Why Don’t Fathers Teach Their Sons Well?

How many of the men reading this have fathers who give (or gave) them realtalk about women? How many had heart to hearts with Pops about what women really desire in men? Reader Zombie Shane writes:

I have a theory about “The Natural”.

It’s kinda the White Peoples’ version of Amy Chua and the Tiger Mom phenomenon.

And here’s the theory: I think that some Dads CHEAT and teach their sons all the secrets at a very young age.

Kinda like what Adam Carolla and Jimmy Kimmel used to do with that fat obnoxious kid on The Man Show.

Can you imagine how much more poontang you would have scored in the early years if your Dad had taught you the forbidden secrets?

But instead your Dad forces you to be self-taught and to learn all the lessons for yourself.

Yeah, long-term, it’s a much better character-building exercise to absorb all the “hard knocks”, and to learn from experience, but wow, can you imagine if you had had the “White-Peoples-Amy-Chua-Dad” in, say, Middle School?

Being an 8th-Grader and hitting on all that fine-assed perky young just-barely-pubescent poontang?

Shit damn, man, shit damn.

Actually, on second thought [thinking about all that jailbait tail], maybe I should thank my Dad for keeping me out of prison [or at least out of Reform School] at that age…

The fact that you had a dad around to raise you is a leading indicator he is a beta male who himself didn’t know the secrets to women. That’s my theory for why more fathers don’t teach their sons the truth about women: they don’t know it themselves!

Not that there’s anything wrong with having a beta male for a father. If you like civilization you can thank beta male fathers.

Another theory that perhaps explains why so many fathers neglect their duty to impart the lessons of love to their sons is that they feel embarrassed talking about these topics. Even the most cold-blooded womanizers would squirm a little when the time came for them to teach what they’ve learned to their sons. And it’s easy to understand why: when you know women inside and out, you can’t help but be aware of their unsavory natures. Any talk with your son is going to necessarily implicate his mother.

Finally, there are some fathers who are so alpha that they actually view their sons as competition. To them, revealing the secret of snatch is like fraternizing with the enemy. These aging Lotharios wistfully long for the days when pubescent poose clung to them like dryer lint. In some dark recess of their minds, they harbor an envy for their sons which motivates them to conceal their knowledge.

Ultimately, though, I think the best explanations for the dearth of fatherly wisdom regarding female nature is that there are too few fathers experienced in the ways of women to know what to teach, and there are too many fathers protective of their children’s mothers who fear the risk that dangerous knowledge would tarnish by association the esteem with which the children hold their mothers (and sisters).

There is also the theory — and I throw this out here for completeness — that fathers are somehow genetically or psychologically predisposed to encourage their sons to attain resources and status to win the attentions of high value women, and that this mitigates against them teaching their sons the dark arts of seduction which would enable them to short circuit the laborious process that is the conventional method for attracting women.

As regards the origin of Naturals, the greatest influence on them is likely to have been their peers rather than their fathers. Or, if they have been influenced by their fathers, to have been influenced *despite* their fathers’ reticence to share their wisdom. I suspect Naturals benefit from three advantages, in varying degrees of imprint, that most men don’t have:

1. Fathers and friends who teach them the effective (note: I did not say morally righteous) alpha attitude through their own behavior with women.

2. Favorable genetic traits in whatever ratio, which may include sociopathy, narcissism, lack of empathy, mesomorphy, good looks, high sociosexuality, intelligence, artistry, humor.

3. Fortuitous successful early encounters with girls that set the budding Naturals on a path of alluring self-assurance.

So… if your father was an unapologetic cheater, you see vaginas in every Rorschach test, and you got your first knob job at the ripe age of seven, chances are good you are a Natural with women. Chances are also good you would not be able to teach other men what you know, because you only know it intuitively.

Read Full Post »

The Predictable Call To Accept The Wages Of Slut

Way back, Chateau Heartiste wrote in regards the spreading (heh) sluttification of America:

Single moms like to talk about how they do things on their own, and they “don’t need a man”. But in fact, flex time and related corporate incentives *are* a form of substitute husband and father. That money for flex time has to come from somewhere, usually in higher prices for the company’s products or in lowered salaries for its employees. It is private welfare, but welfare just the same. Now companies can choose to offer this to their heart’s content; after all, no one is forcing me to buy their products or work there and thus subsidize the lifestyles of a bunch of single moms and harried working moms. But my advice to men who want to maximize their earning potential — work for companies that don’t offer generous payoffs in an effort to recruit working moms. It is likely you will command a higher salary with more patriarchal companies. […]

When financially self-sufficient women turn away from beta providers as a source of sexual arousal, they substitute other alpha male qualities in its place. Big government is a beta provider substitute with alpha male qualities.

Fast forward to today: GLPiggy has a post up quoting a young, newly minted feminist who wishes to strip single momhood of its social stigma.

Teen motherhood, single motherhood, unmarried cohabitation—these are not plagues or social ills that pose a threat to the otherwise normal structures of everyday life. They are our new social reality.

What the show doesn’t get to is that this is a good thing.

There is nothing wrong with teenage or single motherhood. The things children need: economic livelihood, emotional support and an education, are not dependent on a nuclear family structure. Poverty is poverty whether it’s endured by two people or four. A couple cannot raise a child better than one can. Once we get rid of the idea that marriage is the privileged form of cohabitation and that women cannot raise children without the help of a man—ideas that the Left has been working to eradicate for decades—there is no reason that a teen should not be financially and emotionally assisted for her choice to have a family. The potential diffusion of the family (as the New York Times recently reported, it doesn’t look like the trends will stop anytime soon) is one of the most exciting things to happen to the American social pattern since sexual liberation. It means the end of what were just decades ago universal truths: every household must be headed by a breadwinning man; only when married will a woman have social value.

I invite readers to draw the relevant connections between these two excerpts.

Meanwhile, I suggest aspiring single moms who wish to truly Go Their Own Way (SGTOW?) practice what they preach and divest themselves of all male support, in whatever form. That means: no redistribution from unrelated men to single moms, no corporate welfare in the form of maternity leave or flex time or special insurance policy discounts, no government handouts predicated on number of children, no shamelessness exacerbating EBT cards, no punitive alimony or child support payouts, no affirmative action for the children of single moms. In short, no sexless drone provider beta male largesse to save single moms from a self-inflicted life of indigent misery.

If this were to happen, and feminists were taken at their word and bequeathed a world in which all male influence was excised from their lives and they were left to fend for themselves and their bastard spawn, empowered and self-actualized, the resulting river of blood and the symphony of children’s cries reverberating through hell’s heart itself would quickly, very quickly I predict, disabuse feminist cunts of the luxury of their man and father hatred. Lie-exalting ruling class sophistry would blow away effortlessly like hay in a hurricane.

But of course feminists don’t really want men removed from their lives; they love having de facto castrated beta males foot their bills, and the bills of their unholy unclaimed consolidated stem cell packages. A massive transfer of wealth from quasi-cuckolded beta males to feckless females is the *whole point*, the UR PURPOSE, of feminism. It is giving women what they want — money and support — to do as they please, without asking of them anything in return (typically, sex and fidelity).

In the distant future, when archaeologists (or aliens who are rummaging through the wreckage of their terraforming experiment) stumble upon a lone monolithic server storing the collected wisdom of this blog, the group of excavators will hook it up, read the ancient scrolls, and stare in quiet at their feet as a depressing realization sweeps over their collective consciousness:

“someone knew. someone saw it coming.”

And from the origin point of the universe, a great guffaw will issue, and galaxies will rattle as the mightiest HAA HAWW ever to grace the cosmic firmament blasts forth from its waiting slumber.

Read Full Post »

How To Reframe Against Leftists (And Women)

A commenter at Mangan’s linked to a recent 60 Minutes segment which discussed study findings that babies are born with a moral compass and innate biases against people (or things) not like themselves. In short, it would appear that in-groupism, and hostility to the Other, is inborn in all of us.

Favoritism for one’s own kind and racism are, not to put too fine a point on it, a property of human nature and not something “taught” or constructed out of whole cloth by mean parents, the KKK, or afrocentric studies professors. This property can certainly be amplified or dampened by cultural intervention, but it cannot be eradicated or wished away.

In-groupism has evolved for a reason, and that reason likely led to an increase in reproductive fitness for those humans who had the gene(s) for in-groupism. In-groupism is, from the gene’s point of view, a GOOD THING. Now whether in-groupism is still as fitness maximizing today as it necessarily has been throughout human history is another question, but no one can seriously argue that it’s a pointless emotional reflex only designated “bad people” (read: working class white men) possess. If you need the dots connected, tribal favoritism is as natural as love.

As I am a person who generally prefers to not make life miserable for the mediocre masses who are just trundling by trying to eke out a slice of joy without stepping on my toes, I instinctively recoil at those self-righteous social engineers who would attempt to reprogram certain classes of people (read: working class white men) to betray their essence as human beings in order to more properly mouth the hypocritical bleatings of the gated-community pompous elite. So, inevitably, when some malevolent leftists seize on these studies and deliberately misconstrue the message they should be taking from them to further their anti-human status whoring agenda, I draw my sword and level it at their throats.

Since beheading of one’s ideological enemies is not yet (again) in fashion, we must settle for the weapon of our words, and no verbal artillery is more powerful in today’s snark-soaked society than the insouciant reframe. A successful reframe will win friends and influence people, and, best of all, it will drive your foes insane with impotent rage.

To wit: the commenter at Mangan’s worried that our leftist overlords would misuse this study for their nefarious ends, instead of taking the proper lesson from it that their unpracticed worldview is a mile high pile of horseshit.

Babies are born to be biased against the other. And to listen to these PC Marxist Professors going ‘Oh no, we have to train these people out of this’. Instead of saying wait a minute–maybe I’m wrong about political correctness.

How would your typical ankle-grabbing rightie like, oh, say, Rich Lowry, reply to a ruling class leftist who asserted that any proof of hard-wired racism meant that emotionally torturous reeducation must continue until morale improves? Likely, he would comply that steps must be taken to reduce the chance that inborn racism would lead to immigration restrictions, but that we must also be careful not to place any blame on [white men] for their regressive views because, after all, they were born with this original sin, blah fucking blah.

No doubt the mass of mainstream “””conservatives””” would fall right in step with their leftie tormentors’ frames, presenting their chafed rumps for yet another humiliating ramming.

Now how would this conversation go if the ruling class leftie had to confront an aloof asshole like yours truly who didn’t give a shit about clinking glasses with rancid anti-white leftoids at stiffly polite cocktail parties?

Leftoid: “Oh no, we have to train [white men] out of this.”

Demon’s Herald: “Sure, and while we’re at it, what do you think of training gays out of their homosexuality? It’ll cut down on the AIDS if the studies are to be believed.”

The masterful reframe uses the momentum of your enemy’s thrusting knife against him. Your goal with any reframe should be to either divert the withering mockery of the audience toward your opponent, or to ensnare your opponent in a logic trap which forces him to defend whatever blithe inanity he intones to lubricate his limbic folds.

It is similar in function to seductive reframes with women: you either redirect a woman’s alpha probing into self-conscious insecurity where she will revert to defending her attitude and become psychologically conditioned to perceive you as higher value than herself, or you make her feel the burn of mockery that is the undercurrent of teasing foreplay leading to sexual relinquishment to your obvious dominating presence.

Here’s another example. A commenter at Larry Auster’s accurately imagines what a typical anti-white leftoid (in this case, John Podhoretz) would say to a realist schooled in the facts of intransigent human nature and the evolved preference for tribalism:

You [Auster] wrote:

“But humanity does not consist of universal individuals. It consists of various cultures, ethnicities, and races all of which have particular identities, characteristics, ability levels, values, and agendas which are different from those of the host society. As a result, the mass presence of those different groups in the host society, far from advancing right-liberal equal freedom, empowers their unassimilable identities, characteristics, ability levels, values, and agendas, and thus changes the host country from a right-liberal society into a multicultural, left-liberal, racial-socialist society whose ruling principle is equality of outcome for all groups.”

To which Podhoretz pere et fils would surely reply, “Why do you hate freedom?”

How does a weak-willed, supplicating, betaboy “””conservative””” like, oh, say, Jim Geraghty, respond to this all-too-realistic, imagined Podhoretz coercive frame? Probably something like this: “I don’t hate freedom! Really, I don’t! Look, some of my best friends are freedom lovers. And I promise never again to use the word slut, no matter how applicable it is. Be kind to me?”

Lame. Podhoretz owns the frame, and Geraghty is just playing within its bounds.

Now how would this imagined yet highly probable conversation go if Podhoretz were trying to box in a mischief maker like yours sincerely?

Pod: “Why do you hate freedom?”

Demon’s Padawan: “Why do you fellate goats?”

Leftoid’s frame destroyed, razed by brutal and vicious ridicule, and, should the demonic horde so choose, seamlessly replaced with a frame of their comfortable choosing.

Some GOP operatives who shall remain unnamed have written here asking for ideas about reframing against the media-dominated leftism that rules the airwaves and the shit channels. Well, here are some ideas. I could give more, but I don’t feel much like it, mostly because I have my suspicions that the lot of the mainstream right isn’t really interested in LISTENING and WAKING THE FUCK UP, but instead would prefer the glass-clinking route until either the whole thing goes down in flames or they can grab the coattails of a truly brave leader and say “See, I was right there with you all along!”

Fucking puling waterboys. Ass-lapping company men.

Anyhow, I leave you with this final thought: Mockery.

Mockery.

And more mockery.

This is the age of superficiality, of winning through intimidation, and the only way the right is ever going to defeat the left in any meaningful manner is to mock them relentlessly, mercilessly, sadistically. You cannot defeat snark — the leftoid’s debate tactic of choice — with logical exposition or appeals to civility. You only kill it by turning it on itself. If you think this is a sorry turn of events… well, it is, but it’s the world we live in. Abide reality, or abort. The reality is that three huge branches of mind massaging — the media, academia, and government — are in control of the discourse, and it is blatantly against your interests as a realist thinker and lover of truth and beauty.

Appeasement is a luxury of winners.

Even then, even if the right took all my advice and gamed the shit out of their media cockblocks and the LJBF electorate, there may be no saving this sinking ship. Even the tightest game is no match for a demographic tsunami that is constitutionally wedded to the idea of Big Daddy State and Bad, Beta White Man.

As always,

yours in poolside.

Read Full Post »

Judging Sluts

The Man Who Was… comments:

It’s hard for men to hold two contradictory attitudes towards sluttiness at once, so PUA advice to just be non-judgmental is better if your only goal is getting laid.

Some readers are under the mistaken impression that my posts about slutty women and the deleterious effects they have on society and marital/LTR stability must mean that I conduct my dating life with a stern judgmental attitude toward women and with the goal of flushing out sluts from my pool of prospects.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I will conceal my true feelings when concealing them is personally advantageous. No way no how am I getting the play I do if I decide to accost every girl I date for a spreadsheet of her sexual history. Real life doesn’t work that way. I want to disable women’s anti-slut defenses, not power them up. I don’t know about you, but when I date, my idea of a successful close is the opposite of the girl clamping her legs shut.

Now, if I am in the market for a long-term girlfriend, I will, post haste, covertly judge my dates for their sexual modesty, and screen out those women who strike me as being world class cock consumers. This, too, is to my personal advantage, for the chronic slut is a potential cheating risk, not to mention a barrel of drama queen laughs that gets tiresome sooner rather than later.

Commenter YaReally is correct to say that adopting a pose of non-judgmentalism as regards women’s sexuality is practically a sine qua non for womanizers. I have yet to meet an experienced player who harshly condemned women (to their faces) for any perceived sluttery. And, let’s face it, when you’re an unmarried guy just looking for a piece of tail, you’re more apt to light up with happy anticipation than power down with clucking disapproval when you learn that the girl you are talking to is handicapped in the sexual self-control department.

“She’s good to go!” isn’t a male rallying cry for nothing.

All that said, I find it off-putting when players try to spin certain obviously self-serving game strategies into self-righteous moral crusades. Some famous PUAs are particularly susceptible to this (cough Neil Strauss cough). Encouraging women to be comfortable with expressing, and surrendering, their sexuality as part of a designed pickup strategy is not equivalent to some grandiose philosophy about the life-giving blessings that sluts bring to the cosmic symphony. Sluts are, in fact, anti-civilization; so if you like being surrounded by the good things in life, and living in a prosperous nation, you would not want too many women to embrace the cock-hopping credo.

Which brings me to the crux of this post. A campaign to relieve women of their sexual coyness and take up the slut banner would, given enough converts, actually work against the goals of players. You see, the sexual non-judgmentalism player pose only works when there is a dominant social current that encourages the opposite. The “secret society” and “you and me against the world, baby” subliminal connection that bonds a woman to the player and tempts her to unleash the loin needs an over-arching force to push against, or it withers from its own growing conventionality and dullness. There is no giddy feeling of taboo breaking when every other girl is happy to give it up for pennies to the dollar, and every other man is spouting the same tired non-judgmentalism schtick.

So, paradoxically, players ought to pray that the greater society keeps their lasses on a leash, else they might see their prey decide that laying down with lions is not as much fun as it used to be.

Read Full Post »

Reformed Beta Of The Month

Le Chateau has highlighted great and gruesome stories of alphas and betas, but what about those beta males who transcend, through sheer force of will, the prison of their supplicating souls? More than a learning tool or a life lesson, these enlightened post-betas are inspirations. The 80% or so of men who qualify as beta males need a role model like them; someone who can show them the way. There is a better life if they would just take it, and the reformed beta is proof that you don’t have to be born an alpha to have the good things in life and experience the flush of power that the alpha male takes for granted.

My prudish husband has left me because I lied about my sex life

When I met my husband 40 years ago I knew he was ‘the one.’ He had firm opinions on sex before marriage (outdated even then) and was a virgin.

As I got to know him, it became clear that he’d never consider marrying somebody with ‘history.’ He thought sex special and wouldn’t want to imagine his wife having it with others.

But, by 22, I’d been having sex for four years. Madly in love and wanting him to marry me, I lied.

He was bound to realise I wasn’t a virgin, so I made up a story that I’d been in a long engagement, giving up my virginity under pressure only a month before my wedding day, then reluctantly had sex twice with my fiancé, who then dumped me, leaving me devastated and ashamed.

He was very understanding and proposed soon after. We married and moved to his home town — a relief, as I’d worried we might bump into a friend who might speak out of turn.

We had two children and a very happy and successful marriage. But a few weeks ago, an old friend contacted me over the internet, and I invited her round.

My husband left us to talk and went off to the garden. Inevitably we talked of the past.

After she left, I found my husband looking devastated. He said he’d gone into the conservatory to read and heard everything.

He said he felt utterly betrayed, as he had a right to expect honesty, but our entire marriage had been based on a fundamental lie.

I said we’d had a wonderful 40 years, so what could it matter what I did before I met him?

He moved in to the spare room and avoided me. A week later he moved to a bedsit and told me he wanted a divorce.

Nothing would change his mind. Our adult children have tried, but he is absolutely fixed.

Men who want to find a woman for a long-term relationship or marriage (a codified LTR) are put off by histories of a slutty past. The woman who has given herself freely to men before him proves that old GBFM aphorism that it makes no sense for a man to pay for the pussy that was handed over no strings attached to other men when it was younger, hotter, tighter. You don’t seriously invest in a rode hard and tossed away wet pussy; instead, you ride it harder and wear it out a little more, then look for fresher pussy that doesn’t need its 60,000 cockas maintenance as soon as you sign the dotted line.

My method may be glib, intended to inflict maximum emotional pain for make benefit of my personal amusement, but the foundation upon which the glibness rests is true. Men have evolved intricate mental algorithms that subconsciously push them to devalue women with extensive sexual histories as long-term partners. The reason for this is obivous: the slut is a bigger infidelity risk, and thus a bigger cuckolding risk, than the chaste woman. Science has proven this, in yet another example of the lab coat crowd catching up with conventional wisdom and common sense observation.

Therefore, when a long-loyal husband finds out his wife rode the cock carousel, even if discovered to have occurred in a prior life of hers, his respect for her drops a notch. His love for her shrinks three sizes. His honed beta ability and predilection to put her on a pedestal and adore her suffers a grievous diminishment. She has, in a word, become a less worthy woman in his eyes. And, likewise, in the eyes of all men, because men, like women, share universal preferences for certain types of mates.

So good for this reformed beta for walking away from his once-whore wife. In the big picture, the sin she committed may be small, but sometimes it takes horrible and swift retribution by a man to violently shake a woman, and women in her sphere of influence, from comfortable delusions and easy expectations regarding the self-imposition of controls on their behavior. All it takes is a relatively few betas to toss a stone cold rock in the world of women and the ripples will eddy and swirl through the masses. The beta male has suddenly become uncontrollable, unpredictable, untamable! This is the stuff of revolution, and it will set women on the path to happiness more powerfully than a million grrlpower tomes, feminist blogs or fat acceptance hugboxes.

The haters are apoplectic. Their splutter is the stuff of delicious slo-mo videos. “But but but,” they will protest, “I can be slutty and still land a man! Any man who leaves me because I’m a slut doesn’t deserve me!”

Deservin’s got nothin’ to do with it, honey. It’s biomechanical turtles all the way down.

But I’ll throw the haters a bone, here. Yes, it’s true that a slut, assuming she is sufficiently physically attractive, can cajole a man into a relationship. Men are, before all else, born slaves to a pretty female face, and it takes effort to break those chains forged of unalloyed pulchritude. Many men do indeed slavishly pursue sluts simply because those sluts are hot with perfect apple bottoms.

But “sufficiently attractive” is the key word. The higher value the man, the more beautiful the slut has to be to ensnare him in a relationship. High value men, aka alphas, have options in the mating market that beta males don’t; these men, when they aren’t just plowing through sluts for fun and penile profit, will generally balk at dating sluts in favor of settling down with more modest, and less sexually experienced, women.

There is, then, a tacit assumption that the sorts of men the feminist sluts are pulling aren’t exactly the top of the alpha male heap. They are likely beta males, maybe some of them greater omegas with cute undulating manboobs and receding chins, who are so desperate for sex and female love that they can readily suppress their distaste for sluts if it means having a girl on their arms.

Maxim #56: The more limited a person’s options in the sexual market, the laxer his or her mate standards.

(For those interested in the science behind this, I believe there is a study floating around internetland which purports to show that very beautiful women with extensive sexual histories don’t suffer too much of a hit to their marriage marketability, because the betas who marry them are quick to forgive their slutty ways. In short, very hot women are so intoxicating that many men will assume the higher risk of getting cuckolded by them for the chance to enjoy a few years of glorious, incomparably pleasurable sex.)

In stark contrast, have you ever seen what an alpha male does to plain-looking sluts? It isn’t pretty. To call it pump and dump would be a euphemism. Think more along the lines of “facelessly screw and scatter to the wind”.

These realities of the sexual market aren’t often instantly apprehensible. You can go a few years only subconsciously picking up cues that your behavior is hurting your mate value. But in the aggregate of many lifetimes, and over each lifetime, the god of biomechanics imposes his relentless, merciless, unavoidable will. And you will bend the knee to him, sooner or later. You have no choice.

Read Full Post »

Why Single White Women Vote Overwhelmingly For Democrats

I left this comment over at GL Piggy’s, on a post about election predictions. I think it is worth reprinting here (with additional commentary) because of its timeliness.

PA: “In reality, young white women’s pro-Obama leanings are a factor of their feminine/nurturer pity for a omegas for which “poor blacks,” “inner city single moms” and other such are a stand-in in their minds.”

There is this. In actuality, I think it is a confluence of three psychological factors that pushes a huge majority of single white women into the arms of Dem pols. (Single NAM women follow the gibsmedat principle almost exclusively.)

1. As PA states, women have an inborn disposition toward nurturance, and the pity is strong in them. I think women get off a little on feeling pity and sympathy for others, and feeling needed by the less fortunate. This is why so many women flock to work in the human despair services fields, like nursing or teaching. Married women also have this nurturance instinct, but it is redirected to their own families, which turns their moral focus inward to the center ring of the concentric rings of genetic distance and moral regard. This in effect makes them more GOP friendly (and more sane from a societal perspective), and we see this reflected in the polls.

2. As Whiskey states (well, speaking on the record, as *I* originally stated), single women’s prime directive is to fulfill their hypergamous impulse for the highest possible status man they can coax into long-term commitment. The party that is perceived as being pro-unrestricted female sexuality, anti-male sexuality, and anti-drone beta male is going to get their vote. You would probably not be surprised to learn that not only do single white SWPL chicks just automatically ASSUME everyone in their social circle is an Obama cultist (yours truly gets a pass because CHARMING BASTARD), the first thing that pops in their heads when you ask them why they’re voting for Obama is usually something along the lines of “Romney wants to take away my birth control”. Yeah, these are educated women saying this. Thanks suffrage!

The fact is, marriage advocacy (and earlier marriage) is bad for young women’s sexual market value leverage, (but good for older married women’s SMV leverage who, it should be noted, were the original pro-monogamy constituents and advocates). A party that embodies the single and seeking alpha cock in the city lifestyle will appeal to them. The party which is perceived (facts don’t really matter in politics) as pushing women to settle down early with a reliable company man and start popping out future video gamers is anathema to the single, economically self-sufficient, white woman sensibility.

3. Finally, and perhaps most saliently, single white women see Big Daddy State as a beta provider husband substitute. This has nothing to do with pity for the downtrodden masses and everything to do with “how much money and services I can redirect my way with an assist from the white knight contingent”. The single white woman who delays family formation finds herself battling her ancient subterranean limbic rhythms which always and everywhere guide her to seek out potential mates who could provide resources for her and her children, particularly when she is burdened by pregnancy and mostly unable (at least as would have been the case in the ancestral environment) to fully provide for herself. The single white woman, lacking the beta provider hubby (ironically, mostly by her own hand) seeks to fill his absence with the alternative — the looming Big Man tribal leader, which in modern America is the federal government, and its shaman is Obama. Women are naturally redistributionist because women are naturally self-aggrandizing and self-entitled, as befits their higher reproductive worth. And, more controversially, a very bad man like myself would say that women are naturally comfortable in quasi-harem arrangements, which is what the single woman concubine-government alpha provider relationship amounts to. And just like an alpha provider/protector, the government is very good at forcibly extracting tribute from the beta male masses.

On this last factor, the American growth industry of single moms is certainly pushing the country in a more redistributionist direction, because no demographic outside of blacks, gays and Hispanics is more generally and reliably pro-government handout than the single mom with kids to feed and no dad around to help out.

Alert the media! The stereotypes are true! Sanitization Protocol… activated.

In effect, Big Government is at once the alpha male tribal leader and the beta provider sucker who happily assumes the cuckold role as step-father to the single mom’s cadbaggage.

Now, the final, and most emotionally laden, variable in this equation is the black man angle. Both sides in this long-running debate have their points. My take from ground-level recon is that the people claiming single white women love alpha black men are overstating their case, and the people claiming single white women would never think of hooking up with “lower class, less accomplished, thug” black men are overstating theirs. White women do find plenty of black men physically exciting. And smarter white women do hesitate to date black men because of a very reasonable fear that, should a warpling issue from the union (this is always in the back of women’s minds, despite the easy availability of contraceptives), the black man will be less likely than the white man to stick around and care for her in her time of need.

As far as a I can tell, contra white nationalist hopes and dreams, single white women have ZERO concept of loyalty for their white men. Try to explain to your typical single white woman about the importance of loyalty to her men and of the idea of genetically preserving the white race’s unique winning attributes, and you may as well be a Martian spurting goo all over her. Now, in practice, one could argue that unmarried white women exercise a de facto loyalty to their men, because most white chicks date white men, and studies have shown that white women are the most resistant to dating outside their race. But how long will this hold? Census data points to a slow but inexorable increase in out-marrying and out-dating by white women (and white men). If there is some subconscious racial loyalty or primal preference acting to steer the tingles of single white women (and I believe there is), it is showing signs of withering under a coordinated cultural assault that has made even broaching the topic the equivalent of condemning oneself to the social gulag.

Btw, from a tingles-first perspective, a lot of white women thought Bill Clinton was way sexier than they currently think of Barack Obama’s sex appeal. This isn’t a looks or race thing… Bill just had more sensual, oozing charm than Barry. Chicks dig charming mofos.

Barring total collapse, I don’t see this trend:

…ending anytime soon. (Nice battering ram arms, Fluke.) So you may as well recline poolside, while the pool is still filled with water and chlorinated.

PS My election prediction:

It’s a toss-up, so I won’t bother picking a winner. I predict the popular vote and electoral college vote will split, with all that entails (yay, riots!)

I will confidently predict that most of the demographic vote ratios will remain roughly the same as they have for the past few election cycles.

Single white women will vote 60-40 Obama.
Single moms will vote 75-25 Obama.
Blacks will vote 98-2 Obama.
Hispanics of Amerindian ancestry will vote 65-35 Obama.
Asian-Americans will vote 70-30 Obama.
Ruling class elites will vote 70-30 Obama.
Libertarians will vote 70-30 Obama (such independent free-thinkers, those libertarians!).
Self-professed feminists will prove their non-conformist bona fides by voting 100-0 Obama.
Single beta males will vote 55-45 Romney (still beta, still white knighting).
Married white men will vote 80-20 Romney (this shift will be bigger than polls are currently projecting).
Married white women will vote 55-45 Romney.
Pickup artists will not vote. They got better things to do.

A lot of white men and white married couples are going to break for Romney, but the social and racial and familial demographics of the country are moving with such force in the opposite direction that the white man vote, no matter how consolidated, is going to eventually get swamped by the undertow and rendered irrelevant for many, many election cycles to come (assuming there will continue to be a country in existence that is capable of holding elections). When the white man “wakes up” to this fact, I predict secession movements will sprout up all around the country, descaling the nation to more socially and tribally congenial entities. But most of us reading this will be dead by that time. And it will be too late, regardless. In the meantime, expect populism to rise again, and tariffs to become the talk of the townhall. A billion Chinese is a lot of surplus cheap labor to churn through before wages equilibrate. There will be blood in the interim.

Read Full Post »

Why Women Have A Sixth Sense

Women don’t literally have a sixth sense, but they do have better intuition than men, if casual observation is to be believed. (Readers may correct me if I’m off-base, but I think there have even been studies purporting to show that women do have a more finely developed intuition than men, or that women lean on their intuition more than men lean on theirs.)

If we take it as a given that women are more intuitive, then we can offer two plausible evolutionarily modulated reasons why this sex difference exists.

1. Women need to be better than men at screening out undesirable mate prospects, and intuition is a tool they use to accomplish on-the-fly screening.

Men are more visual-oriented than women, so men can see with a split second glance which women are worthy of their seed and which aren’t. Women, on the contrary, require many input variables to determine a man’s worthiness as a mating partner, including, in great measure, his personality; so women have evolved a preference for intuition — molded by eons of accumulated genetic wisdom — as a guide to help them filter out beta males from alpha males. (Or lesser value men from higher value men.) This intuition is what allows a woman to uncover, through the mechanisms of gut feelings and subconsciously formulated sly psychological “tests”, a man’s strength, character, attractiveness to other women, and ability to take the heat without melting down. Her hamster gets a tingle for the man who passes through her intuition filter, and she responds by physiologically opening up to him.

2. Women need to be better than men at averting and resolving relationship trouble, and intuition is a tool they use to identify early warning signs that the relationship is foundering.

A woman is honed like a machine to be a first responder to relationship crisis. She uses her intuition to pick out subtle nicks in the relationship armor that could grow to chasms if left untended. Women’s attractiveness window for landing a desirable mate is shorter than men’s attractiveness window, so a woman who has invested some months or even years into a relationship will have more to lose than the man should the relationship fail. A man can more easily pick himself up and brush himself off for another go-round in the dating scene. Women therefore have evolved an exquisite sense for sniffing out warning signs that a man is losing interest, or that his love, and hence his commitment, is cooling. This is why men are perplexed when women bring up “problems” with the relationship that the men can’t fathom are worthy of discussion. And yet, women’s refined intuition for evidence of men’s emotional distancing has likely served their sex well over the millennia, helping her head off additional investment that would lead nowhere but to an older and unlovelier version of herself alone again in the mating market.

Men who have experience with a lot of women have acquired an astute awareness of women’s intuition, and have even developed their own to compete with women. Players have a preternatural ability to know when a girlfriend is drifting away, or a lover is about to cheat, or a date isn’t both feet in. They know better than less experienced men when to cut their losses and when to press on, partly based on their own refined intuitions and partly based on a better ability to manipulate women’s intuitive sense for both of their gains. This is why some of the best players beloved by women possess feminine acumen themselves. The alpha male leader of men who cares not for the emotional world of women often leaves the sensitive female cold, and finds himself playing second fiddle to the man who has absorbed female psychology and made it work for him.

Read Full Post »