“To Be Fair” Game

I have a buddy who says his pickup game boils down to “fatten them up before the kill”. He means by this that he lowers girls’ defenses with stray, off-hand compliments and then, when they’re smiling and acting gracious and conciliatory toward him, he pulls a 180 utilizing a coy “except for” non sequitur and mildly rebukes something about the girl that she prides herself on. The key, he says, is the delivery; he makes it seem like his insults are never intentional. His whole game is essentially an extended-play version of the neg.

I was reminded of this by reader Chad Durbsley, who explains his “to be fair” game which sounds tactically similar to “fatten them up” game.

Update on “gay game”.

Although I’ve been using Internet dating less and less, it’s still worth putting a minute or 2 a day into it depending on where you live, and your skill in spotting undercover fatties.

“Gay profile” gets amazing results. Especially with younger sjw girls with a rainbow profile pic.

Also having great success with “to be fair” game.
I.e. : “to be fair- if your profile was any gayer it would be a power-bottom named Steve”.

The trick here is to use the “to be fair…” and then say something that’s patently *unfair* and also insulting. This short circuits the hamster direct to the pussy.

This is a semantic trick that works surprisingly well. “To be fair” Game is a sneaky false premise verbal sleight, the false premise being that what you are about to say is anything resembling fair. (A cousin of “to be fair,…” is “that said,…”.)

This persuasion technique could be lumped into a school of salesmanship called “relationship building”. It works by presuming, or fast-tracking, a closer, more intimate relationship than actually exists, which in pickup jargon is known as time compression. When you use leading clauses like “to be fair”, you are insinuating yourself into the girl’s circle of trust; you are assuming in effect that you are a fair man, that she knows this, and that anything you say must therefore be weighed more seriously than what any other rando would say.

“Relationship building” goes a lot deeper that that, but don’t underestimate the force that a few well-timed quips can have on a woman’s perception of your mate value. “To be fair” Game would work even better if you “fatten her up” first with a sincere compliment. This is the psychological foundation for the efficacy of the neg. Like Chad said, the blatant contradiction between the declaration of fairness and the unfairness of your comment is just the kind of verbal theatric that drives women crazy with curiosity.

“Love your purple hair!….. To be fair, it does make you look like a gay tranny.”

Spot The Alpha And The Beta

Somebody, probably a girl buddy, asked this group to look over their shoulders and put their hands on their hips for a snap. It’s hard to make this pose work without looking gay.

One man obeys.


One man is busy checking another girl out and can’t be bothered to remove his hand from his girl’s ass.


Any questions?

Yes, you sir.

You still don’t get it?

Ok, try this. It’s a general guide to the good life. A very simple rule that if you follow it religiously will reward you 99 out of 100 times.

Doing what you’re told: BETA.

Doing whatever the fuck you want: .

Stop appeasing girls. They don’t want it, they don’t like it, and they invariably give their sexual favors to men who understand this about them.

There’s a theory floating around alt-blogs that human IQ in the developed world has been steadily decreasing since about the dawn of agriculture. The working hypothesis is that agriculture enabled dense urban life to develop, and cities are known population sinks (lack of space/high cost/disease vectors all contribute to lower fertility rates in cities).

The thinking goes that cities attract smarter people, who upon settling into urban mimosavilles promptly forget the Darwinian Prime Directive and fail to reproduce themselves in sufficient numbers. 1.5 sprog per hipster village yenta is a recipe for extinction. (Which is not necessarily a bad thing.)

I don’t know if I buy this theory of decreasing IQ in total, but if true, I can suggest another plausible mechanism that is far more pertinent today, now that disease threat and high child mortality have largely been eliminated. This mechanism is far darker than disease or child mortality, once you get to peering at it closely in your skull ham.

You could call this the CH-ian “The Pill, The Rubber, and Abortion, Oh My!” theory of dysgenia.

The speculative specs: Evolution has slowly, and sometimes quickly, produced human populations with great intelligence (on average). As these population groups gained smarts, they reconfigured their environment so powerfully that their cultures began to exert more influence than the natural world did on how their progeny would evolve.

Gene-culture co-evolution became the order of the day. Civilization sprouted and flourished. And it was good. Until…

These groups of humans became so smart that they outwitted — for a time — the second evolutionary guiding principle of reproduction. They invented Pills and Rubbers and safe and cheap Abortions, thus allowing themselves the joy of sex without the joylessness of changing diapers.

Smarter people, having by their inherent mental dispositions a lower threshold for the tedious and boring tasks of infant care, stopped having so many babies. But smarter people USED to have more babies than dumber people! What happened since then? Well, when pre-20th Century smart people had sex — which they never found boring — they were often stuck with the consequences. Most of them simply accepted the boredom of child-rearing as a necessary component of life.

Once the Era of The Pill, Rubber, and Abortion began in earnest, smart people saw the wisdom, from their own personal hedonistic perspectives, of using these smarthuman-created tools to separate the consequences of boring child-rearing from the titillation of sex. End result: Fewer smarties having kids, more dummies taking up the slack, dysgenia in full black lotus bloom.

For the first time, perhaps, on a large scale, humans had made an end run around a Darwinian First Principle. Humans — some humans, anyway — had become TOO SMART and invented pregnancy-thwarting tech that also thwarted the cosmic, and divine, imperatives. The Pill, The Rubber, and Abortion may be making us dumber!

Hard double-blind, metabolically-controlled ¡SCIENCE! evidence for this “PRA” theory is sparse and mostly circumstantial, but it is out there. For instance, in a study of German parents, having a child lowered their happiness more than any other life change, including death of a spouse!

And of course there are the oft-cited stats of later age of first marriage and lowered fertility plaguing almost the entire Pan Western developed world.

There are countercurrents pushing against the PRA theory of dumbing down humanity. The Pill seems to alter women’s sexual preferences so strongly that they choose less masculine beta males as partners if they were on the Pill during the time of choosing. This would imply that these women would have more kids, Pill-disposed as they are to settling into family life with a beta provider. However, it could conceivably run the other way: Once married and thinking about having kids, women who get off the Pill might suddenly become repulsed by their babyfatted betahubbies as their ovulatory machine revs up again after a hiatus of many years. This could lead to an increase in divorce (which in fact has been happening throughout the West since the 1960s) and consequently a decrease in children (or a decrease in children born in wedlock).

Is the evolution of human intelligence self-limiting? If it is, will societies respond by banning the Pill, the Rubber, and the Abortion? Or will we just have to ride this one out for a few millennia, until the fitness maximizer pendulum swings back to the smart set? Either way, going on the way the West is going now, something’s gonna give.

Vox points out that Donald Fucking Trump used a classic game tactic — the neg — on (former) supermodel (and mudshark) Heidi Klum, when he said “she’s great, but no longer a 10”.

You know a man is a mega alpha when a single casual neg directed in an offhand manner at a former supermodel results in two videos and multiple public statements as the woman desperately tries to qualify herself to him.

The tingle-stricken lady doth protest too much.

The sheer incoherence of Klum’s remarks underline the degree to which Trump’s dismissive remark rattled her. That, gentlemen, is how it is done. Identify the insecurity and casually press. You know you’ve hit the nerve when their reaction spans days.

The alpha does not qualify himself to women, ever. He expects women to qualify themselves to him.

ABQ: Always Be Qualifying.

Oh, and ladies, a helpful reminder: If you are a White woman of incomparable beauty, don’t throw your genetic heritage away on a coalburning “F YOU DAD” mission. When you get older and less attractive (as you assuredly will), people will feel less urgency to extend you kindness and deference because your family looks weird and they’ll have doubts about your character. Can I get a two-for-one ‘heh’? Heh.

(Trump’s remark actually straddles the line between a neg and an insult, although a man with as much preselected alpha goodness as Trump has more margin for error in this matter. Nonetheless, I’d still call it a neg, because he did butter her up first before delivering the backhanded compliment.)


Also from Vox, another demonstration of the power of Fame Game over women’s attraction triggers.

The best part about Game is watching a girl become “noticeably more interested” in you as you weave your biomechanic magic. It’s very satisfying, even apart from the normal anticipatory excitement that accompanies courtship.

wounded warrior
bloodied and calm
a silent storyboard
to her heart embalmed

Reader Noel describes the reactions he got after he injured his hand.

2. observation. conversation starters. I don’t know if CH et al. would classify it under ‘peacocking’. I recently messed up my right hand bad [typing only with left] so had surgery, and now the hand is in a splint. People seem to gravitate to it naturally and start conversations [‘what happened?’] along with eliciting a lot of ‘poor you’ remarks and ‘get well!’ wishes. The handicap is real not apparent like peacocking, and obviously it doesn’t show some evo superiority…but it lubricates social intercourse! surprisingly people are thrown off when i give a non-straightforward answer….i don’t know if it’s my delivery or people in san francisco [where i am] lack a sense of humor….

Don’t underestimate the power of wounded warrior game (of which scar game is a profitable subsidiary). Girls flock to men who look like they’ve stepped out of the beta drone office cubicle to survive a spot of adventure. A man’s injury, or permanent mark of a past injury, is rocket fuel for the female fantasia callosum, which she herself eagerly fills with anticipated tales of ZFG (zero fucks given) alpha rogue exploits.

Your job, should you choose the alpha path, is to strike the incipient fantasy chord always taut and ready for a symphony in her brain with your boning fork. Then, allow her imagination some time to run wild before revealing your secret, which of course you should reveal with the maximum vaginally-approved embellishment.

Why are women intrigued by a man with a scar or a wound?

1. Injuries are evidence of a fighter.

Deep, deeeeeeep, in the female hindbrain there resides a poetess who scribes limpid odes to a man who has taken all comers and emerged victorious. It’s evolution all the way down in this instance; women can’t shake that irrepressible lust for a man who bears evidence of his ability and willingness to physically protect them from danger.

2. Injuries add drama.

All women are drama whores. The difference between women and their love of drama is one of degree, not kind. You have to scale some courtship walls before you can take her on an adventure. Add a scar, and she’ll beg to go on the journey.

3. Injuries are a palimpsest over a soul full of brooding pain.

All women are also nurturers, more or less. The nurse in her begs to tend to your wounded soul, a soul which is easier for her to summon into existence if your body bears the stigmata of real wounds.

4. Injuries are the next best thing to female preselection.

Show up to a club with a beautiful woman in your company and other women in attendance will autonomically experience a swell of desire for you. This is because you are a proven commodity. (Women rely much more on these proxy cues of mate value than do men, who merely require a split second visual appraisal to activate the courtship ritual). An injury or scar works like a beautiful woman, plus the added benefit of an implicit invitation to find out more. Certainly, an omega male loser can have a scar, but women are wired to assume, usually correctly, that scars are most often the badges of men who don’t play marathon video game sessions in gloomy bedrooms or rant ineffectually on male feminist tumblrrheas. As Noel experienced, you will have an incredibly easy time striking up conversations with inquisitive girls if you’re hobbled or engraved with proof of past battles.

Piercings and tattoos are probably a “safe” scar-lite form of mate value enhancement preferred by hipsters and freaks, but now that women have co-opted the same symbols of warriordom they might not be as effective for men. You’ll need the real thing now. Surgically embedded knife wound scars?

PS When a girl asks about your scar or injury, a classic opening reply would be “Ah, it’s complicated.” Sexual innuendo also works, if the moment is appropriate: “Bedroom injury.” Another good reply is to make up an obviously phony reason for it: “Fighting my way out of ISIS captivity”. But I think the most productive reply is one that alludes, loosely, to a troubled time from your past: “I got it a long time ago. It’s not something I like to remember.”

The Diversity™ Danegeld

A commenter, jjbees, leaves a profoundly pointed anecdote in reply to genial Audacious E’s righteous rage against the dying of the White Light,

It’s simply impossible for whites to thrive when there are too many minorities around.

If we want to reach the heights of civilization, to visit the moon again, to colonize mars, to automate cars and have robots servicing all of our needs, to genetically engineer disease out of existence, we simply can’t be around minorities, specifically black people.

When my family lived in an urban ghetto (us white, 99.999% of our neighbors black) one of our main worries was survival. Are the guns loaded, did you lock the doors. Oh look, your bicycle was stolen out of the garage by your next door neighbor who we invited to have dinner with us last week (no shit, it happened). Having to drive to school every morning 3 towns over to avoid a 90% minority school (and therefore not get beaten).

Then we moved to a rural town, 100% white, where I could explore in the woods, ride my bicycle around town, never get robbed or threatened or beaten, where I could read books in peace, and we left the doors unlocked at night, and my intellect could flourish and I could dream of a beautiful future and live, not merely exist in a hardscrabble fight against a mean world. I thank god my parents were smart enough to do that for me and for us.

We can spend all our national treasure letting our natural enemies make their home right next door, we can feed them, and clothe them, and let them make more and more of themselves as we dwindle and become less and less, ad infinitum, working ever harder, ever longer, just for them, until we are nothing and there is nothing more to give, and our dreams are dead forever.

Or we can just. say. no.

No means no, except when the question is how best to secure a future for White Americans.

It’s a favorite shitlib shitlibboleth to claim that poverty causes crime, but the opposite of that formulation has more truth in it: crime causes poverty. Poverty of the wallet as well as of the mind. jjbees is right; when you fear for your safety every day of your life, and approach every social interaction with an enervating, distrustful cynicism borne of hard experience dealing with aliens who’d sooner screw you over if the screwing was good, you’ll sacrifice inordinate mental and physical energy navigating the shoals of Diversity™ that could be better spent tapping the unquenchable human spirit that your great (and unique!) European ancestors bequeathed you to advance civilization.

This is the price of Diversity™: slow attrition of living space for the individual, his family, and his intellectual, aesthetic, and spiritual aspirations. To think that the mental template of White Europeans evolved only in the last 5,000 years, and probably later than that, is to realize the precious gift of your genetic and cultural inheritance, and how easy it is to throw it all away for a return to the abyss.

But, hey, White’s be raciss an sheeeit, and who’s gonna mow your lawn?

PS As per usual when these topics about self-determination come up, a “white” troll with a fever for the flavor of a Yellow Eskimo drops his stinky “I love diverse neighborhoods as long as they’re full of high IQ slants and shekels” schtick. But as the Audacious One rightly reprimands, IQ isn’t everything. Not even close. The dimensions of personality and… wait for it… moral character, all of it passed on by chromosome and community, play a big role in how trusting we are with our neighbors and consequently how much faith and investment we put into our little islands of civilization.

Thriving in a mixed neighborhood of functional, middle-class or affluent two-parent households with children is of course attainable, but that sort of neighborhood tends to have less community cohesion/neighborliness than a homogeneous neighborhood with of intact families of means (a la Robert Putnam’s now famous study). I live near Cerner, Sprint, and Garmin headquarters and consequently a lot of my neighbors are Asian (South and East). They take care of their houses as well as anyone else and we always get a reciprocated wave, but they don’t tend to come outside to chat it up when my son and some of the other kids in the neighborhood are running around.

And of course NAMs are disproportionately less likely to meet the functional, two-parent household criteria.

A nation crumbles inexorably to its slow expiration when its native sons drop below 80% of the total population for more than a few generations. The US is about to head down that r-selected rabbit hole. This ride won’t end well unless someone hits the brakes hard and slaps it into reverse. It may already be too late, but standing against the tide beats a glum suicide walk into the briny deep.


There’s no end to the ways in which being an alpha male is better than being a beta male.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,325 other followers

%d bloggers like this: