Archive for the ‘Alpha’ Category

A Turkish newspaper columnist with brass balls wrote an article about the unattractive manliness of female athletes.

A Turkish newspaper columnist has been heavily criticised after writing an article which said the Olympic Games is destroying the female figure.

The piece – called Womanhood is dying at the Olympics’ – was written by Yuksel Aytug and was published in the daily newspaper Sabah and on the paper’s website.

However, it soon spread around the world by saying the Games was distorting women’s bodies and that extra points should be given to female athletes based on how feminine they looked.

According to Hurriyet Daily News, he said: ‘Broad-shouldered, flat-chested women with small hips; [they are] totally indistinguishable from men.

‘Their breasts – the symbol of womanhood, motherhood – flattened into stubs as they were seen as mere hindrances to speed.’

Get this man a VIP pass to the Chateau! He speaks the truth no nancyboy or femcunt would ever dare admit, even to themselves. Who with the eyes to see hasn’t noticed the narrow hips, the grotesque six-pack abs (never a good look on women), the chest “stubs”, the linebacker shoulders, and the manjaws of an inordinate number of the female Olympians? (Synchronized swimmers are a welcome exception to the rule. Of course, proficiency in synchronized swimming doesn’t require a chiseled male-like physique.)

A disturbing number of the women athletes have what amounts to ripped, pubescent boys’ bodies. If you cover the faces and crotches of some of them, you could easily mistake them for lean men. But I bet they fuck like champions! :mrgreen:

[Aytug] was accused of sexism and reducing the identity of women purely to appearance.

Weren’t the Jizzebelers recently objectifying Ryan Lochte’s appearance? Anyhow, the point is superfluous. Feminists are simply unable to come to grips with the fact that double standards in how the sexes relate to and perceive each other exist, are grounded in immutable biology, and won’t disappear just because a few fat sluts organized a pride parade.

In his column, he also said the Olympic Games forced woman to look more like men so they could become successful.

Aytug is right. It’s NECESSARILY true that women must conform more to the male physique ideal in order to compete successfully in sports, and particularly elite sports, because women’s natural bodies are not evolutionarily designed to run, throw, fight or lift optimally like men’s bodies are designed to do. Women’s bodies are — and I know this will get under the skin of the right sort of losers — shaped by the relentless laws of nature to fulfill TWO PRIME DIRECTIVES:

Visually please men.

And bear children.

Everything else women do is commentary.

If you are a woman who wants to long jump, or throw a discus, or box, or run the 100 meter race, you will perform better the FURTHER your body gets from the archetypal female physique and the closer it gets to the archetypal male physique. Hips and boobs and upper body weakness undermine all that Olympian kickassery.

This is why unscrupulous countries (which includes just about all the Western and Communist or formerly Communist ones) pump so much money and, when they can get away with it, steroids into their female athletic programs and athletes. They know that they can get more medal bang for their buck by masculinizing their female athletes and pushing them, however unintentionally, to assume male physical forms, (or by recruiting women with inborn male-like physiques), because there are a lot fewer women who are 1) interested in high-level competitive sports and 2) willing to sacrifice their femininity for a rigorous masculinizing regiment.

Someday a real rain will come and wash away this mountain of gender-bending lies. And when it happens, the world’s femininely-renewed women will sway their child-bearing hips and heave their bounteous breasts as their charmingly soft limbs and delicate hands are raised heavenward in thankfulness for being relieved of the pressure to look and act like men.

PS Isn’t it ironic, then, how the feminist-defined pursuit of sex “””equality””” is essentially tantamount to making women more man-like? You’d almost think feminists believe the male form and male psyche are superior to the female form and psyche. Maybe that’s because most dedicated feminists are ugly, masculine robodykes.

Read Full Post »

Supposedly, that is the Crips’ gang sign those Swedish handball team women are all flashing. It may as well be a gangbang sign, because odds are good Usain Bolt rammed home a 9.63 in each one of those broads’ Nordic pussies.

Now I know some (most) of you looking at this pic felt a blood pressure rise or, at the least, a stirring of disgust. That’s perfectly natural. Seeing women of your race (or tribe, or family) bang an outsider alpha male interloper, even going so far as adopting his cultural swagger and betraying their very essence as members of your shared tribe, and feeling emotions that would scandalize polite society, is a primal reaction that is evolved in all humans and has therefore likely served a beneficial role to our reproductive fitness. The id monster will not be reeducated.

It’s said that Swedish men are, arguably, the world’s most feminized men, bending backwards to feminist demands, rhythmically swaying to intone feminist boilerplate and flagellate themselves for their sin of being born men. It’s also said that Swedish women are among the most eager of the world’s women to sample the cock of the Other.

My purpose with this post is to proffer that the emasculation of Sweden’s men has a direct, causal effect on the willingness and ardor and shamelessness with which Sweden’s fully feminist women rush into the crotches of decidedly non-feminist, self-confident alien swashbucklers. When your women’s kinsmen — the men, lest the reminder be needed, who are the presumed benefactors of their women’s sex — are lickspittle, mincing betaboys who happily accede to every asinine feminist idea, it should be no surprise to scholars of female nature that the women who hold such ahistorically lopsided power over their countrymen would, unintentionally, geld them so thoroughly that they are reduced to anhedonic lumps the likes of which the male competitor Usain Bolts of the world could run over with impunity.

What this photo symbolizes better than anything is the age-old and unmitigable female paradox of insisting upon shit she does not really want. If you listen carefully and follow to the letter your women’s rambling feminist inanities, you get Sweden, land of the castrated men who repulse their own women. If, on the other hand, you dismiss and deride, in action as well as word, the feminists in your midst with the cocky assurance of the man who makes no excuses for his raw masculinity, you might piss off a few ugly manjaws, but you get to enjoy the continued admiration and carnal desire of your beautiful native women.

Game can save Sweden’s men from utter humiliation. Game at its most primitive is an illusion of power, but an illusion of power is still better than powerlessness.

This post gently massaged into Bill Bennett’s shoulders.

Read Full Post »

A reader writes, “We’re getting close to definitive proof that (most) chicks dig jerks.” Yes, we are.

Single women had their brains scanned as they looked at photos of men. The pictures had been subtlely altered to make the men’s faces more or less masculine.

The more masculine faces won out in terms of attraction — but the areas of the brain that were activated indicated these faces were also ones the women found most threatening. [ed: :shock:]

The group found a few interesting results. First, compared with the feminized faces, masculinized faces led to more activity in five specific brain areas: the left superior temporal gyrus, bilateral precentral gyrus, right posterior cingulate cortex, bilateral inferior parietal lobule, and bilateral anterior cingulate cortex. These areas have been implicated in face processing as well as the assessment of risk, suggesting that, consciously or not, masculinized faces are perceived as not only more attractive but also more dangerous. The effect was quite robust considering just how slightly the faces had been morphed.

Let that sink in. Brain scans prove that women are attracted to threatening men. The female hamster has just been CAT-scanned, x-rayed and magnetically resonanced, and the wicked truth behind all the feelgood claptrap and feminist boilerplate is revealed for the world to gaze upon with eyes half-shut at the gruesome sight, repulsed and yet fascinated:

Chicks dig jerks. Assholes. Douchebags. Dangerous motherfuckers.

Another clue Rihanna may be getting back together with Chris Brown … the two partied at the same club at the same time last night … AGAIN.

Chris and Rihanna were spotted at Avenue nightclub in NYC. Sources at the club tell us the two were in the club together for roughly 30 minutes … and Brown spent some time hanging out at Rihanna’s table.

I’m fond of saying the boner doesn’t lie. The same could be said of lit-up neurons; hard to fake that funk.

I predict there will be much gnashing and flapping of labia from the usual suspects (manboobs included) about this latest study to prove that chicks love the badboy. But the evidence is irrefutable and really beginning to pile up that women are hard-wired to tingle for a dark triad.

For those of you who insist — INSIST, damn you! — that they’ve never needed to be an asshole to get women, I’ve only this to ask:

When was the last time you successfully picked up a hot, young woman?



Get it?

If you’re married to a frump, a plain jane, a cow (and odds are, you are), a has-been… well, no wonder you don’t need to be a jerk to keep her around. She’s got no options. She’s just grateful a man is willing to stick with her.

But the chicks with options… the ones who can pick and choose from among many men… the IN-DEMAND ones… they love the dickish dick.

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. I’ve never gotten more radical, more INSTANT, positive results when hitting on cute babes than when I deliberately amped up my asshole vibe. I mean, to the point of nearly insulting them. Eyes brightened and sparkled, legs uncrossed, fingertips danced all over my arms. And these were the upper class smart chicks with multiple degrees.

If you *have* to choose between being a niceguy and a total dickwad when picking up high value women…

ALWAYS err on the side of dickwad.

Read Full Post »

Ah, that perennial conundrum. That gavel of masculine judgment. Does the quality or the quantity, or both, of women that a man beds determine his alpha mojo? The hosts have graciously elaborated on this topic in the past, which should have been the final word, but not all of the world’s 7 billion people have yet stayed a night at the Chateau to wake in the morning infused with the knowledge of the Celestials.

Any guy who claims to have game but picks up hundreds of circus freaks a year will be a laughingstock. And the boastful guy with few notches who claims to know everything about women because he’s been dating his cute high school sweetheart his whole life will similarly be mocked.

To put it in logical terms easily grasped by the aspies among us (first number in each series refers to penis-in-vagina notch count unless otherwise noted; second number refers to female attractiveness rating on a 0-10 scale):

Stiff autumn breeze <more alpha than> 100 0s

Unlubed masturbation <more alpha than> 100 hundred 1s <more alpha than> 200 0s

Couch crease <more alpha than> 100 2s <more alpha than> 200 1s <more alpha than> 300 0s

Lubed masturbation <more alpha than> 100 3s <more alpha than> 200 2s <more alpha than> 300 1s <more alpha than> 400 0s

Barely legal porn-assisted masturbation <more alpha than> 100 2s <but less alpha than> 100 3s over a two month time span

Handjob by a 4 <more alpha than> 10 3s

Blowjob by a 4 <more alpha than> 15 3s

Chandelier swinging, titty fucking, throat gagging, motorized defiling, publicly violating, video recorded facialized money shotting, post-coital sammich making, never see her again sex with a 4 <more alpha than> 50 missionary style 3s

Fleeting glance from a 10 <more alpha than> 100 1s

Handjob by a 10 <more alpha than> 1,000 1s

Blowjob by a 10 <more alpha than> 10,000 1s

Sex with a 10 <more alpha than> 100,000 1s

Anal sex with a 10 <more alpha than> Infinity 1s

100 5s <more alpha than> 100 4s <more alpha than> 500 3s

50 6s <more alpha than> 100 5s

40 7s <more alpha than> 100 6s

30 8s <more alpha than> 100 7s

10 9s <more alpha than> 100 8s

1 10 <more alpha than> 3 9s

LTR with a 10 <more alpha than> one night of sex with a 10 <more alpha than> LTR with an 7

One night of sex with a 9 <more alpha than> Rotating harem of multiple LTRs with 100 5s and 6s <more alpha than> One night stands with 1,000 4s

LTR with a 0 <more alpha than> Nothing

Serial LTRs with 5 10s <more alpha than> One night stands with 100 9s <more alpha than> Lifelong monogamous LTR with an 8

Unmarried, cohabiting, child-free, sex-gorged LTR with an 8 <more alpha than> Once-a-month married sex with a 9 <more alpha than> Once-a-day married sex with a 7

Unmarried, commitment-free, responsibility-absolved, sex-on-demand with a cast of 1,000s of faithful 10s wearing kneepads and schooled in the culinary arts <more alpha than> The universe


So, if you have ass-banged one 10 in your life, you have equivalent bragging rights to the guy who has banged every 1 in the world.

If you have effortlessly banged 10,000 1s, you have less bragging rights than the guy who has gotten one (freely given) blowjob from a 10. If you needed to expend huge effort to bang those 10,000 1s, you have less bragging rights than the guy who stuck it in a couch crease for quick relief.

If you have inspired a 6 to want a relationship with you, you have more alpha bragging rights than the guy who has inspired 10 4s to spread their legs for him.

Where it gets blurry is in the plain middle of the beauty arc. A guy who banged one 6 technically will be more alpha than the guy who banged two 5s, but at those fine gradations, who’s really keeping tabs? That’s where the Template will influence the grading curve and make distinctions harder to delineate.

Ultimately, the essence of alpha maledom all comes down to inspiring beautiful women to, first and foremost, desire your poundage, and then to desire your continual poundage, and finally to desire your love. If you can seduce a hot babe into bed multiple times, then seduce her into love, and then do this same thing with many hot babes over the course of your life, you are an alpha male, no matter what else you have or have not accomplished in your life. Many will balk at this, but that doesn’t change its truth.

Read Full Post »

One billion readers have sent me a link to this study proving the old Chateau maxim — and conventional wisdom before the feminists and their lapdogs seized control of the sophistry regurgitation emulator — that chicks dig jerks.

Women choose bad boys because their hormones make them, new research suggests. When ovulating, a woman’s hormones influence who she sees as good potential fathers, and they specifically pick sexier men over obviously more dependable men.

“Previous research has shown in the week near ovulation women become attracted to sexy, rebellious and handsome men like George Clooney or James Bond,” study researcher Kristina Durante, of The University of Texas at San Antonio, said in a statement. “But until now it was unclear why women would ever think it’s wise to pursue long-term relationships with these kinds of men.”

The researchers had women view online dating profiles of either a sexy man or a reliable man during periods of both high and low fertility. Participants were asked to indicate the expected paternal contribution from the men if they had a child together based on how helpful the man would be caring for the baby, shopping for food, cooking and contributing to household chores. Near ovulation women thought that the sexy man would contribute more to these domestic duties.

“Under the hormonal influence of ovulation, women delude themselves into thinking that the sexy bad boys will become devoted partners and better dads,” Durante said. “When looking at the sexy cad through ovulation goggles, Mr. Wrong looked exactly like Mr. Right.”

Here’s a direct link to the study, titled “Ovulation leads women to perceive sexy cads as good dads.”

What’s particularly interesting about this study is that it proves women don’t just seek badboys for short-term flings; when a woman is at her horniest, she wants sex AND loving commitment from the jerk. And she deludes herself into believing the jerk wants the same thing. (Or rather, her hormones help fuel her hamster into believing the unbelievable.) This goes a long way to explaining why women take on “project” men and attempt to reform them. It’s not because women are nurturers who want to save jerks; it’s because women are TURNED THE FUCK ON by jerks and want desperately to keep them around and help raise the children they hope to have with them.

This flies directly in the face of the assertion by feminists, manginas and game haters (oh my!) who love to crow, without any evidence in hand, that women only want to sleep with jerks for a night, and want nothing to do with them the rest of the time. But of course, all that baseless crowing reveals is the phlegmy bile of bitterness dribbling down their porcine, slackened chins.

“When asked about what kind of father the sexy bad boy would make if he were to have children with another woman, women were quick to point out the bad boy’s shortcomings,” said Durante. “But when it came to their own child, ovulating women believed that the charismatic and adventurous cad would be a great father to their kids.”

Tingles trump reason. Once you get a woman tingling nether-wise, she will rationalize into insignificance any deficiency or character flaw you may possess in service to her unquenchable love for your jerkitude. But beware her friends! They are not so blinded and will whisper sour sabotage in your woman’s ear.

“While this psychological distortion could be setting some women up to choose partners who are better suited to be short-term mates, missing a mating opportunity with a sexy cad might be too costly for some women to pass up,” said Durante. “After all, you never know if he could be the ‘one.'”

In other words, it’s evolutionarily better for a woman to risk it all on the jerk women love than to risk nothing on the beta provider women tolerate. Such is the power of the force behind a woman’s prime directive. This is the stuff that Hallmark won’t put on Valentine’s Day cards.

I consider this post another slam-dunk confirmation of core game principles. It will, baal willing, drive my haters livid with rage.

Some of you may be tempted to ask, “Heartiste, how can you be so right, so often? What’s your trick?” It’s simple.

1. Don’t live by lies.

2. Step outside of the house.

That’s it! You too can be a man of wisdom and great perspicacity by simply following those two rules above.

So what game lessons does this study offer for students of the university of alpha-as-fuck?

Lesson #1: It’s better to err on the side of too much jerkiness than too little.

Lesson #2: It’s easier to segue a woman from short term fling to long-term lover by being a jerk than by being a dependable niceguy.

Lesson #3: Keep a mental record of your woman’s cycle. Amp up game when she’s ovulating; toss her a compliment and a cuddle when she’s bleeding. Do this regularly and you will experience a love so strong you will wonder if you can do any wrong by her at all.

Lesson #4: If game is the aping of certain jerk characteristics, then game is an important variable in not only attracting women for sex, but keeping them around for the loving long haul.

Best of luck!

PS In totally unrelated news, here’s an article about a (white) Aussie woman who killed her own son in order to win the attention of her on-again-off-again badboy (Kiwi) boyfriend. I suppose that’s one way to slow dysgenia.

Read Full Post »

Reader Aureo wants to know if this conversation he had with a girl he likes has cleared or obstructed the path to sex with her.

I want to bang this girl [ed: don't we all!], but she just got a boyfriend so the antislut shields are up. Yet I know she likes me, so it’s only a matter of good logistics.

I once forgot her name and called her something else, and since then, every time we see each other, we make up a different (and normally dramatic) name, and laugh.

This is a conversation we just had, in which she subtly shoved me off:

Me: Danielle Marie Delacroix! (fake names we say)
Her: Mr. Alexander von Luparius the Third!
Me: *long weird name*
Her: Yeah, but you can call me Diane (her real name) ^^
Me: I don’t like that name that much ^^
H: ¬¬ i suppose we must do something about it, they dont call me “hard fists” for anything!
M: Ill beat you up like no one has!
H: haha I was just telling you mi nickname, as a curious fact.. haha
M: ok ok, I thought you were threatening me, still our issue remains.
H: we can talk it, we can spare some lives, some broken bones and stuff.
M: not to mention a few destroyed building and a public riot. Anyway, how do you like to be called?
H: haha elementary my dear Watson: Diane, and you? how do you like to be called?
M: so I lived deceived ALL this time?
H: yeah, all this time, but yes, sorry cowboy
M: It’ll be time to make up names for another person, then.
H: do you remember how all this came up?
M: yeah, I called you Valerie or something.
H: yes
M: so?
H: so nothing
M: so nothing what

then the conversation died.
how did I do?

You didn’t specify, but I’ll assume this was a face-to-face, three dimensional conversation you had with the girl, rather than email or text. So we’ll proceed from that premise.

First, I like the fake name game. That’s a great way to reframe a social faux pas like forgetting a girl’s name, and it incorporates a pared-down form of role-playing which is catnip to girls.

Second, your flirtation skills are very good. You know how to keep a convo rolling with light, witty banter. But all light all witty banter soon makes Jack an unsexy, entertainment monkey. Flirty talk is like starring in a sitcom: you gotta shoot for going out on top, otherwise all anyone will remember about you is your crappy last couple of seasons where you spent your episodes trying too hard to recapture your old glory.

Do you know where you blew it? Right after she asked “how do you like to be called?”, and you replied by continuing along the playful path you were already skipping happily down. Her personal question about your name (a major IOI from a girl, don’t forget) was your cue to get real with her for a minute. Girls love flirting, but they love it even more when a man knows how and when to segue from innocuous flirting to charged sexual energy. Had you dropped the jokes and your smile, replaced them with a steady gaze and serious expression, you would have stood a better chance at moving your conversation onto more fertile ground.

A lot of guys make your mistake; they get excited when they see the positive reaction and laughs that their playfulness elicits in a girl, and they do as men do — if some playfulness is good, then more must be better! But girls don’t think like men. Girls love unpredictability, they love being kept on their toes, and so they love a man who can turn on a dime from cocky to sexual tension.

Always keep the end goal in mind when you are flirting with a girl. Your end goal is not the elicitation of fleeting laughs or light forearm touches. It is penis in vagina. PRIMORDIAL PENIS IN COSMIC VAGINA. Never forget that. Temper your pride and your excitement at managing to keep a girl interested in a conversation with you; that giddy excitement will obscure the path to your ultimate goal by diverting you from the sequence of moves you must make, as the man, to seduce a woman into bed.

The next time you are playfully engaging a girl you want to screw, I want you to ask yourself “Is my penis in this girl’s vagina? No? Then there is more work to be done. More need to lead. No rest for the turgid.” Flirt on, flirt off, young Danielson.

Read Full Post »

Traditionalists, anti-gamers and the usual assortment of sour grapers who want to believe men who are successful at bedding women aren’t winners in the social status or self-indulgence sweepstakes, often resort to the argument that having kids makes a man alpha. This “It’s not the number of bangs, it’s the creating of womb issues” theory is very comforting to a certain mindset.

Helpful reminder: before the age of aquarius contraception, a beta male achieving one bang in his lifetime had a decent shot at impregnating a woman. There aren’t many men, or women, who would argue that managing to have sex once in his life qualifies a man for alphatude, regardless whether the act results in a baby or a blank.

The alpha male of yore — before effective condoms and the pill were widely available — may have been distinguishable by his large brood, but today that signal no longer applies. Today’s alpha male can, and does, easily thwart his genetic programming to make lots of minialphas through the use of such anti-fertilization show-stoppers.

Therefore, the best signal now for how alpha a man is remains what was outlined in this post. The definition contained therein may offend your socratic sensibilities, but great truths often distill as tautologies.

Interestingly, men of the lower classes, because they are prone to forego or misuse contraceptives as befits their constricted time horizons, can more readily be categorized as beta or alpha based on how many children they sire with roaming single moms. In the upper classes, the opposite reality endures; the alpha male is often the one who puts off having children so that he may enjoy his youth chasing skirt, contraceptively freed from the consequences that would otherwise gestate should he direct his amore toward dumber, poorer women who don’t possess the conscientiousness or common sense to swallow a pill on a regular basis.

This is, really, the great advantage that boffing smart chicks offers to men: worry-free sex. Sparkling conversation is just icing on the cake.

Read Full Post »

Over at GLPiggy’s, he has a pretty good post up about the feminist haranguing of a guy who revealed he keeps an Excel spreadsheet of his dates.

This is a pattern lately. Yet another anti-male two minute hate posing as female wisdom and prerogative. Are we reaching peak feminism? My tireless efforts have not cut them off at the knees yet, but they do vomit their drivel with a little more impotent urgency nowadays, so perhaps they sense the fanged maw of the underground media breathing down their hunched backs.

Anyhow, lost in all this is a sane recognition that men’s and women’s brains are wired differently, and that the tools each sex uses to get what they want are optimized along these distinct mental paths. Women also use an Excel spreadsheet to categorize and itemize their dating prospects: it’s called nicknames. Women are very good at assigning cutesy little nicks to men they date — “the doctor”, “bad breath guy”, “shiny shoes guy”, “the comedian”, etc — and given that women are naturally better multi-taskers than men, it’s easier for them to keep all this Excel-like data in their heads, to be regurgitated amongst female friends over mimosa brunches.

Men, in contrast, are single-taskers and object-oriented, less innately proficient at storing reams of personal data about women, and less likely to discuss their dating travails with male friends over brunch. The only female characteristic that men seem pretty good at remembering is women’s looks; so if women want men to date more “intuitively”, that is, more like women, then they have to be prepared to accept that male intuition hinges largely on objectifying women by their bodies and facial prettiness. I wonder if women would be pleased if men adopted their dating categorization methods and proudly humored the rabble congregating on the male version of feminist group blogs with all the cutesy nicks they come up with — “big boobed broad”, “leaky pits girl”, “butch haircut”, “wide load”, “pancake ass”.

Finally, it should be noted that way more under-30 women than men even *get an opportunity* to date more than one suitor at a time. Female hypergamy knows no upper bound absent harsh market rebuke, so a woman in her prime will date many men at once, culling the prospects free until one or two are left standing. But men, the majority of them unimpressive betas with no game, are lucky to get a date with one woman at a time, and many men often go months or years getting no dates at all. Under these natural conditions, molded over eons of evolution dividing the sexes into algorithmic psychological opposites, men have had no need to evolve the intuitive, multi-tasking brain for categorizing a large number of female prospects at once. This dating opportunity paucity, combined with the instant visual cues of reproductive health that predominantly guide men’s mating decisions, results in a dearth of talent for storing a lot of personality information about different women.

I think the real reason Excel Spreadsheet Guy has “creeped out” feminists is because he is one of these beta males to break the mold by dating multiple women concurrently. In other words, he’s not accepting his role as beta male quietly. Feminists see the inner world of a man who has managed to crack the girl code that typically allows beta males like himself only one woman at a time, if they’re lucky, and they are shocked… shocked!… that a man of such pedestrian station in life would dare to date like women do — greedily, boundlessly, diffusely, capriciously, like a woman on a shopping spree.

Why would women deem this guy a beta? The spreadsheet is the systematizing giveaway. Alpha males who have years of experience getting what they want from women develop a womanly sixth sense for intuitively categorizing their prey prospects. They don’t need the crutch of the spreadsheet…

(though in point of fact not a few pickup artists have been known to keep Karen Owen’s type journals of their clientele — and, by the way, where was the equivalent feminist creeprage over Owens? after all, what she did is no different, in fact worse, than what Excel Spreadsheet guy did)

…because alpha males 1. are familiar with the female archetypes and 2. understand that charming aloofness is more attractive to women than gallant powers of recall.

So what we have here is a failure to contain the female id. The true crime is not the spreadsheet; it’s the gall of a beta male stepping outside his preassigned role to extract what only the top 20% alpha males are permitted to extract. There’s nothing like a disturbance in the force to get the Darth Vaginas shrieking hysterically.

Read Full Post »

Paging Bryan “Fuck the rest of the country who wasn’t born with my genetically superior IQ, good taste, and exquisitely manicured principles” Caplan: Switzerland is not a diversity utopia.

Research group finds creating boundaries key to reducing ethnic violence

History is filled with examples of ethnic violence, the type that erupts when people with differing cultures attempt to live side by side. The Middle East comes to mind, as does Northern Ireland or Yugoslavia. What’s not so common are studies done that show what sorts of things actually work to prevent problems when people of dissimilar backgrounds live next door to one another. Thus, a new study done by Yaneer Bar-Yam and his team at the New England Complex Systems Institute, appears to be particularly relevant. He and his colleagues, describe in their paper on the preprint server arXiv, how a study they’ve done of the ethnically diverse country of Switzerland, shows that political and geographical boundaries have served to keep the peace between the different groups.

Libertardians: so smart ensconced in their fantasy bubbles aka homogeneous fiefdoms. Outside of them… eh, not so much. (I think at this point given the evidence of their own words it’s safe to say a significant proportion of mainstream libertarians are just sophisticated liberal anti-white bigots.)


Since I’m in a charitable mood, here’s a post by Caplan that pretty much nails the truth dead center. A reader writes:

I’d also note that lower class men can be pretty ornery and don’t necessarily make good employees in today’s economy, while lower class women tend to be comparatively docile and co-operative, so they are more able to get and keep jobs.

Yes. Female economic independence pushing their hypergamy into hyperdrive isn’t the only factor leading to the enervation of the working man. The modern economy is filled with jobs that are feminized in nature, and often require navigation of labyrinthine office politics that working class men with neither the inclination nor the social savvy find appealing. Men are built for focused single-tasking, and women for superficial multi-tasking. The West is currently tilted in the direction of a multi-tasking economy, for which remuneration flows disproportionately to those with the best social, political and client/customer juggling skills.

For those who scoff “adapt or die”, well, ok. But just remember that sometimes there’s a LOT of dying to go along with the adapting. Government policy can ameliorate or worsen the dying. Lately, it seems government is more interested in accomplishing the latter… for the target designated group.


Excellent post at the blog ‘Just Be a Man About It’, which documents evidence of female hypergamy, hookup culture, beta male supplication, alpha male aloofness, women’s love for alpha males and loathing of beta males, and sexual and relationship dynamics in a modern hunter-gatherer !Kung tribe. If you see parallels between the !Kung sexual market and your own, you are not mistaken. Just a friendly reminder that the concepts behind game and female desire, as discussed extensively here at the Chateau, are rooted in ancient biological forces that continue to shape who we are today. Take it in, and be enlightened.

(Note: Broad racial differences in mating predilection have probably evolved in the last 10,000 years. These differences do not rest on a presupposition that universal preferences don’t exist.)


As if sugar, refined carbs, cheaper junk food, prolonged cubicle farm sitting, and lack of walkable communities due to vibrancy weren’t enough, now there’s evidence that CO2 may be responsible for the explosion (heh) of obesity in the world over the last fifty years (via Mangan’s).

Coinciding with the sharp increase in the prevalence of human obesity over the last 50 years, weight gain has also been observed in animals. A recent study found that 24 populations of 8 different species, including laboratory animals that had been fed the same diets for decades, all displayed significant weight gain.3 This suggests that a shared environmental factor, favouring weight gain, may be involved in the regulation of energy balance. Such a factor has yet to be identified.

Even our pets are getting fatter. If pet food hasn’t changed, then something in the environment is causing Fifi to bloat up. Lack of exercise? Maybe. But cats are usually pretty good at self-regulating their weight, and they’re getting fatter too. Infectious parasite? A guy like Greg Cochrane, who has argued that homosexuality may be the result of a parasite in the mother, would be open to this argument. Proof would be if wild animals are getting fatter, too. Whatever it is, the cause(s) of the obesity epidemic is clearly environmental. Fifty years is simply not enough time for an obesity gene or genes to trickle through the general population and produce the rate of change in fatness that we observe.

The good news is that CO2-influenced levels of blood acidity can be mediated by spending less time indoors (where CO2 levels are higher) and getting more outdoors exercise. Also, you might want to limit your intake of beer. The carbonation may be responsible for the localized effect of the famed beer gut.

You know what’s the worst consequence of obesity? All those fat chicks skew the dating market. In fat America, thin chicks have bunker hardened egos because they know they’re in demand. In regions of the world were thinness is the rule and not the exception, the women have more manageable, i.e. feminine, egos. If it takes curbing global warming (a phenomenon I am not yet convinced is mostly human-caused or amenable to fixing) to make women more pleasant to be around, then sign me up for a fusion-powered DeLorean.


The commenter Severn delivers some righteous subversion at the Atlantic in a McArdle article about Europe’s demographic and financial woes.

Every aspiring economist should learn this on day 1 of Econ 101: Humans are not fungible. Repeat after me: humans are not fungible. Once more for the cheap seats: humans are not fungible.

Really, it would save so much energy spent bloviating in sophistic tantrums with no purpose other than to avoid confronting the goddamned obvious if the elite stopped being afraid of their own shadows. And it’d save us all a lot of money and psychic distress, too.


Facial symmetry experiment. Left sides and right sides of people’s faces were combined to show how different we would look if we were facially symmetrical on either our right or left sides. Below, the true portrait of a man(?) (L), his face adjusted for left side symmetry (C), and his face adjusted for right side symmetry (R).

A cursory glance at all the mock-up photos reveals something peculiar. The faces made symmetrical with one side are decidedly masculine-looking, and the faces made symmetrical with the other side are feminine. Could it be that a battle royale occurs in the womb where the masculine and feminine essences are locked in struggle for control of the destiny of the face and, presumably, the associated personality and character of the adult-to-be? Groovy, man.


Compare and contrast: Japan vs Haiti. Photos of Japan’s progress six months after its devastating earthquake and tsunami. Photo gallery of Haiti two years after its killer earthquake. Earthquake aid to Japan far less than aid to Haiti. A report on progress in Haiti.

Word of the day: fungible.

Related, Japan’s so-called lost decades of economic stagnation may be a myth.


More evidence that the modern, grain-centric diet is bad for us: white rice linked with type 2 diabetes. I’m not ready to go all-in on the paleolithic diet. Although the epidemiological momentum seems to be against grains and sugar, I’ve been reading too many conflicting studies recently for me to take a strong stand either way. For instance, here’s a study showing that red meat consumption is associated with increased risk of death (rebuttal here). Furthermore, some races may be better disposed to certain diets than other races. The bottom line is that calorie amount still matters, and calorie *type* matters as well. I split the difference by minimizing my consumption of refined grains, vegetable oils, red meat, sweets, carbonated drinks and fatty cheese and maximizing my intake of omega-3 heavy fish, (occasional) grass-fed lean beef, olive oil, dark green veggies, bitter tasting foods, nuts and whole grains.


Even educated chicks dig jerks. A female prison psychologist had a secret long-term relationship with a gang rapist. Yes, feminists, one of your own fell in love with a dude who rapes women for a living.

She also allegedly visited the prisoner – known as “H” – more than 20 times using her new identity, and wore an Islamic head scarf and sunglasses during her visits.

The Department of Corrective Services has been investigating the precise status of the pair’s relationship, including the possibility they have married, which remains unconfirmed.

The Sunday Telegraph can reveal the forensic psychologist first met “H” when she began counselling the long-term inmate during a sex rehab program at Parklea Prison.

He is serving 14 years and six months for the horrific and systematic pack rapes of young women in Sydney’s southwest in August 2000, lead by the depraved brothers Bilal and Mohammed Skaf.

Aren’t you gals the least bit embarrassed by your sex’s notorious sexual preferences? Of course you are. That’s why you never hear a feminist confront this female behavior without first resorting to some lame, contrived “patriarchy” boogeyman.

When the day comes that feminists decide to wrestle with female sexual nature honestly and openly is the day that feminism dies as an expedient ideology. It’s already dead as a coherent ideology.

Read Full Post »

Vodka! No, just kidding. Sorta.

Approach anxiety is a common problem for men, and now a scientific study has found that it has probably bedeviled men since the dawn of time, leaving them in a temporarily quasi-retarded state when in the company of beautiful women.

Researchers have begun to explore the cognitive impairment that men experience before and after interacting with women. A 2009 study demonstrated that after a short interaction with an attractive woman, men experienced a decline in mental performance. A more recent study suggests that this cognitive impairment takes hold even when men simply anticipate interacting with a woman who they know very little about.

Another game concept confirmed by science (not like it needed to be). Evolutionarily speaking, I can’t think of a clear reason why it’s advantageous to men to become tongue-tied around pretty girls, but the study authors offer a hypothesis.

Although the studies on their own don’t offer any concrete explanations, Nauts and her colleagues think that the reason may have something to do with men being more strongly attuned to potential mating opportunities. Since all of their participants were both heterosexual and young, they might have been thinking about whether the woman might be a potential date. [...]

Overall, it seems clear that whenever we face situations where we’re particularly concerned about the impression that we’re making, we may literally have difficulty thinking clearly. In the case of men, thinking about interacting with a woman is enough to make their brains go a bit fuzzy.

Sounds plausible, but it still doesn’t explain why such “male impairment” around women would evolve — or avoid being selected against — in the first place. It’s pretty well obvious from observing naturals in action that the men with the least anxiety and the nimblest tongues have the most success with women.

Nonetheless, we must abide the reality that for a lot of men, hurdling that first obstacle — approach anxiety — is half the battle to becoming a master seducer. All I can tell you is that it gets easier with practice and especially with success, for each bedding instills an unshakeable confidence that exists separate from the confidence won by success in reproductively proxy male endeavors like sports, career and physique. In the end, it simply comes down to willpower. You either will yourself to approach, or you take the easy route of making excuses for not approaching.

A number of readers have asked if there is something men can do to instill a similar state of catatonia in women. A reasonable request, since it’s easier to seduce a woman in thrall to your very presence. Being famous would certainly do the trick, but that’s out of reach for nearly everyone. Having noticeably higher value than the woman you are approaching is another way to “reverse lobotomize” her. For example, if she’s at an art gallery and you are one of the artists holding court with a small group of local aficionados. Or simple preselection — being seen enjoying the company of other girls — can induce a female version of male mate fright.

But commenter YaReally hits the nail on the head:

Confidently cutting the space between the two of you (ie – get in her face) while locking eye contact.

Very few women can form a coherent sentence in that situation.

When she meets a guy who can approach and stare her down without being nervous? Because his sense of entitlement tells him that he shouldn’t be nervous around her? He’s the guy who fucks her.

Steady, unbreakable eye contact and smooth, slow, controlled strides toward her so that she has a moment to savor her anticipation — these are the simplest and quickest ways for a man to rattle a woman with his intoxicating presence. It works because, as real life observation and science both prove, women are viscerally sexually excited by dominant and overconfident men. And nothing projects both those masculine traits better or faster than alpha body language and direct eye contact. Staring a woman down until she lowers her eyes or looks askance will trigger the submissiveness reflex, and that is a place where she secretly yearns to be.

It’s not as easy as it sounds. Try holding eye contact as long as possible with random men and women. Assume a relaxed or smiling expression so that you aren’t mistaken for an angry commuter having a bad day. Start by doing it with people passing you on the sidewalk going the opposite direction, so you know an end to the discomfort is not long off. Even in those walk-by sidewalk situations, where a mere few seconds of eye lock is all that’s required of you, you’ll find it difficult to hold a stranger’s eyes for longer than a split second. The difficulty level will go up if your eye partner is a hot girl or a dominant man meeting you pupil a pupil.

After a few days of this, something almost magical happens. You notice that men break eye contact before you do, and look to the ground. Forced to look up at you (most will be shorter than you), women return your gaze hungrily, uneasily, wonderment gripping their facial expressions, and if your vision is sharp enough you can make out a nearly imperceptible parting of their lips. You begin to feel dominant. And that feeling translates into real dominance and an attitudinal shift, for above all the thing that is attractive about alpha males is their attitude.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,970 other followers

%d bloggers like this: