There’s no end to the ways in which being an alpha male is better than being a beta male.
There is a relatively new class of troll who bears a striking resemblance to the well-known “concern troll”, but who is in some respects far more insidious in his methodology and ability to derail comment threads on blogs devoted to the teachings of the charisma arts. I call this new breed the “game contradictions troll”.
A classic example of the game contradictions troll is this comment by “The Shrike” (who may not necessarily be an insincere troll, but whose complaint nonetheless serves as an ideal representative of the sort of comment a game contradictions troll would leave).
A lot of sound advice in this post. It looks like the author is slowly shifting away from the unabashed, detached Lothario pose to a more conservative outlook on life. Conservative values are not my own, but it seems that this is a more consistent approach when it comes to the opinions often professed by the author and most of the commenters here. A recurrent theme is the impending collapse of the Western civilization, largely caused by female hypergamy. The majority seems to abhor the fact modern women ride the proverbial “cock-carousel”, seemingly forgetting that no amount of game would be effective against uptight prudes who only ever do it after marriage, and only to procreate.
Game contradictions trolls thrive on a studied ignorance or disavowal of the true fact of life that there are different standards for the sexes, and that these standards are not set by men, but by nature, and men merely conform to these sexual market standards and rationalize their fairness (or unfairness) when it suits them, (we are not a rational species, we are a rationalizing species).
No one on this board has claimed that female hypergamy is the prime cause of Western decline. Female hypergamy is one of those differing sexual market standards that apply to women and not to men, and that can’t be wished away. The assertion often made at CH is that female hypergamy is a real phenomenon, and it is best to accept the reality of it and MAKE IT WORK FOR YOU rather than shake your fist ineffectually at it in hopes women magically cure themselves of their evolved desire to mate with, and extract the commitment of, the highest status men that their looks can realistically afford.
Riding the cock carousel is NOT necessarily a manifestation of female hypergamy. The cock carousel is the consequence of socially atomized anonymous urban environments coupled with contraceptives and economic self-sufficiency providing cover and incentive for women to indulge the part of their sexuality that yearns for dominant, charming, jerkboy cads who are hard to pin down into committed relationships. This is not female hypergamy fulfilled, but female hypergamy THWARTED, as it is the Darwinian directive of every woman to land the most desirable alpha man and to KEEP HIM AROUND.
There is an interesting clash of contradicting attitudes here. Not arguments between different posters, but internally inconsistent opinions voiced by the same people. Game is still a hallowed topic, not to be touched with a mortal hand, but it runs counter to the otherwise conservative leanings of the commenters. A stable family-unit, also much cherished around here, is mutually exclusive to widespread promiscuity exemplified by men who “game” women, and women who are willing to play along.
Another category error made often and reliably by trolls and anti-game haters. “Game” is not synonymous with promiscuity, although game certainly aids the pursuit of promiscuity if that is what is desired. A man could just as easily use game — aka learned charisma — to meet, seduce, date, and when the time is right, marry the most beautiful oneitis he has ever laid eyes on. I wouldn’t recommend it, but there you go.
Ultimately, there is a choice to be made if a man is to be congruent at the most basic level. Either champion a virtuous society where loyalty matters a lot, and people pair up with the intention of forming serious relationships. Or support the cad lifestyle where jumping from one woman to the next without any consideration is the norm.
Men have a longer SMV window than women and bear a smaller cost for each act of copulation than do women, which means in practice each man can, and should, get some romantic experience under his belt (heh) and then marry, if he wishes to marry, a younger woman. The fact of biologically grounded sex differences which aren’t going anywhere means that cadding about is always going to be less psychologically, reproductively and emotionally expensive for men than slutting around will be for women.
If it’s the latter, then it’s difficult to blame women for trying to do the same.
First, most women aren’t interested in doing the same, despite transparently try-hard protestations to the contrary by fat, bitter feminists. Second, it’s not difficult to blame the women trying to emulate the lifestyle of the alpha male cad for their short-sightedness. Different sex-based standards in the sexual market, and different sex-based psychosexual temperaments, are an emergent fact of life, not a directive handed down by the invisible pimp hand of the patriarchy.
If it’s the former, then much of the game concept goes out the window, though some aspects of getting a chosen female interested presumably are still useful.
How about, “game gives men the tools to successfully attract and keep women in sexual and emotional relationships.” There. That’s not so hard now, is it?
Commenter Dr Giggles passes along a funny real-life confirmation of the CH observation that pit bulls have become a save-a-thug-dog accessory for SWPLs who just can’t stop status whoring by redirecting their overcharged altruistic impulse past fellow badwhites (and the dogs preferred by badwhites, such as labs) and onto blacks and the dogs most resembling blacks in scowl and tendency to spontaneous violence.
I’d like to point out that this isn’t the first time CH has called out Shitlib High Priest Ira Glass on his mewling, manlet mannerisms. Years ago CH wrote about a trend involving SWPLs (predecessors to SJWs and Shitlibs) adopting rescue pit bulls. CH thoroughly dismissed their selfish intentions as nothing more than a savior complex gone sideways.
Well, guess who owns one and then did a story about how disastrous it has been for him? Not only does Glass’ pit bull, Piney, ruin his social life by attacking visitors, but the damn thing attacks him and his wife regularly. On top of that he has to buy exotic food, like kangaroo meat because Piney gets allergies. The dog also gets prescribed Valium by the vet. Glass puts up with it on account of his wife, and with the help of some monster sized hamster pellets.
A part of me would love it if more SWPLs adopted rescue pit bulls and had their faces torn off in the middle of the night because their pit bulls inexplicably went on unprovoked chomp-outs. But then there are the SWPL kids, innocent bystanders to their parents’ warped delusions about the world and need to preen for other SWPLs by taking on dog cuck projects, with whom one must sympathize. Pit bulls are known to have a real taste for yummy infant meat.
Predictably, after the shitlib gets his face eaten off, he’ll blame dog discrimination and his knapsack of white dog owner privilege, and say that although he was disappointed in his pit bull, Flaytavious, more needs to be done to lift this misunderstood breed out of poverty and hopelessness.
hosswire adds a comment about dog breeds so full of shitlib pants-wetting implications for humanity that it’s a wonder the Ministry of Hateful Anti-Hate Censorship didn’t flag it for “disappearance”.
Before 1835, the most vicious dog breed around was probably the Bulldog. It was bred to fight, or bait, bulls for entertainment. With an aggressive temperament, underslung jaw and thick neck, it attacked bulls in a ring, latching its teeth onto the bull’s nose and hanging on until the bull collapsed.
Once bull-baiting was outlawed in the UK, some called for the eradication of the breed. Instead, breeders deliberately bred the aggressiveness out of the breed, selecting the most gentle and calm specimens and eliminating the rest. Today, the English Bulldog is a pretty safe choice for a family pet.
The same thing could happen with pit bulls, if breeders and owners chose to do it. But it’s unlikely, as long as people continue to deny that it is inherently aggressive to start with.
The first step in progress is to stop telling lies. The rest of the steps are a piece of cake after that first step.
…and the results cause the men to burst into tears.
Via his poasting career, one of the funniest stories I’ve read this year.
After all of the usual caveats (unemployed T levels higher than employed T levels, testosterone does not correlate with success, etc) and complete blackout of obvious confounding bix noody variables we get to the point:
It turns out that the gay Jew has the highest testosterone level at 274. The other four men are clustered around half of that (144)
“In general, the normal range in males is about 270 to 1070 ng/dL with an average level of 679 ng/dL. A normal male testosterone level peaks at about age 20, and then it slowly declines.”
144. Male shitlibs are LITERALLY low T manlets.
One thing that jumped out at me, though, was the longing for normalcy. The two of the three women wanted to be low testosterone and feminine. The (almost uniformly whiny) straight(ish) men wanted to be high T. Even in the heart of poz. As creeped out as I was by the entire segment, I managed to extract a tiny grain of hope.
Hope or not, though, after listening to this segment I needed to move leg day up to lift away the poz.
Biomechanics is God, and He rules over even self-deluding shitlibs.
Lift away the poz. gentlemen. Your balls will grow three sizes with every new 1 rep max at the squat rack. Then you can enjoy the whiny spectacle of a sniveling, sneering leftoid disingenuously snark about why you want White men to be more aggressive like black men.
Reader Alex has found Kevin Williamson of National Review behaving rudely and acting very, very disrespectful toward women.
Kevin Williamson of National Review called Melania Trump a “plastic surgery disaster wife.” Haven’t yet found a Goldberg column condemning this rude sexism.
Jonah Goldberg is on record condemning Donald Trump’s rudeness and lack of respect for women. I wonder what Jonah Fatberg, arbiter of polite discourse, has to say about his colleague’s violation of cherished conservative principles?
You see, NR cucks, when you play the “how wude!” card don’t be surprised if your weak hand gets trumped by a pair of sadistic shivs.
Trump: 1, Cucks: a great big glory hole. Cuck News chieftain Ailes tells the MegYnites to back off Trump. MMmmm… I taste the tears of unfathomable cuckery.
Reader Robert What? asks,
Am I the only one who thinks that NR is sounding more like NPR every day?
No, you’re not. This is crisis and observation. The crisis is the apt cuckservative label, which has wonderfully focused the minds of the cocktail party conservatives who are its target. Now, sadistic interpreters of the id like yours truly observe their response. It is a clarifying moment, and as expected the cucks are showing their true colors, dispensing with their usual cuck and hive “standing athwart history mewling ‘not just yet'” and fully embracing their inner shitlib.
The sooner these phonyfucks are tossed overboard by fed-up voters, and readers, the better.
You’re going to hear a lot of mewling by cuckservatives this election cycle — as you have heard from them for the last, oh, eight election cycles — about the GOP needing to be more “optimistic”, because “Americans want to hear a message of hope, (not nasty dispiriting truths).”
Ignore it. Do you know what an optimist buried to his neck in a rising tide of shit is called? A fool.
“Optimism” is cuck-code for “sweeping reality under the rug and continuing the sell-out of white Americans”.
PS Here are some ❤️heart-warming photos❤️ of international border walls from around the world.
Here’s a game tip for aspiring womanizers that more experienced swains probably already know:
The more a girl mentions her boyfriend — either by name or by label — during the course of a conversation originally unrelated to anything about her boyfriend, the likelier it is she is aroused by your presence and therefore compelled to grasp onto “verbal anchors” that remind her of her ties to her boyfriend so as to alleviate her swelling guilt and, in case things spin out of control, to back-rationalize any cheating she does as outside the realm of her personal responsibility.
I call this the “three boyfriend blurts” rule. I’ve found, unfailingly, that women who plug the word “boyfriend” three times or more into their conversations with me are invariably attracted to me and enjoying my company beyond the bounds of propriety. These are the tell-tale female cues that they are stricken by guilty tingles, and are feeling at once desirous, desirable, and ashamed.
Once I know this, I can construct the flow and direction of our conversation toward more seductive destinations.
Most men are put off when a girl mentions her boyfriend out of the blue and worse, over and over, but they should really consider it a seduction opportunity. When a girl wedges a discordant declaration of the existence of her boyfriend into her rambling train of thought multiple times, the odds of illicit romantic closure with a charming interloper rise commensurate to the number of boyfriend blurts. The multiple boyfriend blurts are less warnings to other men than they are signals to approach her from an angle, because “taken” girls spook easily, like horses.
There’s only one exception to this rule, and it’s a weak exception, hardly belying the general observation: Some girls — particularly high maintenance BPD drama queens — who have fallen for a new guy will declare it from the rooftops on the flimsiest pretexts. However, this stage of try-hard infatuation usually lasts for a few weeks, two months tops, and they are more pliable to a supple seduction than their protestations to the contrary would suggest.
Girls who truly love their boyfriends, who are low infidelity risks, and who are secure in the knowledge that their boyfriends love them back, will be noted for the *absence* of mentions they make of their boyfriends. Paradoxical at first consideration, it makes sense upon reflection… a committed woman in love feels no need to prop up her own sexual loyalty to her boyfriend nor feels much need to artificially inflate via verbal incantation the sexual loyalty of her boyfriend.
For this reason, it’s almost a welcome convenience to hear the anxious staccato blurts of a “””taken””” woman instead of the opaque discretion of a legitimately taken woman who feels little psychic tension to announce her disengagement from the dating market.
Best of all, of course, is to hear no reference to a boyfriend, but even that is no guarantee you wouldn’t play the unknowing part of the furtive rendezvous lover.