How To Tell Women What They Want To Hear

Nick Savoy is a pick-up coach who runs Love Systems. He’s been in the business of selling blueprints for getting laid a long time. Although he’s Canadian, I have nothing against the guy. Word is he’s an excellent artiste of the pick-up persuasion. However, I can’t help but call out — and compliment! — glorious bullshit when I see it, and parts of this latest interview with him qualify.

Savoy made an appearance on the Today show recently to hawk his new “””game””” book for women, called It’s Your Move: How to Play the Game and Win the Man You Want. Now when I hear the words “girl game” my BS detector goes off. The fundamental premise of the sexual market is that women trade their youthnbeauty for men’s power, prestige, charm, dominance and resources (among other desirable male traits). The best “girl game” in the world, then, is simply this:

Be young and hot, ladies.

Any advice geared for women beyond that basic prerequisite is sure to be warm, steaming feelgood pablum. Effective at the distant margins, AT BEST. And then, effective only on beta males who are the kinds of men apt to fall for manipulative girl game. The alpha males for whom chicks devise “girl game” to capture in heady commitment are just the sorts of men who are adept at sidestepping women’s manipulations.

(This is very unlike game for men, which is the inverse of game for girls, because it tends to be the hottest, highest value girls who swoon the swooniest for seductive men with pick-up skills.)

But of course that message won’t sell. And since women are the majority of book buyers, especially of books which tickle their solipsistic fancies rather than give them actual useful advice to measurably improve their lives, it pays a man like Savoy to craft a prettified message for the ladies that will make them happy and hopeful and validated and reaching for their credit cards. So Savoy is no dummy. In fact, I predict he will make more $cashmoney$ from this one “girl game” book than he has made from all his tougher-edged game books aimed at men.

To understand what I’m getting at, watch this video of his interview. (Sadly, SFW.) Savoy has to speak in womanese to these two old, stretchy faced broads or they’d ride him out on a rail. (Or, more likely, their white knights and femlickers would ride him out on a rail.) The womanese dialect Savoy employs is thickly accented, so I’ve included where necessary a helpful womanese-to-male English translation below.

Ok, let me get this out of the way first so the comments don’t get clogged with funny yet drearily repetitive remarks: Yes, Savoy sounds gay. He’s not, but he sure sounds it. If you’re wondering how a man whose voice is a nasally kazoo that projects Kegel-strengthened arias into the heads of the assembled can seduce so many lovelies, keep in mind that Science! has discovered bisexual men — who are a subclass of the class of effeminate men — have more female partners on average than do exclusively heterosexual men. My take: Those men in touch with women’s deepest truest desires, like apparently Savoy is, are best able to coax them into the sack.

Also, Savoy is kind of funny. I’d be surprised if the gentle humor that comes across in this interview wasn’t also a part of his pick-up success.

I’ll skip the first minute which is mostly a prelude to the juicy stuff.

1:10 — “Well, half the game’s won or lost before you even leave the house.”

Male English translation: “If you’re cute inside your house, then you’ll be cute outside your house.”

This statement is half sincere, and that’s all right. If he had said “9/10ths of the game’s won or lost before you even leave the house”, he’d be eight-balling 100% stone cold truth. But we’ll take half and call it a win.

1:16 — “How you dress is important, too. But also, I mean, you want to go out with like a couple of girl friends, not a massive group, because that’s intimidating for most guys.”

This is good, if obvious, advice. Men, of course, prefer to approach women who are alone or with one friend. But Savoy either doesn’t understand *why* women go out in large hen groups, or he understands but is deliberately avoiding the implications in order to spoon feed pleasant sounding advice to women who will in reality never take it up. Single women aren’t making an error of judgment when they choose to go out in big groups of clucking hens and a few beta orbiters. In fact they are making a wise choice; big groups insulate them from potentially dangerous men, and big groups allow them to judge a man’s facility to navigate pressure-filled social dynamics.

So telling girls to go out alone is like telling them to put out as quickly as possible: it ain’t gonna happen as long as the female biomachinery isn’t radically altered. You know what types of women go out alone or with one friend? Cougars. When you have low sexual market value, you have to make it as easy as possible for the desperate beta males who are your bread and butter.

1:33 — “…and wear something or bring something interesting that a guy can comment on.”

Male English translation: “Don’t dress like a potato sack.”

This is good advice as far as it goes, but again, it suffers from the tacit delusion that ugly girls can attract men by wearing an eye-catching ensemble or a peculiar accoutrement. The “unique purse” that Savoy recommends a woman carry as a lure to capture a man’s attention and give him something to talk about is advice best suited for women who are *already* attracting men with their looks, and who want to make it easy for those men to strike up convos. Like I said, decent advice, but not really the sort of advice that is going to do the women most in need of a “How to find a man” book any help.

2:44 — “It’s so important to go to your strengths. I’m with guys as they’re going out to bars or clubs or coffee shops, and they’re deciding who to approach and who they’re interested in, and I see so often that guys would much rather approach the woman who’s confident in her own skin, who looks comfortable with herself, and who maybe is telling a story about herself with how she’s dressed, than the 25th most attractive woman in the room who’s competing on that ground.”

Male English translation: “If you’re an unattractive girl, dress like a scenester slut. Men will figure you’re DTF and will approach you over the girl who is unattractive and prudish.”

This is great advice for the girl who wants to get banged out no strings attached, but not so great advice for the girl who wants a relationship with an alpha male. Since most girls want the latter, this advice is as likely to get them further from their goals as it is to help them fulfill their goals.

By the way, the very fact that Savoy can speak so fluently in womanese is testament to his skills as a womanizer. Perhaps he won’t like that I’ve labeled his girl game advice as bullshit, but in fact I am paying him a high compliment. You’ve got to be smart and seductive to spin a whole book out of “Be cute and young, and don’t be ugly or get old”.

Leftoid Egocentrism

I’ve spent a lot of time in the company of leftoid SWPLs, liking some, disliking others, and I’ve spent nearly the same amount of time in the company of non-SWPLs and “blood n soil n family” types, again liking and disliking some. Here’s what I’ve found to be almost universally true:

Non-leftoids — i.e. conservatives, apolitical drop-outs, right leaners, sincere flyover country independents, anti-urban mainstream hipsters, commonsensical libertarians, earthy ethnics, and generally kind-hearted people who don’t like to argue politics or ideology at every turn — are exceedingly tolerant of leftoid SWPLs in their social group, even of the loony, attention whoring type of leftoid SWPL who can’t stop regaling a group with his or her political or social views. In fact, many non-leftoids go out of their way to befriend and include the few leftoids in social bonding rituals.

Leftoid SWPLs, in stark contrast, are exceedingly intolerant of anyone not a leftoid SWPL. This intolerance grows in proportion to the leftoid SWPL composition of a social group, and to the transparency with which the non-leftoids in the group adhere to their beliefs and world views. I have seen leftoid SWPLs WALK OUT of rooms, mid-conversation, because they experienced an uncomfortable reflex when some wholly unobtrusive non-leftoid let slip a sliver of marginal crimethink.

My conclusion: Leftoid SWPLs are among the most intolerant, self-righteous, egotistical pricks in the world, right up there with the Tutsis. For a sub-race of people that has spent generations propagandizing the sanctity of tolerance, they sure have a blind spot to their own non-incluuuuuuuusive behavior.

The question is… why? Why is this the state of affairs, and not some other state of affairs?

My answer is that I believe leftoid SWPLism is partly genetically inherited, and that this inheritance carries along with it a propensity for supreme, infantile egocentrism. Rank egocentrism is a child-like psychology of solipsistic, feminine essence that expresses from a deeply rooted insecurity about one’s status in her immediate world. The leftoid SWPL is an aggro, in-group curator who religiously polices the boundary of her carefully cultivated social scene, *precisely* because she is unsure of her mental footing and of the viability of her group should it be exposed to thought contamination. I say “she”, because it is typically the female SWPLs who are the most aggrieved and intolerant.

The leftoid SWPL is no different in psychology and temperament than the boogeyman Evangelicals and Jesus Freaks who populate her overactive imagination. Their numbers are large enough in the blue cities that they have reached a tipping point where their exclusivity and intolerance and hatred have become self-reinforcing. Their megachurch is the MSM newspaper op-ed, to which they dutifully attend every Sunday to read, recite and genuflect in solemn prayer and soul-nourishing thanks.

I like the SWPL lifestyle — they have done some things right — but many of them are simply grotesque robo-human caricatures one would be ill-disposed to assist in a moment of crisis. They are good for house parties and pleasant, polysyllabic banter, and that’s about it. And their women are thinner than non-SWPLs. So there’s that, and that’s an important thing.

The old saw that liberals love humanity but hate humans while conservatives hate humanity but love humans is proven accurate over and over, each time I am in the one or the other’s company. The tolerant are those who are more socially aware — more empathic, if you will — of the feelings of those within their sphere of social influence. The intolerant live in a pinched id box where the only awareness is of one’s relative status ranking and of the gratification of one’s self-glorified ego.

I prefer the human-lovers over humanity-lovers. After all, humans are right here, right now, part of my reality and my experience, while humanity is an abstract entity that does not love me or receive my love, smile with me, cooperate with me, or share fun times with me. It may not be the proper attitude of the utopian progressivist (doomed to failure as she is), but it sure makes poolside time a lot more enjoyable.

Given the growing intolerance of leftoid SWPLs and the unconcealed loathing of the ruling class for middle class whites, and the apparent ignorance of the irony inherent in their behavior, I predict that chunks of the USA are destined to part ways along internal fault lines that are presently unknowable. There will be a secession, perhaps not in the traditional way, but a seceding will happen, in one form or another. It is inevitable. Some will argue it will be a continuation of the Civil War, the war that never really ended because the vanquished stuck around in close proximity to the victors, despite efforts to salt their earth. I don’t know about that. I do know strange winds are blowing, the blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and the center cannot hold. The ego is the most powerful force in the cosmos, and it will not go quietly to lick its wounds before a cataclysm unleashes its dying fury.

The “IKEA Effect” Supports The Game Concept Of Compliance

We’ll just begin this post with a preen.

♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ *self-love* ♥♥♥♥♥♥ *self-love* *self-love* ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥

Ah, that’s better.

Wait. Did you hear that? Someone out there thinks this preen invalidates the science that is about to follow. What a strange duck that person is.

Pick-up artists have a term called compliance, which is a game tactic designed to raise a man’s value relative to the woman’s value, and to gauge a woman’s interest level. The concept is simple: You make a request of a girl, and if she complies you know that she is attracted to you. Furthermore, the very act of complying with your request will cause her to feel more attracted to you.

Compliance techniques can be physical or verbal. The verbal forms are known as “hoops”, as in “jump through your hoops”. For instance, raising your hand and gesturing for a girl to grab it and twirl is a physical compliance test. Asking her to watch your drink as you take a bathroom break, or to participate in a mind game of your choosing, are verbal hoops.

Compliance is a powerful seduction technique, for two reasons: One, it is grounded in an accurate appraisal of human, and particularly female, psychology and, two, it is so rarely used by men (and so frequently deployed by women) that the man who co-opts it for himself is immediately more alluring to women.

While there appears to be no scientific study directly measuring the effect of female compliance on a man’s desirability, there has been an analogous study examining how labor compliance affects people’s feelings of love for the objects of their labor. It’s called the “IKEA Effect”, and the study concluded:

In a series of studies in which consumers assembled IKEA boxes, folded origami, and built sets of Legos, we demonstrate and investigate the boundary conditions for what we term the “IKEA effect” – the increase in valuation of self-made products. Participants saw their amateurish creations – of both utilitarian and hedonic products – as similar in value to the creations of experts, and expected others to share their opinions. […]

Adding to previous literature on effort justification, we also show that successful completion is an essential component for the link between labor and liking to emerge; participants who built and then unbuilt their creations, or were not permitted to finish those creations, did not show an increase in willingness-to-pay. In addition, our experiments addressed several possible alternative IKEA Effect explanations for the increased valuation that people hold for their own creations. We show that successful assembly of products leads to value over and above the value that arises from merely being endowed with a product, or merely handling that product; in addition, by using simple IKEA boxes and Lego sets that did not permit customization, we demonstrated that the IKEA effect does not arise solely as a result of participants’ idiosyncratic tailoring of their creations to their preferences.

What psychological mechanisms underlie the increase in valuation when participants self-assemble their products? In the introduction, we suggested that the increase in liking that occurs due to effort (Aronson and Mills 1959) coupled with the positive feelings of effectance that accompany successful completion of tasks (Dittmar 1992; Furby 1991) is an important driver of the increase in willingness to pay that we observe. Of course, effectance itself has multiple psychological components: actual control over outcomes and mere perceived control over outcomes (Bandura, 1977). Given that our participants are in “control” by building their own products yet assembling them according to preset instructions (i.e., “not in control”), further exploration of perceived and actual control is likely to lend insight into the IKEA effect. In addition, there are likely additional underlying mechanisms that vary by the type of product being assembled. For instance, the assembly of more hedonic products often results in the opportunity to display one’s creation to others (Franke et al. 2010). Indeed, many of our participants who built Legos and origami in Experiments 1B and 2 mentioned a desire to show them to their friends, suggesting that the increase in willingness-to-pay for hedonic products may arise in part due to the social utility offered by assembling these products. We suggest, however, that social utility is likely to play a more minor role in increased liking for self-assembled utilitarian products like the storage boxes used in Experiments 1A and 3, given that the social IKEA Effect utility gained from displaying products decreases as product complexity decreases (Thompson and Norton, in press). It is also possible that the enjoyment of the assembly task itself is a contributor to the IKEA effect – building Lego frogs is more fun than building storage boxes – such that task enjoyment is another contributor to valuation that varies by product type. Future research is needed to unpack what are likely to be multiple drivers of the IKEA effect.

We note that we used generally small ticket items, and the question of whether the IKEA effect occurs for more expensive items is important both practically and theoretically. While future research should empirically examine the magnitude of overvaluation as a function of price, we suggest that, even for very costly items, people may continue to see the products of their labor as more valuable than others do. For instance, people may see the improvements they have made to their homes – such as the brick walkways they laid by hand – as increasing the value of the house far more than buyers, who see only a shoddily-built walkway. Indeed, to the extent that labor one puts into one’s home reflects one’s own idiosyncratic tastes, such as kitchen tiling behind the sink that quotes bible verses, labor might actually lead to lower valuation by buyers, who see only bible verses that must be expunged – even as that labor leads the owner to raise the selling price.

This is a boffo study with wide-ranging implications for numerous human social dynamics, including the seduction of women. Parsing the academese, what the study says is this:

The more work (labor) you put into a project, the more you will value the outcome of that project, even if objectively the value of your output is not high.

This relates to game. The charismatic tactic of inducing female compliance is essentially the coaxing of women to perform labor on your behalf, and for your benefit. When a woman labors for you, (“Carrie, hold my scarf”), she has invested in you, and her love for her “project” (you) grows commensurate with her degree of labor aka investment. It sounds counterintuitive (Typical Blue Piller: “Why would a woman love a man more if he’s being demanding and she’s being accommodating?”), but that is the nature of male-female mating dances: the reproductive goals of men and women are at odds, so romantic interactions tend to resolve into counterintuitive, even paradoxical, strategies.

And how often have we all seen this strange predilection of female nature play out in real life? Watch any natural/jerk/douchebag/player and you’ll see his lovers bending over backward to please him. And when you ask a girl why she loves the jerk who squeezes blood from her stone, she defends him to the high heavens, much like an IKEA consumer will defend his rickety, self-assembled Nordbox to any who question its actual worth.

This is one reason why artists do so well with women. Though he may not be consciously aware of the biomachinations that fuel his seductive charms, the artist’s “demand” of a woman to “get his work” or “grasp his message” is basically a challenge to her self-valuation, and a challenge that requires of her some mental (or physical) labor to reaffirm. Fashion photographers, the straight ones at least, absolutely clean up with hotties because they put their exquisite models in a constant, elevated state of laborious challenge — do this, move here, drop your chin, look this way, stop looking that way — which heightens their feelings of arousal and love for the photographer. It is akin to the feelings evoked by the psychology of Stockholm Syndrome.

Making demands of women feels very unnatural to beta males because those men have little experience with women beyond that which is acquired by flaunting their ability to provide, sympathy mewl on cue, and show up on time. To beta males, the notion of arousing a woman to dizzying sexual cravings through the conduit of compliance testing is incomprehensible. The beta male invests in women; he knows no other way. The alpha male lures women to invest in him. He knows there is another way.

The Opposite Of Hoverhand: Hineyhand

Ah, hoverhand, that most identifiable of nervous, self-conscious beta male tells. Do you hover, body or hand? If you do, you must stop doing it so that women can begin to perceive you as a more attractive man, i.e. a man with a functional penis. Once you stop hovering, you may move on to step two: slyly placing your hand on or near a girl’s erogenous zones. What’s that? You’re afraid? Do not be afraid. Fear leads to beta. Beta leads to bitterness. Bitterness leads to involuntary celibacy.

Say again? Now you’re afraid a praying man-chin feminist will bite your head off if you put your hand on her in a less than obsequious manner? Silly fledgling. If you aren’t brusque about it, no woman will do that. Not even a feminist. Instead, the feminist will secretly enjoy your privileged sexual predations, and will only realize a day later after you have ignored her calls and text messages that she succumbed to an alpha male, whereupon her indignation will rise like froth in a stew of mashed ego gruel, and she will write a livid blog post about the asshole PUA she supposedly couldn’t care less for who can’t stop thinking about her.

Some of you burgeoning ladyslayers are wondering, “Where do I put my hand, then?”. Glad you asked! Here’s a graphic catered to the visual orientation preference of men.

The guy in the top left pic is headed toward LJBF land, if he isn’t there already. Beta. The guy in the bottom right is scared of his own shadow. Lesser beta with delusions of grandeur. The guy in the bottom left is doing it just right. Not too much grabass, like the boyfriend in the top right, but just enough to escalate her sexual response without triggering her egg protection protocol. As the night wears on and the seduction deepens, you should move your hand into previously inviolable regions. You’re on the right track if you can feel ass crack. As a reader says,

The guy at the waistline [bottom left] has to choose: up and out, or down and in.

Up and out, or down and in? Alpha male problems.

Where is the omega male’s hand? Why, feverishly pumping his pud ‘twixt forefinger and thumb!

Contraceptives And Cuckoldry

Khaaaaan has a post up about a German study which purports to show that the cuckoldry rate — situations where the presumed father is not the biological father of the child — in Germany is around 1%. (Via Glpiggy.)

A few words on that. First, misattribution of paternity can occur in any number of ways. Steve Sailer left some good comments over at Khan’s blog that illustrate in real life, flesh and blood scenarios how cuckoldry rates can be misattributed. Nevertheless, I’m not here to argue that the 1% figure is wrong. In fact, the 1% figure is higher than I assumed. Look at it this way: That recorded 1% cuckoldry rate is more than 30 TIMES the US recorded rape rate of 0.03%.

Besides the actual rate, there are other angles to this id-loaded topic that are worth exploring.

A flaw in assuming present-day cuckoldry rates align with historical cuckoldry rates is the fairly recent widespread availability of contraceptives and abortion. How many women who sleep with interloper males are using birth control? Probably most, and more so if those women are higher SES. How many are aborting the fetus, should contraception fail or not be used, before hubby finds out or is doomed to raise a child as an unwitting cuckold? Again, I’d guess most. That 1% figure may simply be a reflection of the fact that cheap and effective modern contraceptives bite into a possibly larger historical cuck rate. And since our sexual natures are the product of millions of years of fine-tuning, it would make sense for male jealousy and mate-guarding instincts to have evolved, especially if the real cuckoldry rate (and not just the “don’t worry, I’m on the Pill” shadow cuckoldry rate in which the act is performed but the consequence is averted) in the environment of evolutionary adaptation was considerably higher than 1%.

Or: Don’t start hedging your bets that women are no more than 1% evil.

Then there is the issue of serial monogamy. Serial monogamy is much more the norm now than it was in the past. Women on second marriages (or on post-divorce second dating lives) bring their kids from the first marriage into any new relationship. As much as the new boyfriend or husband might not want those bastards around him, he is going to participate in their raising in some form or another if he plans on banging out the mother for any length of time greater than two weeks. He is, in effect, a de facto cuckold, albeit an informed and, presumably, voluntary one. (Though the definition of voluntary is a bit loose when one is put in the position of weighing the odds of future fux against the pain of supporting present bastards. Duress matters if you are a desperate beta male willing to put up with snot-nosed shit to get some floppy, aged action.)

Women, too, are subject to unwelcome participation in the raising of unrelated children if they are in second relationships with divorced single dads, but in practice this punishment is not meted out to women nearly as often as it is to men, because it is usually the ex-wife who has full-time custody of her kids, or the single mom who is solely raising her hatchlings, and hence it is usually the sloppy seconds beta male who is getting the screws by groveling for sexual relief from these SMV leftovers.

So there are really two kinds of cuckoldry: De facto and deceptive. The latter is far worse from a moral calculus (it really is the equivalent of female rape, except the pain is dragged out over eighteen years) but the former is no less an indictment of the growing dysfunction of the modern sexual market.

Choice Quotes From Michel Houellebecq

Michel Houellebecq is the patron prophet and Saint Shiv of Chateau Heartiste. He is a Frenchman novelist who grasps the essential corrosive nature of modern Western society, and who is unafraid to tell it like it is (in language poetic enough to disarm the outer defenses of the Cathedral). Here are a few choice quotes from his books which, I am sure you will agree, closely align with the CH message.

It’s a fact, I mused to myself, that in societies like ours sex truly represents a second system of differentiation, completely independent of money; and as a system of differentiation it functions just as mercilessly. The effects of these two systems are, furthermore, strictly equivalent. Just like unrestrained economic liberalism, and for similar reasons, sexual liberalism produces phenomena of absolute pauperization. Some men make love every day; others five or six times in their life, or never. Some make love with dozens of women, others with none. It’s what’s known as ” the law of the market”. In an economic system where unfair dismissal is prohibited, every person more or less manages to find their place. In a sexual system where adultery is prohibited, every person more or less manages to find their bed mate. In a totally liberal economic system certain people accumulate considerable fortunes; others stagnate in unemployment and misery. In a totally liberal sexual system certain people have a varied and exciting erotic life; others are reduced to masturbation and solitude…………

Love as a kind of innocence and as a capacity for illusion, as an aptitude for epitomizing the whole of the other sex in a single loved being rarely resists a year of sexual immorality, and never two. In reality the successive sexual experiences accumulated during adolescence undermine and rapidly destroy all possibility of projection of an emotional and romantic sort; progressively, and in fact extremely quickly, one becomes as capable of love as an old slag.

– Whatever, quoted in a review of the novels of Michel Houellebecq, “The Suicide of the West“.

The sexual market is not just differentiated from the money market; it is foundational of it. The money market is subordinate to the sexual market, though most times to the conscious observer it seems as if the money motive is all there is. But the exquisite perfidy of the sexual market relies in good part on its shadowy functioning. It works out of sight and mind because few can, or are willing to, discern its intricate workings, and even then, fully discerned and understood, it continues working. Its power is absolute.

Houellebecq here correctly identifies the winners and losers in the liberalized sexual market, and his hierarchy matches the writings uncovered on ancient CH scrolls:

Alpha males: biggest winners.
Alpha females: marginal winners.
Beta females: marginal losers.
Beta males: biggest losers.
Omega males and females: same as it ever was.

But the alpha male suffers a penalty of the soul for his embarrassing riches. As the commenter The Man Who Was… put it:

“Success with women is more disillusioning than failure.”

Houellebecq says much the same. The least romantic are those who have gorged on romance. Like economic prosperity, fulfillment of man’s deepest desires is the very success that suffocates his idealism, crushes his hope, and enervates his spirit.

The only known cure for a failing empire, like 2013 America, is economic and social collapse, to seed the ground for rebirth. Similarly, the only known cure for a bifurcated, winner-take-all sexual market, is collapse of equalism, that wrong-headed ideology which assumes the sexes are interchangeable. The collapse is inevitable, whether it happens all at once or slowly, because these forces, having been set in motion generations, perhaps millennia ago, perhaps even set in motion at the very beginnings of humanity, are incorruptible. One cannot manage or reason with the Gods of the Copybook Headings. The prime directive, will, once again, as it has done so many times before, shatter all illusions.

***

It is interesting to note that the “sexual revolution” was sometimes portrayed as a communal utopia, whereas in fact it was simply another stage in the historical rise of individualism. As the lovely word “household” suggests, the couple and the family would be the last bastion of primitive communism in liberal society. The sexual revolution was to destroy these intermediary communities, the last to separate the individual from the market. The destruction continues to this day.

– The Elementary Particles

The modern leftoid is not a Communist. He is a radical indivdualist. The nuclear family is the final defense against unfettered individualism. Hence, the need for its destruction. As long as there are functioning nuclear families, there is the possibility for in-groupism, tribal loyalty, and nationalism. And these are anathema to certain peoples. The Western man has at last been reduced to a gram of currency, rendered powerless, unable to perceive his growing powerlessness as his sinister baubles and superficial dopamine fixes become more entertaining, distracting, and enfeebling.

***

To increase desires to an unbearable level whilst making the fulfillment of them more and more inaccessible: this was the single principle upon which Western society was based.

– The Possibility of an Island

Modern Western society has been one giant compliance hoop, to borrow a term from the pick-up literature. Maybe a better way to describe modern Western society is as the mother of all cockteases. The Western man has been orbiting in the LJBF zone for decades, gratification and glory so tantalizingly near, a simulacrum of the moist pleasures of kingship held to his parched lips, yet at the same time all this has remained light years from his possessive clutch, cruelly mocking him from a guarded, viewable distance. As a reader comments:

Show men endless images of beautiful models and actresses and singers, show them endless images of beautiful, slim, women engaging in sex with enthusiasm, tell them that a world of uncommitted and marriageless sex is the norm — then, for reasons they don’t understand, slam the door in their face.

This is not a prescription for long term stability.

We are the front lines of a grand sociological experiment the fruits of which are just now beginning to ripen. There is no way to know the exact contours it will trace, because nothing of this precise nature on this gargantuan scale has befallen an entire civilization of our size, until now. But if past performance of similar civilizational devolutions is indicative of future returns, there is little cause for optimism. The omens are everywhere.

America The Beautiful, 2013

O beautiful for spacious skies,
For amber waves of grain,

For purple mountain majesties
Above the fruited plain!

America! America!

God shed His grace on thee,

And crown thy good with brotherhood

From sea to shining sea!

O beautiful for pilgrim feet

Whose stern impassion’d stress
A thoroughfare for freedom beat

Across the wilderness

America! America!
God mend thine ev’ry flaw,

Confirm thy soul in self-control,

Thy liberty in law.

O beautiful for heroes prov’d

In liberating strife,

Who more than self their country lov’d,

And mercy more than life.

America! America!
May God thy gold refine

Till all success be nobleness,

And ev’ry gain divine.

O beautiful for patriot dream

That sees beyond the years

Thine alabaster cities gleam

Undimmed by human tears.

America! America!
God shed His grace on thee,

And crown thy good with brotherhood

From sea to shining sea.

Namaste.