse sluttery with exhibitionism. While there is a correlation, exhibitionists are often decepticon sluts who want to make you think they are DTF, but in reality just get off on provoking male attention and public displays of horniness (PDH) from desperate no-game-having men.
HBhellovagina! on the left is clearly an exhibitionist (please, no contrarian insistence that she might not know her panties are showing; she knows.) Most likely, she is displaying her pantied genitalia for the cameraman (and her friends) alone, because most of the men in the background have their backs turned to her. This suggests her panty flash was likely a spontaneous action with zero forethought or preparedness to maximize the amount of attention she could receive. She hasn’t prepped the crowd, in other words. A lack of preparation boosts her slut score, since sluts act on impulse. Thus, her 65% chance to put out same night.
HBwhitedress has demure body language, a soft smile, a long hemline and tallness. She is the mother hen. You will not pull a same night lay with her, but you will pull a number and a date.
HBminiskirt has many of the signs of true sluttiness — prominent chest and buttocks thrust, sleepy demonic eyes, knowing smirk, oversized purse, gaudy accessories and, most importantly, she is the least attractive of her friends, but not so unattractive that she can’t hook a few douchebag horndogs for a night or two of sweaty delirium. She is the kind of girl who uses the easy availability of her sex to steal the spotlight from her more attractive friends. Also, check out her digit ratio: masculine! That’s almost all the proof you need that she’s DTF. If her face were illuminated with a black light, rivulets of ancient cum shots would shine brightly, resembling a Martian landscape.
Exhibitionists are second only to fat chicks for their compulsion to cockblock and their talent at doing so. HBhellovagina! won’t take kindly to the spotlight being off her for even a second. HBwhitedress may move in if she sees one of her charges succumbing to your charms. HBminiskirt has the cartoonishly sexy posture of a woman who would sooner steal you for a messy fuck than cockblock you.
Girls who are close friends don’t mind when their boobs nestle against each other. They may even like it. They *do* mind when one of their friends makes a spectacle of herself, which makes me wonder if HBhellovagina! caught them unawares with her standing split.
Now that you have the preliminary analysis you need based on a quick visual inspection, I want you to describe how you would approach and open this set, either alone or with a wingman. Which girl would you choose as your primary target? Who would you address first? What opener would you use? If going in alone, how do you extract your target?
Keep in mind that three scenarios are probable here, and will determine your approach. HBhellovagina! is:
1. flaunting her goods for a lone cameraman (with maybe his buddy in tow), or
2. flaunting her goods for another girl friend(s), or
3. flaunting her goods for you because she has seen you walking toward her group (with camera in hand).
Choose from one of the three probable scenarios above and describe your opening game in detail. You confident bastards may want to describe how you would game these chicks under all three scenarios. This is just an exercise in opening game, so no need to go into panegyrics about venue bouncing or bedroom tips. Stick to the approach and extraction.
Those of you with good game will get to experience the thrill of commenters patting you on the back. Merry f’in Christmas!
Dec 27th, 2011 by Heartiste
Alex bemoans:
Speaking of uncaring assholery –
I recently made the mistake of, in the split second I had to decide, taking the drink a girl asked me to hold – “hold this”, and she dove towards the dance floor. The same impulse which bade me grab her drink, also bade me drink it (downed it in one shot, then moved on to dance with some other girl).
Does this set of actions come off as the right kind of assholery? Any chance for the pick-up to be resurrected afterwards?
This exact same thing once happened to me. And it’s particularly galling because the “Hold my drink for me” shit test is one of the most blatantly obvious shit tests that chicks with no ethical boundaries employ. She had asked me to hold her cocktail and I didn’t have a second to analyze the transaction before my fingers straightened to receive it. Then she trotted off to grab a scarf off her girl friend’s shoulder. Looking down at her drink in my hand, I felt a wave of disgust with myself. And I responded the same way as Alex: I gulped it down. When she returned and saw the empty glass she said “Hey, you drank it! That’s rude!” I answered Corey Worthington-style, “Oh… sorry I guess”, and walked away.
There will be times when your game acumen lets you down and a chick manages to sneak an artillery shell loaded with toxic vagina gas past your defenses. When that happens, the best you can do is recognize your error of judgment quickly, and rectify your demonstration of lower value as best you can without crossing the line into strident acts of vengeance that will socially ostracize you beyond the confines of one bitchy, manipulative girl. What Alex did in response was perfectly acceptable. In ascending order of face-saving effectiveness:
1. Continue holding her drink until she returns, then greeting her with “here you go!” as you hand her drink back.
So beta it actually hurts my balls a little just to type that out.
2. Hold her drink until she returns, then give it back coupled with a sarcastic riposte like “I should charge you for this”.
Not as beta as number 1, but still supplicating.
3. Leave her drink on the bar and walk off.
Better than acquiescing. But not as satisfying as number 4.
4. Gulp her drink and hand her the empty glass when she returns.
Congratulations, you are an acolyte asshole. Pussy lips will begin parting in five minutes.
5. Spit and burp burrito gas into her drink, then hand it back to her with a big smile.
This is personally satisfying, but you will be robbed of the priceless look of incredulity on her face when she sees an empty glass. Nevertheless, the glowing feeling you get from this private act of revenge will put a bounce in your step and turbocharge your game for the rest of the night.
The best way to reply to a girl who tells you to hold her drink is to pretend to agree and amplify. (Girls will try to pull this off by thrusting the drink into your hand and not waiting for you to reply.)
“Hold my drink. Thanks!”
Leaving your hands by your side: “Would you like your glass slippers polished too?”
Whatever happens, always leave your hands down at your sides. She will attempt to foist the drink on you and will expect you to reach out for it. When you don’t, the drink will crash to the ground. I’ve seen this happen. It is hilarious. The guy who did this told the girl to “go home” and “sleep it off”. That is some transcendental game, right there.
Dec 22nd, 2011 by Heartiste
A reader ponders:
First off I’d like to say you’re really doing the world a public service. I came across your blog by googling ” how to spot a slut,” (trying to figure out if my girlfriend at the time was…she met your criteria and she was a huge slut). Anyhow in one of your much earlier posts you point out that there are two types of assholes. The uncaring and caring. The latter coming from a place of hate and insulting women and not really forming any sort of attraction. That is where I am right now how would i make the shift into the uncaring asshole category?
Think about the most inconsiderate person you know. Then, act like him. That’s how you make the shift.
If you don’t know anyone like that, then you’ll have to make the shift by adjusting your inner game, which means forcing yourself by sheer strength of will to become less outcome-dependent. Uncaring assholes are truly the masters of outcome-independence. They hardly feel a twinge to their egos when any one girl falls through as a prospect. That attitude is catnip to women.
The reader is referring to this old post which dissected the difference between assholes that women love and assholes that women suspect are really spiteful betas in alpha clothing. Quoting:
There are genuine assholes who are loved, and there are spiteful assholes who get nowhere. The difference is crucial.
Uncaring asshole = success with women.
Caring asshole = failure with women.
When women say they don’t fall for assholes, they are thinking of the second kind. A caring asshole comes from a place of bitterness and spite. His assholery is reactive rather than proactive. He is poor at calibrating which women will be responsive to his dick attitude. Caring assholes are crassly insulting and transparently invested in the outcome of their game.
Uncaring assholes are assholes as a consequence of their indifference. It is the aloofness of the man she loves that drives women crazy with obsession*, and that aloofness is manifest as asshole behavior. An uncaring asshole demonstrates clearly in his body language and tone of voice, not to mention his dearth of words, that he could take her or leave her.
A good rule of thumb to detmerine if you are leaning more toward the caring side of assholery:
Do you feel emotionally invested in the reaction you’re trying to get from girls you want to have sex with? When you asshole it up, does your blood pressure rise? Does anger festoon your words? Do you imagine vengeance, hoping to land a solid metaphorical blow to a girl’s ego?
If so, you are trying too hard. Your caring asshole behavior, while better than acting like a sheepish beta if pickup is your goal, will more often than not turn a potential lay away.
I’m not saying there’s never a time for anger. There is. There is a time for red hot passion and white hot rage. But your operational mode should be one of… say it with me… AMUSED MASTERY. Cool-as-fuckness. Imperturbability.
Nor am I saying you should be inconsiderate all the time. If an LTR is your goal, you can’t expect to be inconsiderate with your girlfriend or wife and not eventually string her out so badly that she jettisons you to fill the emotional void in her needy, feminine soul. Many a movie plotline has centered on the ignored wife of a distant alpha husband and the emotionally available sneaky fucker who ingratiates himself to her for the damning tryst.
Within the context of an LTR, consideration should be seasoned with inconsiderate aloofness, like a sprinkle of pepper on a nourishing bowl of soup. That is the zen way of poon.
But when dating and seeking the hookup, (to lead possibly to deepening love), aloof and sometimes even callous disregard will intrigue far more hot and high value women than not. And this is especially true for women living in the salad days of their fertility.
You have to recite the following as part of a self-motivational technique for imbuing yourself with the right (i.e., sexy) attitude:
I must not obsess. Obsession is the mind-killer. Obsession is the little-death that brings total betaness. I will face my obsession. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when my obsession is gone I will turn and face its path, and only my alpha self will remain.
Once you can confidently proclaim that oneitis no longer stalks you like a leech on your masculinity, that there will never again be “that one girl” you must have, that no girl’s inconsequential caprice can rattle your self-possession, and that you have let go of your spite and your anxiety, will you have arrived in a place that permits the blooming of uncaring assholery. And the parting of labial petals.
Few men achieve this level of state control, and with good reason: it’s hard. Great beauty can disturb the stillest mind. But try you must. You’ll have to bear the torment of self-awareness to make your attempt count, but it beats the alternative of sleepwalking through life in ignorant betatude.
Dec 21st, 2011 by Heartiste
Not every insult (veiled or blatant), punchy challenge, or arch criticism by a woman is a shit test as the term is commonly understood — a subconsciously guided female examination of a man’s grace under pressure that helps her assess his alphaness. There are other reasons a woman might be critical of a man she is dating or evaluating as a suitor.
I have observed that there are two alternate explanations for bitchy behavior that men will encounter most often in the course of their love lives.
1. She is genuinely repulsed by a man’s betaness.
When a girl is sincerely and uncompromisingly put off by cloying or socially clumsy beta male behavior, she will sometimes be unable to stifle the disgust she feels and her animus will come spilling out in icy cold body language, nagging, scolding and nit-picking. This is predominantly the behavior of the bitch in betrothed bondage to the beta male, who has grown tired, or become unsettlingly aware, of her hubby’s unsexy weakness. The beta husband who finds his time with his wife increasingly characterized by seemingly irrational wifely outbursts of anger, incessant nagging about inconsequential misdemeanors, passive-aggressive sex withdrawal and assorted glib jabs and cruel mannerisms that show a disrespect for his presumed status and masculine prerogative, is experiencing the foul ministrations of a woman in thrall to her slow boil of hate for male enfeeblement. This phenomenon is easily substitutable for men and women in unmarried long-term relationships.
Men, beware. This is no shit test. It is your most immediate warning sign that your lover is about to leave you, or, worse, cheat on you. She has no interest in sussing out your manliness; she is only a fist of rage semi-incoherntly lashing out at you for making her feel unfeminine. Treating her behavior like an extended shit test may actually backfire if you haven’t prepped her for your transformation to a man willing to display his balls.
Note that this supremely bitchy behavior may occasionally manifest early in the courtship dance, usually by women with low impulse control and looks in the 4-7 range; the kind of women who get hit on a lot by “creepy” men thinking they have a chance, and who have reached their tolerance threshold for such brazen men. If flecks of spittle fly as she castigates you, or she is simultaneously backing away while hurling her insults at your face, or her entire body curls up into a phantom turtle shell at the mere exposure of her personal space to your entreaties, you are likely dealing with sincere loathing and not a shit test to be aced for further sexual exploration.
2. She is afraid of losing her man.
A girl who adores her boyfriend will, at times, and especially during those moments when his appeal to competitor women is most discernible, act in ways that strike normal, logical men as strange. Instead of anointing with flattery and devotionals, the anxious woman with commitment extraction on her mind may respond with what she perceives as self-esteem lowering cuts to some or another flaw of her boyfriend’s.
The flaws she highlights will almost always be of a physical nature, or a treatise on his style. “You’re getting pudgy.” “I never noticed before how gross your toes are.” “You look like you haven’t slept in a week.” “You’re too pale.” “You walk funny.” “That shirt makes you look like a doofus.”
Charming, eh? Ah, but she will hardly be able to announce these flaws with the expected contempt; often her critique will be leavened with a revealing brightness in the eyes and sensuously accessible body language. An experienced man will rapidly know her bitchiness comes from a place of insecurity about her standing with him. He will know, as true as the sun rises in the east, that women simply don’t put very much emphasis on a man’s looks in comparison to the other attractiveness traits that women desire in men. And that this truism goes double for a woman in love, for whom her man’s looks are a paltry secondary consideration to his wit, leadership, humor, kindness, cockiness, thoughtfulness, edginess and sexual prowess. And so her criticisms of his physical state or fashion sense will trickle harmlessly off his ego like water off a duck’s back, understood as they are as the bleatings of a desperate lover engaged in a mini power play.
The woman chooses the physical and the stylistic for her barbs because she is projecting her very real female horror at coming up short in these two areas critical to her own SMV onto her man, for whom she mistakenly believes pokes at his physical attributes will have the same effect on him as it would on her; namely, the effect of luring him more deeply into an approval-seeking mode of thought and, thus, a stronger commitment from him that she much desires. This type of subversive badinage is actually a form of bonding for the woman. Unlike insults directed at a man’s status for which there is no turning back, the nature of petty jabs at his looks or his choice of clothes brings a woman closer to her man; she is complicit in his reformulation to something “better”, i.e. domesticated.
Men, be gladdened. If you hear your girlfriend or wife criticizing you in this manner, you are confirmed to be sitting pretty in the driver’s seat of the relationship. You have hand. She wants what only you have to give: increased commitment. And she wants it as badly as you wanted her sex when the two of you started dating.
You may play it off like a shit test, replying in knowing condescension or, even funnier, feigned concern. E.g., “Yes, I really ought to get right on that fixing my troll toes. I’ll schedule an amputation tomorrow.” But be warned: the nature of this type of criticism is not usually that of the shit test. She is not interested in deducing your alphaness; she already knows about that, and anyhow her jabs are of a different nature when it is playful shit testing that motivates her.
No, she wants to hurt you just a little bit — to make you just insecure enough, really, to inspire you to ingratiate yourself to her needs without turning you away completely or unintentionally pushing you to desperate, servile betatude — and pointed, spiteful criticism of your physical flaws (that she thinks ought to matter to her, and to you, but really don’t) is how she gets at you. She knows you’re confident to volley her verbal airstrikes. If you begin hearing a lot of this sort of criticism from her, it means flirty parrying is not what she seeks; she wants your ultimate capitulation.
…every kiss begins with three months’ salary
Dec 20th, 2011 by Heartiste
The NewYorkBetaTimes, of all the flaccid media organs!, reports on a study that finds genes play a major role in primate social behavior.
Social behavior among primates — including humans — has a substantial genetic basis, a team of scientists has concluded from a new survey of social structure across the primate family tree.
The scientists, at the University of Oxford in England, looked at the evolutionary family tree of 217 primate species whose social organization is known. Their findings, published in the journal Nature, challenge some of the leading theories of social behavior, including:
– That social structure is shaped by environment — for instance, a species whose food is widely dispersed may need to live in large groups.
– That complex societies evolve step by step from simple ones.
– And the so-called social brain hypothesis: that intelligence and brain volume increase with group size because individuals must manage more social relationships.
By contrast, the new survey emphasizes the major role of genetics in shaping sociality. Being rooted in genetics, social structure is hard to change, and a species has to operate with whatever social structure it inherits.
If social behavior were mostly shaped by ecology, then related species living in different environments should display a variety of social structures. But the Oxford biologists — Susanne Shultz, Christopher Opie and Quentin Atkinson — found the opposite was true: Primate species tended to have the same social structure as their close relatives, regardless of how and where they live.
One by one, the shibboleths of the post-Enlightenment Left crumble into dust, their lies scattering like tumbleweed on the purifying desert winds.
The Old World monkeys, for example, a group that includes baboons and macaques, live in many habitats, from savanna to rain forest to alpine regions, and may feed on fruit or leaves or grass. Yet all have very similar social systems, suggesting that their common ancestry — and the inherited genes that shape behavior — are a stronger influence than ecology on their social structure.
Genes a stronger influence on social structure — aka culture — than the environment? Now who was it said something similar not too long ago on this very outpost of mortifying truths? Ah, yes:
Culture does not spring up out of the ground unseeded, like a summoned monolith. Human genetic disposition seeds the ground and creates culture, unleashing a macro feedback loop where culture and genes interact in perpetuity. Those “cultural judgments” [feminists] so recoil from are actually subconscious reinforcements of ancient biological truths.
Great crops of corn, I hate to toot my own horn, but goddamn… strike up the band!
The fact that related species have similar social structures, presumably because the genes for social behavior are inherited from a common ancestor, “spells trouble” for ecological explanations, Joan B. Silk, a primate expert at the University of California, Los Angeles, wrote in a commentary in Nature. Also, the finding that there has not been a steady progression from small groups to large ones challenges the social brain hypothesis, Dr. Silk said.
The Oxford survey confirms that the structure of human society, too, is likely to have a genetic basis, since humans are in the primate family, said Bernard Chapais, an expert on human social evolution at the University of Montreal.
Think about the radical implications this study *should* have on public policy. (I say “should” because the old guard will work tirelessly to smear anyone who dares draw the arrow from human genetic predisposition to informed social policy.) If it became commonly accepted knowledge that genes play a major, maybe even predominant, role in how human population groups organize socially, sexually and economically, then in one fell swoop the following canons would be reduced to the dung heap of exposed lies, alongside such luminous repositories of sacred thought as geocentrism, Freudianism, Communism and the theory of buying chicks stuff on the first date in hopes of sex:
– redistribution (in any form) for any means other than intergroup pacification
– feminism
– egalitarianism
– rational actor economics
– multiculturalism
– laissez-faire libertarianism in heterogeneous societies
– unrestricted immigration
– ideologies with cultural conditioning theories as their centerpiece
– exported democratization
– cheap chalupaism
The strawmen armies will, naturally, come marching out in force to cow anyone from waving this study in the air like a beacon to guide the free thinkers through a battlefield shrouded in choking gas, mud and fog. I have neither the time nor the patience to deal with them all here, but for a few exceedingly trite and trollish objections.
“Apes aren’t humans.”
Funny how the pro-evolution Left is so quick to highlight the gulf between apes and humans when it suits their agenda. Apes aren’t humans, but apes are our closest cousins. From them we can learn much about ourselves, if not everything.
“Genes aren’t destiny. Our fates aren’t predetermined.”
Reductio ad absurdum. Genes aren’t destiny, but they are significant constraints on destiny. For instance, (and to use a very obvious example), a man with a genetic predisposition to criminality can have his unobstructed destiny to inflict pain and suffering on others severely altered by a long prison stint. But remove that environmental influence, and his genetic impulse resumes primary ownership of his behavior. So while we don’t have exact destinies given us at our birth from which we may never stray, we do have paths laid before us that are closer to, or further from, alignment with our natural genetic proclivities. The rockier the path, the stricter the environmental or cultural controls needed to keep us trundling along it. The smoother the path, the looser the controls needed.
“Ok, genes may play a role, but humans share 99.whatever% of their genes.”
Great. We also share 99% of our genes with mice, but no one would mistake a man for a mouse. Unless he’s named H. Schwyzer. That .whatever% of genes we don’t universally share makes for a lot of difference.
“Humans can adapt.”
Correction: Humans can adapt more or less easily. And sometimes, not at all. Public policy should be that which encourages the construction and maintenance of a prosperous national environment that puts as few stressors on its citizens’ store of ability to adapt as possible.
Within my lifetime, I would love to see the self-evident truths encompassed in this post recognized and embraced by the elite. But it’s looking more and more like that is a pipe dream. Instead, traitors and liars will drag us down into the dark, murky abyss before they surrender their pride.
Dec 19th, 2011 by Heartiste
How’s that for an omnibus blog post title?
A reader sent a link to a hilarious blog called ‘Texts From Bennett’ which is a compendium of text message conversations between some dude and his 17-year-old white cousin who, with great pride, thinks, or rather wishes, he’s part black.
I’ve been a reader for about two years now and your site has changed my life, so thanks.
I’m sure by now you have heard of Texts From Bennett. It is a blog that went viral a few weeks ago.
One of the posts shows the cousin asking Bennett why he always gets LJBF’d. The cousin is a beta who, according to Bennett, “crys wen u watch football,” and “enjoys capshuring butterflys.” So when he asks Bennett what to do, Bennett gives some apt advice. More here.
Despite his lack of education, Bennett understands game and I have no doubt he cleans up with the dregs of Kansas City.
Let’s assume for the sake of expediency that Texts From Bennett is a warehouse of legitimate conversations by a real teenage whigger living in the crappy part of Kansas City expounding on the issues of the day, and not a clever hoax for the amusement of the blog host. (The numerous assurances by the blogger that the texts are real makes one suspicious of its authenticity, but whatevs.) Even if fake, Bennett is an iconic Millennial generation representative of the white underclass. He is funny because he strikes so many true chords: the thug-lite attitude, the exaltation of ghetto black dysfunction, the proud anti-intellectualism and its substitution with the elevation of street smarts, the defiant middle finger to the mores of the SWPL and upper classes… all lamentable customs and affectations if the survival and thriving of first world civilization is your thing.
But hidden amongst the pile of manure is a gem of a discovery. As the reader notes, Bennett has game, and he has the best kind of game: primitive natural game that knows not what it’s doing.
Here, for instance, is Bennett showing that he understands women don’t swoon for betaboy idealistic romanticism:
Who can deny the wisdom in these words? Weepy, emotionally available betas are LJBFed. Insensitively aloof alphas are sexually pleasured. And this is particularly true of women in the prime of their attractiveness and allure, that glorious window between ages 15 and 25.
Here’s Bennett on the interchangeability of women as sexual pursuits and the universal female attraction for the badboy:
Bennett is a great illustration of the sour stereotype that dumb but socially savvy men will do better with women than smart but nerdy men. No one would imagine that Bennett is acing Algebra II. But a lot of people can easily imagine him pulling more ass — and higher quality ass* — than the typical studious middle-class white boy.
*Higher quality in the context of the sexual market refers to a woman’s most valuable attributes: namely, her looks and the cut of her curves. They may be dregs by socioeconomic standards, but that won’t prevent them from stimulating wood in the most landed of gentry.
It’s been remarked here before that thugs and assorted assholes and asshole-wannabes often exhibit more natural game than smart, agreeable professionals who second-guess themselves at every turn. This is completely understandable once you come to terms with the reality of the prime motivating force behind vagina tingles: a man’s attitude. The right attitude — an insouciant mix of devil-may-care whimsy, impulsiveness, self-centeredness, vanity, cruelty and often-undeserved confidence — is the winning formula for scoring lots of hot babes. Or, if monogamy is your thing, for piquing the interest of that one hot girlfriend, to be leavened later by shows of provision and calculated vulnerability.
A hopeless fap-happy beta can’t go wrong observing the fauna of regressives like Bennett in action and heeding his crudely reductive advice. This fact of life surely disheartens a lot of you educated and sophisticated readers. A visual is drawn of some of you cursing the dbags on Jersey Shore and the hot ass they’re tagging that you aren’t.
If the country is filling up with Bennetts — and Bennetts exist in all classes — this says something about the nature and demands of women, who, after all, are the gatekeepers of sex and the primary molders of male behavior. Even if Bennett is a fantasy character devised by a mischievous imp trolling coastal reporters salivating at the thought of interviewing a white trash caricature who rationalizes their hate, a rising sea of his kind is undoubtedly swamping the US, hidden in plain sight from gated communities and invidiously creating a new norm, like dumbfuck kudzu. A culture teeming with shameless Bennetts and dotted with islands of antagonistic SWPLs and tribalistic snarkers is a doomed culture, too far gone to resuscitate. Stick a fork in it, it’s done.
On the upside, the sex lives of alphas may be experiencing its cultural zenith. And Bennett, like the “Umm, sorry?” guy, are our time’s prophets.
Dec 18th, 2011 by Heartiste
Reader “Harkat” asks:
Should game, or at least socio-sexual dynamics, be taught in middle/high school? It’s a significant part of life, and knowledge of these topics would help the vast majority of confused teenagers (at least the boys).
The little that was said about sexual dynamics in my high school was extremely idealist egalitarian and far from reality, and did nothing to help us (at least not the boys). We got delivered phrases like “Do not feel pressure to have sex!”, which hardly resonates with the average teenage boy.
In a perfect world, sex and love education is left to family (parents, friends, older siblings, cool uncles) and experience. But we are far from that world, and condoms are rolled over bananas while men are rapped for phantom sexual repression in the halls and classrooms of almost all our venerated institutions. That being the case, it’s more effective to undermine suffocating elite orthodoxy by working within its confines, instead of feebly fist-pumping from outside it. So, yes, in a world designed according to Chateau tenets, game would be taught to high school boys — preferably in classes separate from the girls.
I can see it now.
Week 1: Introductions to male-female sex differences and Syllabus (Included readings from various respected sources in evo psych, game and social dynamics, e.g., Ridley, Markovic, Carnegie).
Week 2: Why chicks dig jerks. (Students expected to fully understand sexy son hypothesis).
Week 3: Alphas and betas, the hidden hierarchy.
Week 4: Sycophancy and involuntary celibacy, the connection.
Week 5: Men and women have an agenda, and how to recognize it.
Week 6: Game as revolution in sociosexual thought.
Week 7: Core game principles.
Week 8: Dating to maximize one’s happiness.
Week 9: Sex, guilt and expectations: why society has an interest in corralling male desire.
Week 10: Relationships and marriage: making them work.
Week 11: Finals: In-field exam.
Music to my ears. Of course, this will never happen. Teaching young men the unvarnished truth about women, sex, dating and marriage would throw grit into the gears of the beta cog molding machine that supplies a never-ending procession of obedient housetrained quasi-eunuchs. What good does it do the dealers of consumerist opiates if they can’t domesticate a suitably pliable army to staff their globocorporate offices?
The channeling of male vitality with the help of useful lies has been a central element of the civilizing process in the West and elsewhere for eons. It has its place, even for the poolsiders who need a prosperous nation in which to pursue their lifestyles. But the last fifty or sixty years (monarchists would argue the effort goes back at least 150 years) has witnessed the twisting of this process into a monstrous form, under whose shadow the lies have multiplied and tyrannized free-thinking men, restricting respectable thought to a narrow range of groupthink.
A public policy to make the teaching of game and its underlying concepts mandatory for high schoolers would have to overcome so many obstacles and entrenched thought and interests as to limit the notion strictly to the realm of fantasy. But that doesn’t mean current sex ed classes can’t be deviously rippled with pebbles of thoughtcrime by sympathetic operatives.
Instead of starve the beast, you could call this the “stuff the beast” philosophy of saving civilization by feeding it too much of its own late-stage bile. A hastening and amplifying of consequences, come to reckoning in technicolor exuberance. And you might even help a few tormented betas get laid on their own timetables.
Both sides are missing the point about Quality of Life.
Trannies and abortion access do not make a high QOL for Whites.
Population growth often has an inverse correlation to QOL.
Business friendliness means H1Bs more than it means high QOL.
That is why, say, Vermont ranks higher than Texas.
It is Whiter and has better zoning laws.
There was time when the "see how peaceful everything is when Whites are around?" meme-complex was a useful tactic against the big lies of Whites being the primary threat to society. It is still useful, in measured doses and in certain contexts.
But, overall the time for that memeplex has passed, and what is called for now is a new memeplex to supplant it. That's the one where Whites don't present themselves as the civilized alternative. They offer instead a Memorandum of Understanding that Whites are a danger to those threatening their way of life. White men in number are scary. They are anxiety-triggering to those who have spent much time denigrating Whites.
Whites can be peaceful and compliant, but that is a luxury for a future that Whites have already won for themselves.
The threat is coming from inside the house.
"It's a good thing I prefer men."
Who said it? Lindsey Graham or Lindsay Gabber?
"hypergamously disengaged"
Give all the jobs to women and foreigners, and lock out the native men. I can't think of a more effective way to murder a nation.
The ruling trash are scared. That's why the Flock Eyes are going up as fast as they can manufacture them.
"Rat_Girl"
Gotta be a parody account.
Two hard 10s who decided to raise hard Rs.
Theron vs Klum. Who did the White race more wrong?
Theron has no biokids. Two adopted nigs (one is a tranny)
Klum has four biokids, a very pretty daughter to a White father, and three mutant half-breeds to the negro Seal.
Tough call, but I'd have to give it to Theron, for denying the world any White progeny from her exquisite loins.
Klum at least has added to the beauty of the world (while subtracting beauty from the world with her absurd cross-simian lab creations). Her frizzbombs will most likely grow up to hate White people with a fury unmatched by any full-blood coal black negro, and her mulatto kids' mixed heritage will pollute the conversation Whites must have about securing a racial ethnostate for their people.
Still, at least Klum backed into (heh) doing the right thing for her volk at least once in her life. Theron turned her back completely.
Charlize Theron has no biological children. She adopted two niggers, and now it is likely too late for her to have White children.
Theron is, or was, an absolute specimen of Peak White Woman beauty. Throwing away her genetic gift is tantamount to a crime against the White race.
In the future White ethnostate, Theron's race betrayal would be punishable by hard labor and work release supervision to ensure she never mudsharked or mudcucked.
White men to White women:
"We will be strong for you if you are loyal to us."
The deal, as Nature would have it.
Comment Of The Week
Dec 27th, 2011 by CH
Mark C sez:
This is a good singular example of the tactical essence of uncaring assholery. “And?” is ambiguous. “And?” is ambivalent. “And?” is mischievous. “And?” is all the things women love in men.
If you are new to the game of uncaring assholery, and struggle to say the right words at the right time, have ready in your back pocket the simple expedient of “And?”, for use when your state control is challenged by a curious woman. It is practically failsafe.
Beware overuse, though this warning applies to just about any game tactic. Try to resist the temptation to lean too heavily on an effective rapport technique, because when you witness the results you’ll be greatly tempted, indeed. But remember, chicks dig unpredictability, too.
Posted in Comment Winners, Game | 33 Comments »