Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Psy Ops’ Category

In your travels across the landscape of women, you will encounter a few ice queens who play the soulkill game as well as any sociopathic man. The first exquisite experience with such a woman leaves one breathless with awe; the second experience invites reciprocal devilry.

I’m not saying e-eeevil women will carve you up with as much dramatic poise as Nicole Kidman does in this scene from Eyes Wide Shut, but I am saying these kinds of women exist and the flair they possess for digging deep to the male id and serrating it (usually after fellating it) is a power that would reduce most beta males (and some alpha males) to whimpering self-doubt or reckless vengeful rage.

Pop quiz for those aspiring to Amused Mastery Level of Alpha Maleness:

Given a similar situation, how would you respond to a lover pulling the “Check out my merciless female hypergamy” shiv on you? I know what I’d do. Let her finish her monologue, wait a beat for the moment to grow flush with threatening potential, grin, sit back in bed, and say “Cool story babe”. Better yet, if I were drunk and hadn’t the mental storage space for cutting quips, I’d get up midway through her speech and leave unceremoniously, as if the noise of her voice was giving me a headache.

To respond with fury or hurt would be perceived as her victory; calm dismissal is a tried and true shiv parry that enervates even the most sadistically charged thrusts.

UPDATE

Via reader PA. This scene from Witches of Eastwick is a case study in how an alpha male steals the frame and totally deflates a bitchy woman’s stream of emasculating insults. Be Jack’s amused mastery, and then, when your antagonistic lover has had the wind knocked out of her shivvy sails, go on the offense until her former snarling attack posture is reduced to a quivering crouch of passivity.

Read Full Post »

Think Like A Hot Girl

Mark the Concern Troll writes,

It’s hard for a guy to see things from the viewpoint of a hot girl. Do a little experiment. Go to a strip club. While you are there you will see many girls you aren’t interested in trying ineptly to be fake friendly to you and feigning an interest in you. It will be obvious to you they are only interested in extracting money from you and you will be mildly amused but you will also wonder what they are thinking in imagining that they can succeed and wondering why they don’t just get a regular job and a boyfriend. After awhile you will get tired of them all approaching you and leave. Hot girls see most guys the same way as you saw the strippers at that strip club. Instead of trying to extract money, though, the guys are trying to extract sex and add another notch to their bedpost. The hot girl looks at them and is mildly amused but also wonders why they don’t spend their time pursuing a career and getting a girlfriend instead of hanging out at bars spouting lines they learned at some game blog. Now if you want to call me a “concern troll” go on ahead. I don’t care.

The problem with this analogy is that most men stick around to pay strippers to keep displaying their naked bodies. Men do this because they like to look at slim, naked women. Men who frequent strip clubs rarely leave feeling “annoyed”, unless the strippers who hit them up for cashmoney were fat whales or grandmas. Most men leave strip clubs feeling “aroused”.

So it is with hot girls getting hit on by men. If the man knows what he is doing, the hot girl will feel flattered, happy, and aroused. If the man is inept, the hot girl will feel annoyed.

However, buried in the crack of Mark’s game denialist butthurt is a dingleberry of truth. To seduce hot girls, it helps to know the mind of a hot girl. And that means getting in her peep toes and taking a look at the sexual market through her eyes.

Hot girls don’t get hit on as often as merely cute girls, but that doesn’t mean they don’t notice the head swivels and leery eye rape from throngs of across-the-way admirers. So, hot girls intuitively know their SMV, even if they only perceive it in the vaguest sense. Hot girls, like most girls, also instinctively know that most friendly men approach them with sex not far from their thoughts. Yes, even male feminists. Women may not be able to verbalize this without resorting to scads of hamster droppings rationalizing male attention as something else, but they feel it in their bones.

Hot girls know as well that tiny hors d’oevres of reciprocal friendliness will encourage many men to lunge for the booty buffet.

For all these reasons, hot girls have defensive shields (bitch shields) that enable them to make it through the day without having to deal with the come-ons from hundreds of amorous men. The strength of the bitch shield is directly proportional to the hotness of the girl X the frequency with which she gets hit on. (The most fortified bitch shields are therefore found on 7s and 8s.)

A hot girl’s working assumption, like the male patron’s working assumption in the strip club, is that she/he will get propositioned for sex/money. Now that you know what the world looks like through a hot girl’s eyes, you can better tailor your approach. As with the skilled stripper or escort who makes her customer feel like he’s truly wanted for more than his money, so to must you make the hot girl feel like she’s desired for more than her sex. This, in practice, means that indirect approaches on hot girls should theoretically work better than direct solicitations, and there should be a general progression in your game that, initially, obliquely convinces the hot girl she is not a sexual interest and, later, convinces her that she shares a deep emotional and intellectual connection with you.

Seduction, in this manner, is two steps forward, one step back, with a plume of smoke and mirrors tossed in for effect. And it has to be as long as hot girls are your primary desire targets.

Read Full Post »

The Power Of Dread Game

Reco writes,

OT but just had to share. There is this series on Cable called 90 Day Fiance and basically it is typical “reality” series about guys who go overseas to find a woman to bring back to the US and they have 90 days on their fiance visa to marry them. So its ostensibly about the culture shock of these women marrying these men and moving to another country.

But what they are unknowingly illustrating all of the many concepts of the Red Pill on that are discussed on this site. Obviously you can see what kind of men are doing this. Very beta but nice guys who have no real options in the US. On the other side three of the four girls are very cute. Once looks like a lot like Sophia Vergara and she is from Columbia. And she acts like her also. Another looks a lot like Adriana Lima, and another from Russia is very cute. The last one is rough.

Anyway the Russian chick is dating this nice guy totally beta. And she is basically treating him like shit. Not mean but they have known each other for over a year he has visited her several times she is in the US for a few weeks and she has not fucked him yet. Poor bastard does not know what to do. He asks instead of taking what he wants. She just casually blows him off and gives him more orders on what to do. So one night she is supposed to meet the beta boy out after work. He is outside smoking a cigarette and two chicks come up and bum a cigarette and they see the camera and he starts talking to them. Then his frigid Russian cutie comes up and is instantly in a state of dread. She is shooting daggers at the other two chicks. And beta boy is all “worried” that frigid girl is going to be jealous. Ha, then he says “funny thing it had the opposite effect”. lol She started talking about he is her man etc.

That night she fucks his nauseating needy ass. lol Do you know what the first thing she says as she is initiating sex with him? “Your cute!!!!” This dude is most certainly not cute in any way. Amazing to sit there and watch game principles at work. This series has many potential future Heartiste posts ready to inspire the manosphere.

Dread game is powerful stuff. Use it wisely. It’s easy to overdo.

Mystery’s infamous “jealousy plotlines” are a subclass of dread game, and that’s what was happening to this frigid Russian chick. A woman’s jealousy will supercharge her emotions more than her horniness. Jealousy plotlines can be deliberately invoked, unlike this particular case where it looks like the beta stumbled into a fortuitous ensemble cast of female preselection. The trick is to frame the plotline as if the “other women” — i.e. the pawns — approached you or were accidental afterthoughts in your DHV story.  You don’t want to “force” a jealousy plotline by, say, talking about your “hottie ex who couldn’t get enough of me”, or by approaching a girl you know while leaving your date in the lurch for twenty minutes.

Jealousy plotlines are very dangerous because they can easily backfire, but when they work they work like fuckin hamster TNT.

PS: Girls will often describe a physically unattractive but charismatic man who arouses them as “cute” because they don’t have the verbal tools to describe his mysterious allure in anything but herd-like universal terms of attraction. This is why you shouldn’t bother taking a girl’s words describing what turns her on at face value. “Cute” literally can mean a thousand different things to a girl if she likes a man enough.

Read Full Post »

Comments are disabled on all posts published during Approach Week to encourage readers to limit their internet time and go outside to apply the lessons they have learned here. Approach Week celebrates the spirit of the approach, which is, in essence, a celebration of the spirit of assertive masculinity.

There are many ways to agitate a hamster.

A reader explains,

Hey – Considering myself too old and respectable to use “gay”, I tried “pfft” as a text game variation and it seems to have worked. Like “gay” it’s dismissive but cryptic, and implies transgression on her part. You can bet she spent 10 minutes checking various online dictionaries trying to determine my exact meaning.

For the record: this woman is a real head turner, almost a ‘9’ with fantastic sexual charisma, and 19+ years younger than me. (A 30-something female friend who saw us out said to me later, “You like to shop in the juniors department, huh?”)

New models beat pre-owned models in everything but cost.

She’s very aware of her beauty and shit-tests relentlessly. Her response to my request for a second date was total rejection: she waited 6 days to turn me down with an obvious bullshit line, which I recognized as a test, otherwise why respond at all after so long? I responded “pfft” and then went dark. This morning, three weeks later, she re-initiated contact.

Because I recognized the test and responded to it correctly, I was confident that sooner or later she’d be back, which was a nice feeling.

A very hot, young woman knows she has high sexual market value. To get a crack at her crack, you have to carve out a piece of her ego with a lexical knife forged by the Cryptonomicon. “pfft” works because it’s the word equivalent of interpretive dance; what you see is what you feel. And women left to their own devices — that is, left unsure of the visceral impact they leave on a man’s arousal center and reeling with self-doubt that they may have been substituted with another woman — are apt to interpret mysterious utterances as sexual indifference. The challenge to their feminine power issued, they react as you would expect a child: Indignant, affronted, and all too ready to prove you wrong.

Speaking of children… the best rule I can give to men, one that has stood me well, is to treat all women like children. When a precocious wee child innocently sasses you, do you lash out in bitterness? Do you anger or recoil defensively?

Only if you’re mentally deranged. If you’re normal, you’ll laugh off the child’s insolence, and perhaps tousle its hair, charmed by the tyke’s unfiltered joie de vivre. You would react like this because you and the child know you are its superior.

Such it should be with women. If a girl commits the equivalent of backtalk, (e.g., she flakes a week later), you metaphorically tousle her hair and call her a brat. The man-woman dynamic mirrors the parent-child dynamic in any successful seduction, so much so that sexual tension is dissolved when the woman is denied the pleasure of being treated as the man’s adorable inferior. If you lash out defensively at a misbehaving woman, you will earn her contempt and emotional withdrawal, just as you would if you did the same to a darling child. You would not be worthy to be the woman’s man, as you would not be worthy to be the child’s protector.

Read Full Post »

If you waste ten minutes of your life scanning relationship or dating advice from female columnists, one theme you’ll often read is the belief that compliments and flattery are the way to a woman’s heart. Naturally, as it goes with 99% of the “””wisdom””” of your feminist elders, this advice is a crock. Any man who has interacted with live women in anything other than a submissive capacity will quickly learn from experience the self-defeating consequences of attempting to court women with compliments.

Reader Joe Sixpack forwards an example of the awful advice you’ll ingest from Hivemind drones, and of the glimmering shards of Realtalk that are beginning to pierce the veil of vapidity,

A Game element leaks out, of all places, a Yahoo! message board comment:

This was regarding an article that said, “Here’s a wakeup call for you: Women spend an average of 55 minutes getting ready every morning — frittering away the equivalent of 6.4 hours a week, or 335 hours a year, on looks alone, a new survey finds. ”

There is a good way to reduce these numbers. Men, tell your woman that she is pretty. I once dated a guy who told me on a regular basis how pretty I was, how much he loved my eyes, how I was the smartest girl he had ever dated, ect. Who cares if he didn’t mean all of it, it made me feel good. I started wearing a little less makeup and found simpler ways to do my hair just so I could get over to his house early before work. He still said the same things. Sadly the whole thing started to go downhill after his daughter called me mom. Now I’m married to a man who never tells me I’m pretty, smart, ect. I put on loads of makeup and wear revealing clothing around him all the time just to get his attention with no success. I have decided to use up my makeup and only replace the ones I really care for. Maybe he will notice when I’m no longer trying to dress like the playboy playmates he claims he wants.

So, the one beta guy tells her how hot/smart/etc. she is all the time. The result? She turns frumpy and obviously is no longer with him.

She is now married to a man who never tells her such things. The result? She puts on “loads of make up and wear revealing clothing around him all the time just to get his attention” and dresses “like the playboy playmates he claims he wants”.

[Ed note: Link no longer works.]

You can sometimes pry nuggets of truth from women, but it requires a facility with comprehending subtext. Women will drop clues revealing their true feelings stuffed between over-sized cushions of egoistic pabulum.

Do you want to persuade your girlfriend or wife to keep up her looks? (And if you’re a non-gay man with T readings above 0.1 ng, you will.) Then keep her on her toes.

Maxim #101: Compliments breed complacency. Critique breeds conciliation. A woman will never work as hard for a man’s approval as when his approval is most elusive.

Read Full Post »

Personal impressions into the matter aside for the moment, social science examining the issue of sex differences in manipulation skill and proclivity to manipulate are scarce. But a recent study definitely fingers women as the more manipulative sex in at least one major life domain.

Parental mate choice manipulation tactics: Exploring prevalence, sex and personality effects.

Parents and children are genetically related but not genetically identical, which means that their genetic interests overlap but also diverge. In the area of mating, this translates into children making mate choices that are not in the best interest of their parents. Parents may then resort to manipulation in order to influence their children’s mating decisions in a way that best promotes the former’s interests. This paper attempts to identify the structure of manipulation tactics that parents employ on their daughters and sons, as well as on their daughters’ and sons’ mates, and also to estimate their prevalence. On the basis of the structure of the derived tactics, four hypotheses are tested: Mothers are more willing than fathers to use manipulation tactics; parents are willing to use more manipulation on their daughters than on their sons; the personality of parents predicts the use of tactics on their children and on their children’s mates; and the personality of children and of children’s mates predicts the use of tactics on them. Evidence from two independent studies provides support for the first three hypotheses, but mixed support for the fourth hypothesis. The implications of these findings are further discussed.

So mothers are more apt than are fathers to manipulate their children. What is the underlying evolutionary reason for this particular sex disparity?

Women being physically weaker, having less access to weaponry, having little control over wealth, and consequently being less aggressive, need to resort to manipulation in order to promote their interests effectively. [...]

Furthermore, due to internal gestation, mothers are 100% certain that their children are their own; this is not the case for fathers, however, who are less certain about paternity. This indicates that mothers see their interests as being more overlapping with the interests of their children, and so they have a stronger concern about the latter’s mate choices. For instance, a bad mate choice on behalf of their children that compromises the fitness of their grandchildren (e.g., a mate who is likely to run away) will be more costly to mothers, who are certain that these grandchildren are actually their own, than to fathers, who are less certain. Accordingly, mothers will be more likely to interfere than fathers if they believe that a choice is not good for their daughters or sons.

This female facility with manipulation extends to the romantic sphere. In a state of nature (no Pills, no abortion, no female economic self-sufficiency or legal coddling), women run a MUCH greater risk of life-altering changes from a single act of loving penetration. Manipulation is the tool women use to level the playing field… or, more precisely, to tilt the playing field to their advantage in a modern social environment where every lever is already halfway pulled in their direction.

The irony of this biomechanic reality is that it runs totally counter to feminist and white knight blather about “manipulative cads/PUAs/niceguys/jerks/patriarchal oppressors”. The intimate, limbic knowledge that women are in fact the more manipulative sex drives self-regarding women (and their effeminate male custodians) to project this instinctive female power onto their protagonists. This is especially true of ugly women who most certainly feel the burn of male rejection and female ostracism more hotly.

Another consequence of the asymmetry in parental investment, with women being a scarce reproductive resource, is that parents are more interested in controlling the mate choices of their daughters than of their sons (Perilloux, Fleischman, and Buss, 2008). In particular, as men strive to gain access to women, by controlling the latter, parents can better control mate choice (Apostolou, 2010). Furthermore, due to the risk of pregnancy and the value that men ascribe to the chastity of women (Buss, 2003), the mating behavior of daughters is likely to be more consequential than the mating behavior of sons. For instance, a sexual adventure can commit a daughter’s parental investment to a man that her parents do not approve of, and/or damage her reputation, compromising her future chances of attracting desirable mates. Last but not least, parents cannot be certain of their relatedness to grandchildren fathered by their sons, but they can be certain about their relatedness to their grandchildren mothered by their daughters. This means that parents may have more genetic interests at stake in the mating choices of their daughters than of their sons, which in turn would motivate them to control their daughters more.

Overall, as parents are more interested in the mating behavior of their daughters than of their sons, it is predicted that they will be more willing to use manipulation on the former than on the latter.

Women vs women, redux.

Blaming the patriarchy (or the matriarchy) is beside the point; these forces molding the behaviors of men and women are without moral dimension. They exist to serve a god which in its feral simplicity frightens and offends the conscious human sensibilities which themselves are unwitting servants to the prime directive.

Interestingly, younger parents are more likely than older parents to employ manipulative tactics on their children.

One possible explanation for the latter finding is that the residual reproductive value of younger parents is higher than the residual reproductive value of older parents. In other words, parents have more reproductive years ahead of them when they are younger than when they are older. In a pre-industrial context, and most probably during ancestral times, parents would control their children’s mate choices so as to arrange beneficial marriage alliances, and they could divert this cost in their own reproductive effort (Apostolou, 2014). For instance, a father could use the bridewealth he received from the marriage of his daughter to get an additional wife for himself, while a mother could use the resources derived from a beneficial alliance to mother additional children. However, these reproductive benefits are exhausted with age, which means that older parents have less to gain from controlling their children. As a consequence, there will be less intense selection pressures exercised on older parents to control mating, which in turn may result in older parents being less interested in using manipulation to influence their children’s mate choice.

Follow the bouncing ball on this one. Age of first marriage and first child in the West have been increasing for decades. If the theory above holds, that suggests an aggregate decrease in the number of daughters who are feeling pressured by their parents to marry well. Hello, alpha fux…

So who is the most manipulative of them all?

Our findings suggest that the highest degree of manipulation will come from relatively young mothers with low conscientiousness and will be applied predominantly to their daughters.

And the least manipulative?

Highly conscientious, older male parents are the least likely to apply manipulation on their children and especially on their sons.

Age mellows, via multiple pathways. And sons are less stressful on fathers than are daughters. Spread the seed, guard the eggs.

What forms of manipulation do parents, and especially mothers, use? And how do these forms differ when used on sons or daughters?

For daughters, 12 tactics emerged (see Table 1), which largely overlap with the tactics that have been identified by Apostolou (2013). In particular, we have been able to replicate 8 of the 12 tactics: “hardball,” “matchmaker,” “coercion,” “prevention,” “whom one should marry,” “carrot and stick,” “chaperoning,” and “guilt trip.” Two more tactics that emerged here are closely related with previously identified tactics. In particular, the “advice and support” tactic is close to the previously identified tactic of “advice and reasoning.”

However, although there is some overlap, acts associated with reasoning do not load on the tactic that emerged here. It appears that acts associated with support (usually when something goes wrong with respect to romantic relationships) load highly instead. Similarly, the “social comparison and moral advising” is close to the “social comparison” tactic; however, the tactic that emerged here also has an aspect of moral advising. It seems then that parents use social comparison to demonstrate to their daughters what is morally right and wrong. The “use of relatives and friends” tactic did not emerge here. Instead, one tactic that emerged is “monitoring,” where parents closely monitor their daughters’ activities and try to get information about their behavior. Finally, the “emotional manipulation” tactic is similar to the “silent treatment” tactic, although in this case several acts that involve emotional manipulation also load.

For sons, 12 factors emerged as well (see Table 1). Nine of these closely overlap with previously identified tactics: “hardball,” “matchmaker,” “coercion,” “prevention,” “whom one should marry,” “carrot and stick,” “chaperoning,” “guilt trip,” and “use of relatives and friends.” As in the case of daughters, the “advice and support” tactic emerged, which is similar to the previously identified tactic of “advice and reasoning.” Also, the “emotional manipulation” tactic emerged, which is similar to the “silent treatment” tactic. The social comparison tactic did not emerge, but as in the case of daughters the “monitoring” tactic emerged. Overall, it appears that the structure of parental manipulation on sons is similar to the one on daughters. But there are differences, one being that the “social comparison and moral advising” tactic emerged only for daughters, whereas the “use of relatives and friends” tactic emerged only for sons.

“Social comparison and moral advising” is probably the unconscious default shaming tactic that parents use on wayward daughters because women are, on the whole, the more lemming-like sex. Women respond to the prospect of social ostracism more viscerally than do men.

Women are on average the more manipulative sex, but there is field evidence that some men are master manipulators in their own right. Pickup artists and assorted practitioners of the crimson arts have co-opted the manipulative power of womanhood for their own romantic and sexual benefit. They have taken what is women’s strongest hand and added a Joker for the five of a kind. These maestros of the muff understand that women are solipsistic creatures who fall in love with their reflections, and thus with the men who are adept at holding the mirror up to them.

Read Full Post »

CH continues to explore the Elliot Rodger story because it reveals cracks in our culture that go beyond one man’s murderous rampage. In the days that have followed, the Hivemind has been busy concocting twisted narratives to see which one best tarnishes its free-thinking enemies. I examine their accuracies and fallacies below.

Sexual Entitlement

This theoretical gambit is a favorite of feminist fruitcakes, who blame the killings on Rodger’s thwarted “entitled” belief that he was “owed” sex with hard 10s, a feminist-friendly analysis that provides a handy springboard upon which they can launch into attacks on “pickup artists” who are learning how to become sexier men in order to date higher quality girls.

The fallacy in this feminist hypothesis was astutely noted by Liger (recently upgraded from Lamb) of the Blogosphere, who wrote that sexual and romantic entitlement is a natural condition of humanity, and that without it men would feel they had no right to approach women and initiate a courtship, and the human race would go extinct.

Here are some uncomfortable truths about “sexual entitlement” that feminists dare not contemplate:

- What Elliot Rodger had was sexual desire. Feminists often confuse sexual desire for sexual entitlement (because feminists loathe male desire), but they are two very different things. To conflate them, one would have to assert that Rodger was weird for feeling attracted to a hot young blonde. But men are attracted to beautiful women. That is their nature. Rodger was no different than the vast majority of men in this regard, alpha and beta alike. However, this is the part where Liger goes astray; Elliot didn’t need to be surrounded by pretty Hollywood actresses or steeped in a culture that reveres female beauty to feel urges to want to fuck cute girls based on their looks. The stripling CH did not grow up in Hollywood, and yet I, like almost every boy I knew, valued girls for their looks above all else. No “looks message” is necessary for a boy like Elliot to feel sexual urges for cute chicks, and to feel dejected if those urges aren’t fulfilled.

- Women feel more true entitlement to men’s commitment and money than men feel to women’s sex. Few men will rape in order to feed their sexual entitlement, but many women will hold out until they get promises of commitment from men, and many marriages end with women feeling entitled to half their husbands’ wealth. A more accurate description of the sexual market, then, is that women have commitment and provision entitlement.

- Finally, the scariest realization for feminists: Sexually entitled men are more attractive to women! If you don’t feel entitled to a woman’s love, she won’t think you’re worth her love.

Elliot Rodger’s problem was not sexual entitlement. His problem was sexual desire coupled with crippling introversion that left him no means to satisfy his desire. This created a cognitive disconnect that he filled with his own untested theories for why women weren’t with him when they were with (to him) obviously inferior specimens.

Father Emotional Abandonment

Elliot Rodger’s father, Peter Rodger, from all accounts sounds like he was uninterested in Elliot’s upbringing and preferred his time in the company of naked women taking pictures of their behinds, (which included Elliot’s mother). His father either never loved Elliot, or grew to despise him when he began to sense something was off with the boy. (If the former, it’s likely that Elliot’s biracial appearance contributed to his white father’s disenchantment with him.)

Bolstering the father abandonment theory, a reader sent some juicy insider information which I will post here, taking care to edit it in a circumspect manner so that no identities are accidentally revealed.

Elliot Rodger’s family has been part of a reality show the last seven years often recorded in his house. This is significant because his father on the show has always said he has “a” son, as in only one. In this video from the TV show it shows the father at the family table with the son from the second marriage, but not Elliot.

Elliot is shown in the show, for example when they met Sylvester Stallone (23:50), but Elliot is never acknowledged or speaks. Imagine a father that has a reality show in the house, keeps talking about “his son” and the “three of us” as in “Mother, Father, and son” as opposed to sons.

Elliot mentions the jealousy he has for the other brother. The fact his father says on TV, in the house Elliot lives in, that he has one son, might be enough to push someone over the edge.

In other words, complete family dysfunction.

Elliot doubtlessly sensed his father’s loathing and embarrassment of him, and this family dynamic may have set the ball rolling on Elliot’s eventual psychosocial schism.

Regardless where you fall on the “fathers are crucial/father’s genes are crucial” argument about children’s development, it’s a good bet Elliot lacked a positive parental influence and a loving father’s advice that would have helped him through his struggle into manhood. Nevertheless, the father emotional abandonment theory can’t fully explain Elliot’s eventual psychotic break; something awry already had to be present. Was Elliot’s blood tainted?

Psychopathy/Schizophrenia/Narcissism/Neuroticism/Asperger’s Syndrome

A common theme that often emerges from mass shootings is the revelation that the killer was on some kind of psychotropic or suffered from an anti-social disorder like autism. Then people say “Aha! He was a bad seed, not right in the head”, and feel satisfied that they can ignore any environmental insults that may have triggered the killer’s rage.

News stories present contradicting information on how much, or whether, Elliot was on any happy pills or had been formally diagnosed with any personality disorder. If he was on pills, the causal mechanism then becomes the issue; did Elliot’s psychological disease push him over the edge, or did the drugs he take to ameliorate his disease act as the trigger for violence? Evidence is slim that Elliot had a congenital mental disease, but this photo of him as a child is telling (via reader Tony Nick):

Dem eyes. We’ve seen them before, staring vacantly out of the faces of Dylan Kliebold and Seung-Hui Cho.

Right now it’s a guessing game, but the best guess is that Elliot Rodger had inherited a form of narcissistic and anti-social personality disorder. Some wags may ask your esteemed host, “If chicks dig dark triad narcissists, why didn’t they dig Elliot?” The problem here is that narcissism doesn’t attract girls if it’s hiding behind a shy, retiring, aggrieved personality. You’ve gotta bust a move, and Elliot Rodger clearly never saw a move he wished to bust, unless it involved spilling coffee on a girl who was dating a guy he didn’t like.

A severe organic personality disorder alone won’t typically create a killer, but combine it with some external variable — like incel — and all the bomb needs is something to light the fuse.

Male Feminism/White Knightism

A good argument can be made that Elliot Rodger was, in his writings and beliefs, a male feminist. And that the cancerous, deceitful message of male feminism warped his view of women and contributed to his ignorance about female nature and dating. Rodger believed “supreme gentlemen” should get the girls. He thought merely showing up and plopping down on a park bench would have the girls falling into his lap (and like a peculiar subspecies of MGTOW, his belief system similarly embraced the strange notion that making efforts to get girls was beneath him). His dad, probably equally deluded about women and dating in the year 2014, figured that buying his son a BMW in the last year of his life would help him get dates.

Did male feminism create a monster? It certainly didn’t help Elliot get laid; in fact, it helped repulse girls from him, the external factor which seems to have been the dark driving force throughout his post-pubertal life. Male feminism is not just castrating, it kills. Ask Hugo Schwyzer.

Status Envy

In the Hollywood culture Elliot knew, very high status men, beautiful women and botoxed women, and snotty children of high status men and beautiful and/or botoxed women surrounded him. Most of these people are entitled (far more entitled than Elliot) and bipolar. A fun bunch to throw a party, not so great for raising a biracial, effeminate (though not physically unattractive) male like Elliot who couldn’t look people in the eyes and barely spoke two words to family acquaintances. In this milieu, Elliot would have felt like a tragic outcast, and everyone who knew him would have thought that, too.

Absolute low status does not destroy souls, but relative low status can do the trick. Any other town, Elliot might’ve stood a chance of carving out a social niche for himself. A dad with some awareness and compassion would have taken him out of Hollywood, but then that would have meant no more naked photo shoots and handshakes with Sly Stallone.

The Anti-Boy Therapy Culture

Elliot’s family had him in therapy for years. The psychiatrist he saw was a quack who dated a skank blonde with gargantuan fake tits. Harken back to your childhood. How would you have felt if your family basically pulled a Pontius Pilate and washed their hands of you, sending you to a sleazeball who’s idea of therapy was promptly writing a script for Risperidone, an anti-schizophrenia drug?

This is a tragic example of the anti-boy therapy culture that pervades the US. And by “therapy”, I mean that feminized, womanish therapy that shoves pills down throats to solve the problem of boyness. Maybe Elliot was born sick and needed therapy. But what he didn’t need was a castrate asking him his feelings about his mother while he jerked off under the desk. Elliot needed the therapy of a clear and present father to inform him of the ways of the world. Maybe that wouldn’t have saved him, but it at least would’ve given him a fighting chance.

Pickup Artists and PUAHate

Elliot Rodger didn’t frequent the PUAHate forum to grouse about pickup techniques he tried that didn’t land him a bombshell hottie. He went there to bemoan women and the men those women loved with sympathetic company, and to complain about his looks. While there, (and elsewhere), he picked up (heh) a few bits and pieces of PUA jargon and proceeded to construct an inner fantasy world featuring himself as the put-upon alpha male. But, sadly, to the outside world he was still that shy kid who never talked and looked at his shoes. This was about the time when a complete dissociation between Elliot’s inner world and his outer reality was underway.

The Estrangement Of The Modern Sexual Market

If ever there was a subculture where the modern sexual market was most conspicuously operable, it was the la-la land Elliot grew up in. You can imagine what it was like for a shy kid who had to navigate a dating apocalypse where 90% of the girls were bangable and 99% of them were chasing after the top 1% sons of A-list insiders. This poor lesser beta didn’t stand a chance.

Elliot Rodger’s 132-page autobiography/manifesto (autofesto? manigraphy?) is filled with brutally confessional admissions of loserdom. If he carried even a fraction of that self-pity with him to real life interactions with girls, they would have immediately written him off as a romantic prospect. Girls can smell the stink of beta incel from twelve parsecs.

Failure with women compounds until the beta male succumbs to bitterness, at which point the process of sexual isolation accelerates and solidifies. If an intervention goes missing, the beta can drift into omegaland, and fall victim to his worst compulsions.

Reader Steve Johnson writes,

He was totally isolated because he made bad choices.

He chose world of warcraft over socializing because it’s an effective narcotic.

He chose puahate because it told him what he wanted to hear – that girls choose guys for mysterious reasons that no man can understand – or change about himself.

He specifically avoided socializing in any way that would threaten his narcissistic self-image and motivate him to change in any way – after all if he has to change, then he’s not perfect and we all know that can’t be true, right?

He was omega by choice because it was easier than doing any work.

Martyrdom complex, bad family, crippling shyness, pathological narcissism, biracial neuroticism, unfulfilled sexual desire, a sexual market rapidly separating introverted beta males from the sexual spoils… these things put together don’t guarantee a man will become a killer, but they sure don’t help.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,995 other followers

%d bloggers like this: