The Battle Of The Sexes, Abridged

Polygyny advantages alpha males and beta females.

Monogamy advantages beta males and alpha females.

Guess which system advantages civilization?

Maybe that question is too broad. Which mating system — in either the hard or soft forms — benefits the individual? The managerial globalists? The cognoelite? The lumpenproles? Figure out how each group benefits and you’ll know which system is ascendent, and which is actively and passively undermined.





Comments


  1. So this picture was taken in a house of mirrors?

    Like


  2. Why Asian men are the most alpha: Their women are the skinniest.

    Like


  3. Guess which system advantages civilization?

    Maybe that question is too broad. Which mating system — in either the hard or soft forms —benefits the individual?

    Depends on which alphas you are concerned with, but civilization is better served by monogamy, albeit history bears out that it need only be soft, and civilization benefits the individuals. To wit, without civilization and its entropy you might not be sitting poolside. What I find more interesting, though, is that the alpha females will work with the other groups you mention to blindly go Jonestown as they are unable to see that civilization is a necessary condition for their own alpha expression. In the chaos of the ruins, the weaker sex, despite their alpha status, won’t fare so well. Too hard to be cared for by men, not hard enough to do it themselves.

    Like


    • Ulysses wrote: “To wit, without civilization and its entropy you might not be sitting poolside.”

      Right. We are living through a glorious overlap in history, rapidly shifting toward the unglorious. The cock carousel spins, at best, for a generation or two before it approaches terminal acceleration and flies off its tracks. Weird fantasies of female empowerment combined with easy and effective contraception combined to extend the life of the modern slut fuckathon past its expiration date. But it cannot be sustained forever. We are in the fin de siècle of the consequenceless carnival era.

      Women have to protect their greatest asset (or have it protected) — i.e., not give it away at bargain basement prices in clubs and on campuses — or else the market flood overwhelms, erodes, and eventually washes clean away the foundation of civilization: family-mediated procreation. There is no substitute for it, try as Daddy Government might.

      Game’s devastating efficacy owes more to the firesale price of pussy than to anything inherent in its techniques. Now add the additional smog of feminist delusion — that girls are equal partners in the sexual transaction — and women have zero chance to fend off even the crudest of pick-up technique. Proof of this is demonstrated by the barely disguised chumps who pass off their autistic comedian routines and dimestore psychology as a “Master PUA” Method accessible to every tool with a PayPal account.

      https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2011/10/18/revisiting-amog-tactics/#comment-279145

      We are beneficiaries of the degraded atmosphere into which we have been born cock-first. It is the perfect storm for pick up: defenseless women, clever and unscrupulous men, a clean and devastating assassination technique passed on by a secret brotherhood’s word-of-blog, and canopied by the great overarching lie of our age: women must officially be considered men. All that means is women will do all their natural activity in the unofficial spaces, the shadows where PUAs do their most devastating (“5 minutes of alpha is worth 5 years of beta”) work.

      Like


      • “We are in the fin de siècle of the consequenceless carnival era.”

        Superb exposition. I am curious of your opinion regarding western cultural momentum. Although it is clear that our current socioeconomic system is unsustainable in the long term, how far do you see this wounded beast limping on before its inevitable death?

        We must admit that our current conversational topics are strictly taboo in the public sphere. I have yet to hear any member of the political class admit a semblance of truth regarding the extant sexual reality. Men’s groups are universally regarded as misogynists, family law remains entrenched, and feminists dominate public opinion. The current atmosphere does not bode well for the near term collapse of female entitlement.

        What do you foresee as the next move on this grand chessboard?

        Like


      • Societies are incredibly resilient. They can limp along for decades. Read about the year of the four emperors in AD 69-70 after Nero was assassinated in Tacitus’ Histories.The state held together despite a raging civil war in Italy and the capital that drained the frontiers of all their legions. It recovered and became an even greater power. Rome held together for centuries despite profound internal social change and political upheaval. The famed decadence was not the real cause for its failure as a state per se. It took far longer and was more complex than modern commentators like to claim 150 years or longer. I predict we will soon have our Sulla.

        Like


      • Before we have our Sulla we must have our Marius, and perhaps our Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus.

        Sulla did go a little mad though, most of them did.

        Like


      • And still Sulla begat Caesar, and Caesar begat Empire, and Empire begat — Christianity.

        Let’s be very, very careful in positing end-states to the greatest civilization-sprawl in history.

        Like


      • I’ve been modeling debt crisis scenarios for the last several years, and the situation is already ripe for sudden collapse. Just for example, if the US had to pay a 7% interest rate on bonds the annual payments would be more than total federal tax revenue. Most of Europe is in a similar situation, with an instant apocalypse rate between 5% and 8% and getting worse with each passing year. So basically any big interest rate shock could cause the whole Western financial system to fall apart, and the size of the shock required to make this happen is steadily shrinking.

        So we could hit the wall next week if the Greek debt situation goes bad quickly, or we could limp along for a few more years. But no matter what assumptions you make it’s almost impossible to create a scenario that gets us further than 2016.

        Like


      • Dark Triumvir wrote: “Although it is clear that our current socioeconomic system is unsustainable in the long term, how far do you see this wounded beast limping on before its inevitable death?”

        I won’t be long at all, but then I see these cycles of history in terms of century and millennia, rather than the typical impatient consumerist hyper-self-gratifying gimme everything now before yesterday. So I don’t imagine it will be long. We are living well past the year the last feminist was born, give-or-take a few decades.

        We are catatonic obese in a deliberate sugar coma. When the slumbering giant wakes, it won’t be long for us to remember our instincts. The defining moment of my generation was Sept 11, and though the esprit de corps only lasted for mere days or hours, I was taught once and forever that the social mind in emergency is a focused and efficient mind indeed.

        The only problem with this apocalypse is how gradual and undetectable it is. That simply means the response will also have to be gradual and near undetectable, rising up through fora like these and whispered when the feminist nags get up to go to the bathroom. Their daughters will fail to comprehend what all the silly penis-envy was about. Girls today hardly do, but they retain atavistic impulses that are hard to eradicate wholesale, taught as they were fifth-hand by weary moms already becoming conscious to the lie.

        The scales have already fallen from our eyes. They have also fallen from a few courageous red-pill sisters. How long before the monsters get sick of their own monstrosity? That’s the killer weapon in this fight to the death, and both feminists and PUAs are equally vulnerable to it: in the end nobody truly wants to be evil in the final analysis — braggadocio notwithstanding — they get sick of themselves, and their soul is gnawed down to a gnarled nub. It’s exhausting. The girls duped by the feminist promise will take a hard look at their fat, aged, and barren bodies, and, with a crucial assist from “the dark crimson arts,” conclude it’s not worth it.

        Like


      • well said.

        look, heres the deal, as a general comment to some stuff I’ve been reading here lately. both genders share fundamental dispositions but biological differences create qualitative polarities. men’s fatal flaw is their pride and hubris, women’s fatal flaw is their emotionality and the irrationality that often accompanies it.

        when women realize that clever men have hacked the primordial psychosocial blueprints of human mating habits through sheer will and the exercise of scientific rationality (not to mention the hypertrophic effect of the internet in broadcasting such knowledge), they might use their superior cunning to trump us with the exact same methods. we see this possibility already; professional schools are starting to drown men in gender imbalances (merit based btw). many of these women turn into childless lawyercunt types that make life a lit harder than it has to be (and are so in large part because they deal w a lot of (misogynistic) shit before they get to the powerful positions they deserve through sheer will and merit). women are getting ambitious. the only limiting factor is glass ceilings, which will be at least medium to long term safeguard to ensuring relative social stasis.

        look at the big picture: for a long time, ppl lived in feudal societies. the powerful did what they wanted, the weak suffered what they must. how did that work out for the french and russian elites? now we are seeing the potential for broad scale revolutions with the potential to shift balances of power on a macro-scale. we’ve seen it already during the arab revolutions (or have we? see for EG egypt, libya). i don’t think we’ll ever see a gendered clash of civilizations, nor would we want to. isn’t this what much of feminism is and was? so why do i hear about guys talking about putting women in their place? there is *no* place. there is being and adapting. both of which lead to equilibrium, which if you believe in evolution, is an expanding pie rather than a bunch of vultures fighting for the scraps left over by the powerful who seek to keep the pie small. women are no more a threat than men are. its just this fearmongering that is counterproductive. it is true that feminism is delusional since it is a partisan movement void of empathy in recognizing there are structural imbalances that prejudice men in many cases. but we are fools if we think misogyny (of which there is a lot of here) is any different or better.

        this isn’t a zero sum game. let women contribute their many talents (their potential is squandered by the “stay-in-the-kitchen” types), let the masculine polarity regulate. it will because women’s biological imperative is submission as noted here earlier many times over. but the second we get all gender-war, we make this whole process a hell of a lot more confusing and tangled than it need be.

        Like


      • “qualitative polarities”

        give me a break. how is that an advance beyond “war of the sexes”?

        peeking out from some good points is a hidden white knight, just waiting to bleat favorably in the name of those who would just prefer he shut up and submit.

        Like


      • this is the problem, my friend. you see white knighting, i see a realists eye for how to respect and compromise w a gender that one would be foolish to assume one was above. remember what i said about hubris. women are not as simple and foolish as you may think, nor do they take being suffered a fool lightly.

        “give me a break. how is that an advance beyond “war of the sexes”?”

        because admitting differences does not necessarily admit an inherent superiority. as with all great things, a balance is required. the female yin should not be drowned by an overbearing, domineering yang. ever hear of blowback?

        Like


      • Student wrote:

        when women realize that clever men have hacked the primordial psychosocial blueprints of human mating habits through sheer will and the exercise of scientific rationality (not to mention the hypertrophic effect of the internet in broadcasting such knowledge), they might use their superior cunning to trump us with the exact same methods.

        Superior cunning indeed, and it’s important to recognize that distaff advantage. But you seem to assume women will use their advantage to effect a world they not only secretly despise, but one that has shown itself to be demonstrably despicable over a century of female misery tarted up like a cheap whore as “liberation.”

        “i don’t think we’ll ever see a gendered clash of civilizations….”

        We will see it, but it will be a quick fight. Their only chance is to delay the conflict through subterfuge. Once it comes out in the open, their cuntly “cunning” becomes inoperative, and men will rout the field. One superiority of men over women is not disputed by anyone, and that is our ability to wage war. Which is why these “weak piping time” of cold war detente must be taken to hot.

        Men of the west, the swarm rising up from beta, are rediscovering the evil wisdom of Richard Gloucester:

        And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover,
        To entertain these fair well-spoken days,
        I am determined to prove a villain
        And hate the idle pleasures of these days.
        Plots have I laid, inductions dangerous….

        Like


      • Student wrote: “we are fools if we think misogyny (of which there is a lot of here) is any different or better”

        Misogyny — as musty and castrated a word as the neologism “misandry” is queer and cowardly — is zero part of this calculation, and if it is a side-effect of the dissemination of truth, so be it. We do this out of love for women, which is why understandably suspicious critics take exception every time the restoration of the pedestal is mentioned. They can’t imagine loving the enemy, so hardened they’ve become to the cynicism that attends relentless struggle.

        Besides, misogyny is in fact “different” and therefore “better” in this moment than the other option: an eternal continuation of feminist decadence. A focused hatred against the received wisdom, which may indeed descend painfully on more than a few pretty little heads, is a corrective to the prevailing mores. The visionary is extreme only to restore equilibrium out of an extreme imbalance.

        why do i hear about guys talking about putting women in their place? there is *no* place. there is being and adapting. both of which lead to equilibrium…. women are no more a threat than men are. its just this fearmongering that is counterproductive … this isn’t a zero sum game. let women contribute their many talents (their potential is squandered by the “stay-in-the-kitchen” types)

        “There is *no* place” is an article of faith of the leftist creed which has failed, and failed spectacularly in every single instance it has ever been put into practice in all of human history.

        Further, your claim that a woman’s “potential is squandered by the ‘stay-in-the-kitchen’ types” is straight out of the feminist mythos, and your mindless repeating of it betrays the soft foundation of your thinking. I happen to think manly accomplishment is superior to the female equivalent. But you don’t have to subscribe to my way of thinking to realize the relatively more accomplished set of virtues is irrelevant to their actualization. The stubborn fact of life is that women cannot be men, and their attempt to attain manly virtues, rather than mastering their own (modesty, passivity, guile, beauty), has only so uglified them that advanced civilization has been pushed back to the edge of barbarity.

        If you think women have attained a provable parity with men through mere assertion and title and ideology and hope, then I have a WNBA franchise to sell you. You’re nibbling on the blue pill, nostalgic for its blissfully ignorant flavor.

        Like


      • How the machinery is gonna be reversed?
        Game is even more powerful on women than the sight of a stunning 10 is on men.
        How are you gonna convince women to become chaste again?

        Old fashioned dogmatic religion is dead, King. And the more Evolution is accepted, the more nails are put in its coffin. The spiritual left-overs will have a hard time outweighing modern values like individual freedom and gender equality.

        Religion was only powerful to ensure monogamy because it fed women’s emotional needs. God was their uber galactic alpha. Religion accomplished the tour the force of making terrestrial alphas secondary to women. Without it, women will prefer following alphas back to the caves, rather than living with a beta in a civilized world.

        Without religion, how are you gonna do it? Explain to women that they’re hypergamous and thus, in order for civilization to thrive, they have to go for betas? They do not respond to rational arguments, and a beta companionship metadeath for the sake of something as abstract as “civilization” won’t cut it for them.

        Another way would be to push men to alpha up, in order to satisfy these childish creatures whose neocortexes require equality while their vaginas require domination. The only way is through game, but game is an art, and all men won’t be equal. Hypergamy will be free to lash out its lusty juices on the top-tier of men… again.

        I’m not convinced by the catastrophist claim of a civilizational end, but i’m less convinced by a comeback to the old days.

        Status quo will prevail, for longer than you expect. It’s the reign of the alphas and alpha wannabees. Join it or be wiped out.

        Like


      • Religion was the key invention of the agricultural age, designed primarily to fool women to go along with beta-civilization. However, as modern genetic testing has shown us, women found a way to get alpha-cock on the sly nevertheless. The rate of cuckoldry was quite high – about 1 in 6 children – so what religion really did was to put on the appearance of civilization for betas.

        The solution may come from an unexpected and surprising angle, though. Here are some wild ideas, none of which may pan out, but I am quite sure that what will come to be will be as wild, or wilder:

        *** Large-scale violence by men against women
        *** The return of large-scale war on a global scale
        *** Large-scale acceptance of reason by women (the SH*T test – Samson’s Hypergamy Test – may actually be adopted!)
        *** Technology will make fMRI machines portable and easy to use – perhaps as small and handy as iphones, and that will give all of us, men and women, insight into our inner natures, helping us change ourselves.

        Like


      • Bet on war.

        Like


      • Matador wrote: “Old fashioned dogmatic religion is dead, King. And the more Evolution is accepted, the more nails are put in its coffin.”

        All I can say is you must be trapped in a SWPL bubble, noble though your covert dissidence may be. Religion surges on waves of “Great Awakenings” every time a tawdry placebo attempts to replace the “opium of the people” and proves catastrophically inert. We just happen to be living at the tail end of the latest, most powerful, “melancholy, long, withdrawing roar,” which leads us to illogically conclude the withdrawal is permanent. That’s when the tidal wave unexpectedly returns with a strength unimagined.

        Popular credulity about evolution has been salutary in that it pits liberal know-it-all pretensions of equality against their know-it-all pretensions of “science.” Every time a new study comes out that demonstrates the weak-bodied, weak-minded fact of female nature, the SWPL bubble is punctured, and that is a good thing.

        But test a mythos at its limits to see if it is an apt replacement for the venerable myth it replaces. At its limits, evolutionary psychology is simply not a good enough origin story to survive the smartest and most skeptical criticisms. Its popularizer Darwin spent his last days enslaved by that very skepticism, but this is a case of the facts not fitting legend, so print the legend.

        Look, Nietzsche was right: God is dead, and no “old fashioned dogma[]” (as you say) will ever be adequate to filling the hole left in the popular soul. New dogmas and new mores — The Revaluation of All Values — is required.

        Aldous Huxley wrote:

        It is impossible to live without a metaphysic. The choice that is given us is not between some kind of metaphysic and no metaphysic; it is always between a good metaphysic and a bad metaphysic, a metaphysic that corresponds reasonably closely with observed and inferred reality and one that doesn’t.

        In other words, the new dogmas are being written now. The proponents of evo psych just don’t realize how ancient and tattered their supposedly “new” metaphysic truly is. At least Nietzsche didn’t underestimate the the quality of his opponent:

        The struggle against Plato, or—to speak plainer, and for the “people”—the struggle against the ecclesiastical oppression of millenniums of Christianity (FOR CHRISTIANITY IS PLATONISM FOR THE “PEOPLE”), produced in Europe a magnificent tension of soul, such as had not existed anywhere previously; with such a tensely strained bow one can now aim at the furthest goals.

        … But we, who are neither Jesuits, nor democrats, nor even sufficiently Germans, we GOOD EUROPEANS, and free, VERY free spirits—we have it still, all the distress of spirit and all the tension of its bow! And perhaps also the arrow, the duty, and, who knows?

        Nietzsche’s pathetic disciples and mimics forgot his awesome respect for the problem posed by Christianity, and they proceeded to ignore it. All that means is the deniers have set themselves up for an almighty sucker punch. When the paper idols constructed by that feeble omega Darwin disintegrate and blow away (as surely as his omega-cousin Marx’s did), we will be left with the solid and enduring millennial myths that cannot be vanquished by a Popular Science report or three.

        God is dead. Long live the God.

        Like


      • A religion will be built around the next catastrophic crotch-rot. HPV just doesn’t make people nail the doors shut just yet.

        Like


      • The institution of family is more fundamental than many of the other institutions of beta-civilization: government, law, etc. All these rest on the foundation of a stable family for child rearing.

        Like


      • on October 26, 2011 at 10:03 pm greatbooksformen GBFM

        yess

        homer’s odysysyeyeye exalts the family
        the bible exlates the family
        virgil’s aenedin exalts the family zlozzl
        vrirgil is heroic beause he is pious and good pious and good zlzoooz

        thi sis why teh assocking neooncnsnsn neoconcs neocons got rid of all these great books and claisisics lzozozl

        once upon a time a man was the master of his home lzozozoz

        today your assocked wife, nbernanikkiefied and sdeousled and prorrgammed by teh state to transfer welath form her husband to bernanke for assockig ssessions is taught to spy on her husband by the state in college feneminsist classes and rape ihim anally in divorce court as she got butthexed by teh weekly standadtdhs favoriet beoc9 buttehsxxers tcuekrik max rhyems swith godlm ans sax lzozozlzlllo

        Like


    • on October 26, 2011 at 9:24 pm Obstinance Works

      There is no longer a need for civilization from the standpoint of alphas and national leaders. Once contraception and its acceptance germinates a nation the alphas can have their cakes and eat them too. The only way civilization will continue in the future is through technology that will make physical and mental work virtually needless. Only the mentally and physically strongest will be able to withstand the rigorous rule of the governing elite. There is no turning back. The role of families will be obsolete. Every major human weakness will be solved by a mathematical formula ciphered and executed by computers, machines, and biological mechanisms. Only a God in an apocalyptic fervor will be able to end it.

      Like


  4. GBFM should be a full time chateau proprietor

    Like


    • on October 26, 2011 at 2:15 pm greatbooksformen GBFM

      teh greatest complimenet i ever got was when someoene though thayt chateeue was me and that i was chateua zlzozozozlzozozozo

      it lifeted me up high and made me feeel as good as a noeeonc after seectrly taping butthex iwthout the girlrths ocntehnthnt so as to land a $300,000 avadavnce from simon and schsuster lzozlzozzl

      hey in the dictioary they define

      butthexting: 1. n. when you sit on your butt with your phone in your back pocket and accidently text a girl lzozzllzozozozlo

      2. n. the act of a neoocn instering their penis into an unsuspecting anuthhole, which is often secretely taped unbeknownst to the owner of the anuthole so as to augment book sales. lzozlzlzozozo

      Like


  5. To the elite monogamy is essential to create a strong family line that will continue to rule over 99% of the world for generations to come. But with more money than God I’m sure they have plenty of mistresses on the side (ie: anyone they want).

    To the elite, polygyny is preferable for the other 99% of the population, because it ensures an ever-growing supply of worker drones and dependency on the system that they control. And as GBFM has said, they’ve created a multitude of social changes and shifts over the years as to make monogamy a dangerous choice indeed for the single man – via kangaroo family courts and feminism and instituting that multicultural-relationships = beauty paradigms and such. As such, it seems likely that in monogamy, a marriage lasting forever or not will still keep at least the man but possibly the woman as well slaving away till death.

    What benefits the individual comes down to personal choice. If your hobby is sleeping with new women every week simply for fun and getting a nut off then obviously monogamy is not for you. Its hard to remember on a Game website, but some men want to be fathers, and in a stable relationship in which to bring them to maturity the healthiest way. You might refer to those men as betas or whatever, but I’m not so sure – I think that most Alphas will at some point think about the legacy they leave. Since the best chance for their offspring’s survival and continued legacy is the aforementioned strong relationship, it might be something many men live to regret.

    Like


    • “And as GBFM has said, they’ve created a multitude of social changes and shifts over the years”

      Wait you still read GBFM’s posts? I always assumed he just copied and pasted all his posts so you never miss anything after you read it one time.

      Like


      • on October 26, 2011 at 2:40 pm greatbooksformen GBFM

        hey you stooopid fuck fuckity fucktard

        saying “Wait you still read GBFM’s posts?” is like saying “Wait you still read Homer and Shakespeare and Moses and Mises?”

        we write 4 all etenrity u stoopid fuck

        get ur coakss out of your ears and eyes and listsen and see the TRUTH wand get wwith teh prorgame

        lzozozllzlzl and

        buy a shirt too for your benernankified fiance:

        http://cafepress.com/greatbooksformen lzozozozl

        Like


      • GBFM reads Mises? Another win!

        Like


      • on October 26, 2011 at 3:26 pm greatbooksformen GBFM

        fuckyah i read mises and moses Thou shalt not steal zlozllzzlz not bernanke and greenspan “thou shalt butthex all enioteryryry the colective anuthole of mankind lzozozlzl”

        Like


      • i assume you write the way you do on purpose (including your awful spelling). I like how (this is my assessment) its designed to piss people off in a teasing, i dont take you serious (towards women) way and the lolzzzlzzlzlzle4yhdf89u33647jerhlolzzzlollzlzl are funny (the first couple time…just “lol” is sufficient). you can keep the lolllolzzz12345678910abc123iamanidiotlolololllzzz. its your writing style.

        i really like the content of what you write ,similar insight and you …..intuition but i really cant take you seriously. i understand that you are useful to me in that you piss women off (if you haven’t noticed, im a little annoyed but why should you care)and ….i like that but i really stopped reading your comments unless someone else comments on your comment that i am interested in. it is only then (now) that i read your comments for the sake of logic,context and perspective.

        Like


      • Yeah, I caught that too.

        He writes like an Austrian.

        Like


      • on October 26, 2011 at 3:36 pm greatbooksformen GBFM

        anonymous butthexexes like a noeonc lzozozllzlzzol pwn3d!!!! lzzozollzolzoz

        Like


      • my theory is that GBFM is David Friedman’s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_D._Friedman) alterego.

        Like


      • on October 26, 2011 at 9:55 pm greatbooksformen GBFM

        lzozozllzzo not a chance dudude

        my real ideneity is the annnoying ornage zlozozlzozo
        lzozoozoozlzloozoz
        z
        zzlozozozlzlz ozmg lzozozozozozozoozozoolzlz

        zlzolzozozoz zl omg ozlzozozlzozo

        Like


      • Don’t let the lolzlzozlzo fool you. GBFM is of immense intellect.

        Simulated chaos postulates perfect discipline.

        Like


      • It’s taken a while but I’m now a disciple. But how can Southern Man serve two masters?

        Like


      • Indeed. And “bernankified” should have an entry in the dictionary… ASAP.

        Like


      • on October 26, 2011 at 9:59 pm greatbooksformen GBFM

        lzozoozozozl

        until theye put “bernankified” in the dicionaryryr u can still by

        apparrell american asspaerrrellll
        and urban buttfitters urban buttfitters
        gbfm classics

        for your pre-law/post-asscokced fiance zlzozolzlzlz
        http://cafepress.com/greatbooksformen lzozllzolzoz

        Like


      • on October 26, 2011 at 10:06 pm greatbooksformen GBFM

        yes yes sysy i talk like this lzozlzolzozolzzolzlzlzozoz zlzozlzlz omgkzozozlozolz lozozolzoz

        so that thee neoocns joanha goldbegriands think i am ritalian-addicted, dumbed-down bastard child who grew up in hins single mom’s basememg opalying video games like grand tehft auto which desnsnetitize men adumb tehm down and teahc tehme to killz innockent womennznzn civiaialins grand theft auto prapares the generation to wrhsip grand theft bernanke nanekkres zlzlzlzl loslslzlzlzll butetehxuxualala iozjihbpod

        Like


      • GBFM is just running game on you guys. His burying what he’s saying under a bunch of lozlzolzzzloollolz and butthexes make it seem more mysterious and profound than it actually is. Take that away and he’s just another voice in the libertarian echo chamber, albeit one who talks about bernakie desouling women by taping butthex, heh.

        Like


      • The excellence of gbfm is not in his frantic moralizations but his comedy.

        He’s *great* at dealing with the hecklers who try to troll him. 😉

        Like


      • on October 28, 2011 at 11:24 am greatbooksformen GBFM

        so far you;re da only one who my game has wokred on as you;re the only one here who keeps trying to putt their tiny coaksksk into my butholloiol kolzozlz and my game is no game as i do not want your little ockcas in my bunhghole nor anyone eleses zlzlz

        Like


  6. Poor betas! Not even obese sheboons want them.

    Like


    • Even in my worst beta days I’d have preferred the old tug o’ war with cyclops to anything in that hippo train.

      Like


  7. brilliant. love the reference to ‘cool hand luke’.

    Like


  8. I dunno, being a white goodlooking guy can make it pretty difficult in the feminist stronghold that I come from, because women automatically assume, ‘player’.

    Like


    • Doesnt that assumption make them itch to spread their legs for you?

      Like


    • That’s almost anywhere though. Looks are actually kind of a double edged sword. They help immensely with high maintenance types who know they’re hot, but will actually hurt you with many of the middling ”cute” chicks, who figure that there is no possibility for anything beyond a ONS.

      Like


  9. Polygyny is best for the race, and societies that practice it would have better quality citizens after just a few generations. It keeps the less well adapted males out of the national sperm supply. Those males who are most successful in the environment the society is faced with will father almost all the children, and therefore the children will be more fit to survive and thrive than societies where every man gets a wife.

    It helps the children of lower rank, less well adapted women the most. The high rank women get the quality sperm in any culture. Only in polygyny do the lower rank women get the child improving benefit of high rank sperm.

    Like


    • on October 26, 2011 at 2:42 pm greatbooksformen GBFM

      hmmmm

      so basically u are saying that moses and jesus and homer and odysseus

      are all tardfucks lzozlzlzoz

      Old Guy is obviously a lower ranking beta male with a tiny pecker no bigger than half your pinky lzozolzzooz even when old guy assocks women they feel nothings iwthout any neoocn lube even suggested by tucker max rhymes with godlman sax zllzzl

      Like


    • actually, there are numerous studies that polygamy was responsible for all the wars in Antiquity. all the wealthy men were able to secure multiple wives, while the poor men were lucky to have even one. the rulers of the time knew that social unrest would lead to war. so rather than risk having a civil war, they would declare war on neighboring countries, and send the men out to battle. those that died were “honored”, and those that lived would take the wives and daughters of the men they killed for themselves. in either case, the male population would once again even out, and civil war is avoided. the rulers didnt care about declaring war on peaceful countries. it was just a matter of “better them than me.”

      Like


      • Precisely. Due to the negative feedback mechanism inherent in the human sex ratio, males and females will always be born in one to one proportion. This means that mate acquisition will always be a zero sum game. As history has shown, the losers will not accept celibacy without a fight. Such mating mechanics take us back directly to the Serengeti, one hundred thousand years ago. Violent struggle directly for females, and zero investment in societal development or infrastructure.

        Alas, ’tis our lives to waste. Causality is unforgiving.

        Like


      • Then this should worry you:
        http://digitaljournal.com/article/270819
        35 million Chinese men who will never get married or have a gf. They’ll either have to go gay or start a war.

        Like


      • If you’re going to extrapolate the fate of future societies based on ancient ones, you need to take technology into account.

        Specifically, sex selection technology makes biological mechanisms irrelevant in this case. What matters is the social forces driving the choices people make about how to choose the gender of their offspring.

        Also, those theoretical celibates now have porn to turn to, and within a couple of decades they’ll have sexbots as well. This doesn’t entirely erase the social instability of a polygamous mating pattern, but it does provide a substantial safety valve.

        Like


      • I’d say those studies and their conclusions are a self serving simplification of life in the Ancient World. Victorious armies got lots of pussy. Most free born men had wives and a family. Veterans of Rome would likely have several slaves. When a city was captured, it was common to slaughter all of the fighting age men and sell the women and children into slavery. You don’t get men to fight for their communities unless they have something to fight for. Any landholding Roman peasant citizen had a wife. The same was true in Ancient Greece, Persia, and Egypt. In general, none of these nations wasted men. Loss of a hoplite was a big deal in a Greek community. Romans perfected a style of warfare that minimized heir own casualties immensely. From a purely cynical stand point, its a waste of resources to squander the lives of men you’ve just spent 12 to 24 months training to be proficient at drill, following orders, obeying signals in the heat of battle, maintaining formation, swordsmanship, etc. Moreover, the nobility usually fought as well and were often killed in battle. I won’t even bring up leadership, which both Greeks, Romans, and Persians had a high expectation of as well. Persians were Zoroastrian after all, monotheistic and also believing in individual dignity. Contrary to what you saw in the 300 film, Persia was quite respectful of human life and dignity by Ancient standards. Darius III’s harem had 365 women in it, plus his wives, concubines, and eunuchs. I think there were just generally a few more women alive then than men.

        Like


    • Good comment, name at least one great civilisation where only the top men reproduce (20% maybe 30%). And, no, Islam – Muslim countries – do not fit this definition.
      And then name the poorest and most dysfunctional societies.

      Like


      • “name at least one great civilisation where only the top men reproduce (20% maybe 30%). And, no, Islam – Muslim countries – do not fit this definition.
        And then name the poorest and most dysfunctional societies.”

        That was the social norm for Islam during the heyday of the Caliphate, and they were prosperous and a major threat to the existence of Europe, conquering their way the Gates of Vienna and the Pyrenees. Only when the Industrial Revolution allowed the West to leapfrog them in military technology did we conquer and colonize them. And, we are seeing a resurgence in their power and once again they are challenging us and threatening our existence.

        Most cultures outside of Christendom were destroyed or severely damaged by European Colonialism, so you can’t really tell how well they did work from their state today.

        Like


      • on October 27, 2011 at 11:52 am John Norman Howard

        Most cultures outside of Christendom were destroyed or severely damaged by European Colonialism…

        Meh. If by “destroyed” you mean “standards of living (sometimes forcibly) upgraded”… and by “damaged” you mean “shown to be so lacking that said members of said ‘cultures’ to this day flock to wherever White people live” then your statement is correct.

        Like


      • I believe he meant, “White people are evil racists who didn’t give anyone else a chance to invent the wheel.”

        Like


    • i agree it’s the best system for low-ranked women, if it can be assured that the men they’re mated to are the best specimens. but who can say they are? women are awarded to the politically connected or their sons. while getting power may indicate their worth, it’s not a precise proxy, and works less well for his progeny particularly.

      look at the princes of the house of sa’ud. do they strike anyone as good-looking brainy alphas?

      otoh, there’s the case of the fdls mormons, the most notorious of whom assign women w/o their consent. more of those lucky men earned the leader’s regard by being savvy businessmen and improving the cult’s fortunes. but they also kick out some men when they fall out of favor, reassigning their wives. this sounds unstable and unsustainable. (after a few rounds of reassignment, the less brainwashed wives would figure this out for it what it is-polyamory. i doubt joseph smith was envisioning that for his followers.)

      this setup may work for a cult with a strong charismatic leader who can garner the talents thru religious ideology to give all for the group. the mateless boys must be expelled so as not to cause trouble. but it all depends on the leader. look at the flds screwball the authorities locked up for life to see how it can easily go sour, even with the advantage of indoctrinated followers.

      the noble endeavor of improving the species (if we want to be ruthlessly eugenic) would be a sort of polygyny, with and w/o sex-round up the best looking, smartest, tallest guys (blond/blue, 6′ and up, minimum iq of 125) whose personalities have alpha traits but are mentally healthy, i.e., not psychopathic. persuade them they must donate sperm ‘for god and country’ and give it to women free. this is the way we’re heading anyway. if there are “no good men” and woman want kids, here’s the answer.

      hey, we can even ask say brad pitt to make the supreme sacrifice for the good of mankind. and sell his sperm to the highest bidder. maybe as a ‘limited edition’ like the franklin mint does.

      just a few meandering thoughts.

      Like


      • Polygamy, polygyny — whatever you want to call it — is best for no one. It is an attempt to officially sanction the alpha’s natural ability to maintain harem, which only puts beta- and omega-males into the alpha roles they can’t manage, while frustrating the rest of the male population … until they get an opportunity to revolt.

        And why shouldn’t a young, frustrated man frozen out of the pussosphere revolt? He’s got nothing better to do. Throwing him a soccer ball to allay the frustration will only get his weak-chinned, nominally aristocratic “masters” so far before he is breaking into their palaces and raping their fifth wives. Aristocracies have long figured out not to mess with this simple calculus. It’s better to toss them the runt cunts of the litter than to deal with sexually inspired insurrection, as primal a force as there is. (The unprecedented male imbalance in China thanks to their epidemic of aborted [and infanticided] girls will be a fun little civil war to watch — unless they channel it abroad. Hmm.)

        Women are interchangeable chattel in this equation. Their “advantage” or “disadvantage” is irrelevant to the mediated exchange, as it had been up until Second Wave Feminism, and will soon be again. No offense, pumpkin.

        Like


      • ‘Polygamy, polygyny — whatever you want to call it — is best for no one. It is an attempt to officially sanction the alpha’s natural ability to maintain harem,’

        probably a ‘soft’ polygamy is best for a genuine alpha, i.e. monogamy for the average guy, which has the advantage of keeping him happy and docile, while the alpha slips around and is discrete enough to maintain plausible deniability. thus theory (monogamy) and practice (alphas but not betas flouting the monogamous assumption) are reconciled, …sorta.

        ‘And why shouldn’t a young, frustrated man frozen out of the pussosphere revolt? He’s got nothing better to do.’

        absolutely. my flds example allows negative externalities (unmarried men) to be foisted on the host society. not so the middle east, and look at what a mess those societies are. i was looking at the polygynous systems as a pure fun academic exercise w/o messy externalities. my bad.

        ‘Throwing him a soccer ball to allay the frustration will only get his weak-chinned, nominally aristocratic “masters” so far before he is breaking into their palaces and raping their fifth wives’

        i love it. yes the attenuated progeny of the biggest (and surely informally polygamous) brutes 5 generations ago? look at the house of windsor, not exactly a brain trust are they?

        ‘The unprecedented male imbalance in China thanks to their epidemic of aborted [and infanticided] girls will be a fun little civil war to watch — unless they channel it abroad. Hmm’

        lets hope they implode socially way before that. a strong possibility given all their other pathologies. (have you seen that appalling video that went viral a week ago? life is cheap there.)

        ‘Women are interchangeable chattel in this equation. Their “advantage” or “disadvantage” is irrelevant to the mediated exchange, as it had been up until Second Wave Feminism’

        well, i’d push it back to the advent of 1st wave feminism, when women weren’t as browbeaten to agree to the ‘best’, i.e. for the the family, matches. and given their powerlessness back in the day, i bet they’d take sharing a genuine alpha male over wholly owning a shlubby beta any day. but i agree, women’s agency in regard to marriage then was little to nothing.

        ‘…pumpkin’

        ahahaha aha ha. thanks for the compliment. but i’ve progressed beyond the age cohort most men here are focused on long ago. remember, i am here to report to my kids. i’m a good mom that way or i try to be.

        i mean no insult. you’re one of the good guys.

        Like


      • You spoon-fed that troll, King.

        Like


    • Sperm is only the beginning. You have to raise children to be responsible and productive citizens too. Your arguments are valid for a matriarchy but not for a civilized society.

      Like


    • “Polygyny is best for the race, and societies that practice it would have better quality citizens after just a few generations.”

      Considering that women pine for thugs/assholes/dbags I sincerely doubt that a free-for-all polygamy would lead to better quality citizens. When given the choice, many women will opt for the seed of the high-T thug than the hardworking good guy.

      “Those males who are most successful in the environment the society is faced with will father almost all the children, and therefore the children will be more fit to survive and thrive than societies where every man gets a wife.”

      Those individuals will be more fit in that particular society(and only that particular society). But that society will be weaker against other societies who practice monogamy.

      I think your argument largely ignores the concept of civilization and is thinking too much in terms of solely biology.

      Like


    • That’s possibly the dumbest statement on the internet this week. Polygyny is the characteristic of: pre-Roman Europe (running around naked, painting themselves blue); West Africa; modern day Africa; and Muslim SE Asia. Not exactly powerhouses.

      Rome, at its mightiest, and Greece before it, were the home of monogamy. Making each man deeply invested in the state and nation. Slaves don’t give a damn about the Sultan or his harem. And a monogamous, beta-led society produces new and better weapons to kill “warriors” screaming about in ever greater numbers. The Spartans (monogamous) had nothing but contempt for barbarians who practiced polygyny as they saw them as weak, unable to withstand the sustained shock-mass slaughter of the phalanx spear line. So too the Roman centurions, and the Medieval European knights. In the 19th Century, little scrawny White guys fully 7,000 miles from home were better supplied, with more food, water, medicine, and better weapons than the polygamous Zulus they regularly slaughtered.

      ALL Alpha males (in CH’s definition) are good for are being sexy. That’s like a peacock with big feathers. Success for a society means getting more resources: food, energy, technology against others. This means an even sex balance, a sustainable (not below replacement, and not too high) fertility rate, deep investment in betas, and so on.

      Elvis, Hefner, and Russell Brand didn’t invent the nuclear bomb. That was the work of true betas, unsexy as they might be, like Einstein and Oppenheimer and all the nerdy engineers. Which is more deadly, Russell Brand parading about or a nuke dropped on your city?

      Like


      • Fantastic post whiskey.

        “ALL Alpha males (in CH’s definition) are good for are being sexy. That’s like a peacock with big feathers. Success for a society means getting more resources: food, energy, technology against others. This means an even sex balance, a sustainable (not below replacement, and not too high) fertility rate, deep investment in betas, and so on.

        Elvis, Hefner, and Russell Brand didn’t invent the nuclear bomb. That was the work of true betas, unsexy as they might be, like Einstein and Oppenheimer and all the nerdy engineers. Which is more deadly, Russell Brand parading about or a nuke dropped on your city?”

        Love this to death. Going into my collection.

        One minor point of contention.

        Einstein was a stud.

        http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/einstein_in_lust/

        Like


      • If there was truth to long-term monogamy leads to long-term successful societies then this topic wouldn’t be an issue.

        Like


      • I would exclude “Muslim SE Asia”. I have not strong arguments but from what I can recall the only muslim areas with significant polygyny are in Western Sub Saharan Africa. The others are even from beta’s view better for mating than contemporary West.
        Does not Indonesia limit nr. of wives to 2? And numbers of poly. marriages should be in “one digit” percent range.
        I might be wrong but in this case this would be something new to learn.

        Like


      • You hit the nail on the head. High testosterone alpha males are usually lacking in intelligence. I admit their genes are superior for the jungle but their usefulness dried up the moment intelligent betas invented tools.

        Like


      • I doubt there’s any real tradeoff with being high-T and intelligence. Most high-up businessmen I’ve seen are Alpha or greater-Beta.

        Like


      • you can’t be serious. harry truman dropped nukes to AMOG the Soviet bear. he killed 100,000-200,000 civilians in the worlds single greatest terror attacks to send a clear message that started the cold war w a chill.

        and you think a celeb crackhead who flirts w tv interview hosts and has a mediocre popstar chick is a bigger alpha? you either don’t think you know what alpha is, or your hamster is rationalizing your own betatude.

        Like


      • There are alphas to men, and alphas to women.
        Sneaky fuckers are alphas to women. And Russell Brand is the archetype of a sneaky fucker.

        Like


      • an alpha to men is by definition an alpha to women. you make the fallacy of assuming status by lay count. there is a hierarchy of alpha and few would argue POTUS trumps celebrity court jesters.

        Like


      • So why is it that generals and high ranking officials don’t have the young hot chicks throwing themselves at them?

        Power is not enough to be an alpha. Sexual power is key. A rock star displays sexual power. Raw power is also key, a thug can kill a rival point-blank without blinking, that’s raw power. A general sits in an office all day long and signs orders and makes calls, that’s indirect power and it may inspire respect and admiration to women, but not sexual attraction.

        Civilization dilutes the sexual attractiveness of political power. Obama may have a small power over women because he is at the top, but he doesn’t inspire them to be sexually submissive, like an ancient tribal leader would.

        I mean, you’re right that historically, alphas are the ones at the top, and betas are the servants. But biologically speaking, alphas are the ones with the highest sexual fitness, betas are the ones who feel grateful for the left-overs.

        Like


    • @Old Guy:

      Natural selection usually works over long periods of time, as in tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years. In the brief period that beta-civilization has been around (about 5,000 years or less), natural selection has not been much of a factor in human evolution. Polygyny may well be best for the species, but this would only be true over a much longer span of time than you talk about.

      I would say this: absent reason and its products (like science and technology), polygyny is better for human beings as a species. However, given that reason exists (though only sporadically in the female gender), and that the age of science is here, we may well be in evolutionarily unprecedented territory – we may well be on the cusp of the golden age of the betas.

      Time will tell, and perhaps much faster than any of us would imagine.

      Like


      • “Natural selection usually works over long periods of time…”

        Having the best males father most of the offspring has worked for most chordates for a long time. The current culture is quite new. It appears to be crumbling before our eyes. Women have walked away from lifetime marriage and monogamy. We are in a new paradigm regardless of what defenders of the old order think of it.

        We are headed for a new culture. I believe Polygamy will be part of it. It is going to leave many less desirable men celibate. This is already coming true, and that means the future generations are going to be better physically and mentally because of it. It won;t just be players who have children with several women, it will also be all the high income guys who invent things and make stuff work. The Ho instinct is too strong in women to ignore rich cock. Especially if hard working Herbs quit playing the marriage, divorce, & wealth transfer game in significant numbers. They are the ones funding the carousel.

        Like


    • I love how people speak of “quality sperm” and “superior genes” without any background in Molecular Biology or Genetics.

      Like


      • As long as humans have bred animals and each other they have done so successfuly without advanced scientific knowledge of biology. I’d say its instinctive. You can tell a well bred dog from a mutt immediately.

        Like


      • “Survival of the fittest” does not necessarily equal to “survival of the strongest” or “survival of the best-looking”. “Fitness”, in biological terms is all about adaptability. And ironically, mutts are better equipped to deal with harsher environments than “well-bred dogs”

        Like


      • “I love how people speak of “quality sperm” and “superior genes” without any background in Molecular Biology or Genetics.”

        Darwin explained nearly everything important about evolution before Molecular Biology or Genetics were even words. The idea that better sires makes for better offspring is as old as the hills.

        Like


    • this assumes that the qualities that lead to mating success are the same that most benefit civilization.

      Like


      • One problem I see is that everyone assumes the ideal characteristic for mating is to be the stereotypical “Alpha Male”. That is a term from the dawn of the seduction community and the are locked into it despite it not being the best term to use when discussing the human mating ritual. What makes one good breeding material in a woman’s eyes is success, or proof of being well adapted to the local environment. Yes, being a big jock or special forces or a rock star works, but what those guys have in common is success.

        Much of the debate centers on how a bunch of body builders aren’t going to be able to maintain a civilization. I think people are being purposely obtuse to create straw men.

        My assumption is, that in a polygamous version of our culture successful guys would have more than one wife, but otherwise remain much the same. Unsuccessful guys would get squat, which is what they get now. There is a vast legion of unfuckable Herbs today. I seriously doubt they are going to put down their came controllers and storm the gates of power to get some pussy.

        Where the difference would come is women would have more rich guys available and many would choose that route. Let’s each guy is allowed 4 wives, as in Islam, just to pick a number for an example. That means there are four times as many beds open in wealthy households for women to occupy. Given that most hamsters are Hos at heart, they might decide that being 4th wife in a wealthy house where that meant they had a luxury SUV, stylish clothes, and a Spa membership was a better deal than having a poor guy all to her own, or playing with party boys at the club. Especially if it was socially acceptable and improved her status.

        Now that Gay Marriage is inevitable, you have to ask, what comes next. If the single M/F marriage is no longer the only valid type, then there is no rationale for the state to prohibit other marital arrangements either. Polygamist rights will be the next step.

        [Heartiste: That’s what I’ve been predicting since the first intimations of gay marriage entered the cultural dialogue. Sometimes the slippery slope really does lead down to the abyss.]

        Like


  10. I don’t get the new world order/feminist conspiracies. If I ruled the world, I’d want my subjects to be hardworking, happy, and complacent. Feminism will only destabilize things.

    Like


    • Gbfm is talented but religious. When you believe in God, it’s difficult to see things clearly.
      When things go south, it’s easier to believe in conspiracies (Gbfm) or the shibboleths of dead authors (King A), than the immutable truths of natural selection and hypergamy.
      I like both guys though.

      lolzzlolzzlz.

      Like


      • on October 26, 2011 at 3:29 pm greatbooksformen GBFM

        aononymous doesn’t like me believeing in zeus and moses and mises

        anonyous wants me to recant and reject god and slave away to and service his anonymous anuthushole atheistict void black hole godless anuthushole lzozlzl

        but god keeps me fre eyou crazy cuffkfkf fuck

        anonymous hates thoams jefferosn and freedomin the declartaion of indieeednence as he is a tryinat with a tyiny cock and cannot compete in a free makret zlzolzoz u know its ture zlozz

        Like


      • Atheists are so stupid but think they are so clever.

        Like


      • Our main host has stated his atheism on numerous occasions. Check the very first posts on this blog.
        What are you doing on an atheist blog?

        Like


      • The ubiquitous Anonymous wrote: “…the immutable truths of natural selection and hypergamy…”

        Riiiiiiight. Pseudoscience gleaned from fourth-hand pop sources is more venerable than the classics that have survived the test of time and the credulity of uneducated fad-chasers like you.

        “When you believe in God, it’s difficult to see things clearly.”

        Never heard that before.

        Off with you, drop-out omega novice. Your all-too-predictable, all-too-common ignorance born of arrogance bores me. Next.

        Like


      • “is more venerable than the classics”

        Sexual selection and evolutionary principles have determined our human destiny for millenia.
        Even if you’re probably a 900 year old gentleman (to keep things abrahamic), your frame is so thin compared to the millions of years of evolution. Your sources are merely a walking dream in Homo sapiens path towards fulfilling his genetic potential, without any guarantee of survival.

        “uneducated fad-chasers like you”

        I would probably get an F in your philosophy class. But i would make sure to be getting regular blowjobs by a hottie at the back while you’re blabbering fascinating stuff about Plato and his Zeus believers friends.

        “Never heard that before.”

        Glad to teach you something.

        ——–

        Listen, dude, seriously, i’m not intending to troll you. I enjoy your writing. Just be light when someone teases you. You’re coming to a dark place where nobody gives a toothless blowjob about anything except pussy and putting down modern women. And you’re expecting us to follow you because you’re articulate? No way.
        There’s an old brazilian saying: “If you swim in the Amazon, expect to be bitten by the piranhas”.
        No wait, I just made it up.

        Like


    • Most NWO theorists posit the existence of a very hostile elite rather than a benevolent or at least well-intentioned elite. The hostile elites are driven by an ideology which is literally anti-human: they spread lies and try to prevent normal, functional, satisfying relationships because they have a Luciferian hatred of humankind and actually want misery, confusion and agony for the masses.

      Like


      • If that’s the case, then why don’t they simply hole up in a bunker and use their power to start a nuclear war?

        I think Hanlon’s Razor applies there.

        Like


      • Well, their power isn’t consolidated yet, so in one sense it’s not feasible.

        Also, physical destruction isn’t the same as misery; I think their Luciferian beliefs lead them to torture and spread misery more than physical destruction.

        Like


    • on October 26, 2011 at 6:30 pm N.M. Rothschild

      Feminism lowers the birth rate/population……..without using guns.

      Like


      • If it’s population control this hidden ruling elite wants, they’re going about it rather badly. We’re on what, seven billion people now? And in a few short decades, there’ll be 2 billion more. So either Ben Bernanke isn’t the devil, or the illuminati are so stupid and ineffective that they’ve let the world’s population more than triple in the ~100 years since the federal reserve was created. Good job, secret banker cartel!

        Like


      • According to the UN, we’re supposed to level off at 8 billion and then start to decline worldwide. If we don’t, we’ll have a big war and the problem will solve itself.

        Like


      • The WASP and Catholic hard-working nuclear family of the great pioneer West was one of the last remaining bastions of go-it-alone attitude, personal responsibility, integrity, unshakeable religious faith, etc. Think about Michael Landon’s family in Little House on the Prairie, and ask yourself if they would have gone for some commie scheme to pay high taxes and support a jew-run world banking cartel/government apparatus? Think again, cowboy.

        These would be the people you’d need to break down and enslave if you wanted to implement world government.

        Feminism was needed to take down this last stand – to poison and rot the family structure from within so the people could then easily be subjugated from outside. It has played out precisely that way, beginning after WW2 and coming to full fruit in ’69 – almost exactly the year of the first graduating class to be educated by marxist infiltrators.

        Like


    • You need to destroy the current order before establishing a new one. Demolish the building, remove the foundations, then install the new ones.

      Like


  11. The core principle is very straightforward: civilization requires investment beyond the pursuit of sexual interests; civilized society comes about because a sufficient number of members of the society are able to secure reproductive success such that they have excess energy to ‘advance’ things through specialization.

    Men are much, much more ‘thing-focused’ than women; they are also more ‘active’ in intellectual orientation (being active means pushing things further and further rather than just ‘receiving’ and merely ‘understanding’ things up the current point). This is why even women who have the mental ability to ‘understand’ complex material tend not to distinguish themselves at very high levels.

    Clearly, this means that civilization depends greatly on the investment given from the male half of the species.

    Interestingly, total ‘monogamy’ is actually probably not good for civilization, because the bottom rung of the species really doesn’t have a whole lot to offer (most criminals, for instance, are extremely unintelligent and lack the ability to make even the most modest contribution to society).

    Whatever mating system you have, it’s obvious that civilization requires a sort of ‘critical mass’ of ‘invested men’ to continue, let alone flourish…

    Like


  12. The picture of those African-American moms do their combined 68 children proud. I say “congratulations!”

    This photo submission marks the first time The Speecimen has contributed anything to the content of this blog; a personal photo of his mom, aunties and sisters goes above the call of duty.

    Like


  13. Monogamy with the right worldview behind it.

    Like


  14. the government undermines marriage for one major reason-to create dependent voters. the welfare state exists solely so the government can act as the surrogate father/husband to all the single mothers and their children. all these people are taught to never bite the hand that feeds them.

    Like


  15. I gotta read your stuff more often. Fantastic.

    Like


  16. When a man has a wife, and kids that he can be sure are his and who are emotionally bonded with him, then he will work hard to provide for them, and will fight to protect them.

    Thus arises civilization.

    A man who does not see much hope of a viable family, nor even of getting laid on a regular basis, is more likely to stay in his mom’s basement and play video games, and do only enough work to keep himself fed and entertained. Thus do civilizations collapse.

    Like


  17. on October 26, 2011 at 2:56 pm greatbooksformen GBFM

    the funny thing about all the fatties in the picturess ?

    is thatthey will be funded by ben berbanke to procreate via welfaree

    so that all you betas out there who never score

    will have tosllave slave away workng to pay

    for their progeny from absentee fatherssss as womeenz love 2 speread for rugged rangianga lying manupulative douchecocking assockers

    who ben berannke

    favors

    over good, true, righteous men lzolzlzlzozozo

    tooooo dbabd the ifat dollarz is falling falling alling lzozlzzozl fun to watch the piec fail of teh fiat greenspannaianans ayn randiannins lzozozlzlz neocnocns cherubic think tank bankers who will rot in dante;s hell for all eteienrty zlzlzozolzo

    dant;es infeenro is a GREAT BOOK for ME N zlzozlolzoz

    Like


  18. Another piece of the GBFM puzzle emerges: he rightfully links Libertarian/Austrian Economic philosophy (Mises and Hayek) as the antithesis of liberal/neocon collectivism and statism. The gold standard, which we were all ordered in college to sneer at as the province of old-fashioned realists, is in truth the protector of virtue and wealth. Under the gold standard, money cannot be printed out of thin air and given to priscilla pussy at Simon & Scheister to pay tucker max to fashion himself as the mindless degenerate ideal for American men, so now you see the root of the statists’ tirades against the gold standard. Ayn Rand was another anti-fiat crusader who the statists have been sure to smear for the past decades.

    Like


    • on October 26, 2011 at 3:33 pm greatbooksformen GBFM

      lzozozlz finally someobeody catches on all y’al cray fucks zlozlzzl

      but ayn rand was a neocon aborter she killed little innocent fethuses which is why so many cockless deballed fanboyz lover her lzozozozo

      http://www.google.com/patents/about/12_218_255_System_and_method_for_creatin.html?id=aAuzAAAAEBAJ

      here is a patent that references mises and gold standdthard:

      A video game method and system for creating games where ideas have consequences, incorporating branching paths that correspond to a player’s choices, wherein paths correspond to decisions founded upon ideals, resulting in exalted games with deeper soul and story, enhanced characters and meanings, and exalted gameplay. The classical hero’s journey may be rendered, as the journey hinges on choices pivoting on classical ideals. Ideas that are rendered in word and deed will have consequences in the gameworld. Historical events such as The American Revolution may be brought to life, as players listen to famous speeches and choose sides. As great works of literature and dramatic art center around characters rendering ideals real, both internally and externally, in word and deed, in love and war, the present invention will afford video games that exalt the classical soul, as well as the great books, classics, and epic films—past, present, and future.

      A video game method and system for creating games where ideas have consequences, incorporating branching paths that correspond to a player’s choices, wherein paths correspond to decisions founded upon ideals, resulting in exalted games with deeper soul and story, enhanced characters and meanings, and exalted gameplay. The classical hero’s journey may be rendered, as the journey hinges on choices pivoting on classical ideals. Ideas that are rendered in word and deed will have consequences in the gameworld. Historical events such as The American Revolution may be brought to life, as players listen to famous speeches and choose sides. As great works of literature and dramatic art center around characters rendering ideals real, both internally and externally, in word and deed, in love and war, the present invention will afford video games that exalt the classical soul, as well as the great books, classics, and epic films—past, present, and future.

      http://www.google.com/patents/about/12_218_255_System_and_method_for_creatin.html?id=aAuzAAAAEBAJ

      lozzozlzo

      Like


      • on October 26, 2011 at 3:34 pm greatbooksformen GBFM

        Claims
        What is claimed is:
        1. A method for creating video games and virtual realities wherein ideas have consequences.

        2. The method in claim 1 where said ideas are rooted in classical, epic precepts such as those found in the Great Books and Classics, and exalted at the pinnacles of Western culture and history.

        3. The method in claim 1 where said ideas are manifested in the words the player or non-player characters, write, speak, read, disseminate, congregate about, fight for, and/or associate with.

        4. The method in claim 1 where said ideas are manifested in the actions the player, non-player characters, and/or monsters act out.

        5. The method in claim 1 where said ideas spread like viruses, by being spoken, written, or disseminated in some other manner, transforming characters who come in contact with said ideas into vampires, zombies, or other forms of monsters.

        6. The method in claim 1 where said ideas spread like viruses, by being spoken, written, or disseminated in some other manner, transforming characters who come in contact with said ideas into vampires, zombies, or other forms of monsters, and where said vampires, zombies, and monsters may be saved or converted back to normal by coming in contact with ideas that oppose the ideas that made them vampires, zombies, and other forms of monsters.

        7. The method in claim 1 where said ideas must be fought for via words and dialogue, before they have exalted consequences.

        8. The method in claim 1 where said ideas must be fought for via deeds and actions, before they have exalted consequences.

        9. The method in claim 1 where the player can fight for said ideas in word and deed, and witness the exalted consequences of those ideals, including liberty, freedom, and justice, when they succeed, and the dire consequences of tyranny, domination, and intimidation, when they fail to render exalted ideas, as ideas have consequences.

        10. The method in claim 1 where the character can fight for said ideas such as marriage, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and right to life in word and deed, and witness the exalted consequences of those ideals, including a stable and enduring society should they succeed, and a declining, bankrupt civilization, should they fail.

        11. The method in claim 1 where the character can battle for said ideas that are based upon classical moral and economic principles of famous philosophers, prophets, poets, statesmen, and economists including Plato, Moses, Jesus, Gandhi Sun Tzu, Buda, Jefferson, Aristotle, F. A. Hayek, Martin Luther King Jr., Homer, Ludwig Von Mises, Adam Smith, and others, and witness the consequences of both their success and failure of their battle, as the consequences are rendered in the game’s physical world.

        12. The method in claim 1 where the character can battle for said ideas via both word and deed, using a combination of words and action, witnessing the consequences of their balance between word and deed, between reasoning and partaking in violence, thusly bringing to life epic classical works of film and literature wherein the hero must balance word and deed.

        13. The method in claim 1 where fighting for said ideas in word and/or deed will have consequences regarding the operation of a weapon, which will operate at its full potential for the players and characters who are the most successful in serving ideals and ideas, and rendering them in word and deed.

        14. The method in claim 1 wherein said ideas may be based upon Constitutional ideals and ideas underlying the American Founding, including the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, sound currency, the right to bear arms, the freedom of speech, the right of the artist, author, and inventor to own their creations and inventions; and wherein the player could fight for sound money in word and deed and witness the consequences of their successes and failures, including liberty, wealth creation, capitalism, freedom, private property, peace, and prosperity or rapid inflation, deflation, theft via the inflation tax, massive debt, empire, long lines, wealth transfer to the rich, depressions, corruption, and war.

        15. The method in claim 1 where the said ideas will be supported or opposed by in-game characters, and the player will have to choose how to interact with the said in-game characters, based on their ideas, including but not limited to whether or not to befriend them, agree with them, disagree with them, ignore them, recruit them, shoot them, save them, judge them, or forgive them.

        16. The method in claim 1 where the said ideas are based upon the pivotal plot points of the great books and classics.

        17. The method in claim 1 where said ideas spread like viruses, by being spoken, written, or disseminated in some other manner, transforming characters who come in contact with said ideas into vampires, zombies, or other forms of monsters; and when bad ideas have infected too many in-game characters, the consequences are dire, including the loss of life, liberty, happiness, freedom, and security.

        18. The method in claim 1 wherein said ideas may be related to economics and monetary policy, and wherein the player could fight for sound money in words echoing the classical economists and deed and witness the consequences of their successes and failures, including liberty, freedom, peace and prosperity or rapid inflation, deflation, theft via the inflation tax, massive debt, empire, long lines, depressions, corruption, and war.

        19. The method in claim 1 wherein moral ideas have moral consequences in the evolution of the gameworld.

        20. The method in claim 1 where said ideas in the video game world are founded upon the natural ideas and ideals occurring at the plot points in great works of literature and film where a character must choose whether to serve an ideal or not serve an ideal, thusly rendering or not rendering ideals real by their actions, and influencing the greater outcome and state of the game world, as ideas have consequences.

        21. The method in claim 1 where said ideas in the video game world are used to exalt the classic hero’s journey, and where a player’s success and progress at every stage or step or plot point of said hero’s journey is defined by said player’s service or disservice to said ideas and ideals, and where by said player’s serving said ideas and classical ideals, said hero’s journey advances towards ultimate victory and triumph, while by said character’s failing to serve said ideas and classical ideals, progress in said hero’s journey is retarded or reversed.

        lzozozozlzlzl

        http://www.google.com/patents?id=aAuzAAAAEBAJ&pg=PA4&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=3

        Like


      • Here’s a picture of the guy who wrote that patent. Is this you GBFM? Because this guy is also into the Great Books.

        Like


      • No. That pic is more like gay butts for men.

        Like


  19. 1) How does the author (or board) define “alpha female”? In the past, the counterpart to the alpha male in sexual attractiveness has just been the most attractive women- 9s and 10s. If they are behaviorally “alpha”, does that make them the stereottypical femcunt layers? and if so,

    2) How does monogamy benefit them? The rest is pretty straightforward.

    And it’s a rhetorical question. Of course monogamy/patriarchy is what has bilt and sustained civilization over many generations.

    Like


  20. The african model only makes sense for outsiders to promote, as evidenced by what happened to africa at the hands of Arabs, then Europeans, and the upcoming Chinese colonialism. So only an elite who fancy themselves as some transnational entity would have any reason to support a model that disrupts and weakens a people.

    Like


  21. And on that tangent:

    “Plural relationships have gotten a bad name, thanks to lascivious cult leaders like Warren Jeffs. But there’s a whole other type of multi-partner love gaining popularity: polyandry, in which a woman settles down with two or more men. And it’s more common than you might think.”

    Read More http://www.details.com/culture-trends/critical-eye/201111/polyandry-plural-families?printable=true#ixzz1buxf6Ehg
    http://www.details.com/culture-trends/critical-eye/201111/polyandry-plural-families?printable=true

    Like


  22. I’m often confused with the shifting definitions of beta and alpha. It seems like when the author is talking at the macro level, beta is essentially all working, middle and upper middle class men, with alphas only comprising the top 5% of status, fame, income, etc. Movie stars, athletes, local celebrities, elite businessmen.But its confusing because when discussing game at the individual level, the subject is discussed as if your everyday, average-looking middle class man can be an alpha if he exhibits the right social acumen and cues. I think this leads to either of two truths: either alpha males are much more prevelant than the macro social philosophy posts suggest, or betas still do okay in our society on par. Maybe the midwest cultural landscape is more tradtional, I don’t know, but it appears as if prole girls are more prone to rampant hypergamy than your typical middle-class college-educated girl. The latter still seem to be looking for a steady paycheck, husband, provider with social credentials that they can’t tout to their social group. Young doctors, lawyers, engineers…they still seem to have the advantage here, despite often being the most beta. I guess it depends on what you’re looking for in a girl as well.

    Like


    • My take is that alpha and beta are nebulously applied based on content and context.

      A man can be either, or both, depending on how he acts in different situations. He can slowly alpha up by practicing game and physical challenge. He finds it beneficial to bring out more beta in some situations, such as with potential clients or business superiors. He can be a strong, unchallenged leader of men, and a pussycat with the women. Many a hard-ass prison guard goes home to be henpecked and cuckolded by a fat bitch.

      I think this is why CR pinned it down to the formula Alpha=notch count.

      [Heartiste: No, no, for the last time, alpha DOES NOT EXCLUSIVELY EQUAL notch count. Alpha = POTENTIAL notch count. That is, an alpha male is one who COULD have a lot of high quality women, regardless whether he chooses to indulge or not. So, under my elegant definition, someone like Ghandi would be alpha because his fame would attract a lot of sexual interest from women, even though he was a man who (presumably) didn’t partake of much pussy.]

      I guess it’s reliable in this context when you need a uniform standard. But my grandfather was a hell of an alpha and he probably didn’t bang more than a dozen women because of his religion (unless the old devil was more sly than I thought).

      It’s like an air/fuel mixture that you need to constantly calibrate to run smoothly in that particular situation.

      It’s often said that 50/50 alpha beta is the goal for LTRs.

      I say it’s more desirable to strive for a goal of 90% alpha, 10% beta, and to avoid LTRs in the West.

      Like


    • I think it would be more simple to simply state that alphas are the ones who have game, or at least a rudimentary form of it.
      It’s not enough to attract a woman, an alpha should be able to keep her around for a long time. Money, status or fame may grant you a lot of pussy, but without game, cuckoldry and/or divorce rape remain highly probable.
      There are so many rich/powerful/famous betas out there that any external sign of status is just complementary at best to a man’s ability to attract and keep women.

      And IIRC, the dating market value for men had some game elements in it. You cannot be an alpha without game.

      Like


    • There’s always been two definitions of alpha for me. There’s the primitive high T alpha. Merely alpha by virtue of his high testosterone and high testosterone traits such as broad shoulders, prominent brow, large nose, small eyes, and large jaw. Women are attracted to them on a primitive level due to both their physical features, and because these men despite the low status they may have, have natural game and confidence due to high T’s effect on personality. I would argue these type of alphas are detrimental to a modern civilization because like Whiskey mentioned, they are merely peacocks with bright feathers. Most of them have low IQs and grow up to be nothing more than criminals or unemployed bums. Their genes are best for surviving in harsh and primitive environments, but quite obsolete for modern civilization.

      Then there’s the alpha who is alpha by virtue of his potential notch count, essentially CH’s definition of alpha. This can be Bill Gates or a reformed beta who has mastered game through hours of hard work. It’s hard to argue these type of alphas are bad for society as most of them are quite smart, ambitious, and contribute something to society.

      Like


  23. GBFM–I’m with you on Libertarianism and Austrian Economics, but we diverge when you go off into religionism…why does a man need god to know what is moral? Everything we have on this planet comes from man’s mind, from his reason, so why do you consider morality to come from supernatural revelations and mysticism? To oppose the welfare state is to endorse the abortion of unwanted zygotes, otherwise we would be crawling with millions more parasites than we already have…

    Like


    • on October 26, 2011 at 4:56 pm greatbooksformen GBFM

      lzozozozozo

      if bernankeee bernanannkey didn’t fun the fucking out of wedlock and reward womenz for it, we wouldn’t have to abort millions of kidzz lzozozozoz

      i think it’s hilarious as FUCK you consideth yourself a liberartarian and you hate GOD lzozozzozo

      so, who is your ture libertatiain founder mentor for you ? hitler? mao? bennrnankrnke? tucker ma rhyems iwth goldmans nxs xsax? lzozozozoz

      the real, true libertatrain founders all belibeved in god, you crazy fuck fuckity fucktard face.

      Like


    • Because without fear of a higher power, there are no brakes to human behavior. There ceases to be a basis for moral outrage. All decisions become a question of cost/benefit. If Jews are seen as parasites, then there is no reason not to kill them all or perform medical experiments on them. Who is determined to be a parasite becomes a matter of fashion.

      Like


    • Without God’s image to model ourselves after, there can be no basis for human dignity either. Biologically, we are then little more than meat puppets acting on momentary impulses. Before we had Christianity, slavery was wide spread and common. We had the arena where people were murdered for entertainment. None of these things were considered to be morally questionable prior to Christianity, merely vulgar or distasteful at worst. The strong prevailed and the weak suffered what they must. Being good for goodness sake as the atheist saint Richard Dawkins like to claim lacks the necessary gravitas to deter human behavior. Besides, I’ve had too many personal experiences to not believe in God. Don’t foist your own blindness and arrogance on to others.

      Like


      • Trolling? I’ve seen your name around before so I don’t think so. Not sure if this is some sort of bizarre satire or if you are unaware of large chunks of history.

        Like


      • Don’t think so Dan. I suspect you are ignorant of large chunks of history.

        Like


      • Certainly God’s image is a useful model for folks (not women) to conduct themselves ethically. That’s true regardless of whether that God is the god of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism (the four major religions of world history).

        However, it is possible to articulate and follow an ethics without being a theist. Its more difficult, but hardly impossible.

        Like


      • I’ve heard a believable theory that theism provides a useful mental shortcut to internalizing ethics, and that stupid people are better of being theists, because it takes more brainpower to be ethical without a god breathing down your neck.

        Some people can’t even conceive of ethics being possible without that finger wagging god, and will tell you so.

        [Heartiste: Yes, that is the “guardrails” theory of religion.]

        Like


      • ” None of these things were considered to be morally questionable prior to Christianity, merely vulgar or distasteful at worst.”

        *after* christianity we had crusades, residential schools, and the greatest child rape conspiracy the world has ever known. what was your point again?

        btw, you know that jesus was brown right? that picture on ur wall, that guy’s from sweden, not current day palestine. another EG of christianity’s WASPy fairy tales.

        Like


  24. I’m flabbergasted that there is a debate about this. (Well, in places where the blue pill is the drug of choice, at least.) Denying evidence (You know, little points of fact like western civilization, the (prior) ascendancy of the intellect and hard work over chest pounding and indiscriminate sex) in favor of ‘what feels right’ is a delightfully atavistic model, though. I’m not surprised that people follow it. Disgusted, but not surprised.

    Like


  25. civilization requires investment beyond the pursuit of sexual interests

    The problem with this view is that advancing technology allows for a decreasing productive/parasites relationship in any society. So even though the number of parasites (public servants + retirees + welfare dependents) keeps increasing relative to the productive,the number of productive people required to sustain them is actually decreasing

    So the “paleo-rapture”, the Great Collapse of liberal democracy, is not feasible, unless you halt technical progress or the parasitic class starts growing so fast relative to the productive that they surpass even technical progress

    How does the author (or board) define “alpha female”?

    I thought this had been settled some time ago. “Alpha”and “beta” should refer to males; females are ranked in the 1-10 scale. ANyway, I would read that as alpha female = 8-10 in the attractiveness scale

    Like


    • The total number of ‘producers’ required in a more technologically advanced society may be lower, but it is still very high. We may have computers and advanced medicine, but we still need auto-mechanics, sewage workers, garbagemen, plumbers, and plenty of others in order to keep the whole edifice standing.

      Plus, just because there isn’t a ‘collapse’ doesn’t mean that the civilization is healthy. A society can decline and have a much lower standard of living without collapsing. But, who would want that? The goal isn’t just to exist as a civilization, but to flourish.

      Like


    • Gig — That’s the wrong view. We’ve been eating seed corn for the past forty years, and as a result will pay a heavy price. Europe is literally out of any option but to print Euros to cover the collapse of Italian, Spanish, Portugese, Irish, and FRENCH bonds as well as Greek ones. This means hyperinflation sooner or later, and total systems collapse. Ask Weimar how that went.

      America is facing according the WSJ at LEAST 4-5% food costs rise this winter. Maybe more. We don’t have the money to pay for it. If you like Black flashmobs now, wait till EBTs don’t cover even minimal amounts of monthly food.

      Collapse is already coming, China is a house of cards (huge debt in banks, not government loans but same thing) that will have massive inflation/household wealth transfers to keep their crony capitalists alive (like here btw) And that will create huge masses of people angry and desperate. No matter how many cool new Iphones Apple brings out.

      Like


      • I think all those situations are manageable. The eurozone is still strong despite your (and others’) sensationalism, and even if the euro doesn’t make it (and i highly doubt it), it will be for lack of budgetary coordination, and not structural deficiencies.

        I don’t really see a collapse, but maybe troubled times. I presume that the coup de grace would be a sudden rise in energy prices. The governments desperately need gdp growth, the problem is that growth and energy prices are positively correlated, and i’m not sure we can afford another energy crisis.

        To be honest, things are blurry to the max. There is no visibility whatsoever. The best specialists are making contradictory statements. I would wait 2013 to make sensationalist claims.

        Like


      • on October 27, 2011 at 2:11 pm (r)Evoluzione

        Yes, food price inflation is continuing apace, as is “value inflation,” where the price for end-user commodities may be the same, or a few pennies more, but the per-package amount is shrinking, often in the same size box or wrapper.

        Case in point: bacon used to be sold by the pound. Now most bacon is 14 ounces, and many a brand sell in 12 ounce packages. This is widespread, in everywhere from coffee to orange juice to cooking oil.

        Underlying commodites prices are driving much of this volatility, and that has to do with oil, the Ur-commodity that powers the whole fucking machine.

        To quote Lt. Colonel Christoper Fleming:
        “The data indicate a new higher order of inelasticity between oil price and oil production. These findings support peak oil forecasts in the range of 2005 to 2010 and together provide strong evidence that geological factors could presently be limiting world oil production.”

        His report can be found here:
        http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a545047.pdf

        That means that the age of economic growth is over. It may not be a rapid collapse, but certainly a slow-mo collapse is in the making in our lifetimes. The #occupy everywhere movement can be seen as the end-of-growth societal unrest. It has been peaceful so far–but Oakland may be the point of violence injected into the movement. The ‘first broken window’ theory may play out here & now.

        Like


      • ‘the #occupy everywhere movement can be seen as the end-of-growth societal unrest’

        ows is trying to rearrange deck chairs on the titanic. wall street sees the writing on the wall and being the sociopathic sobs they are, are looting while the looting is good. ows dimly sees it too and objects to being kicked out of the lifeboat. i’m reminded of this scene in ‘dr strangelove’. the occupants in the war room lamenting they cannot avoid polygamy to repeople the earth:

        Like


    • Alpha Female is more than just attractive. She is a loving and caring, but also has the self-awareness to handle her emotions. Just as alpha male has strong ego which he has conquered – an alpha female has strong feminine emotions that she is able to channel and direct. Her beauty comes from good genes, healthy mind body and soul – not from cosmetics. She derives her power from being able to connect with many many people and form a community. It is a different sort of power from masculine power.

      Of course such “good women” are few – and not very famous, but they do exist. An alpha male will commit to her – not because she wants it – but because he truly enjoys her company more than 100 women who orbit him. Good example of alpha female would be Princess Diana.

      Like


  26. The african model only makes sense for outsiders to promote, as evidenced by what happened to africa at the hands of Arabs, then Europeans, and the upcoming Chinese colonialism.

    It never ceases to amaze me. Nothing, absolutely nothing happens to Africa that could be blamed on Africans. “Outsiders”promoted, “Arabs” did this, “Europeans” did that, “Chinese” would do something else. Africans are always passive subjects of someone else’s poisonous hearts.

    Like


    • Thank you for making this very cogent observation.

      Like


    • I called it the african model. What does that imply to you? that I think the transnational elites of 20,000BC were responsible for it? No, of course not, africans failed to keep up with the civilized world, and paid a great and terrible price for it. I happen to think that the short period of European colonization was in the plus column for africa to boot.

      Today, now that such an elite can exist however, they would find it to their benefit to support such a model.

      Like


      • africans failed to keep up with the civilized world, and paid a great and terrible price for it

        If anything, the civilized world has been paying a gigantic price during the last 50 years for it. the Afro-Yankee war on female beauty being probably the worst face of that price

        Like


    • Africa is a prime example of why high T alpha’s are obsolete compared to the beta intelligence that creates modern civilization. Beta’s arent angels but I’d rather live in a house than a mud hut. Africa was conquered because they have too many alpha’s and not enough providers. They were conquered because they were too weak plain and simple

      Like


  27. Heartiste wrote: “Polygyny advantages alpha males and beta females.”

    Alpha is ascendent in every social context. That’s very nearly the definition of alpha: the man who independently dominates his social circle, regardless of the external factors that attempt to elevate the other types — women, betas, omegas. Alpha is top dog in primitive packs; he is head of estate on plantations; he is feudal lord of the manor; he is baron of industry; he is entrepreneur of free enterprise; quarterback of the football team; chief-enlisted of the platoon: he is the collection of overt animal traits that breaks through all conventions meant to equalize society and make it safe for others to play.

    Polygyny doesn’t advantage alpha males. They are better off with the official organs of monogamy providing cover for their unofficial trysts. The more wide-open the female field is, the more obvious it will be that a beta must up his game. Hence the instantaneous popularity of sites like these which whisper the truth of the sexual dynamic, i.e., dispense red pills by the truckload. (If you don’t believe me, search the comments for the many, many who have testified to Roissy having changed their lives. Or contemplate his 20,000,000+ page views.)

    “Monogamy advantages beta males and alpha females.”

    Only if by “advantage” you mean raising the alphas’ child and then getting divorced. Yes, a strict system of officially enforced monogamy — no possibility of divorce, death penalty for adulterers or any extramarital sex — would cramp the alpha’s style. But in the real world it more often provides the happy smiley face blanket under which betas are cuckolded.

    And look, officially polygamous cultures are only temporarily good for true alphas: 1) A seething resentful population of betas and omegas remain locked out of sex, and their frustrations eventually find outlets in demagoguery and revolution, overturning the structures of their oppression in mob action. And 2) the officially designated “alphas” — the men with multiple wives or state-sanctioned harems — are Alpha In Name Only, likelier to be connected aristocrats than men of natural leadership.

    “Guess which system advantages civilization?”

    Official “systems” advantage nothing. They only more and less distract us from the true dynamic of sexual competition. Unofficial “systems” are the alpha’s playground, given his power to dominate and manipulate every social milieu to his advantage.

    The only sustainable solution? Alpha self-control. Discipline of desire and the staying one’s hand. Not that any alpha wants to hear about that, nor any beta or omega think it possible. Just like accountants will find ways around every tax regulation given enough incentive, alphas will transcend any social convention meant to rein them in, to the eternal frustration of the ideologues and regulators and rule-harpies.

    Alpha means power. It is the unofficial sovereignty or freedom that thrives beneath the official denial of the will to power, the “systems” that pretend it does not exist. The alpha’s is not an absolute power, but it is an enduring power. It can be temporarily overwhelmed by mobocracies with a chip on their shoulder from time to time, but nature creeps back in. Always. Entire societies are organized around containing the alpha’s “unfair” advantage! …but without ever working.

    Which is why the only “system [that] advantages civilization” is one of voluntary magnanimity, where the alphas of power discipline their strength by an internal code of honor or morality or noblesse oblige, never simply law.

    Like


    • ‘Which is why the only “system [that] advantages civilization” is one of voluntary magnanimity, where the alphas of power discipline their strength by an internal code of honor or morality or noblesse oblige, never simply law.’

      this is what i just can’t see as sustainable- the little guy becoming aware the rules don’t apply to some fraction of his society and being copacetic about it.

      now we have the red pill being forced on him. the noble lie is no longer doing its job. what is to stop him from assuming the privileges of the alpha. why not? if he does all hell breaks loose.

      Like


      • We have a term for “the little guy becoming aware the rules don’t apply to some fraction of his society.” You may have heard of it.

        It’s called: “Growing up.” (Or, little guy becomes big guy!)

        Resentment for not having everything the other dude has is for young hotheads and socialists. The rest of us get over “the noble lie” and become comfortable with the justice of meritocracy.

        Besides, in populations free from ressentiment, the demos isn’t always envious of their social superiors. We democrats are just accustomed to inculcating and stoking the ressentiment, and we can’t imagine why envy doesn’t rule, say, an untouchable in India or the butler of some earl in the countryside.

        We hold this truth to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. That’s not a “lie” so much as a baseline assumption, an approach that is necessary because human justice is limited and flawed.

        Like


  28. Betas are losers. Society benefits when losers are rewarded? That don’t sound very Amurr’can to me!

    Like


    • Einstein’s a beta. Is he a loser? Kevin Federline is Alpha (five kids, three illegitimate). Is he a “winner?” Oppenheimer was a beta. He gave us the atomic bomb. Is he a “loser?” Is the Situation a winner?

      IF you create a society that rewards only those guys who make ginas tingle, then you’ll be left with Federlines and Situations. Those guys might be sexy, but they’re useless come real competition. Or in peacetime, think Philo T. Farnsworth, or Henry Ford, or Jonas Salk, or any number of nerdy engineers and scientists. Unless you think Jose and Deshaun from the Hood are going to step into the gap, you need to reward those types.

      Otherwise you get a straight, one-way ticket to West Africa.

      Like


      • on October 26, 2011 at 9:43 pm David Collard

        Einstein and Oppenheimer did very well with women. So did Feynman.

        Like


      • Feynman studied game.

        Seriously – read “Genius”. Without his knowledge of game, he would have been ignored by women. His status as the handy-man behind the a-bomb would have gotten him absolutely no girls.

        Admittedly, the game he studied was very primitive by today’s standards, but even he knew that you needed to neg very high status women in order to bed them.

        [Heartiste: Most men don’t understand that you actually need very little game to get a previously indifferent woman attracted, as long as the game concepts you do use are the rocket-fueled ones, like negs. Advanced game of the sort that involves a lot of different, and sometimes competing, concepts is for very successful seducers who want to maximize their pickup efficiency with every woman they meet.]

        Like


      • Reading his anecdotes in “Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman” back when I was in high school (and not one person in ten had ever sent an e-mail) was my introduction to Game.

        Like


      • You think Federline and Mike the Situation are what women find desirable and sexy?

        BWAHAHAHAHAHA

        You win the award for worst examples ever.

        LET’S NOT CONFUSE SWAGGER, TACKINESS AND DOUCHINESS FOR ALPHANESS. They are NOT one and the same.

        Federline who now goes by K – FAT is an obese wigger whale who at one time was trying to be a rapper. LOL And Mike the situation is a short orange-colored tacky pigeon-toed little guido who looks about 15 years older than his actual age. One of the guidettes on the show used to tell him he needed Botox because he looks like he’s 40 years old! The fact that Mike has delusions of grandeur only make him all the more pathetic. At least K Fat realizes he’s a loser who takes care of his and Britney’s kids for a living while receiving alimony from her.

        Every single female that I know – from family to friends to coworkers to exes – see both these men as pathetic scrubs and tryhard wannabes. Both are chumps and both only attract fugly girls with no standards. K Fat is with a washed up fat tennis player who never made it big. She’s 100% white trash. And the Situation always throws a hissy fit every time he and the guys of the show go clubbing because the other dudes who are younger, better looking, and less douchey than he is always bring back hotties and the Situation only attracts the fugs.

        And if there is one thing that 99.9% of women will agree on is that pigeon-toedness is NOT ALPHA. That’s even worse than a dude who is bowlegged or knock-kneed.

        Like


      • “Every single female that I know – from family to friends to coworkers to exes – see both these men as pathetic scrubs and tryhard wannabes. ”

        —-

        And they would sleep with them given half a chance. You don’t know women very well, do you?

        Like


      • Wrong, Jonathan. The man has a point. No woman WITH STANDARDS that I know of would sleep with a fat doughboy wangster wigger like K FAT or a loudmouthed orange guido like The Situation.

        Now are there plenty of female trash in America that would sleep with such men? Yes!!! But what he was saying is that no attractive woman with standards would. They would be embarrassed to.

        In L.A. these guys get puseh because there’s so much trash in L.A. For example, Britney is WHITE TRASH. Why do you think she married him? Britney uses public gas station bathrooms barefoot and farts and burps in front of anyone.

        He wasn’t trolling. He’s explaining how there’s a difference between TRASHY women and NON-TRASHY women.

        You think someone like Ivanka Trump (Donald’s hottie daughter) would date either K Fat or Situation? Hell no. How about Carrie Underwood or Reese Witherspoon or Jessica Biel? None of these women would be caught dead even in the same room as K Fat or The Situation.

        Like


      • It’s pretty damn obvious that he was trolling, you shouldn’t feed the trolls.

        Like


      • Einstein is a definite alpha – he supposedly had five girls on the line at once at one point, and was a renowned poon hound in his day, so definite alpha.

        Like


      • on November 1, 2011 at 12:28 am Irish/Italian New Yorker

        @ Kai: I don’t think he was trolling. He has a point that a woman who has a lot going for herself (high status female) ain’t gonna settle for scrubs. Britney might have been rich but she’s pure trailer park and has no class which explains why Federline was able to get her.

        @DD: Getting a lot of pussy doesn’t make you an Alpha. LMFAO

        My friend is considered a “hottie” by most women’s standards and he gets a lot of action because he’s tall, broad-shouldered, and good looking in the face.

        But he is in no way alpha. He gets laid a lot but the women are in control 100% of the time during these flings and short lived relationships. Once they get tired of what a doormat he is they leave him. He’s overly agreeable with the ladies (“yeah whatever you like” / “whatever you want honey”). And he gets easily intimidated by other men instead of standing his ground like in bars or nightclubs or even in conversations with his friends.

        Truth is women are extremely shallow and superficial creatures and if a guy is “HOT” they will bang him. Doesn’t mean he has even an ounce of alphaness in him.

        I don’t know about Einstein, they say he was weird and neurotic which doesn’t sound alpha to me.

        But I definitely know guys who get puseh and are NOT alpha.

        Like


  29. Heartiste wrote: “Maybe that question is too broad. Which mating system — in either the hard or soft forms — benefits the individual? The managerial globalists? The cognoelite? The lumpenproles? Figure out how each group benefits and you’ll know which system is ascendent, and which is actively and passively undermined.”

    The idea of “system[s]” “benefit[ting]” anyone in particular is a democratic illusion, a “lumpenprole” faith in the salvation of politics.

    There is only one system, and that is the will to power. Hobbes’s state of nature. The law of the jungle. Strengths conquering strengths. All of the official scaffolding of civilization is meant to remove us as far from this dynamic as possible, but it is a grubby slave conceit to believe Official Regulation will save the weak from their weak destiny.

    There is only one salvation from the will to power, and that is convincing the powerful to withdraw their strength voluntarily, out of pity, out of love, or out of simple happenstance. The Slave Revolt of Morality (cf. Nietzsche, Genealogy) overthrew nothing. It just makes us think it did. Which has buried the true engine of our social interaction even deeper.

    Now the hitch in all this is the paradoxical nature of power, the meek inheriting the earth. But that’s graduate seminar stuff. Suffice it to say there is only one “mating system,” but many many utopian, manmade attempts to alter that system. And those attempts have each collapsed in turn, becoming carcasses of “Pretty Lies” heaped between us and the truth, obscuring our understanding of it with the centuries-long distortion fields of impenetrable illusions.

    Like


  30. It is unwise to underestimate one’s enemies. Prepare yourselves gentlemen, for the dystopia is upon us:

    http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1075962–woman-cleared-of-murder-still-treasures-locket-with-photo-of-man-she-killed

    Like


    • see also: People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson

      oh wait, that case was about men being evil, getting away w an obvious murder and how the world would inevitably fall apart because of it…

      Like


  31. Close.

    Speak fucking English. You might be onto something.

    If your “neocon” is a simple synonym for Jews, you are just another anti-Semitic retard conspiracy theorist. If it is a synonym for certain tendencies exemplified by Jews in the popular imagination, then it all depends on your understanding of those tendencies. But we will never get to the bottom of that so long as you keep up your inane shtick.

    Is your citation of Moses supposed to be positive or negative?

    On second thought, forget it. Carry on.

    Like


    • quick, call Foxman at the ADL!!! somebody implied that jewish neocon policy is just as corrosive and disastrous as jewish liberal policy!

      Like


    • on October 27, 2011 at 11:43 am greatbooksformen GBFM

      My mother is jewishshs. I love jews like Mises and Moses and Jesus and Abraham and David and Einstein and my Mom. 🙂

      What the fuck is your problem? Why teh fuck am I not alolowed to crictciize goldbergian in the belwtway warmongering neoconsnsn you asshat clownfuck?

      Like


      • I’d be ecstatic to see your criticism of neoconservatism. But even if I had the secret decoder ring, fuck if I’m going to exegese a ten-screen run-on sentence that only ends with the typical braindead conspirazoid blather.

        I’d rather you just lay your cards on the table so I can determine whether you’re worth a read. And you should know that, even if you are somehow pooping diamonds, it’s not worth sifting through acres of autistic dog shit for an occasional gem.

        But you have apparently assembled some fans, and fans have their expectations. “Play Freebird, mannnn…”

        Like


  32. gbfm should be hired for barack obamas speaking engagements ❤

    CH your question doesn't account for new meta. We are actually in a new state of human behavior (not that it isn't in a repeat of history on some levels) but we have new aids that have never ever been experienced.

    *equidistance
    *infinite selection
    *porn on tap

    We have infinite everything in a society that tells us everything is scarce. So few know anything of value everyone is dancing around as copies, desperately trying to survive the increasing demands of their primal sense, society, and their egos.

    Complete equidistance but lack of resources on a ground level creates an insanity, a desperation, and a confusion for anyone without the boon of contextualization(game being one of the many things that fall under that).

    Because there is infinite selection, the criteria raised by people rises so high they don't even relate to their prospects anymore and every communication has a sexual undertone. That is the sign of a desperate society, a society that gets eaten by wolves (us obviously).

    Alongside with infinite selection, there is no remorse. Scarcity provides the opportunity to reflect on loss. You cannot lose if there's an infinite amount of women to bed given to you by the glory of the internet, and cheap travel.

    All you need is an exploit. The rest is free on tap and the thing is, if you don't even care you can just beat off in your room all day and play wow. Its a great time to be a loser, and the best damn time in the history of man to be a winner.

    Like


  33. So it is safe to say that monogamous societies where the everyman has some “skin in the game” will beat polygamous societies where the everyman couldn’t give a rats ass about the king’s/alphas harem. Such societies give our species the best long term chance of survival. (Good luck colonizing space without cooperation.)

    So what now? I see little hope for the salvation of western civilization at this point. Things seem hopeful from the warmth of the man-o-sphere, but we are just a drop in the bucket. Trying to help the masses of beta boys and fema-cunts, while noble, is tantamount to plowing the seas.

    “You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.”

    If we were to create a new civilization, what norms, laws and constructs should be in place to avoid the perils of female hypergamy? How would this new order take into account the pill, contraception, the explosion of technology and the decline of religion?

    Like


  34. http://entertainment.ca.msn.com/celebs/photos/photo-viewer.aspx?cp-documentid=31131933

    Thought you might find this interesting, how age has made these women more than ugly….

    Like


  35. GBFM made some of his greatest hits today, right before our very eyes!!!!

    Every man [with a functioning brain] should read the Odyssey, the Book of Ecclesiastes, the Gospel of Saint Matthew, the letters of Saint Paul, Saint Jerome and Saint Gregory the Great, and Dante’s Inferno – all great books for men!!!!

    Saint Paul wrote that it is good not to touch a woman, especially won who has been desouled and bernankified by the neocons’ butthex assrape gangabanaga complex wihle being secretly taped without the girels’s conthent and financed by fiat free benrandke dollars and fiant cash.
    lzolzozzlzozlozlzozlzozlozzlozlzozlzozlzozlzolzolzozlzozlozlzozlozlzozl!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Like


  36. USA, the icon of western civilization, were built by the hands of cooperative moral super-betas. See Max Weber’s “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism”.
    Game is anti-civilizatory.
    Game brings us back to the “natural state of things”, were every women reproduces and only 20% (aphas) of the males does it.
    Actually, a society of gamers (it means alpha mimickers) would be even worst than the “natural state of things”, because every man would struggle not to cooperate, to banish ethics, and to give a shit about all civilization principles like marriage. It means no betas! Who the fuck will design your computer, mr. Heartiste?

    Like


    • on October 26, 2011 at 9:36 pm Obstinance Works

      Ironically early America’s federal government was more limited and libertarian than now.

      Like


      • Actually, that is what allowed them to be super-betas and still be successful. More freedom from government for men = less freedom for women.

        Like


  37. For those who have asked, the alpha females are, first and foremost, the most beautiful women. They possess other characteristics that add to their alphaness as well, but beauty and youth are far and away their most important attributes.

    Polygyny benefits alpha males because they get more than one woman.

    Polygyny benefits beta females because they get a shot at being an alpha male’s second love, or, barring that, a chance to be with a beta male higher up the status ladder than who they would normally get under a monogamous system (because the extra women the alpha male monopolizes frees up space below for beta females to jump up the mating market ladder and demand a higher quality beta male as a partner).

    Monogamy benefits beta males because they get a near-guaranteed shot at having at least one woman roughly their SMV equal (assuming most men don’t practice game).

    Monogamy benefits alpha females because they don’t have to share their alpha male partners with any other women.

    This should clear up any confusion. Naturally, I expect feminists to shriek in horror at these truths.

    Like


    • You’re brilliant.

      Like


    • Heartiste wrote: “Polygyny benefits…”

      Then how would you characterize our current “mating system”? Polygynous? Monogamous? Higynous-Hogamus?

      Ours is a thin veil of monogamy draped over the roiling, permanent, and unchangeable default polygyny. Who cares what the nature of the veil is, except as a means to detect the glitches in the matrix?

      So while betas have the advantage of outward appearances, your taxonomy assumes that such superficial considerations are the ones that count, rather than the deepest reality that Bob the Beta is raising another man’s child.

      The only way to change the fact of polygyny is through attempting to change the nature of man or through totalitarian law (usually one in the same). All else is deception. Who cares what a beta’s false perception of what “benefits” him is? All that matters is who truly benefits, and that is always alpha.

      The best these corrective “systems” of civilization can do is prevent the beta shutout in an alpha blowout. Instead of losing 41-0, they get the symbolic field goal as time expires in the form of an aging, entitled fatbody who may or may not be the mother of his kids. I suppose that is some consolation, but it is hardly a real “benefit.”

      Like


  38. I would not count this system as polygyny, but rather as the lek system, in that most kids do not have fathers.

    In a polygynous species, a large harem of females has stable and lasting relationships with a single alpha male, so dad is around to chase off predators and provide a role model for sons, even though he contributes little or nothing to supporting his numerous wives and kids.

    See the movie Bambi, where Bambi’s dad is present though distant. He shows up briefly to provide guidance and inspiration. See also wild chickens, where the cock wanders around completely ignoring the females, and numerous females follow him around.

    In a leking species, the female mates, gets pregnant, and never sees that male again.

    Like


  39. @ whiskey

    I work with inflation, in Brazil, US and China, and commodities. And I can tell you that 2012, the world balances (demand, supply, stocks, exports and imports) of all major commodities (wheat, soybeans, sugar and rice) except corn will move decisively into surplus. Prices are heading south for all, even corn, because they compete for area. Unless America rebounds unexpectedly and lifts the world with her.

    Even for energy, Libya and Angola are quickly restoring production levels and America, of all countries, added the most production capacity this year: 400k oil bpd of domestic production.

    ANd you should know that the Euro-geddon may happen a year from now. or maybe five years. Once Europe starts printing, markets will calm down for months…

    Like


    • Gig — That’s not what the WSJ is predicting. The US Corn harvest (which fuels so much of US foodstuffs) is down, the world’s wheat supplies are still rebuilding from the Ukranian/Russian drought, Thailand a major rice exporter is screwed. And all that is against a rising background of rising Chinese demand.

      REALLY? All major Agricultural commodities will run into surplus? Are you betting that way? No major weather event screwing up supply causing shortages with increased demand? Hmmm. You trust the AQ loons running Libya to get the oil back into production? The Angolans? Heck Iran runs Iraq, their production will be guaranteed to fall to keep the world price high. And pretty much every Euro bond save Germans has a huge risk premium, already rising. I doubt Germans want to pay more for every imported item particularly the politically powerful Mittelstand which mostly does business internally or in Europe.

      Heck most companies and hedge funds are awash in cash because things are so volatile. And bad. End of Pax America = global violence threatening global trade, competition for scarce resources, mass migration (the latter scares the hell out of Europe as it should).

      Like


      • so i just got off the horn w my navy intel friend, about “AQ running libya” and “iran running iraq”.

        i already knew the answer but i just wanted to hear his reaction. his response: “uh… no thats bs”

        yeah i thought it would be weird if NATO drones were giving air cover to AQ ground forces…

        stop lecturing man. you got nothing besides amusing posts about why betas run the world.

        Like


  40. “professional schools are starting to drown men in gender imbalances (merit based btw). ”

    Merit based? Really? Male SAT scores are higher than female, seventy percent of people with IQ above 120 are male, and the girls in computer science class are quite obviously affirmative actioned into them. Female computer science graduates markedly underpeform what is required for a male to graduate. Universities with hordes of females provide dumbed down courses to accommodate them

    In a course on feminist studies or communications or some such, how can you tell merit? Those courses where merit is most difficult to ascertain, are those courses most flooded with women, and in those courses where merit can be objectively ascertained, such as computer science, the women doing those courses mostly lack merit.

    Like


    • As a CS student I can affirm this. Are you involved in the CS field? A professor or ex-professor perhaps?

      So many desperate nerds and so few women. They either get help from the supplicating nerds on their homework or the teachers go easy on them it seems.

      Like


    • Lol, truer words have scarcely been posted.

      Indeed, contrary to what many think, the male advantage at the high end doesn’t become noticeable at the ‘extreme end,’ it becomes evident much earlier. An IQ of 120 is roughly 90th percentile — not all that impressive, and yet already at that point males occur at a rate greater than 2:1.

      Women, by their very nature, are not exceptional, they are average. They are the ultimate herd creatures.

      Also, when you factor in things such as motivation, attitude toward work, and so forth, you start to question whether seats in professional schools (especially the important ones) are being wasted. It’s very common, for instance, for women to receive professional degrees and then intentionally ‘drop out’ of the workforce. Should we really waste resources educating someone to be a doctor when they’ll eventually that it doesn’t fit their ‘lifestyle’? Shouldn’t we educate someone who will dedicate themselves to the practice of medicine and improve it through their efforts?

      Like


      • I’m not sure why you view college seats as limited resources. It is because colleges appear to limit their available seats?

        As far as I can see, education is a practically unlimited resource. Women learning from women costs nothing as compared to women doing nothing.

        However in the larger picture I agree that women could spend their efforts in ways more productive than being economically productive. From the point of view of a man, I want a personal assistant. That helps me more than an economic assistant.

        Like


      • Well, ‘college’ should be distinguished from professional school: I couldn’t care less if a woman takes a seat in a massive undergraduate lecture hall where absolutely nothing is at stake for society. Professional school is different though. The fact is that seats are limited for such schools, and this is partly because it’s not possible to practice certain professions without at least some physical instruction. I don’t know about you, but I certainly wouldn’t want to be operated on by a surgeon who trained himself solely by downloading the textbooks and reading them. At some point there needs to be interpersonal communication so that the skill can be learned properly. This is why professional education is in fact a finite resource, because only so many can be taught this way without compromising standards (again, would you want a surgeon who took the ‘express course’ with thousands of others?).

        So, the question becomes, should we allow people to take professional seats even though they might abandon the profession because the demands conflict with their ‘lifestyle’? Isn’t this a waste of resources?

        Like


      • Yes, that’s a real problem. Wasting resources on women who, after lots of money has been spent on them, find out that they would rather be housewives … Despite this I believe it’s necessary to “waste” money on women. As Kofi Annan once said: “To educate a girl is to educate a whole family. And what is true of families is also true of communities and ultimately, whole countries. Study after study has taught us that there is no tool for development more effective than the empowerment of women. No other policy is as likely to raise economic productivity, or to reduce infant and maternal mortality. No other policy is as sure to improve nutrition and promote health—including the prevention of HIV/AIDS. No other policy is as powerful in increasing the chances of education for the next generation. And I would also venture that no policy is more important in preventing conflict, or in achieving reconciliation after a conflict has ended.”

        Like


      • There is a difference between a woman who knows how to write, read, take care of her children, and an empowered lawyercunt who spends her 20s on the cock carousel.
        “Empowering” women can lead to extremes and unintended consequences. A vast majority of men prefers to die alone rather than putting up with the empowerment bullshit.

        Like


      • Well that is only true once men are educated and made productive in our societies. Women are then in a position to supplement them. Kofi Annan was also speaking about matriarchal cultures, which the Left pretends not to recognize as such, where the men have been disenfranchised to the point of being lay about sperm donors and the women do all the work. In patriarchal societies, the men make sure their children are educated properly and it is these societies that have advanced. Scandinavian utopianism doesn’t want to recognize that fact as it would awaken them from their beautiful suicidal dream. Kofi would have made more progress if he had promoted patriarchal arrangements and abandonment of matriarchy in Africa instead. That’s why they remain poor and backwards, but Sweden could never admit that. I also think its a very fanciful notion that empowering women will reduce violence in the world. Women argue and fight more than men by far and over completely stupid things more often than not.
        I refer you to the Baltimore TV beat down and the more recent attack on the male employee at McDonald’s. They are only less violent due to patriarchal social conditioning, fast eroding, because they would get their asses kicked if they directly challenged men without the aid of big brother state. Again, see the McDonald’s cashier beat down incident.

        Like


      • Tyrone,

        was it you who wrote about your dream marriage (blow jobs 2 times a day)?

        Answer,

        -is your wife younger than you?
        -prettier?
        -lower status?

        Like


      • Maya wrote: “As Kofi Annan once said….”

        My God, woman. Kofi Annan now?

        The only kofi I want to hear about is the cup of kofi you’re bringing me. And I don’t take it black.

        Like


    • And while we are on the topic, CS women have the BIGGEST egos on the fucking planet, despite that they are typically homely and of average intelligence.

      Like


    • referring to law, medicine, MBA, commerce, arts etc….

      i define merit as GMAT, LSAT, GPA, work experience, etc.. you know, the criteria by which they get accepted into those programs.

      u might be right about comp sci. im willing to cede that for a simple reason: comp nerds don’t run the world or even make strategic decisions on a macro level.

      Like


  41. “advantage” is not a verb #grammarbeta

    [Heartiste: Oh, I”m afraid you have jumped the gun. Indeed it is (or rather, it has a verb form):
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/advantage%5D

    Like


    • stick to astronomy, son!

      in fairness, it would be less funny if “disadvantage” wasn’t regularly used in verb form.

      Like


  42. Polygyny is a misuse of terms. Polygyny is intrinsically patriarchal; it seems more likely that we are transitioning away from a system of marriage altogether to a biologically pre-ordained state of hypergamous polyamoury (you already know this).

    What’s important is that this will inevitably result in a matriarchal familial system, as it will become increasingly acceptable to have children from different mothers (potentially unavoidable as fewer and fewer acceptable women will want to stay with a man for more than a few years, particularly when child support laws nullify their primary motivation for doing so). As multiple families will be unable to live in one man’s household, the family will inevitably center around the woman.

    To determine which system is “better” for civilization is as easy as examining the historically matriarchal societies vs. the historically patriarchal ones, e.g. the societies of Africa, Southern Italy, Central America, et al, versus Germany, America, and the Middle East. Why is this?

    Because the role of men is fundamentally different in a matriarchal society. This is the true definition of the lover/provider distinction – each is predominant in one of these models. White society has no real prototype for the male lover, but guess who does? The blacks, the italians, the mexicans – the coolest people on earth, and the least productive. In a matriarchal society where men do not provide for women, receiving love does not depend on occupational achievement – it depends on game. This is why the emergence of game is a historical development: it is the transition of the white man from a provider to a lover, a visible symptom of the end of patriarchy, and the end of the 500 years in which brilliance, risk-taking, and rational, systematic thought which proceeded from it.

    Like


    • easy there bro, Italian engineering is some of the best in the world. And i’m not just talking about cars. No ones getting any oil out from under the sea without them and the venezuelans.

      Like


  43. on October 27, 2011 at 2:10 am The Real Vince

    So much evidence-challenged doom and gloom nonsense. It’s attractive — everybody thinks the apocalypse manages to hit just within their own lifetime.

    We’re not in Roman times. Civilization is relatively widespread. It’s also resilient, like putting toothpaste back in the tube. We’re living in a time of unprecedented peace and prosperity.

    Like


    • It’s a function of a man approaching his political prime. We contemplate the worst as we prepare for the best, because it’s up to us now, not daddy.

      Yes, things are good when looked at a certain way. But to underestimate the vulnerability of civilization is to be historically ignorant and politically irresponsible. No, the civitas doesn’t collapse in toto, but it is always either building toward greatness or sliding into oblivion. Busy livin or busy dyin. Our predicament happens to be the latter.

      Thanks, Boomers!

      Like


  44. On the whole yes, but it’s not just about polygyni or monogamy, it’s about making each system work.

    For example, prostitution can be a great help for either system, because it can pacify the amount of aggressive males that are left sexless for countless reasons. Or it can just produce a lot of diseases and broken, used girls. In a lot of Western women in countries like Denmark, Holland and Germany where prostitution is legal, many of the girls say their enjoyment of sex (and sober, horny customers) as well as the pay and the constant positive attention is a reason why they like it. And the rate of diseases is often no lower or even lower than average, because of all the education the girls get in detecting diseases and using condoms. In many third world countries, girls are sold for a few hundred dollars, dumped in a squalid apartment, and when they’ve been screwed 40 times a day for 5-10 years and have so many diseases and damage to their reproductive organs it’s starting to make them unattractive, they’re dumped on the streets to take care of themselves or die. It’s really heartbreaking, but since brown and black men are the ones doing it, feminist organiations simply don’t care, and neither do the local government and police because they’re largely doing it too. So the practive largely continues in many 3rd world countries, especially in Asia and Africa, except for the occasional bust, usually involving a gay white guy or the occasional 0.1% white customer.

    Like


  45. Depends man. Right now I am a Beta so I am liking the way things are… if I actually ever make it to Alpha status I’ll jump camp!

    Like


  46. Apropos of nothing…

    Has it been noted here that women of a certain type/age are associated with cats rather than dogs? Cats as alpha substitutes which basically fend for themselves, whilst dogs require much greater responsiblity to look after …

    Like


  47. Alphas might dominate social circles, it is betas who ultimately dominate an alphas career & ability to make a living

    Which is why most alphas turn into construction workers, carpenters, electricians, delivery men, & useless positions such as managers which require social skills, hence their assholes

    While the betas run & coordinate the construction workers & asshole managers, & the rest of the alpha lumberjacks & electricians

    Financially most alphas unless they know how to tap into their beta tendencies, still arent much better off then they were in the cave age …

    ie, gangbangers, thugs, & obviously the vast majority of women love these retarded alphas, ie feminists & homoerotic mangina eunuchs, all still arent much better off then in the age of caves, throwing spears at rats & chasing chimpanzees up trees for a living

    For example look at all feminist dominated ghettos & slums, literally the worst parts of todays societies dominated by feminist indoctrinated single moms, all brainwashed by feminists to even think of having a relationship with a man as being sick

    Feminists have turned ethnic & white working class households into slums, & ghettos, no better then cockroach chasing cave dwellers

    All the technological progress & financial advantages of living in a first world countries is lost on these inbred man hating feminists, while all feminists around the world turn the families of hardworking men everywhere into ghettos & slums filled with reprobate backward undereducated single moms

    Teach women to hate men, & men will abandon them in droves, which is what black men have been doing for decades now

    As for women divorcing men first, the vast majority of black men arent stupid enough to get married in the first place, dumping man hating black & white women & their undereducated kids, as soon as a woman displays her feminist stupidity & hate for the hard working male

    White men & middle class males, the mra, & the manosphere everywhere, are all following suit & leaving feminist indoctrinated women taught to hate their god given right to have a family & children with a male,

    for catfarms & a life of disgusting tv dinners without men, as feminists have told them women in the kitchen is sexist, & not being able to feed yourself & your children as empowering

    While betas everywhere & alphas honour their ability to progress society, science & education while leaving single moms, everywhere to their ghettos & slums womens deliberate undereducation created by & paid for by radical lesbian feminists & man hating, treat men as wage slaves centuries of traditionalists

    Like


    • Yes, because there are no professionally successful alphas. Because being professionally successful is a beta trait.

      Feel better about yourself and your ranking in the world now?

      Like


    • What the fuck are you talking about? Couldn’t keep reading after paragraph 4.

      Like


  48. End of Pax America = global violence threatening global trade

    The world needs less trade. I see more and more guys with turbans in the neighbourhood I work. They shouldn’t be here. And Chinese guys in nightclubs. They also shouldn’t be here.

    America is the force promoting feminism in Iraq, g*ay rights in Serbia and Ghana. Pax Americana is like Pax Mongolica, a downright evil force that must be crushed.

    Like


  49. Pual Elam should read this post/comments. He and Roissy are not that far apart on the fundamentals.

    Like


  50. Why is GBFM religious? Because atheism denies any claim to truth and leads directly to deconstruction of the great books.

    Like


    • on October 27, 2011 at 11:49 am greatbooksformen GBFM

      Hellyesyysysys!

      All da great books BELIVEE

      here’s what yu need to read which the neocns dfmeinsist hiresd fmeinist funded fmeinsist to kill detsory these books with utucker max rheyms with goldman sax butthexualalss

      1. Homer’s Iliad
      2. Homer’s Odyssey
      3. Exodus & Ecclesiastes & The Psalms
      4. Virgil’s Aeneid
      5. Socrates’ Apology
      6. The Book of Matthew & Jefferson’s Bible
      7. Plato’s Repulic
      8. Seneca’s Letters from a Stoic
      9. Dante’s Inferno
      10. The Declaration of Independence
      11. The Constitution
      12. John Milton’s Paradise Lost
      13. Shakespeare’s Hamlet
      14. Newton’s Principia
      15. Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations and Theory of Moral Sentiments
      16. Shakespeare’s Hamlet
      17. Ludwig von Mises’ A Theory of Money and Credit
      18. F.A. Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom
      19. Herman Melville’s Moby Dick
      20. Einstein’s The Meaning of Relativity
      21. Joseph Campbell’s The Hero With a Thousand Faces and The Power of Myth
      23. Guy Kawasaki’s The Art of the Start
      24. Ron Paul’s Revolution

      not one insatcnce of secrtely taped butthex in all the above books, but a lot of god and morality which is hwy the nocnoens h8 the great books and classics lzozzzozl

      Like


      • Game literature:

        Eugene Onegin – Pushkin (genders reversed, to protect the guilty)
        Anna Karenina – Tolstoy (dark triad, nature of woman)
        Macbeth – Shakespeare (hypergamy-driven pussy whipping)
        Taming of the Shrew – Shakespeare (the neg, frame control)
        The Buried Life – Matthew Arnold (inner game)

        Like


      • I would add Plato’s Timaeus. I consider it a much more important work than the Republic. It had a huge influence in its day and served as the pagan bridge to Christianity. Moby Dick also belongs on your list, which is an allegorical representation of Plato’s ideas in the Timaeus. Moby Dick is by far the greatest American novel and maybe the best in the English language. It is brilliant from every perspective.

        Like


      • Sorry, I see the Moby Dick is already there. White Jacket is also a great novel by Melville.

        Like


  51. on October 27, 2011 at 11:58 am greatbooksformen GBFM

    ^^^

    Something you will notice, in reading the above books, is that the external “hero’s journey” lived out by Achilles, Odysseus, and Moses, was internalized by Socrates and Jesus. Socrates compared himself to Achilles, when he spoke Truth to Power before the Athenian jury who would sentence him to death for teaching that fundamental tenet so detested by the neocons, “Virtue does not come from money, but money and every lasting good of man derives from virtue.” Socrates and Jesus transformed the external hero’s journey into a quest for the simple perfection of the spirit and soul. The only physical act of violence Jesus committed was when he overturned the tables of the money-changers in the temple, agreeing with Socrates in a sense, exalting virtue over money–the proper order which is so often opposed by the money-changers and counterfeiters. Needless to say, Socrates and Jesus were put to death.

    The interesting thing about Jesus is that all forms of government–all the checks and balances–turned on him. Pontius Pilate–the executive branch–washed his hands. The Scribes and Pharisees–the Senate–lusted after his blood. The mob, when given a chance to free Jesus, freed Babbarus instead, and today our leaders again wash their hands as the Scribes and Pharisees transform the culture and curriculum to serve the mob.

    lzozozozlozzolzlzlzozo omg my brai hurts having to spelele shist proepeorroply lzozlz idat suscksks lzlzololzlzlzlz

    Like


  52. Why the West is doomed: demographics and the unwillingness to address its effects.

    Regardless of whether monogamy or polygyny are better reproductive systems, the West is doomed because it views it as anathema to enforce any social or legal norms regarding reproduction. In fact, if you even suggest sterilization as a compassionate means of combatting famine and human suffering in Africa, you are branded a racist (and you get your license yanked if you’re a doctor).

    But it is human reproduction that is the most determinative of a human civilization. Its not technology, ideology, or even military power. History has demonstrated that numbers defeat the most advanced civilization almost every time.
    To view it on a micro level, consider the mormans. Are theirr beliefs any less crazy now than they were over 100 years ago? Not at all. They have just achieved social accceptability because they have successfully rereporduced and accumulated wealth tot he extent that they are now an accepted demographic in our country. Look at Europe: europeans aren’t disappearing due to war or famine or disease…they are getting choked out by muslim reproduction rates.

    Like


  53. on October 27, 2011 at 1:25 pm (r)Evoluzione

    This has been an epic post and comment thread. There’s so much collected knowledge & wisdom here among men who’ve practiced & studied game AND have been astute observers of society.

    They are one in the same–one must obdurately and impassively peer into the bowels of society to see emerging trends and understand the flow of energy, information, money, time, and sex. Understanding all this is to understand game.

    The men who are assembled here, this is a High Counsel, a Court of Masculine Knowledge. We may agree, disagree, but it’s certain that the conversation and debate here have powerful and reverberating effects throughout society. We all carry the seed of the Red Pill. Let us spread this seed in every way, literally and figuratively.

    Like


    • I have just enough of an overblown and grandiose sense of self to hold hope that this optimistic view corresponds – even slightly – to reality.

      It has actually been my intention and hope all along that in commenting here and writing on my blog to have some small social effect.

      Like


      • For what its worth, I always stop to read your comments. Some piece of your wisdom has surely been seeded in my young mind as a consequence.

        Like


    • Literally, brother, literally.

      Lets impregnate as many ladies as possible!

      Like


    • All true.

      This place is doubly special for me because I literally do NOT hear these ideas even touched on anywhere else in my life. The ideas this blog and its discussions touch on are miles away from the public discourse. Even with my closest friends these discussions would seem the ravings of a mad man.

      Like


  54. Fate, which foresaw
    How frivolous a baby man would be–
    By what distractions he would be possess’d,
    How he would pour himself in every strife,
    And well-nigh change his own identity–
    That it might keep from his capricious play
    His genuine self, and force him to obey
    Even in his own despite his being’s law,
    Bade through the deep recesses of our breast
    The unregarded river of our life
    Pursue with indiscernible flow its way;
    And that we should not see
    The buried stream, and seem to be
    Eddying at large in blind uncertainty,
    Though driving on with it eternally.

    But often, in the world’s most crowded streets,
    But often, in the din of strife,
    There rises an unspeakable desire
    After the knowledge of our buried life;
    A thirst to spend our fire and restless force
    In tracking out our true, original course;
    A longing to inquire
    Into the mystery of this heart which beats
    So wild, so deep in us–to know
    Whence our lives come and where they go.
    And many a man in his own breast then delves,
    But deep enough, alas! none ever mines.
    And we have been on many thousand lines,
    And we have shown, on each, spirit and power;
    But hardly have we, for one little hour,
    Been on our own line, have we been ourselves–
    Hardly had skill to utter one of all
    The nameless feelings that course through our breast,
    But they course on for ever unexpress’d.
    And long we try in vain to speak and act
    Our hidden self, and what we say and do
    Is eloquent, is well–but ’tis not true!
    And then we will no more be rack’d
    With inward striving, and demand
    Of all the thousand nothings of the hour
    Their stupefying power;
    Ah yes, and they benumb us at our call!
    Yet still, from time to time, vague and forlorn,
    From the soul’s subterranean depth upborne
    As from an infinitely distant land,
    Come airs, and floating echoes, and convey
    A melancholy into all our day.

    Only–but this is rare–
    When a beloved hand is laid in ours,
    When, jaded with the rush and glare
    Of the interminable hours,
    Our eyes can in another’s eyes read clear,
    When our world-deafen’d ear
    Is by the tones of a loved voice caress’d–
    A bolt is shot back somewhere in our breast,
    And a lost pulse of feeling stirs again.
    The eye sinks inward, and the heart lies plain,
    And what we mean, we say, and what we would, we know.
    A man becomes aware of his life’s flow,
    And hears its winding murmur; and he sees
    The meadows where it glides, the sun, the breeze.

    And there arrives a lull in the hot race
    Wherein he doth for ever chase
    That flying and elusive shadow, rest.
    An air of coolness plays upon his face,
    And an unwonted calm pervades his breast.
    And then he thinks he knows
    The hills where his life rose,
    And the sea where it goes.

    Like


  55. on October 30, 2011 at 12:46 am Ed the Department Head

    Historically, as others here have noted, monogamy is the better system. The intelligence of the West was raised by having diverse genes based around by having many monogamous marriages as opposed to the rest of the world, Also (already stated by others), betas had a reason not to rebel and had a stake in society in the forms of their wives and families. It was monogamy that gave the West the intelligence and cohesion to literally take over the world. The left and a certain anti-western Middle Eastern group caught on this and has since tried to undermine monogamy.
    Having said this, I admit that if one is an empowered male (as opposed to the majority of men historically in a polygamous society) polygamy was much more rewarding and pleasureable. What I would love would be the type of future society that tried to have the stability of monogamy and the pleasure for men brought by polygamy. HERE is the theoretical concept of what I am writing about:
    Imagine a totalitarian society that legalized polygamy and worked to empower mean and punish women as oppressors. Such a society could have men and their wives use MicroSort technology to create an unnatural embalance between girls and boys. There could be 4 girls for every 1 boy created.
    Through state control of religion, propaganda, public oppinion, and a monopoly on violence the women could be distributed among the men. Perhaps game and a harsh awareness of the nature of women could be taught the boys in schools. Women could be taught and indoctrinated to be totally loyal to their husbands (and state power could be brought to bear if such was not practiced). Women who complained about this would be political criminals and would be punished as such. Men who complained about this would be political criminals and would pay the ultimate price.

    I bring all of this up because I am hopeful that the current system will not last forever and I want such a possibility to be strongly considered for a future in which we have thrown off the Enlightenment and the worst aspects of Christian derived humanism.

    Like


  56. on October 30, 2011 at 2:12 pm Corporal Hicks

    Man, this thread is full of fucktard comments throughout. Reports of the death of Western civilization have been greatly exaggerated.
    Blogs on the ‘Net have been calling Doomsday for ten years now, yet, sure ‘nuf, our infernal culture limps along another day. Everybody is sitting around waiting for the big “crash,” without realizing that it’s all being stolen, little by little, right in front of our noses.
    Salozzo said in The Godfather, “Look, I’m a businessman, blood is a BIG expense.” The cognoelite know this. They don’t want big violence, in the West because that’s too expensive, and more importantly, too unpredictable. The Middle East is another story – Islamists will never accept gay marriage, so they have to be killed, and then replaced with younger, westernized Islamists who do accept it.
    So live your life and make your adventures, but don’t count on your coveted “crash,” quite yet. Boeing has promised deliveries of jets well into 2018 and believe me, those executives have ties into TPTB that the fuck-tards here only wet-dream about.
    Panicking is WAY too beta, even omega. Calm the fuck down, yeah, prepare to live somewhere else other than Fuck-tard-merica, and think and act RATIONALLY, for heaven’s sake.

    Like


  57. “Islamists will never accept gay marriage, so they have to be killed, and then replaced with younger, westernized Islamists who do accept it.”

    You think this is why Islamicists are being killed? You have just outed yourself as a blithering moron. Unless, of course, you are using that as a micro example of the requirement to destroy Islamic nationalism (through chipping away at the family structure) because of their political unity and therefore power. Then you have a point.

    Oh, wait. Then there’s this:

    “Panicking is WAY too beta, even omega. Calm the fuck down, yeah, prepare to live somewhere else other than Fuck-tard-merica, and think and act RATIONALLY, for heaven’s sake.”

    Translated: Being politically aware is “beta”. Idiot for both your political perspective and your over-extension of what it means to be beta. Then you contradict yourself in one sentence by calling panickers “beta or even omega” and then in the same breath telling them to get ready to move to another country. Lower the Ritalin dose, because you can no longer keep your extreme opinions from being extremely bipolar within the same sentence. My god.

    Like


  58. @Old Guy

    Indeed, full polygyny would AMOG other civilizations.

    Like