In an ABSOLUTELY SHOCKING, *GASP*, I NEVER WOULD’VE GUESSED development, chronic sleazeball liar alpha male John Edwards will admit paternity of his mistress Rielle Hunter’s bastard child, and he’s moving mistress and baby into a house in his neighborhood so he can watch over his harem take care of them.
John Edwards will move the mother of his love child into his North Carolina neighborhood so he can help raise their 18-month-old baby, the National Enquirer reported Wednesday.
The Enquirer also reported that Elizabeth Edwards, who is stricken with cancer, was furious when her husband told her of his parenting plans.
Furious, no doubt. But remember, this is the woman who stood by his side when he was apologizing so profusely for reaping the spoils of his alpha pull on women:
Edwards adamantly denied during a confessional interview with ABC News last summer that he had fathered a child with Hunter, and he said he welcomed a paternity test. His wife, Elizabeth, has said while promoting her book that she doesn’t know if her husband is the father.
Naturally, once the cancer ravages the last ounce of Elizabeth’s life force, Johnny Lawyersleaze will need a pussy replacement pronto. Having Rielle so close ensures convenience of lovemaking.
Would you buy a car from this man?:
I’d love to see recent polls of John Edwards’ favorability/approval ratings broken down by gender. Do a majority of women still give this guy the thumbs up? A significant minority? Bill Clinton certainly had the undying love of American feminists even while he was exercising his power over a 21 year old subordinate and oppressing her with the repeated thrustings of his patriarchal stogie.
This story crystallizes so many musings I’ve had. For instance, we now have proof that lying isn’t immoral, but lying while beta is. Then there’s the whole de facto polygamy angle, as amply illustrated by John Edwards’ harem building.
How to change a monogamous culture into a polygamous retroparadise in three easy steps:
Give single women the right to vote.
Let simmer for a couple of generations while betas invent stuff that severs biological constraints from hypergamous impulse.
I believe this progression is unavoidable as long as human nature remains what it has been for millennia. Civilization has programmed self-destruction. Trying to stop or reverse this “bug” in the code is akin to redesigning the schema of evolution itself. The best you can hope for is that after the Great Culling there are enough sensible people left around to learn the lessons of past fools and to rebuild the edifice. On an individual level, for those born within the Great Culling the best answer is game if you want to make it out psychologically healthy and penilely satisfied on the other side. Or become a well-coifed Senator.
This reminds me of an admiring ode I previously wrote to John Edwards:
John Edwards’ wife lies for him knowing he was fucking and impregnating a new age whore while she lay in a hospital bed with cancer.
Somewhere in America a dutiful beta husband was just served divorce papers and subsequent financial ruin for no reason he can discern except that he didn’t excite his wife’s loins anymore.
People sometimes ask why I so deliberately and unapologetically act in my own self-interest and take what I want.
Because I know the score.
And you should too.
Many readers have sent me this UK tabloid story about a tacky British slut (redundant?) who asks the sex advice columnist (there’s a 21st century New Girl Order occupation of pointlessness) Rowan Pelling whether she should reveal to her boyfriend the truth about her, uh, comprehensive sexual history.
I’ve been with my boyfriend for six months, we’re both 34 and I am fairly sure he’s The One. The other night we ended up having a conversation about how many lovers we’d had. He told me he had slept with eight women and suddenly I felt nervous about confessing the truth – I had a lot of flings at university and in my first job at an ad agency, so my tally is closer to 40. But I found myself saying ten and even then he looked horrified. I hate being untruthful with him, but don’t want to be judged either. What should I do?
Here’s my advice: Lie your whore ass off. We all know, thanks to the “Double Whatever Number She Claims” rule, that you’ve banged 80 cocks, 40 of them probably swarthy immigrant cock. This means that there is no chance your boyfriend is “The One” since it’s impossible for a woman to make a soulmate connection once her gina has tingled over the four corners of the earth. More precisely, you have found “The One Last Hope” that could save you from spinsterhood. You are walking on thin ice what with your advanced age and bedraggled labia, so the last thing you want to do is fuck it up by giving your boyfriend a justifiable excuse to dump your rode-hard flat British ass. “But why would he do that?”, you whine. I think you already know why, otherwise you wouldn’t be fretting about what to do. You have demonstrated by your inability to be more discriminating with your womanly wares that you are a potential cuckold/infidelity/divorce theft risk. Men have scientifically and observationally valid reason to avoid commiting to skanks such as yourself, so recognize this reality of the male psyche and hope he doesn’t find your All Male Revue Facebook page.
That’ll be $200.
Now here’s the advice Rowan Pelling “sex columnist” gave to her:
To be honest, if your man really loves you he should be able to take the full tally with equanimity. But then that would presume that he’s secure in his own skin and, as we all know, a great many people aren’t. What you perceive as censure may well be old-fashioned male insecurity. […]
Having said all that, I think most lovebirds should steer clear of going into the minutiae of previous conquests.
And if a man is unwise enough to ask a woman how many lovers she’s had, can I suggest the following response: ‘Let’s just say I won’t wear white at the wedding.’
Naturally, her advice is retarded. I expect nothing less from 99.9999% of women writing sex and relationship advice columns. The male insecurity trope is the “Get Out of Self Examination Free” card, and is readily whipped out by the Slut&Skank Syndicate and the Fatass Feminist Fatwa whenever their wishful thinking collides with the immutable force of male nature. To make it as clear as possible for them: Men pump and dump party time pussies, but they don’t marry them when more chaste options are available.
To put it in terms that cater to women’s self-absorption, is it old-fashioned female insecurity when women balk at sleeping with plush, niceguy betas? Are women insecure in their own skin when they hesitate to marry unemployed men? The question answers itself.
By the way, a woman who sneeringly tells her fiancee she wouldn’t be fit to wear white at their wedding is just begging to be dumped like yesterday’s trash. However, it is a clever shit test. Any man INSECURE enough to stick around after such a cackling, sordid revelation has proven his beta bonafides.
******
Another reader sent me a link to fashion model tryouts in Russia. He knows this blog well. After perusing the photos (fully unclothed perusing) I composed this Ode to Russian Women:
Oh Sweet Russkie
Your beauty is like vuuudka
To incapacitate my mule
Your chiclet teeth like pearls
To chomp my borschty tool
Your round pushed-in face
Makes my ballsack quiver
When I shoot my load
In your mouth, it’s a river
Just one thing to note
Before I end this ode
Best to get you as a teen
After 30 it’s babushka load!
The description by the event organizers on the website is classic alpha Russian. And by alpha Russian, I mean they know how to BS without veering too far into neutered, politically correct Conor Friedersdorf territory.
Beauty is assessed in a different way. Various cultures praise various features and traits. It is not easy to find the diamond.
The desire to be at the podium and be admired is inside every girl. But only those models who succeeded can tell us how many worries and obstacles they had to overcome. The way to fame is paved with hard labor and constant work over oneself. Beauty is especially valued in the modern world. For many this is a chance to be noticed to get to more serious sphere than just unsteady fashion and beauty industry. In the effort to achieve the aim, the girls are looking for their happiness at the beauty contest. So today we would like to have a look at the stage before the contest, so you are invited to the casting in Minsk. The National School of Beauty in Minsk is going to hold the International Beauty Contest Miss Intercontinental. This is a beauty pageant known since 1973. What criteria will the jury follow first of all? This is natural beauty. When asked, the jury was not able to describe the portrait of potential winner, but still accented that the main thing is the inner beauty of the girl.
My favorite part of the website was the link to the Russian meat market girls:
The most striking result was in the responses of single women. Offered a single man, 59 per cent were interested in pursuing a relationship. But when he was attached, 90 per cent said they were up for the chase.
Men were keenest on pursuing new mates, but weren’t bothered whether their target was already attached or not. Attached women showed least interest and were slightly more drawn to single men.
You know that typical female lament “All the good men are taken”? It needs to be accurately rendered for the Darwin Generation: “All the taken men are good.” Mystery nailed this ten years ago: chicks dig preselection. The first thing you must do when going to a bar alone is befriend a chick. Start off low and work your way up to the hotties.
******
Over at The American Scene, I read another lame white knighting attempt by our favorite house beta Conor Friedersdorf to grapple with the eeeevil of the neg. The article was the usual misrepresentation of game and umbrage over the fact that men like sex with a variety of women that I’ve come to expect from the chipmunk-cheeked traditionalist conservative crowd, but Steve Sailer did leave a couple of worthy comments that deserve a second look:
The point of “game” is for guys who are stuck in subordinate positions to other men at work to learn techniques to pretend to women in bars that they are dominant over other men during the daytime (at least until the woman figures out that the guy isn’t making alpha male bucks at work).
So, many of the game techniques are ones that dominant men use on subordinate men at work, such as negging.
Consider the relationship between George W. Bush and Karl Rove. Obviously, Rove was smarter and harder working than Bush. So, why was he subordinate to Bush? In part, because Bush carried out classic dominant male behavior of alternating between praising Rove, holding out the vision of how far he could go as Bush’s subordinate, and negging him, calling him “Turd Blossom” and the like, to undermine his self-confidence. Bush always negged Rove with a smile on his face, but neg him he did.
The really interesting question about game is this: if some percentage of subordinate males can actually, through practice, can start fooling women in bars into believing they are dominant males, why not use the same self-improvement techniques to fool men at work? After all, if men believe you are an alpha male, then you are an alpha male. And if men think you are an alpha male, and give you money and power like they think you are an alpha male, then women will think you are an alpha male, too.
So, if these techniques really work, why restrict yourself to getting just Women when you can get Women, Money, and Power?
He’s half right. Some game techniques, like DHVs, compliance, and alpha body language, are mimickry of nonverbal and verbal dominance signals that men employ over other men, but many game concepts are not. For instance, social proof and kino escalation (layman’s term: progressively intimate touching), would get you disdain, envy, or a black eye if used on other men. But they work great on women.
This is why my definition of the alpha male is so elegant. It doesn’t rely on male dominance over other men or male dominance over women, for which those two phenomena overlap to a great degree anyhow. Instead, it quickly cuts to the chase and defines the alpha male by how hot are the women he can attract, how strong is that attraction for him, and how many of those women find him attractive.
Note for the dumbass betas: An alpha male is *not* necessarily the man who sleeps with a lot of women. He is the man who *could* sleep with a lot of women if he so chose.
As for Sailer’s poke at the end, who says Illuminated Men aren’t using game tactics in other areas of their lives? And for those who aren’t bothering to use game to achieve things of monumental importance in the corporate grind, perhaps they prefer the pussy path of least resistance. Not a sermon, just a thought.
Sailer writes another comment:
Negging is essential behavior in the formation of all-male and all-female social spheres.
Females tend to form small cliques and make catty remarks to drive away lower-status females.
Males negging other males can lead to violence, but it’s often less vicious than female negging. It can go on pleasantly for a lifetime: watch how four retired buddies insult each other on the golf course.
The main function of male vs. male negging, however, is hierarchy building. It’s a test of dominance to see who has the personality to be a leader. Leaders encourage it in social settings to check out which younger males have the attributes of quick-wittedness and aggression to become subordinate line managers within his hierarchy, and which would be better suited for staff roles.
The question, therefore, remains: Why not use Game not just in the bars but in the boardrooms to win not just women, but the power, money, and prestige that naturally attract women as well?
Presumably, Pick-Up Artistry works best for aggressive, quick-witted men who have flaws that prevent them from becoming leaders of men (e.g., laziness, need for instant gratification, and so forth).
It’s true that the men who take most quickly to the beauty of the neg are those who are already blessed by genetics with assertiveness and a quick wit, but all this means is that less-gifted men have to train harder to improve their lot with women. Like playing an instrument, it is possible for a man with sufficient practice to get better with women.
******
Dennis Mangan has a post up about game and social collapse. The comments section is ablaze. Take a look. I have been branded a desolate impact on civilization and a representative of the lowest moral order. *preen*
Here’s a clue, chipmunk-cheeked conservatives: If you wish to change the behavior of men, you first must change the behavior of women. The penis parades to the pussy tune, not the other way around. Your chivalry and paeans to honor and duty do nothing but fuel the decline. Guys like me laugh at your sacrifice.
And for those who continue troubling themselves over the conceptually useful and reality-reflecting definitions of alpha male and beta male, let me help clear up the matter. Alpha/beta isn’t a dichotomy. It’s a gradation; an attractiveness bell curve that is somewhat weighted toward the left hand side due to women’s propensity to “date up”. There are plenty of betas who do manage to get laid and find a woman to marry, but the devil is in the details. As you go down the beta scale, you find more men shut out of hot sex with women in their salad days (teens and twenties) and settling later in life with used-up cougars-in-waiting. The further leftward you descend, the more involuntarily celibate lesser betas and omegas you’ll see. The further rightward you ascend, the more happy alphas with their choice of poon dominate the sexual landscape.
******
On a more serious note, apparently Lady Laddie Gaga is a hermaphrodite. She gotta ween! Check it:
She’s a man, baby! David Alexander: “It moved, Jerry.”
A sexually frustrated beta has sublimated his pain into a murderous shooting spree aimed at his ex-girlfriend. He left an online diary behind offering a glimpse of his blackened soul:
Sodini’s Aug. 3 online diary entry, which included a date of death, was full of disturbing musings about religion and his plans for the attack. He noted that he hadn’t had a drink since 2:30 on Friday as part of his preparation.
“Total effort needed. Tomorrow is the big day. Unfortunately I talked to my neighbor today, who is very positive and upbeat. I need to remain focused and absorbed COMPLETELY,” the diary read. “Last time I tried this, in January, I chickened out.”
The diary also indicated that Sodini hadn’t had sex since 1990 and that his so-called “practice papers” — details about the planning of the attack — are welcome to be published afterward because “maybe all this will shed insight on why some people just cannot make things happen in their life, which can potentially benefit others”.
When men kill women, the underlying reason is almost always an unfulfilled psychosexual need. This goes for spree shooters, rapists, and serial killers. I’m not surprised Sodini hadn’t had sex in nearly 20 years. As I’ve written before, to some men on the losing side of the desireability bell curve celibacy is walking death and anything is justified in avoiding that miserable fate.
Click on the first link to see a picture of Sodini. He’s not a bad-looking guy and he’s in shape. There is nothing outwardly repulsive about him that would cripple his chances with women. But as we know the physical appearance of a man reveals little about the state of his spirit. A decent looking guy can harbor the sunken ship of a broken beta heart, and clearly Sodini was a beta, if not an omega, as his 20 year dry spell attests.
If Sodini had learned game he would have been able to find another woman and gotten laid after his ex dumped him. He wouldn’t have spent the next 20 years steeped in bile and weighed down by his Sisyphian blue balls, dreaming of vengeance. Game could have saved the lives of the women Sodini killed.
I agree with the gist of what commenter Whiskey has written — as the West reverts back to the ancestral sexual market that is currently in operation in sub-Saharan Africa, we are going to see a growing eunuchracy of involuntarily celibate betas and the marginalized men in their ranks decide that exiting in a blaze of hot lead beats living in loveless obscurity. And ex-girlfriends are target #1.
Since about 1964, the gap between women and men in their identification with the Democrat Party and their Democrat voting patterns has been steadily increasing, with the increase especially pronounced starting in the mid 1990s. And as a friendly reminder, single women voted for Obama by a canyon-sized margin of 70%-29%.
There are a few predominant reasons for the gender gap, which I explained lucidly in this post. In short, women are voting more Democrat because the Democrat Party is the prime force for turning the government into the world’s biggest provider beta. From the time of the “sexual revolution” (which was really a “sexual devolution” back towards pre-agricultural mating norms when 80% of the women and 40% of the highest testosterone men reproduced) women have been more free to choose mating opportunities based on their gina tingles and the economic and social empowerment granted, respectively, by their pointless humanities degrees and the disintegration of traditional slut shaming mechanisms. The life of serial monogamy and alpha cock hopping has never been more attainable for the average American woman, and the result has been predictable: Women are substituting the beta males they no longer want or need for marriage with a Big Brother Daddy government to help them foot the child-raising bills that their PUA, drug running and serial killer lovers won’t.
Lest you’re tempted to blame the badboy bandits for not contributing their share, remember that women enter into relationships with these types of guys KNOWING FULL WELL they cannot be depended upon for support, and not even bothering to expect support from them. How often have you wondered why jilted women express more animus for their dumped betaboy child support and alimony paying lickspittles than for the irresponsible jerks who pump and dump them? Thanks to me, now you know why.
My gender gap theory can be refined even further, to get at the very heart of the issue, the fundamental law expressed in nearly every political trend of the past 40 years:
Maxim #66: As men are becoming ever bigger pussies and betas in their dealings with women, they are losing the leverage to shape and push women’s child-like and selfishly amoral political opinions in logical, just and long-term oriented directions.
Eventually, the world created by women will collapse, as all worlds built strictly on conceited, single-minded pragmatism utterly blind to the bigger picture must. The Democrat Party is merely the fool’s tool that fully emancipated women use to craft their poison utopia. As there are more women and joyriding alpha males than there are beta males, this collapse is inevitable, barring a violent revolution that discredits the philosophy of the voting booth.
Questions arise. Is it good for humanity if a socially enforced monogamous marriage system gives 90+% of men access to pussy and the replication of their genes? Had this been the case throughout prehistory, we modern humans might never have evolved. We are here in our present form because a majority of men (and some women) were denied, often cruelly, often tragically, a chance at reproduction. The sacrifice in blood and in psychological torment and emotional despair of countless distant ancestors was required to make us human as we now know it. We are living monuments to bloodshed and pain. Praise God and all His glorious works.
So while a mating system where 90% of men reproduce and are thus invested in the outcome of their society, and where women’s dangerously wild sexual and social impulses are partly constrained, has given us the pinnacle of civilization in the West and the East Asian lands, it may also contain the seed of its own demise. The widening gender gap is the canary in the coalmine; it is telling us that the final demise has arrived.
Some of the changes [with the introduction of sexbots] I foresee:
Omegas(geeks, nerds, dweebs, trolls, dregs, dullards, bums, street filth, etc.) – will finally have a satisfying release for their pent-up horniness. Crime will likely drop as a result. So will rape. Widely available sexbots are analogous to cheap, legal prostitution, minus the STDs and needle tracks. On the whole I think it is a social good to distract the losers from their grinding misery.
Then, in August 2008, I wrote the following in my “Universal Truths” post:
Legalizing prostitution will reduce the incidence of rape.
Well, once again science has vindicated the Chateau worldview. Widespread availability of porn (where porn is similar to prostitutes and hypothetical sexbots in that it provides men a sexual outlet) has reduced the prevalence of rape:
TABLE 3. COMBINED PER CAPITA PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN INCIDENCE OF RAPE.
Aggregate per capita increase or decline in rape.
Four states with lowest internet access Increase in rape of 53%
Four states with highest internet access Decrease in rape of 27%
I find these results to be statistically significant beyond the .95 confidence interval.
[Reporter: That is measuring the changes in rape from 1980 (very definitely pre-internet) to 2000.]
Just as I surmised. Of course, this is all common sense to those with the eyes to see and without an ideological axe to grind. Yes, Jezebel-ers, rape really is about sex. The boner doesn’t lie.
The dark, dreary, ugly landscape of human nature that I drive like a stake through every happy heart holds dominion over us all, forever and ever, amen.
Commenter Ben left a link in the comments from this post to an anthropology blog written by a guy named Dienekes, who posed the above question in a post comparing the beauty of top models and actresses in 2008 to leading actresses from the 1940s.
The pictures above are computer generated composites of, on the left, eight hot babes from Askmen.com’s Top 99 Women of 2008, and on the right, seven Best Actress Oscar winners from the 1940s. If you go to the Dienekes link, you’ll see photos of the individual women used to make the composites.
A couple thoughts…
Both women are attractive. This isn’t a comparison between beautiful and not beautiful; it’s a comparison between two beauties of nuanced facial differences. My jizzbombs would travel impressive distances with either woman in my bed of sin, though I’d feel more emotional satisfaction — more OWNAGE — spackling the woman on the right because she has the look of Bambi-fied innocence. The woman on the left is only superficially penetrable.
The 2008 composite hot babe is more masculine than the 1940s composite hottie. 2008 woman has smaller eyes, slightly thinner lips, more angular jawline, and a heavier brow ridge overhang — all indicators of masculinization. She has a smaller nose, which is more feminine, but with nose jobs being standard operating procedure for modern women in the looks-based industries (actresses included) it’s not revealing to compare the natural noses of past beauties with the manufactured noses of present beauties.
I bet if I could feel the cheeks of each woman the cheek of the 2008 composite would have a soft layer of vellous peach fuzz, while the cheek of the 1940s composite would be nearly free of vestigial ape fur. I’d also bet that the 2008 composite is sluttier than the 1940s composite, and more likely to make you eat a dick sandwich.
I found these composites fascinating for what it potentially reveals about American mating preferences of the last 60 years. Is it simply an example of marketers, agents, and producers in 2008 choosing women who look masculinized based on the whims of personal (read: gay) preference? Or is the genetic pool of beauties becoming more masculinized such that there aren’t many ultrafeminine women available to rise up the ranks of the looks-based industries? If the latter, is it possible for the genetic substrate of OBJECTIVELY DEFINABLE beauty to change so rapidly? Within a few generations? My belief is that it is equally likely that genetic change drives cultural change as the other way around, and this includes the average change in women’s facial bone morphology.
Stepping back to look at the big picture, it would make sense in a world of Western decline where white men are becoming feminized that white women should become masculinized. But why are women getting a harder, badass Lara Croftian look? I submit there are three primary reasons for the change:
Avery Leake, 25, knows what this is like from the other side. He’s in a relationship now, but he says that, in general, most of the young women he used to meet “just wanted sex. They’re independent.” Being in a relationship was not important to them, especially if it interfered with their careers or their pursuit of advanced degrees, he says.
Leake found that he was also up against women who had as much money as he had, if not more, and he says dating had just become too expensive. “You used to be able to get away with paying $30 for a dinner and a movie,” Leake says. “Not anymore.”
As masculinization plays a major role in determining how eager a woman will be to ride the cock carousel, the single mother slut wave of post-nuclear family America has evolved a generally manlier disposition in both appearance and attitude.
2. Women living under the new rules of the polygyny-favoring modern sexual market are choosing alpha males at greater rates than women under the older, monogamy-favoring system. And naturally, the alpha males these women choose are more masculine than the betas they are no longer keen on settling down with. When they have kids with these alpha skittles men — and it’s the low class Idiocratic brood sows who are having more kids than the play-by-the-rules plush beta herbs — the thug genes are passed on and their sons are born with their fists already swinging or holding a beer and their daughters are born with lantern jaws and a propensity to fuck with piston-like efficiency.
Behold the future that single moms with a vaginal itch for tattoos, bikers, and pimpslap game bequeath us with their vile spawn:
Boys who carry a particular variation of the gene Monoamine oxidase A (MAOA), sometimes called the “warrior gene,” are more likely not only to join gangs but also to be among the most violent members and to use weapons, according to a new study from The Florida State University that is the first to confirm an MAOA link specifically to gangs and guns.
3.Gender bending chemical sabotage is altering the sexual landscape. High carb, low fat diets are making women more masculine and the Pill is fucking with women’s mate selection filters. Estrogenic compounds in the water supply from urine secreted by women on the Pill may also be messing around with male hormonal profiles, contributing to the recent shift to dandyism.
Interestingly, the case can be made that it’s no accident the rise of the subculture of seduction science and its PUA practitioners follows closely the rise of the masculinized Western white woman. Ultimately, for a guy who has game, a sexual market filled with slutty, aggressive women is a pussy boon. But for the hapless beta male offering his thin gruel of a steady corporate income and clockwork dependability, the rise of the Terminatrix has been a dispiriting bust.
