Punishing Single Momhood

Commenter Libertardian sends along this link to a story about a Wisconsin Senator who introduced a bill that amounts to a massive social shaming campaign against single moms.

Wisconsin Bill Claims Single Moms Cause Child Abuse by Not Being Married

In Wisconsin, a state senator has introduced a bill aimed at penalizing single mothers by calling their unmarried status a contributing factor in child abuse and neglect.

Senate Bill 507, introduced by Republican Senator Glenn Grothman, moves to amend existing state law by “requiring the Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention Board to emphasize nonmarital parenthood as a contributing factor to child abuse and neglect.

The bill would require educational and public awareness campaigns held by the board to emphasize that not being married is abusive and neglectful of children, and to underscore “the role of fathers in the primary prevention of child abuse and neglect.”

I approve of this bill. If socially shaming women to the point that even one of them avoids becoming a single mom by choice and burdening society will her illegitimate hellion spawn, then it has done far more good for the nation as well as the individual woman than all the trillions spent on leftist wishful thinking, non-judgmentalist programs over the past 50 years.

The facts are out there, for anyone willing to listen. Children do best with a mother and a father. The growing ranks of single moms are creating a degenerate horde of emotionally and mentally destitute orclings, and we — all of us — will pay the price, sooner rather than later. Count on it.

Grothman is also the sponsor of Wisconsin State Bill 202, which would repeal the state’s Equal Pay Enforcement Act. Last year he claimed in an essay that the “Left and the social welfare establishment want children born out of wedlock because they are far more likely to be dependent on the government.”

In “How The United States and The State of Wisconsin Are Working to Encourage Single Motherhood and Discouraging Children in 2-Parent Families,” he wrote that the government urges women not to get married by making programs like low-income housing assistance, school choice, WIC, tax credits, and food stamps more attractive than marriage.

Sen Grothman: realtalker. If I didn’t know any better, I’d think the good senator has been perusing the Chateau archives.

His solution? Restrict the types of foods that can be purchased with food stamps, make Section 8 housing more cramped and limit the value of assets owned living there to $2,000, and eliminate school choice, among other things. “It is inexcusable that a single mother making $15,000 gets her kid out of the Milwaukee Public Schools but a married couple earning $50,000 is stuck in the public schools,” he wrote. “It is also somewhat outrageous that some married couples feel they can only afford one or two children in part because they are paying excessive taxes to provide programs for someone else to have four or five children.

This guy’s policies make so much sense it’s like a cleansing blast of mountain cooled breezes through marshy, addled skulls. Godspeed, Grothman. Do not go defensively into that morning light. Stay the course.

Naturally, the lefties who run the joint are three faulty synapses from a mass epileptic seizure. Case in point: the female “””impartial Yahoo! journalist””” can’t finish writing the story without snarling about Grothman’s own childlessness as some sort of proof positive cunt whistle for the dumbass brigade.

Saying that people “make fun of old-fashioned families,” Grothman — who has never been married and has no children — criticized social workers for not agreeing that children should only be raised by two married biological parents

Oh, the snark! It’s so delicious, isn’t it? Grothman has no kids! He’s unmarried! Secret decoder ring says: what the hell does he know about single moms?! After your bout of ironic SWPL chortling where you get your feelgood fix remotely lording it over the rubes in flyover country, you may want to examine the raft of logical fallacies in your thinking. Here’s a starting point: you don’t have to be burned alive by non-hateful merry pranksters to know that it’ll hurt.

Libertardian comments:

This strikes me as aiming at the effect (single motherhood) rather than the cause (i.e. society’s unshackling of female hypergamy).

You take your policy improvements where you can get them. The root cause is unshackled female hypergamy, but a policy aimed at shaming one of the symptoms — in this case, single momhood — will do some good as well. Call it the broken persons theory of social policymaking. You fix immediate problems at the margins by shaming individual bad behavior and in time the bigger, mass scaled dominoes begin to fall. At any rate, it’s a better plan than the total cultural immolation we’re currently experiencing.

Of course, some exceptions to the social shaming program will have to be made. For instance, widows with children are not single moms, and shouldn’t be lumped in under that label. The shaming should target those women who choose to have kids outside of marriage and those unmarried women who shack up with unreliable jerks and act all surprised when the jerk heads for the hills after a kid is born. In other words, shame the women who make bad choices, not the women who are stuck in unexpected bad situations through no fault of their own.

Note that a social shaming program against single moms would work regardless of the precise correlations between single momhood and dysfunctional bastards. In what I generously refer to as the Jason Malloy theory of genetically inherited Bad Lifestyle Choosing (he is the occasional web commenter who drops gems of insight in cutting edge blog comments sections) — a theory which holds that the dysfunction of single moms’ kids is due to the kids inheriting the awful genetic predispositions of their trashy parents — the effect of shaming would work at the genetic level as well as the social level. Women with a jagged genetic suite that inclines them to be single moms would be shamed into avoiding pregnancy outside of marriage, and thus refrain from having kids altogether and passing on their shit genes (eugenics, yay!) or would be impelled to choose a marriage-minded mate more wisely given the social strictures against out-of-wedlock childbirth and lack of governmental support for their chosen path.

Either way you cut it — whether the dysfunction is predominantly genetic, environmental, or both — the act of shaming women away from the single momhood cesspit and cutting off the flow of their financial lifelines is good for the women, good for America, and good for Western civilization. And most importantly… it’s good for the children. Especially those children who have evaded the misfortune of being born to selfish single moms.

Read Full Post »

Common Mistakes You Will Make While Learning Game

There is a cottage industry of anti-game, pro-feminist beta males who claimed to tried to learn the crimson arts but failed before seeing results. I suspect what happened to most of them is that they encountered some setbacks on their journey to higher quality, higher frequency poon, but instead of taking lessons from their losses they gave up and turned their frustration outward, against game and its advocates. What doomed them was a combination of defeatism, a lower than average starting suite of attractiveness traits, and unrealistic expectations of what game could accomplish for them.

Let me say, then, that I acknowledge their impotent rage. Most men who aren’t naturals will experience growing pains in their efforts to improve their game and success with women. I have seen all manner of mistakes made by recovering betas (and omegas) determined to increase their attractiveness to women. There is nothing unique or unsolvable about these common newbie game mistakes. If you are a beta starting out with game, you owe it to yourself to anticipate that you will experience the same setbacks that bedevil millions of men just like you traveling the same path of redemption. Anticipating mistakes means it will be a challenge to disappoint yourself, and your fortitude with thus be strengthened.

What follows is a list of the typical learning curve mistakes that men make while trying to become more charismatic ladykillers. I have pulled a couple of these boners myself, so don’t think there is a man alive who is immune to the occasional beta backslide once in a while.

Excitable Boy Syndrome

You’re pumped up for the night. Your face is flushed, your body is wired and your smile is a mile wide. You knocked out a three set of bicep curls just before hitting the clubs. You’re an approach machine. Look at you go! You’re so high on life and the possibilities of your newfound game knowledge that you forgot to remember chicks dig a man with state control. Chicks most definitely do not dig a hyperactive spaz. Don’t worry, soldier of seduction. The world is not going to run out of women tonight.

Overeager Reaction To Her Crumbs Of Interest

Your game has evolved to the point where you’re starting to get positive reactions from women. She touches your arm or pays you a genuine compliment or strokes her hair and beams ear to ear after you teased her. Pleasantly surprised and brimming with the sort of runaway horniness that has been fooled is on the cusp of being relieved, you respond with overeager gratitude, flattery and excessively loud laughter. Her brief window of kindness and flirty interest has opened your beta floodgates. You forget everything you learned and revert to the watery-eyed supplication of your puppy crushing preteen self. You push too hard for a romantic resolution, and you become outcome dependent. You know that old saying “Act like you’ve been there before”? Take it to heart. Chicks really do prefer men who don’t get too excited by female attention. Mystery called this attitude “active disinterest”, and that’s as good a description as any.

Fumble In The Red Zone

Your game has been smooth as silk. She’s standing with you on the sidewalk, a few kisses have transpired, and now you’re faced with the very real prospect that she’s ready to go home with you tonight. But the realization of this — the prospect that you may achieve your goal — freezes you. Instead of leading her to her exquisite doom with unstoppable confidence, you mumble something about maybe, possibly, seeing some band next week that you heard was good, your hands stuffed deep in your pockets. Her face slackens into disappointment. Your reward? A cavalcade of unanswered text messages and grotesque ponderings asking yourself “where did it all go wrong?”.

Overplayed Hand Syndrome

Wow! She really lit up when you dropped that neg! And look how she reacts so well to your cocky teasing. You can’t believe what you’re seeing. Game works!, you say to yourself. So more game must work more!, you answer in reply to yourself. You start dropping C&F on her like it’s going out of style. Slowly, or maybe not so slowly, you notice she’s not laughing as much, not opening her body to you, and not tilting her head to expose her vulnerable neck to you. She’s turtling fast, and now she’s glancing around the room. You captured her interest, and she wanted you to follow up with a deeper connection. An emotional bonding that would have added dimensions to your personality. But you responded with more of the same happy-go-lucky douchery. Game is not a hammer; it’s a scalpel. Use it as such.

Say Anything Stupid Syndrome

Every man fears it: getting stuck with nothing to say. This fear issues from a place of pedestalization. “If I don’t say something witty right now to break this awkward silence, I will lose her.” So in his beta haste he overcompensates by spitting out a jumble of small talk at best, and vibe-killing self-deprecation at worst. When you have nothing to say, the best response is to… say nothing. Let silence be your ally. 90% of the time, a woman confronted with a man’s silence will restart the conversation herself. Once she does that, the seduction script is flipped, and she becomes the chaser, uncontrollably instilling you with higher value. Women who don’t restart the conversation are not invested enough in you, and you may take that as a signal to move on.

Easy Discouragement Syndrome

You’ve arrived. You haven’t started talking to any girls yet. A cute girl sits near you with her friend. You suck in air deep, preparing to deliver your opener. As you turn to face them, you notice across the room a very good-looking guy juggling the interest of three adoring women. Discouraged, you hold your tongue and nurse your drink, alone, for the next three hours. You mumble something about game not working because you can never compete with men like that. Self-satisfied that your failures are thus justified and irredeemable, you slink home while a man who looks about like you do begins making out with a girl at a different bar in the city tonight. I hope I don’t have to spell out the moral of this story.

Stubborn Refusal To Adapt Spergitude

You’ve just dropped an inspired DHV routine on her. But for some inexplicable reason, she hasn’t responded the way you thought she would. The way so many others did. Boredom snakes across her face. You get flustered. “What do I do now??” Instead of changing course to something that might prove more fruitfully engaging for her, you continue blasting at her bunker with permutations of your nigh-invulnerable DHV story, hoping that some new way of saying this or that sentence will be the key to her heart. As an aspie beta nerd with stubborn mule tendencies, you are a victim of your emotional straitjacketing. Learn to adapt in the field by trying new things on the fly. Don’t be afraid to abandon a conversational trail that has gone stale. I’ve seen it so many times — men who stubbornly fix to a line of thought when the girl is moving the conversation in a new direction. The best seducers are masters of opportunistic conversational hijacking, and will lead and follow a girl’s train of thought simultaneously.

Apologia The Destroya

Incoming shit test! Thankfully, with your encyclopedic game knowledge, you know how to disarm it. But wait… she didn’t get that faux shocked, slightly horny look on her face when you slapped down her attempt to belittle you. No, she’s didn’t take your reply well. Another shit test, a nastier one, flies your way. Your brain starts filling up with self-doubt and second-guessing, and instead of nimbly swiping her second shit test aside, you begin apologizing — in so many words — for your impudence. Ughh. Game over, man! You let your wimpy, trembling beta id out for a stroll in the daylight. She took one look at the poor benighted creature and her fangs and claws were bared for the kill. Expect that you will occasionally have to deal with nasty bitches with zero tolerance for weakness in men. It comes with the territory. Knowing this, you will be better prepared to avoid getting entrapped by a woman’s betatization program.

Read Full Post »

Bachelor Pad Themes

The look and layout of your bachelor pad when you take a woman home with you, while not a necessary tool of game, can help ease the transition from seduction to sex. There are four main design theme directions a man such as yourself can consider when kitting out a home to best reflect your ladykiller cred.

1. More masculine

Deliberately excising any estrogenic touch from your interior decorating is the way of the man who wants female visitors to know his balls are not for sale. These are the homes of the finance wizard, the international businessman and the nerd. Man caves are usually sharply geometric, monochrome, metallic, hi-fi and, except in the case of the nerd, blessedly free of clutter. Bedroom furniture is either heavy, dark, unadorned mahogany or Scandinavian. Art is minimalist and modern. Sofas are exquisitely uncomfortable, facing enormous flat screen TVs. Top shelf bottles of liquor rest on Sterling Cooper bar caddies. The masculine home is a cold, unforgiving, chillingly beautiful non-interactive space that evokes the warehouse aesthetic of early first person shooters. You are reminded of nothing less than “American Psycho” and chainsaws.

2. More feminine

Adding splashes of femininity to your bachelor pad lets women know you are comfortable living with the energy of the softer sex humming pleasantly in the background. The feminized bachelor pad is the man parlor of the artist, the real estate salesman and the homosexual. Man parlors feature rounded edges, multihued color schemes, mineral or elemental textures, lo-fi vintage sensibility, and whimsically decorative trinkets and baubles of meaninglessness. Bedroom furniture is either antique or avant-garde. Square pillows and cologne-scented candles are everywhere. Paintings of French scenes abound. The feminized man parlor is a warm, aesthetically welcoming interactive space that evokes safety, security and the familiarity of romantic moments in front of the fireplace.

3. More sexual

This is the player’s studio. His den of iniquity. A sexualized bachelor pad, whether masculinized or feminized, is littered with props that testify to a man’s preselection by women and his tomcat lifestyle. Many decorative touches are of the form of “accidental” knick-knacks left lying around — such as old photos of you with pretty girls, a stray earring, two toothbrushes in the bathroom — that send hamsters spinning at full tilt. The sexual overload is contrasted with carefully conspicuous cookbooks and “homey” artifacts that fuel the female predilection to believe there is a domesticated man within the cad just waiting to burst forth with assistance by the right woman. This is the man lounge that inspires one night stands.

4. More mysterious

Here we come to the final destination — and the most difficult to master — in bachelor pad proofing: the man manor. A woman entering the enigma of the man manor is greeted by curios of mysterious beauty and a design sensibility that evokes not so much an aesthetic, but an adventure; a life fully lived. Oddities loom over monstrous bookcases. Souvenirs act as fulcrums for each room’s decorative theme. Tattered manuscripts, not glossy magazines or SWPL weeklies, perch tantalizingly in nooks and crannies. The rooms do not reveal, as much as beg for more to be revealed. A woman, upon entering this alternate manverse, is forced to navigate the novelty, snooping reflecting on what she sees at every turn, robbed of the inertia to sit down immediately and stew in her ASD (anti-slut defenses). She is overwhelmed by curioisty, and a curious woman is shortly a horny woman. Man manors pay only the slightest lip service to design rules, but they are generally spartan in space usage (the better to showcase the quizzical artifacts of unusual heft), boldly colored with an emphasis on the darker hues, moody in affect, and nonconformist. The man designing the man manor assiduously avoids trendiness of any flavor. He does not care for social approval; he only cares about lighting up the neural synapses of his prey.

***

There is no right or wrong way to manage the look of your bachelor pad. Each of the above four themes, properly executed, will redound to a man’s advantage in the bedding of women, and some women will react more favorably to a certain theme depending on her individual aesthetic, station in life and relationship goals. However, one theme provides a bigger boudoir boost than the others. And that is the man manor. Simply put, mystery is the gift that accelerates women to sexual abandon faster, and more reliably, than masculinity, femininity or Quagmire caddishness.

I have not lived in every style of place outlined in this post, but I have known, and know, men who do live in homes representing each of the four major design philosophies. Without doubt, the best players tend to the man manor theme, sprinkled with props indicating female preselection. The biggest player I have ever known — a man whose count possibly numbers in the thousands — had a living space that could double as a museum.

Charred oak was the construction medium of his coffee table and bookcases, which were filled with travel guides, dog-eared classics of literature and lewd photography books. A cracked and gouged writing desk he claimed was one used by Edgar Allan Poe sat in his bedroom, at the end of a four poster king-sized monstrosity covered with mosquito netting. A full body female mannequin wearing a safari outfit and pearls occupied a corner of the living room. She looked on the proceedings with an expression of smug disdain. A stuffed rattlesnake reared back, coiled and angry, under a glass case.

A shelf full of dusty old baseballs supposedly gleaned from major sporting events and autographed by famous players peered out from small glass containers. (I say supposedly because I had suspicion that some of the autographs were added after the point of sale.) A crocodile head was etched with dripped wax from a giant gothic candle on its snout. A reading stand — much like the one you might see holding a Bible in a church — propped open a leather-bound notebook with scribblings in Arabic, a small bottle of india ink at its side. He claimed it was a compendium of love poems written to him by a former lover who died young. A very realistic and very creepy Hollywood quality face mask acted as a bookend. A surfboard with a shark bite-shaped chunk missing from it leaned against another corner. A black cat (real one!) with piercing green eyes sat at the edge of a banal out-of-place microfiber couch, surveying his playground.

The overall impression is that one had entered the abode of Ernest Hemingway merged with Andy Warhol.

But the coup de grace was the white wedding dress (sans train) and dark purple tuxedo displayed on mesh wire torsos in a hallway leading to the bathroom. “A love story gone tragically wrong,” he would explain. In fact, he had a story for everything in his place, and it was a rare girl who didn’t feel impelled to satisfy her curiosity. I’m convinced his digs were such extreme chick crack, that half his game was opening the front door and letting girls have a look see.

How much of his stuff was authentic, or how many of his stories true, I can’t say. Likely, most of it was BS. But what does it matter whether he traveled the world collecting strange mementos and memories or he traveled to a SWPL store two miles away to buy his stories at exorbitant prices? Girls ate it up just the same. He put effort into learning and retelling his stories, true or not, and that made girls happy, which made them want to have sex and fall in love, which made him happy. And isn’t that the essence of game?

Once you’ve entranced a woman with your living room, proceed to the bedroom finishing move; the final mysterious conceit that will cause her hamster to run straight to her vagina and start nibbling on her labia.

Read Full Post »

Prosperity Is The Problem

What, ultimately, is the cause of the decay happening in the West?

Reader carolyn writes:

[do] all young women nowadays go for the alpha exclusively, disdain the beta?

there must be women even now who size themselves up realistically. and don’t shoot for the unattainable, or more accurately, the alpha who’ll use them but never settle for them.

my own experience back when dinosaurs roamed the earth as the baby-faced ‘fattie’ (so dreaded around here) led to a fear of any overly aggressive ‘alpha’ types that came my way. i just knew intuitively it would not end well. i aspired to get a smart guy, hopefully one with a sense of humor; a _cool_ guy was out of the question. which characterized the man i married. sorry to refer to my own experience but it’s the one i know best.

my point is that there must be plenty of young women out there with a similar mindset. did all girls suddenly become stupid?

I would answer it’s not a question of exclusive vs inclusive, smart vs stupid, right vs wrong. Female hypergamy (and male preference for younger women) just IS. It’s a fact of life, and society accommodates it or corrals it depending on its goals. It’s best to think of women’s love of alphas as residing along a sexual/personality continuum (mediated by the wiring of the hindbrain), where at one end we see the thug lovers who run back to boyfriends who beat them up, and at the other end we have the wilting flowers who prefer the less volatile alpha males drawn from the pool of soft betas.

As society relaxes its controls of female sexuality — and unleashed female sexuality is the wilder and more fluid and more dangerous of the sexes — more women rush to the “thug lover” side of the hindbrain continuum, and away from any latent preference for dutiful betas. Conversely, when society strengthens its controls over female sexuality, something close to the opposite happens: women are incentivized to favor the company of beta males.

Thug loving serves a useful purpose in evolutionary terms. The sons of thugs make better protectors of the tribe, and in point of fact stupider, thuggier people outbreed smarter, empathetic people. Experiments in fruit flies have actually proven the concept of an emergent idiocracy.

Soft alpha/beta loving serves a useful purpose in civilizational terms. The sons of K selected women make better builders and maintainers of prosperous societies.

Both strategies come with their weaknesses and strengths, but it has to be said that, in most practical senses, the evolutionary goals are at odds with the civilizational goals. In simpler terms: what’s good for the individual man or woman is not necessarily, or very often, good for a prosperous society. This has been a core concept here at the Chateau since its inception.

And so a great truth about humanity is revealed that liberals mostly, and conservatives to a lesser degree, have trouble wrapping their brains around.

Jason Malloy, a drive-by commenter at blogs I occasionally read, usually has very smart things to say about the form a dystopia might take, and the factors that lead to cultural and national dissolution. When he writes, I generally give his words more than a second’s thought. And lately, his words have been echoing much of what is written here.

The larger sorting patterns [seen in rates of dysfunction between the upper and lower classes] need to be viewed through the lens of latent behavioral variation. Social pressures were already biased towards high investment reproduction. People were shamed for having premarital sex or children outside of marriage. Female economic dependency was just one more practical limit on these behaviors. However, once prosperity and secularism unraveled the cultural expectations, only internal behavioral motivators were left, and the motivations previously dampened and suppressed through practical and social limits could now express themselves.

The internal motivators tend to form a psychological and behavioral package: some people are oriented towards higher investment reproduction and this entails higher cognitive ability, long term goals about education and career, later first intercourse, fewer and more stable relationships, reproduction within secure pairbond, and mate selection biased towards reliability and parenting qualities. Other people are oriented towards lower investment reproduction and this entails lower cognitive ability, few long term goals, early first intercourse, more sex partners and less stable relationships, reproduction outside of pairbond, and mate selection biased towards “sexy” qualities (looks, charm, creativity, athleticism). (Many of these traits are functionally related (e.g. lower IQ mostly is a major cause of higher time preference), but they are also compounded through assortative mating).

***

[Re: the upper half of women having sex before marriage but still getting married.]

As much as I appreciate [Charles] Murray’s sociological perspective, I think this is his weakness as a bio-conservative trying to piece together the trends. The upper and the lower classes aren’t sorting by cognitive ability, so much as they are by life history behavior (which also includes cognitive ability).

A conservative libertarian has a lot to grapple with here: freedom and prosperity are the real “culprits” here, and their interaction with natural genetic variation. Not the welfare state. Not the government. Not apathetic elites. Not globalism or “stagnant wages”. Any major reversals in these trends would seemingly require major, forceful social controls, because they are the consequences of a very pervasive kind of individualism and of freedom of thought.

Chew on that. Realize what is being said here. If you do, you should feel a shudder descend your spine. Individualism and freedom of thought are the enemies of the very values and morality which gave birth to them and elevated them to primacy among advanced nations.

What libertarian, conservative OR liberal could read and accept the above premise and not feel at least some elemental — some PRIMAL — part of his worldview shatter into a million pieces. Libertarians: laissez faire means the cementing of intractable human hereditary differences into antagonistic classes and milieus. Conservatives: freedom and prosperity mean a slackening of external behavioral motivators and the erosion of commonality and shared values and the means with which to argue for them. Liberals: nonjudgmental individualism means a collapse of social capital and a surrender of any moral or aesthetic authority.

None of this is to say that people would, or should, prefer to live in less prosperous, backward nations. I don’t see too many Westerners clamoring to move to Zimbabwe for the quality of life. And yet, there has to be a recognition among the cognoscenti that a deeply embedded human nature exists, and that this nature — immutable, unalterable, suppressed only with great effort — when allowed to fully express or, alternately, when stifled at great psychic expense guarantees the slow unwinding of the very prosperity it desires and refuses to relinquish when it achieves.

Maxim #1,000: Prosperity contains within it the seed of its own destruction.

Could this ever not be the case? Perhaps if there were not significant differences in ability and talent between people and groups of people, differences in possession of civilizationally advantageous traits, you could say then that prosperity may become, theoretically, self-perpetuating. Feeding and growing without limit.

But evolution would not exist were that the case. Evolution would have to stop for such a social condition to manifest. Thus, we grapple with reality, whether we choose to or not. Because it grapples with us.

The prosperity America achieved will be her undoing. This isn’t idle apocalyptic talk. There is plenty of historical precedent. There are plenty of indicators that cultural and economic and lifestyle collapse are beginning their long march through the Western citizenry and institutions. The armies of disintegration have amassed and the first waves have stormed the citadel. Aided and abetted by people who don’t understand the forces at work, and who wouldn’t change direction even if they did understand. Prosperity is enervating. The will to dismantle it, temporarily, to save it, is weakened totally by the comforts it provides.

America is dying. Unless the powerful divest themselves from their voracious egos and accept that they have been steeped in a mountain of lies for 60 years, perhaps 150 years depending on your point of origin, and until that day they reverse the path they have taken this country, America’s slow, asphyxiating dying will finally, unmercifully, reach closure… in her death. Today, the Lords of Lies are our masters. Tomorrow, the truth will reign, over a rejuvenated America or a bitter wasteland. Either way, the truth will reign.

The Lords of Lies must first be defeated if the path we are on has a chance to be corrected. The only thing we know for certain is that they won’t go easily to their irrelevance.

Read Full Post »

Cats And Dogs As Ego Emblems

Are our choice in pets a reflection of our sexual natures as they are or how we wish then to be? A reader:

Wanted to ask you – do you think it is typical for beta males to favor cats as pets and alpha males to favor dogs as pets?

I’m asking this because all nerdy looking, weak, lame and otherwise guys with beta characteristics usually prefer cats.

Internet is very popular of lulzcats and related shit for a reason – it’s because the nerds sit on the internet.

Somehow when you see real men, they are with a loyal and aggressive dog.

Your thoughts?

The greatest male players I’ve ever known had cats. Sleek, mysterious cats, not fluffy designer furrballs. The player who owns a cat — an animal which embodies many human female traits — is telling women that he is comfortable surrounded by feminine energy. He knows how to handle it. He prefers the challenge of women.

Generally, though, the power arc of man-pet complementarity follows your observation. Urban SWPL manginas and socially maladjusted nerdos are more open to owning cats, while conventional country boys and popular jocks tend to shun cat ownership, except for outdoor cats who spend most of their time out of sight, preying on rodents. And then there are noticeable trends in the types of dogs that men will own; gays, artists and upper class dandies preferring precious but useless runty pedigrees and the rest of men preferring big, healthy dogs with legs to run. It’s only at the rightmost tail of player seducers that you see the preference for dogs revert back to cats, owing partly to the fact that a man who spends so much time enjoying the pleasures of women has little left for walking dogs and scooping poop.

But the real contrast in pet ownership is intersex, not intrasex. Most men prefer the company of dogs, and most women prefer cats. While unmarried tomboys with dogs do exist, 9 out of 10 times the chick you date will own a cat, when she has a pet. SWPL chicks are almost universally cat people, though in recent years there has been a slight move toward more dog ownership among this set. There is a reason why the sexes have these preferences.

Pets are symbols of how we see ourselves, and how we would like to be seen. They are extensions of our egos. Dogs are loyal and potentially aggressive. Non-nerdy men who don’t lament their own phalluses love big dogs primarily because of those two reasons. The dog is a symbolic idolization of a man’s yearning for a woman’s uncompromising loyalty, as well as a projection of simmering, virile power. In the dog, the man sublimates the highest virtues of manhood, and his deepest need from womanhood.

Cats are a symbolic idolization of woman’s solipsism, and self-absorption. The mirror is the woman’s world, conceit her currency in trade, coyness and prerogative her highest values. In the cat, the woman sees reflected her own nature, that of the coy and inscrutable object of desire. The cat is thus a narcissistic celebration of her own womanliness.

The cat is smaller and less affectionate than the dog, and this smallness and aloofness feeds a woman’s need to nurture and pry for displays of love, much like a dog’s loyalty and obedience and ready affection feed a man’s need to be admired, to dominate and to enjoy unlimited and unconditional love.

For men, the only thing you need to know is this: while ownership of a big, loyal dog is a leading indicator of alpha maleness, the cat is the animal whose behavior you should mimic to seduce women. Acting like an affectionate, needy dog is beta. Acting like a mysterious, aloof cat is alpha. The primary purpose of owning a dog is training yourself for ownership of a woman.

Read Full Post »

Overestimation Is The Twin Brother Of Overconfidence

We have previously proved that overconfidence — the “irrational” (is it really irrational when it gets you what you want?) belief that you are better than you really are — will bring you more success with women than having a realistic appraisal of yourself. Poon Commandment XI — be irrationally self-confident — was thus validated by science. In keeping with the spirit of the post, Chateau proprietors gloated. Then preened. Then stroked our egos to a glorious mental money shot.

Now comes another study confirming a core conceit of game that finds men who overestimate women’s attraction for them likely have more mating success.

Why men overestimate their sexiness: it’s evolution, study proposes.

Does she or doesn’t she…? Sexual cues are ambiguous and confounding. We-especially men-often read them wrong. But a new study hypothesizes that the men who get it wrong might be those that evolution has favored. […]

The research involved 96 male 103 female undergraduates, who were put through a “speed-meeting” exercise-talking for three minutes to each of five potential opposite-sex mates. Before the conversations, the participants rated themselves on their own attractiveness and were assessed for the level of their desire for a short-term sexual encounter. After each “meeting,” they rated the partner on a number of categories, including physical attractiveness and sexual interest in the participant.

The results: Men looking for a quick hookup were found to be more likely to overestimate the women’s desire for them. Men who thought they were “hot” also thought the women were hot for them-though men who were actually attractive, by the women’s ratings, did not make this mistake. The more attractive the woman was to the man, the more likely he was to overestimate her interest. And women tended to underestimate men’s desire. [ed: if only the poor dears knew.]

A hopeless mess? Evolutionarily speaking, maybe not, say the psychologists. Over millennia, these errors may in fact have enhanced men’s reproductive success.

“There are two ways you can make an error as a man,” said Perilloux. “Either you think, ‘Oh, wow, that woman’s really interested in me’-and it turns out she’s not. There’s some cost to that,” such as embarrassment or a blow to your reputation. The other error: “She’s interested, and he totally misses out. He misses out on a mating opportunity. That’s a huge cost in terms of reproductive success.” The researchers theorize that the kind of guy who went for it, even at the risk of being rebuffed, scored more often-and passed on his overperceiving tendency to his genetic heirs.

Hmm, which other Poon Commandment does this most recent scientific study confirm? Oh yes, here it is…

XIII. Err on the side of too much boldness, rather than too little

Touching a woman inappropriately on the first date will get you further with her than not touching her at all. Don’t let a woman’s faux indignation at your boldness sway you; they secretly love it when a man aggressively pursues what he wants and makes his sexual intentions known. You don’t have to be an asshole, but if you have no choice, being an inconsiderate asshole beats being a polite beta, every time.

Helicopter meatspin!

If overconfidence is the art of thinking highly of yourself, then overestimation is the equally important art of thinking women think highly of yourself. And, as science and everyday observation inform us, men who are both overconfident in their self-beliefs and who overestimate women’s desire for them are men who score more pussy. You can’t argue with results, even if you find the path taken to success to be unpalatably douche-y.

And for those of you who are primed to erupt on cue about the douchiness of this sort of alpha male behavior, it would behoove you to keep in mind that it is women, not men, who are primarily responsible for the behaviors of men who are seeking mates. If women, as the gatekeepers of sex, did not reward men for their overconfident swagger or their overestimation of their desirability, then we would see less of this behavior among men.

Ask not for whom the douchebag smirks; he smirks for thee.

This study should also throw a bucket of cold ice on a slew of feminist shibboleths. It turns out “no” actually means “keep trying, and you increase your odds of getting between my legs”. And you know that all too common and irritating feminist bleat — one you hear conspicuously often from sluts and slut glorifiers — that unwanted male attention is akin to potential rape? Well, if this study’s conclusions are any indication, men who presume their attention is wanted do better with women than men who humbly bow to their place in the mate hierarchy.

That sound you hear is a million hamsters wheezing for breath.

This post, and the one before about overconfidence, are really exegeses on the rich, creamy pith of game. Every master seducer, every natural who seemingly beds women with the same ease that a sexless nerd drone inserts a memory stick, shares these two traits in common: they have a bottomless well of self-confidence, and they approach every girl as if she can’t wait to experience the pleasure of their company.

TRUE

OR

NOT.

This is the final destination of rock solid inner game. The moment you stop second-guessing your worth, the day you start assuming every girl wants you, is the point in time of the seduction singularity that propels you into a world — a secret society, as one noted pickup artist famously put it — where the mystery of women is made pedestrian and the journey to the center of their hearts becomes as uneventful as a daily commute.

Funnily, the author of the study — a woman, judging by her name — was so scandalized by the implications of her findings that she came to offer advice completely at odds with her study’s conclusions.

The research contains some messages for daters of both sexes, said Perilloux: Women should know the risks and “be as communicative and clear as possible.” Men: “Know that the more attracted you are, the more likely you are to be wrong about her interest.” Again, that may not be as bad as it sounds, she said-“if warning them will prevent heartache later on.”

Let me see if I have this right: men who presume women are interested in them get more sex. So this means men should stop presuming interest from women. Gotcha! You gotta love the female thinking process at work here, which basically amounts to “men should behave against their interests so that women may maximize their interests”. No, Carin Perilloux, a more sensible conclusion to draw from the study is that men should continue doing that which gets them the most sex, your tender equalist sensibilities to the contrary notwithstanding.

Yes, even smart chicks have hamsters. In fact, their hamsters are supercharged. Better, stronger, faster. Which means more opportunity for a man with game to spin their wheels.

Read Full Post »

The Parable Of The Smart Birds

This is not mine. Jim Bowery, a commenter over at The Inductivist (a blog I occasionally indulge), tells the parable of the smart birds manipulated by the genius birds. I link to it because it is very good in that way parables are supposed to be good: by illuminating ancient and immutable dynamics in human social relations and hinting at the lessons therein.

Once there were 3 classes of birds of a feather: Dumb birds, Smart birds and Genius birds. There was also a genius bird of a different feather hanging around. All summer the genius bird of a different feather went around to the smart birds of a feather telling them how ridiculous it was to fly south for the winter — that these atavistic instincts were a terrible legacy from “the bad old days” and gave very sophisticated-sounding arguments that the smart birds of a feather couldn’t quite understand but understood quite well that they’d better pretend to understand lest they be accused of being dumb birds.

Fall cometh. The dumb birds fly south to the derision of the smart birds. The genius birds of a feather think, “I’ve heard the arguments about flying south for the winter being only for dumb birds, but where really do these feelings come from? Could they have survival value? Could the genius bird of a different feather have a conflict of interest?” Even before thinking the answers through, the mere doubts raised were sufficient to motivate flying south. The smart birds of a feather, hearing these doubts raised by the genius birds of a feather proceeded to attack them as “dumb birds”. They felt superior to the genius birds of a feather. Some genius birds of a feather were even injured enough to stop them from being able to fly south.

Winter hits. The smart birds of a feather die. The injured genius birds of a feather die. The genius birds of a different feather turn out to have an adaptation to cold weather. Spring comes. An evolutionary dynamic reveals itself…

The smart bird parable has much to tell us about intergroup competition. “Flying south” is a stand-in for the metaphor of your choice — drug use, single parenthood, mass immigration — and the group can be however you define it, by class, race or religion. It isn’t a precise explication of contemporary social patterns, but what it does well is get at the rudimentary compulsion which drives group antagonism, and the expedient alliances that serve group self-interest and buttress group self-identification.

Read Full Post »