Obedience To Authority Game

We often mischievously note here that women are more prone to herd behavior than are men. That is, on average, your typical woman is more likely to “go along to get along” than your typical man. This is why all sorts of cultural trends — from fashion to food to acceptable modes of posturing — exert stronger influences on women.

The close cousin of lemmingitis (falling in step with fads) is obedience to authority. If you are apt to align your lifestyle with whatever is the latest fashion, (and ostracize those who don’t), you are probably also apt to blindly obey high status authority figures telling you what is good for you. If true, then we might speculate that women make better cultural foot soldiers for whichever elite authority is most tangible in their lives, owing to women’s greater propensity to accept authority dictums without question.

We may add to this speculation not only personal observation and confirmatory heaps of anecdotes, but in addition scientific evidence that women are, indeed, more obedient to authority than are men. Courtesy of reader uh pointing us to this Milgram experiment replication:

Charles Sheridan and Richard King hypothesized that some of Milgram’s subjects may have suspected that the victim was faking, so they repeated the experiment with a real victim: a “cute, fluffy puppy” who was given real, albeit harmless, electric shocks. They found similar findings to Milgram: half of the male subjects and all of the females obeyed to the end. Many subjects showed high levels of distress during the experiment and some openly wept. In addition, Sheridan and King found that the duration for which the shock button was pressed decreased as the shocks got higher, meaning that for higher shock levels, subjects showed more hesitance towards delivering the shocks.*

Always remember: All female participants in the Milgram obedience to authority experiment continued shocking the puppy despite their tears.

Half of the men stopped.

Girls love cute things, but they love powerful authority figures even more.

I’m glad to report that, thanks to the yeoman efforts of this blog, there is a growing awareness of female nature settling firmly in the minds of Westerners (and a smattering of Finns. I kid, I kid! Sort of.) Like male nature, female nature is not all bad, nor is it elevated above men’s (it’s different than men’s, but not any less degraded). Le Chateau’s campaign to RAISE AWARENESS about women’s true nature helps bring balance to the social conditioning force, which for generations has defaulted to the side of pristine women and fallen men. This grand rectification will BEGIN THE HEALING of a society teetering on the precipice of choking to death on a morass of self-asphyxiating lies, and get more than a few men laid in the process.

We know that women are more instinctively obedient to authority, but the reason perhaps eludes those of us with less experience navigating the twat trenches. This female impulse to servitude is both an evolved moral mechanism to reinforce in-group cohesion (and thus secure resource blessings to their children) and a manifestation of their desirous attachment to alpha males, of whom the most obvious archetype are those alpha males wielding authoritarian power.

This knowledge dovetails nicely with game principles. Mystery was always fond of repeating that women are evolutionarily configured to desire “leaders of men”, (along with “protectors of loved ones” and “preselected by women”). I’d expand this axiom to include leaders of women, because the man who can corral a roomful of women to do his bidding is, in many ways, a sexier specimen to women than the man who leads a battalion of men. See, for example, any fashion photographer.

Authorities are, by definition, leaders of men and women. You, the beta male who wants more choice in women, can leverage women’s instinct to obey confident leaders to your hedonistic advantage. Try this sometime (if it is out of character for you, which will be the case, I bet, for at least 80% of my male readers):

  • Order, don’t ask, a girl to do something with you. Telling her she’s coming with you to Bar A or Event X is, you will find hard not to notice, far more invigorating to her libido than asking her the same.
  • If you are buying a meal or a drink for your girlfriend, choose her option and unhesitatingly order it for her. I have had girls exclaim with surprised glee how awesome it was that I caught them off-guard with this bold move. (Note: Do not default to buying shit for girls you haven’t yet fucked.)
  • Spontaneous sex in dangerous places. Again, command her, don’t ask. Asking a girl to have risky sex will always get a “no” answer, which is funny because not asking will almost always get you a “yes” reaction.
  • Simply command a woman to do something that makes her a little uncomfortable. Authority is best proved by the victim’s follower’s degree of submission. Tell her, for instance, to skinny dip. Or pilfer a pack of gum. Or go down on you at a movie. Or bury the body in the backyard. Or betray her feminist principles (always a laugh riot).

Ordering a girl to do something, particularly something risky, may sound like an easy proposal, but don’t be fooled: it will feel a lot more difficult than it is if you aren’t used to doing it. Couple your natural aversion with the feminist tankgrrl shrikegeist enshrouding secular societies, and it can seem quite the daunting task to the average beta bear. But the rewards, I assure you, are well worth it. The man who can tap into those ancient Phlegethon viscera coursing through women’s primal souls will have the key to untold pleasures of the penis and the heart.

Women may feel distress when they have to obey an authority telling them to do something they normally wouldn’t, but that distress is an optic fiber pipeline straight to their vaginas. When they experience the one, they inevitably experience the other. You don’t need to be an actual authority figure to trigger this female lust instinct; you just need to accurately portray such authority over the women you want to desire you. And like the accomplished actor, such portrayals will eventually lodge their way into the filament of your being, and the distinction will cease to meaningfully exist.

*If you’re interested, and you should be, here’s a Milgram experiment follow-up which found ethnic and national differences in willingness to obey authority.





Comments


  1. OT –

    Any comments on this story? Fools or heroes?

    Three heroes died in Aurora taking bullets for their girlfriends

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/aurora-shooting-died-bullets-sweeties-article-1.1119395

    Like


    • Quite obviously both.

      Like


      • on July 23, 2012 at 4:37 pm Boutros Boutros Ghali

        Protecting someone you care about doesn’t make you a fool. It makes you a man. (cf.: A weakling sees the failures and shortcomings of others and lowers (or rationalizes) his behavior to that standard.)

        Like


      • yon yon yon yon yon

        CORPSE = MANHOOD

        Like


      • I’d take a bullet for my wife. Some women are worth it.

        Like


      • And we’d BOTH be grateful,Tyrone,when I was drilling her twat!

        Like


      • Mother fucker, I will shoot you if you ever mention my wife in a dishonorable manner again. You are a scumbag.

        Like


      • Asshole isn’t always the same thing as alpha.

        Like


      • Ah! This guy here just went quiet after an e-threat.

        What a pussy! Ah!

        These biggy-big-behind-a-computer-boys, who still wait for her mom’s to handle them a cup of milk before bed, well past their thirties, are an amusing little species, aren’t they?

        Like


      • I was being a bit poetic.

        Like


      • on July 24, 2012 at 12:04 pm Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM)

        GBFM MAXIM # 1:

        A woman’s courtship value is equal or less than the lowest price she ever gave her pussy away for. lzozozoz

        After a woman has had a one-night stand
        or given her pussy for free
        her courtship value
        is 0.
        or less than 0.

        As why would you want to be the guy
        who pays for what others got when it was younger hotter tighter
        forty pounds lighter
        for freeee?

        lzozlzozlzzo

        After a woman passes 25, whence she has generally been buttcocked numerous times and desouled, her courtship value is negative. It is the woman, who is now wired fiat bernanke cash and allowed to excel in fiat bernanke programs that drug up and dumb down boyz, who must pay the man so as to court him.

        For a 25 year old multi-buttocked, desouled, bernankifed woman represents a huge risk to a man’s livelihood, his time, his conscience, his soul, his future earnings, and his general well-being. And the man must be compensated justly so as to have to court a woman over 25 who has been buttcocked and deousled and converted by the cenrta; bankerz into a vehicle of welath transfer lzozlz.

        lzolzolzozozozozoz

        Like


      • You guys who come here and skip over GBFM, thinking it is all just near-random noise? Yeah, go back and read the above.

        Wisdom.

        Like


      • on July 24, 2012 at 2:29 pm (R)Evoluzione

        Indeed, wisdom. GBFM Maxim #1 is quite essential to know and understand.

        Love the addition of “forty pounds lighter” to the already pithy, perfect “younger, hotter, tighter” maxim.

        Like


      • You’re right, passingby. His comment is smart and well-said. Which makes the chaff surrounding the wheat all the more frustrating.

        I’d take out the “hotter” part of the formula, (R)Evoluzione, not just because “younger” and “hotter” is generally synonymous but because it would even out the beat of the rhyme for an easy to remember jingle:

        Younger, tighter,
        Forty pounds lighter.

        Man’s version:

        Bigger, stronger,
        Four inches longer.

        Feminist’s version:

        Older, fatter,
        Screeching things that don’t matter.

        Etc.

        Like


      • say NO to fiat carbs

        Like


      • GB4M, you are a fucking legend, man.

        But, what can we do? Really. Should we go celibate or pursue high school girls?

        Like


      • Virginity isn’t so important to me. Women are not all fucked up, selfish, or damaged once they have sex. Maybe I love them too much.

        Like


    • DEAD fools.

      Like


    • ps – 2, 1, 3

      u?

      Like


    • I’d gladly consider them heroes if liberated women were worthy of protection.
      As long as women are free, equal, emancipated etc… any man who dies for them will just be a corpse.

      Like


    • “I’d gladly die for two brothers, four cousins or eight second cousins.”

      Like


      • on July 23, 2012 at 6:58 pm Dan Fletcher

        +1

        Like


      • Great.

        I’d gladly die for a girl I haven’t fucked who kind of rejects me and who is one of the best gals I ever known.

        But only because I think it would be a cooler death than die of alcoholic abuse / car crash / old age after 60 years alone / a war serving a traitor immigrationist & feminist state / whatever death is more likely to happen.

        I just don’t see any point in dying so, dying for a girl, would be rather “poetic”. People would remember me, and she wouldn’t forget me.

        Beta, I know. But not that much though.

        Like


    • The greatest possible heroes. Any gameboy so besotted by ideology that he can no longer recognize the most ancient form of manliness is functionally antisocial.

      There is a word for the coward who seeks preservation of his life above his honor and duty, and that is: slave. The slave is defined as the one who chooses enslavement over death, which is always an available option.

      Now, we can argue about what duty entails, of course. But to imagine these men died according to cryptofeminist programming, or that their act of sacrifice was some kind of ultra white knightery, is to be completely ignorant of the men who came before him and/or a coward afraid of being put to the test himself.

      Up until the postmodern era, there was not a culture in the world or in history that would have excused the fecklessness of, say, Captain Francesco Schettino, and as BBG comments above, the rest is just the rationalization of pansy deficiency. (On the other hand, modern Italians may be redeemed by Fabrizio Quattrocchi.)

      How warped must you pimply little boys be to translate the most recognizable of all acts of courage into just one more instantiation of feminist witchery?

      Matt

      Like


      • Nah, it’s just that men want to die for virginal ladies, not liberated whores.

        Like


      • NAILED IT.

        Like


      • “There is a word for the coward who seeks preservation of his life above his honor and duty, and that is: slave.”

        There is a word for King A: sophist.

        “Up until the postmodern era, there was not a culture in the world or in history that would have excused the fecklessness of, say, Captain Francesco Schettino, ”

        A captain never abandoned ship before Schettino. Never in history. Certainly not a Neapolitan, if it did ever happen. No man ever absconded, betrayed, turned coat, mutinied, robbed, sold out, or anything else before “the postmodern era”. Certainly not Italians, if any of the foregoing did happen.

        “How warped must you pimply little boys be to translate the most recognizable of all acts of courage into just one more instantiation of feminist witchery?”

        None of the girls was betrothed or pregnant. Three young white men gave their lives for their movie dates.

        Protecting the womenfolk used to be good for group selection, like when we lived in manageable groups. Now it’s a switch that needs to be turned off.

        Like


      • Ugh, if you denigrate self sacrifice for duty, honor, or country, then you are not a very good National Socialist. The Waffen SS made this their creed. This code of honor and adherehnce to it, is what made them worthy of admiration in the first place.

        Like


      • Their oath of fealty was to the Fuehrer himself, which transcended National Socialist ideology; certainly the original 25 Points.

        This Fuehrer led thousands of them into wasteful slaughter for zero ultimate gain. It is not necessary to admire that, nor to admire what the three Dead White Knights did.

        Germany is lost because of that Waffen SS bullshit. Three guys who could’ve had a future are dead because of misapplied chivalry. In both cases, evolutionary behavior gone maladaptive: follow the leader to greater spoils and protect the womenfolk.

        Don’t preach to me about honor or anything. There is no honor in dying for absolutely nothing. Only a moron totally unacquainted with history books would have believed Germany could win against the Soviets.

        Like


      • I disagree rather strongly. First of all, men die for their comrades, not for the Fuehrer. The entire Nazi civilian governmental establishment became corrupt and self serving rather quickly. But that doesn’t mean they would have lost militarily.

        As far as defeating the Bolsheviks is concerned, read Lost Victories for one; von Mannstein would disagree. Read Campaign in Russia by Leon DeGrelle. Scorched Earth is another classic. Read Like a Cliff in the Sea by Karl Ullrich, especially his forward where he describes the ideological rationale for the struggle. Read Grenadier by Kurt Meyer.

        Hitler was in essence advocating the return to the ancestral homelands in North and North Eastern Europe as well as Central Asia and South Eastern Europe that Celts and Goths were driven out of around 3500- 2500 BC. Celts followed the Eastern Europe, South Central Asian routes where the Goths came somewhat later, in the North most likely driven out of Asia by Turkomen. Goths and Celts combined equals about 99% of all white people. All the Achaeans in the Illiad had Celtic features for instance. Hitler’s fatal error was seeing the Slavs as subhuman plus his distrust of what was the best general staff and army in the world and constant undermining of their decisions.

        Why do you subscribe to the Jewish/ Communsit version of history when its convenient? Germany would have failed to maintain its empire because of its racial policies against the Slavs but not because their army wasn’t up to the task. If they had used the Ukrainians’ and the Balts’ resentment against Russia more effectively, they would have won easily. If Hitler had had more vision, he coud have led a pan-European Fascist movement that would have been a superpower and brought down Bolshevism. Germans don’t always compromise well and that is their tragic flaw as a nation. Don’t you realize that Barbarossa was a blood war between racial brothers? That’s why it was so cruel. It was Cain and Able and the Prodigal Son on a grand scale. This story is still unfolding.

        Like


      • Tyrone,

        Listen bud, I’ve read all those books. No lying. I wasted a good part of my twenties filling head my head with that stuff. I read everything (excluding most military strategy, can’t handle it). I stayed up nights poring over the fifteen-volume Hitler: Reden, Schriften, Anordnungen. There is almost no aspect of the entire NS phenomenon with which I am unfamiliar. I also read German, French, and Russian, so was able to read some original sources. Not building myself up here.

        In the end, all that obsession boiled down to a few uncomfortable truths for me. One was that Hitler was a lonely megalomaniac who, rare for history, actually clawed his way to supreme authority with very predictable consequences. Another was that the NS and Soviet states were interdependent for their kriegsfähigkeit — international trade stopped only with OB, and even then trains were still running their schedule, ironically. Another: H’s clique was self-seeking, cruel, and all-too-German, again with predictable consequences for policy.

        Some others, but those three cured me of the fetish. Now for your remarks.

        First of all, men die for their comrades, not for the Fuehrer.

        I view this as modern goodspeak, a rationalization for pointless American engagements. If you read letters of those who took the oath, and even those who didn’t, you will find more references to der Chef and NS ideals than to “my comrades”. No exaggeration. And strictly speaking, das Hitlereid was explicitly to “dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehmacht”, Adolf Hitler.

        But that doesn’t mean they would have lost militarily.

        Well, no one can say what would have happened if OB had begun in the Spring. Probably would have had an even more successful run in the beginning, followed by a collapse in Winter as the inability to maintain positions and administer vast foreign populations emerged. They lost because it was Russia — not because the NS idea was inferior to the Communist. He ought to have read War and Peace and rethought his worldview. But the era of saber-rattling had not yet come to an end for the Germans. And of course entente would have depended on Stalin’s contentment with his western border. I personally believe he was, but among WNs, it’s an article of faith that he was planning an adventure in the direction of Germany. From what I’ve read of and by the man, he wasn’t that stupid. I can tell you that textual evidence for a Western invasion is as slim in Russian sources as evidence for “gas chambers” in the German. Does that say anything to you?

        Hitler was in essence advocating the return to the ancestral homelands in …

        Snip — all that is fetishistic nonsense. Taking some old lebensraum is one thing. Quickly became out of control irredentism and simply insane covetousness. Again, there was peaceful trade with Russia right up til OB, and with some personal reevaluation among Nazis, it could have defused into something resembling international relations in Europe today. But NS had hatred of the Slav and Red as premise, and of course Germany was supplying Russia with metals and parts precisely for their armament, so war was really inevitable.

        Hitler’s fatal error was seeing the Slavs as subhuman plus his distrust of what was the best general staff and army in the world and constant undermining of their decisions.

        I agree. He and his more zealous henchmen also undermined more reasonable types like Rosenberg. But they did from the beginning with the Strassers, for example, or by remaking Goebbels into a zealot.

        Why do you subscribe to the Jewish/ Communsit version of history when its convenient?

        It isn’t Jewish or Communist to suggest that Germany wasn’t invincible and that Adolf Hitler’s psychology was responsible its loss. The WN tendency to whitewash everything “our” side did, and demonize everything else, is a quasi-religious interpretation which the facts don’t support. The NS regime was ultimately criminal, even if there weren’t gas chambers, piles of bodies, methane geysers from the buried corpses, clouds weeping blood, etc. Really it was just big powers fighting over limited space and resources, like everything else. All the ideology, rationalizations, justifications, historiography is so much stage-dressing for the inevitable conflict of divergent breeding populations in close-quarters.

        Germany would have failed to maintain its empire because of its racial policies against the Slavs but not because their army wasn’t up to the task.

        Aren’t you married to a Ukrainian? Seems to me you’ve allowed yourself a little “out” in believing one thing but not the other. Their army wasn’t up to the task of fighting off two equivalent or greater powers simultaneously, and the fact is, they provoked both. One they had planned to conquer from day one; the other they assumed was too corrupt, too “Jewish”, to confront them on the Continent. Pure German chauvinism from start to finish, in a word.

        If they had used the Ukrainians’ and the Balts’ resentment against Russia more effectively, they would have won easily.

        Dunno about that. Have the Ukes and Balts ever beaten Russia? Really, this is a question of man- and firepower. In the end the Russians and Americans combined fielded more of both than the Germans. There was no MAD to deter anyone. Bottom line for me: they bit off more than they could chew and rightly choked on it.

        If Hitler had had more vision, he coud have led a pan-European Fascist movement that would have been a superpower and brought down Bolshevism. Germans don’t always compromise well and that is their tragic flaw as a nation.

        Well said, I agree. Mussolini was also a major distraction. He ought to have been assassinated long before his adventurism and replaced with a total moderate to avoid stirring up Fascists or Communists. Franco held H at arm’s length … and that’s why he lasted.

        Don’t you realize that Barbarossa was a blood war between racial brothers? That’s why it was so cruel. It was Cain and Able and the Prodigal Son on a grand scale. This story is still unfolding.

        Eh, I don’t read so much into it. Breeding populations may be relatively closer than some others, but they’re still going to fight under the banner of separate identity. Racial cousins is perhaps more “accurate”. I’ll admit there is epic beauty in the Western self-identified “Aryans” warring to the finish with the true genetic Aryans of the East on the kurgan-spotted plains, as Constantin von Hoffmeister says in a poem somewhere.

        Like


      • I disagree rather strongly. First of all, men die for their comrades, not for the Fuehrer. The entire Nazi civilian governmental establishment became corrupt and self serving rather quickly. But that doesn’t mean they would have lost militarily.

        As far as defeating the Bolsheviks is concerned, read Lost Victories for one; von Mannstein would disagree. Read Campaign in Russia by Leon DeGrelle. Scorched Earth is another classic. Read Like a Cliff in the Sea by Karl Ullrich, especially his forward where he describes the ideological rationale for the struggle. Read Grenadier by Kurt Meyer.

        Hitler was in essence advocating the return to the ancestral homelands in North and North Eastern Europe as well as Central Asia and South Eastern Europe that Celts and Goths were driven out of around 3500- 2500 BC. Celts followed the Eastern Europe, South Central Asian routes where the Goths came somewhat later, in the North most likely driven out of Asia by Turkomen. Goths and Celts combined equals about 99% of all white people. All the Achaeans in the Illiad had Celtic features for instance. Hitler’s fatal error was seeing the Slavs as subhuman plus his distrust of what was the best general staff and army in the world and constant undermining of their decisions.

        Why do you subscribe to the Jewish/ Communsit version of history when its convenient? Germany would have failed to maintain its empire because of its racial policies against the Slavs but not because their army wasn’t up to the task. If they had used the Ukrainians’ and the Balts’ resentment against Russia more effectively, they would have won easily. If Hitler had had more vision, he coud have led a pan-European Fascist movement that would have been a superpower and brought down Bolshevism. Germans don’t always compromise well and that is their tragic flaw as a nation. Don’t you realize that Barbarossa was a blood war between racial brothers? That’s why it was so cruel. It was Cain and Able and the Prodigal Son on a grand scale. This story is still unfolding.

        Like


      • A captain never abandoned ship before Schettino. Never in history.

        Sarcasm is a species of fecklessness.

        Who said cowards never existed in history? I said that the revilement of cowards is a regularly occurring facet of every culture everywhere, including our own, despite the official postmodern attempt to invert the concept, an attempt you have cosigned.

        None of the girls was betrothed or pregnant. Three young white men gave their lives for their movie dates.

        They didn’t make an ideological calculation. They acted instinctively. Despite the programming you and the feminists employ, men qua men have a deep, inborn urge to protect the weak and innocent, especially their own. While this urge has been denatured out of some men, it generally persists despite your and the feminists’ attempts to eradicate it.

        The women were not movie dates. They were exemplars of the weaker sex in an emergency, life-or-death situation, and they deferred to their superiors. The men stepped up and placed themselves in the way of harm, just as any mother or father would do with a child.

        The fact that women have been told not to reciprocate — and the fact that, when safely in the realm of theory, they claim for themselves a strength they do not have — is a separate issue. It does not matter what women say! It only matters how they behave. And for men to encourage cowardice is to validate feminist theory in speech and encourage behavior in both sexes contrary to their natures.

        They “gave their lives” because that’s what men do. That’s what they have always done. That’s what they will always do. It is a fact of our sexual nature that precedes ideology. It once provided the universal foundation for manly privilege. Now, for men to continue being chivalrous despite women actively using it against them — that is beyond foolish, it is destructive of the social code that conforms to the sexes’ separate strengths. We have no argument there.

        That doesn’t mean that women who get back on board with the fact of their weakness should be treated like men, the way their fugly feminist sisters (and you) insist. It means we reestablish the transaction. Those men who died are universally recognized for their strength — just as the young dead white men Beamer, Glick, Burnham, and Burnett were on Flight 93. We can either build on their pioneering courage and reset the sex roles, or we can cynically cower in the corner, counting our penny-ante victories over the latest feminist presumption.

        Matt

        Like


      • I don’t have the time or patience for you, King. You’re the biggest cunt to ever fasten onto this blog. Your hamster is ten times as big and determined as Maya’s.

        “They didn’t make an ideological calculation. They acted instinctively.”

        And their instinct was wrong: hence the end of their specific genetic line.

        “The men stepped up and placed themselves in the way of harm, just as any mother or father would do with a child.”

        What you here use as analogy is precisely what I am holding up as actual validation for such behavior: which completely belies your argument. You are of course not entitled to this “just as”, for the girls were not mothers of their offspring. At the time of the shooting, they were movie dates. But it is your mode to look for “ideals”, “archetypes”, “exemplars” in every mundane phenomenon. And that is why Platonists don’t make scientists.

        “It is a fact of our sexual nature that precedes ideology.”

        You are appealing to biology, then? Good. Now go find me the species whose males throw away their lives for females who aren’t carrying their young or their kin’s young. But you won’t do that, for King A does not inhabit the real, natural world, he inhabits his own narcissistic kingdom of Platonic ideals, etc., in which everyone else is a “feminist”, “weak”, a “slave”, etc.

        What a poseur.

        Like


      • You are of course not entitled to this “just as”, for the girls were not mothers of their offspring.

        One does not just flip this instinct on and off at will. It wouldn’t be an instinct then. Your fantasy of only protecting one’s genetic own — apart from its asinine Darwinist reductionism — is simply not practicable in life. We cannot do blood-tests before diving in front of bullets. We don’t suddenly adopt protectiveness as a virtue for nine months while a woman is with our child, and then shift it exclusively to the gene-carrying offspring once separated from the womb.

        No, the important point here is that you have adopted the fatal conceit of the intellectual, the idea that all actions and instincts can be performed in perfect consonance with one’s ideology. We develop the courage of men in general so that they may roughly apply it to the specific. You are correct to say the instinct developed in every culture in every time as the highest among men is indeed something contrary to your crude, callow conception of genetic success. But there is also human achievement that supersedes the merely genetic.

        Eleven of the twelve Apostles of Christ were martyred, and scores more in the centuries thereafter, founding in their blood an ecclesial empire that would overturn and absorb the greatest empire on earth. Rather than a genetic legacy, they left behind a cultural one that refashioned the world in their image. Your plonkingly literal understanding of legacy as exclusively biological makes you think your miscegenated, mongrel-infiltrated DNA centuries hence will be more influential and imitative than the saints’, who are still known by name after millennia.

        I am not a Platonist. Your stunted education would only have me so because your concepts cannot overcome the pamphlet-crank gene theories which motivate your quixotic search for purity. “Exemplar” and “archetype” are descriptive vocabulary, not declarations of ultimate philosophy, sparky. Being contra ideology does not make one an inveterate idealist. Quite the opposite. Your platonism in service of a racial ideal bespeaks a far more programmatic transcendentalism than mine.

        You can stick your fingers in your ears and whine but you’re a cunt all you want, like the petulant pretender you are, now exposed. There is a hard limit to your amateur philosophizing of which you were apparently unaware till you encountered me. Now, you can go back and reassess the Wikipedian anti-Platonism you borrowed from Nietzsche which animates your ignorance, or you can press on with stupidity, as old and arrogant fools often do, invested as they are in their errors. You can either figure out the utility of humility, or double down and die a dullard.

        Matt

        Like


      • Thanks Matt. I thought I was fighting this battle alone.

        Like


      • Men giving their lives for women in not a result of feminism. Feminism has been around for what, fifty years? That’s a pretty small stretch in the entire timeline of existence. Their actions were based on instinct. Women are the womb; it is a preservation of life itself, not any particular woman. Its the same reason why women would give their life for their children. They are the next generation. Older/stronger protecting younger/weaker is the natural order.

        Like


      • It precedes even biology. It is written into the code of creation. Courage is our supernature, “not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point,” putting the lie to the Darwinist cartoon that presumes survival itself is the ultimate goal of human life.

        Note well that Darwinism is the weakling’s understanding of life. Survival is the goal of slaves, indeed it is the very goal that makes them subservient. Hegel called this the Master-Slave dialectic, where one actor chooses submission rather than risking death (summary here).

        Or if you prefer a more poetic account, consult Shakespeare:

        Now, Iras, what think’st thou?
        Thou, an Egyptian puppet, shalt be shown
        In Rome, as well as I mechanic slaves
        With greasy aprons, rules, and hammers, shall
        Uplift us to the view; in their thick breaths,
        Rank of gross diet, shall be enclouded,
        And forced to drink their vapor. …

        Nay, ’tis most certain, Iras: saucy lictors
        Will catch at us, like strumpets; and scald rhymers
        Ballad us out o’ tune: the quick comedians
        Extemporally will stage us, and present
        Our Alexandrian revels; Antony
        Shall be brought drunken forth, and I shall see
        Some squeaking Cleopatra boy my greatness
        I’ the posture of a whore.

        Cleopatra, Antony and Cleopatra, Act V, Scene ii

        Noble Antony chooses the sword and Cleopatra clutches the asp to her breast rather than be “forced to drink [the] vapor” of enslavement.

        Or consult some combination of the poetic and prosaic, in Nietzsche’s account of The Last Men, who “have their little pleasures for the day, and their little pleasures for the night, but they have a regard for health.”

        The earth has then become small, and on it there hops the last man who makes everything small. His species is ineradicable like that of the ground-flea; the last man lives longest.

        “We have discovered happiness”—say the last men, and blink thereby.

        They have left the regions where it is hard to live; for they need warmth. One still loves one’s neighbor and rubs against him; for one needs warmth.

        The weak are, above all, concerned with their health and longevity because greatness is unavailable to them. And greatness is indemnified by a willingness to risk.

        Unimaginative Darwinists pursue the feminism with butter knives when .50-cals are available.

        Matt

        Liked by 1 person


      • Thanks for the summary; I have no knowledge of Hegel. This sentences made me chuckle: “Hegel thought that this kind of relationship represented a primitive form of human relationship and that a much better strategy would be to cooperate.” 🙂

        Like


      • Survival is the goal of successful breeding populations.

        Really, you can fetishize self-sacrifice all you please, but even the monkeys understand that running off to die when not strictly necessary is a bad idea for the group. Risk-taking for a bigger share is one thing, but males of most species don’t bungee jump from bridges nor even lock horns to the death for greater recognition. This is all human obsession with the symbolic. Of which, by the way, you are an impressive exemplar.

        Of course you’re a “Christian”, a Nietzschean Christian who despises just about everyone, so noticing what other primates are doing is for you an occasion for mockery. There is no natural history: only history that led to King A. There is only Iliad, Bible, Shakespeare, Nietzsche, and King A himself. Nothing else exists to you. You derive your psychological power from this narrowness, in fact, and that is the argument to be made for a parochial wordlview — it makes people single-minded and sturdy.

        Try to understand something though. Just try. You’re not a god, and you could stand some revision. Here it is. You ready?

        NOT ALL RISK IS WORTH TAKING. Other species take risks where there is a clear possibility of fitness-increase. We, the symbolic species, have fetishized risk even with no possible increase, even to the point of negating fitness altogether, that is, death.

        This isn’t “weakness”, bro. It’s keeping your head about you. Dying for a MOVIE DATE is insane. Dying for a Jewish empire in the East is insane. Quoting Shakespeare to justify such things is tawdry.

        You quote Nietzsche. Beautiful. That is to say, one childless man quotes another childless man on why it’s so wonderful to risk everything for a nothing. You’re doing this to make your case for why some pampered white boys threw their lives away for some popcorn-munching throwaway white girls who weren’t their wives and weren’t carrying their offspring. Seriously?

        But none of this will matter to King A, for he is armed with the cheap nietzschean arsenal, the words weak, weakling, slave, and behold, never hath Nietzsche’s thought been more revealed as transmuted Protestantism since R.J. Hollingdale’s introduction to Thus Spake Zarathustra!

        In closing …

        putting the lie to the Darwinist cartoon that presumes survival itself is the ultimate goal of human life.

        This is YOUR lie. A DARWINIST says REPRODUCTION is the goal of human, and all, life. BUT MAYBE YOU OUGHT TO READ SOME DARWIN FIRST, christbot.

        Like


      • uh wrote:

        There is no natural history: only history that led to King A. There is only Iliad, Bible, Shakespeare, Nietzsche, and King A himself. Nothing else exists to you. You derive your psychological power from this narrowness, in fact, and that is the argument to be made for a parochial wordlview — it makes people single-minded and sturdy.

        What, do you have a degree in Afro-Centric Studies or something? You sound like the typical anti-Western complainer who pooh-poohs repositories of universal wisdom like, yes, “Iliad, Bible, Shakespeare, Nietzsche” as “narrow[]” minded and “parochial.”

        Grievance philosophy is still grievance philosophy, even when it’s white people moaning about the SWPL DWEMs who killed their fantastical Nordic idyll. Your obscurantism doesn’t impress me. I’ll take Plato, Aristotle, Christ, Paul, Augustine, Aquinas, Machiavelli, Shakespeare, and Nietzsche. I will take the Jews over your sad little attempt to reconstruct pre-Christian techno-paganism as a foundation for inane race theories. I don’t even know from which writers you’re drawing your preposterous apologias for National Socialism: you keep them hidden so that people like me don’t mock you for pseudointellectual dilettantism.

        putting the lie to the Darwinist cartoon that presumes survival itself is the ultimate goal of human life.

        This is YOUR lie. A DARWINIST says REPRODUCTION is the goal of human, and all, life. BUT MAYBE YOU OUGHT TO READ SOME DARWIN FIRST, christbot.

        You’re splitting hairs about survival and reproduction as decisively different urges of life. You can’t reproduce if you don’t survive, the former is conditional on the latter. And you accuse me of casuistry?

        Look, I like you. I admire your instinct to reject the plebeian mores of the age and to give a hearty Fuck You to the shibboleths that cow other “men” into silence. But you are not fooling me. You have to come with heavier artillery than “christbot” and the assertion I am not familiar with Charles Darwin.

        Really, you can fetishize self-sacrifice all you please, but even the monkeys understand that running off to die when not strictly necessary is a bad idea for the group. Risk-taking for a bigger share is one thing, but males of most species don’t bungee jump from bridges nor even lock horns to the death for greater recognition. This is all human obsession with the symbolic.

        Even the monkeys, indeed. I am not a monkey, I am a man. That’s not “symbolic,” Herr Doktor Professor Jung, that’s taxonomy. The distinction between man and animal may have been exaggerated by your enemies in Christendom, but the gulf is still sufficiently large to speak of categorical distinction. Monkeys don’t write operas or build cathedrals. They don’t even communicate in speech, much less an express written language. They rub against each other, they fight, they fuck, and they die. Your attempt at wisdom depends on a recovery of our bestiality, and insofar as we have drifted into Eloi World, such forays are welcome. But as the basis for a political and cultural project? You are out of your mind.

        Matt

        Liked by 1 person


      • To look at the opposite situation, check out this image: http://twitpic.com/aats59

        I don’t even think I could face my peers if I didn’t do my damnedest to protect my girl in a similar situation.

        Those who are prima facie decrying these acts as foolishness are doing nothing but confirming the stereotype that anyone interested in Game in any capacity is nothing but “bitter misogynist.”

        No one knows the details of the relationships of these guys, they may have been either heros or fools. If they were protecting a horrible bitch who wasn’t worth her weight in shit based on a detached sense of “duty?” You could call them fools. But protecting what’s yours, protecting someone worthy of it, is heroic.

        Like


      • Women worthy of the ultimate sacrifice:

        [a] mother
        [b] sister
        [c] pregnant girlfriend
        [d] mother of one’s children

        Women unworthy:

        [a] feminists
        [b] politicians
        [c] movie dates

        The Three Dead White Knights removed themselves from the evolutionary race prematurely. Their girlfriends will go on to oppress other men with sorrowful Facebook tributes and a monthly weepfest for their fallen “heroes”.

        Sorry to be a cunt about it. Someone has to. Nothing but the first four conditions can make me countenance these eager-beaver heroics in which American men indulge. Like soldiers throwing themselves on grenades when they could have actually picked it up and thrown it away.

        On the other hand, they all probably acted reflexively. The Marine probably with an awareness of his “heroic deed”. One has to ask if one would default to the same mode. I’d like to think I would not, but who knows.

        Like


      • The confession of a slave.

        Like


      • Yea. Anyone who disagrees with you is a slave. We get it.

        Like


      • Anyone who chooses survival over liberty is a slave. That’s the definition of a slave.

        Your Blond Beast Volk heroism is a species of collectivist coward worship. In speech, you make the case for the heroic white race. In deed, you counsel them to be retreating pussies. And you would have us believe that the content of some chick’s womb is the decisive factor for courage?

        [N]oble men [exhibit] … something like brave recklessness, whether in the face of danger or of an enemy, or those wildly enthusiastic, sudden fits of anger, love, reverence, thankfulness, and vengeance, by which in all ages noble souls have recognized each other.

        The ressentiment of the noble man himself, if it comes over him, consumes and exhausts itself in an immediate reaction and therefore does not poison. On the other hand, in countless cases it just does not appear at all; whereas, in the case of all weak and powerless people it is unavoidable.

        Being unable to take one’s enemies, one’s misfortunes, even one’s bad deeds seriously for very long—that is the mark of strong, complete natures… Such a man with a single shrug simply throws off himself the many worms which eat into other men.

        Only here is possible—provided that it is at all possible on earth—the real love for one’s enemy.” How much respect a noble man already has for his enemies!—and such a respect is already a bridge to love. . . . In fact, he demands his enemy for himself, as his mark of honor. Indeed, he has no enemy other than one in whom there is nothing to despise and a great deal to respect!

        Nietzsche, Genealogy, 1.10 [italics original; bold added]

        You, coarse reader that you are, imbibe the parts of Nietzsche where he says “Jew” and “Christian” before returning to your carbon-copy pamphlets. You imagine that counting yourself among the anti-Jews and anti-Christians suffices to place you outside the rabble and our “slave rebellion in morality.”

        Joke’s on you, skinhead fruitcake. You’re the slave. You’re the one who not only cowers from a life threat, you counsel your race to practice it as the clever thing to do: “A race of such men of ressentiment will necessarily end up cleverer than any noble race. It will value cleverness to a completely different extent, that is, as a condition of existence of the utmost importance….” You rationalize a call for institutional cowardice by opposing the unclever instincts of men who would fight for their own, splitting hairs about mere “movie dates” being unworthy of manly protection, and thinking recherché formulae such as these should prevail during the split-second life-or-death decisions of men.

        “The many worms which eat into other men.” There at last is an apt image for your catalogue of paranoias.

        Matt

        Liked by 1 person


      • Any action that favors offspring other than one’s own, or those of one’s kin, is wrong.

        Like


    • And what about the men who stayed on the Titanic while women and children filled the lifeboats? Pussyfied white-knighters or heroes?

      Like


      • In the age of the Titanic, heroes.

        In the modern day, pussified white-knighters.

        Like


      • Victims.
        There were not allowed to board until the women and children were on by order of the Captain, and enforced by the crew.

        Killed by White Knighters.

        Like


    • Looks like that Colorado shooter was a massive beta http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/dark-knight-massacre-suspect-james-holmes-failed-school-love-article-1.1120320

      Maybe he knows he’ll get love letters in jail now?

      Like


    • on July 24, 2012 at 11:58 am drunicusveritas

      Well, my first thought is, all those girls are single now.

      Like


  2. This is like a textbook for women on what to avoid in men. I hope more women read this blog so they can recognize this stuff, and not feel like they have to put up with someone who gives them commands just to be nice or whatever.

    I think women often feel like they have to obey orders and follow the herd to avoid causing trouble or being singled out and “punished” in some way. That doesn’t mean they like following the orders, just that they feel like not doing it could have more unpleasant results.

    (and yeah, I’m a woman so any thoughts I have are just a “hamster” or whatever. blah blah blah)

    Like


    • Following the herd is not the same as following one man who is sure of what he wants. A woman such as yourself will gladly take orders from a man who does not follow the herd.

      Like


      • Sure in some situations. But I would not be willing to sleep with/date/get in a romantic relationship with that man. And if he ordered me to, then that is where I would stop following orders.

        Like


      • Darling, I’d have you sucking my dick on request, cooking me breakfast, and singing in the morning, every morning and loving it. Every woman dreams of that man and seldom finds him. You’re talking sour grapes and you know it.

        Like


    • It would the greatest thing in the world for millions of women to be reading this blog. The outcry would hilarious but the actions of women (chasing their biologically hypergamous natures when not thinking with their vaginas) would not change a whit.

      Like


    • on July 23, 2012 at 3:09 pm Days of Broken Arrows

      Anyone reading the above comment is reminded to heed Roosh’s advice to never listen to what women say but watch what they do. My guess is that although “blah” claims she can’t be led by men, she lives a life following rules and demands laid out by men. Like most women.

      I’m reminded of the college girl who complained endlessly about me dating a high schooler because dating younger women was “wrong.” Two years out of college she married a man 20 plus years older than us.

      Again: never listen to what women say, watch what they do.

      Like


    • on July 23, 2012 at 3:39 pm koolaid-snakeoil

      Yea, women do need to express their original way of being more on the blog. Even if they try to encrypt it in fore-brain fallacy.

      Like


    • tell your beta herb boyfriend to find his balls and read through the archives on this site. you will both benefit from it.

      Like


    • I think women often feel like they have to obey orders and follow the herd to avoid causing trouble or being singled out and “punished” in some way. That doesn’t mean they like following the orders, just that they feel like not doing it could have more unpleasant results Well, so what? It’s the fact that they goose-step to what’s fashionable that is the problem, not how they feel about it while they’re doing it. Disobeying orders pretty much implies trouble, singling out, and punishment, and implies the order giver has the power to command or expect obedience. It isn’t the obeying orders, it’s the herd part that is the problem, these things must be separated. And most women LOVE being in a herd, the security of it, love mindlessly following consensus and fashion, and feel a sadistic rapture while coming down on dissenters. It’s pretty much the basis of our whole suicidal political/cultural system, the root of PC. It’s also a large part of the reason that decadent civilizations are rightly called “effeminate.”

      Like


    • Thanks for your illuminating comment. You just managed to change my whole perspective in a few words.
      Now I can see that everything ever written on this blog are just misguided thoughts that don’t match the immaculate innocence of female nature.

      Damn you CH, you almost ruined my life. Thank you blah for showing me the light.

      Thank you, thank you, thank you.

      *fart*

      Like


    • “This is like a textbook for women on what to avoid in men. I hope more women read this blog so they can recognize this stuff”

      Yes. Obey the textbook.

      Like


    • on July 23, 2012 at 6:05 pm blackbird.young

      I hear a woman purring. Roaring, I mean.

      I bet she doesn’t give blow jobs. Probably a mean hand job though. Like, a mean one, she’s mad at you when she HAS to do it.

      And, I wonder what she would write in her textbook for women, on how to get men. I wonder. I WONDER, wonder, wonder, what’s in a wonder-ball!

      Like


    • Why would we take advice from someone who doesn’t date women?

      Like


    • They prefer following the orders more than they enjoy giving them.

      Furthermore, they’re weak in comparison to most men and without the constraints of civilized society, would be beaten into submission.

      Again, it’s in the woman’s best interest to submit. Clearly this has manifested itself into a sick perverse quality, as seen in this experiment, but it doesn’t change the fact that the weaker person must submit or die.

      Like


    • This isn’t the chick from Radio Room is it? If so welcome to the Chateau Heartiste, lol. Gina tingles all around.

      Like


    • Yeah… shocking the puppy so she won’t upset the status quo and get in trouble… makes sense?

      I honestly laughed out loud when I read the experiement’s results.

      Like


      • What if it were beta males hooked up to the shocker???

        Like


      • on July 24, 2012 at 8:35 am Holden Caulfield

        The beta males are likely the 50% that obeyed.

        Like


      • A cruel alpha would have obeyed too. I doubt there’s an actual correlation there.

        Like


      • I think a better experiment would have been to find out a rule/principle each of the people had, something they believe strongly in and say they would never violate and then set up a situation where they’re ordered by an authority figure to break exactly that rule.

        An alpha doesn’t back down from his principles but women and betas do all the time.

        Like


      • on July 24, 2012 at 1:28 pm Laconophile

        I think cruelty is more of a beta/female trait.

        Like


    • As has been pointed out before (by Rollo?), women seem to have twin adaptations. 1. To be hypergamous. 2. To be incapable of seeing their own hypergamous nature. I only know a couple of exceptions and this writer is not one of them.
      Re: the Milgram experiment – who reckons the female participants would have been well up for it with the lab-coated ‘scientists’ after the experiment? Just in case it wasn’t unethical enough already.

      Like


  3. Perhaps this is why women perform better than men in schools?

    Like


    • Definitely one factor. Another is the fact that most public school teachers nowadays are ugly liberal women, and boys find obeying ugly liberal women to be unappealing.

      Like


      • The third factor is mixity.
        Betas find early on that they cannot attract chicks by being smart or hard-working or successful in academia.
        If they cannot find a way to become sexy cads, they withdraw into a complex interior world and find comfort in porn and video games.

        Compare that with older men who went to boys only schools. They were like hamsters in a cage, fuelled by their sex drives and the promise of being able to sweep a girl off her feet with a providing ability.
        For most males, school without that kind of incentive is just boring.

        Like


    • That’s a broad generalization, and certainly not true within the confines of my academic experience – BS physics and MSEE. But I get your point – women get higher grades when the mission is to parrot the professor’s ideology in papers and exams.

      Like


  4. Tell, don’t ask.

    Like


  5. First!

    Like


  6. As to this essay, it’s all well and good but how can we use this knowledge to dampen the negative effects young white females have on politics. Taking away their right to vote until they’re 30 would be nice, of course, but I don’t think it’s do-able.

    Like


    • on July 23, 2012 at 3:06 pm SheCantSayNo

      That one is obvious: tell them whom to vote for!

      Like


    • It will take widespread red pill knowledge to make people even think about women’s competence to vote.

      It will take a bloody war to take away that right. Perhaps we’re close to the point where there will be anti-feminist terrorist organizations.

      And why until they’re 30? Just take away that goddamn right.

      Like


    • on July 23, 2012 at 7:04 pm Dan Fletcher

      No. No women’s suffrage, period.

      Women must be subjugated. Full stop.

      Like


      • on July 24, 2012 at 9:58 am RappaccinisDaughter

        I’m afraid I can’t let you do that, Dave.

        Like


      • Cute thought, this. “Let.” What makes you think your agreement or allowance is applicable to the matter?

        The entitlement of women shows through, even in ostensibly red-pill sisters. Are you hiding your medicine under your tongue, Rape-Daughter?

        Like


      • it’s a movie reference.

        Like


      • on July 25, 2012 at 6:42 pm Dan Fletcher

        No shit, why would it matter?

        Like


      • That’s a little to far. Women are human and hold some responsibility in society. Move it back to the 1/2 a vote per a lady and give and enterance exam to be allowed to vote. If you don’t even know how many Supreme Court justices there are or who your local representatives are, for example, you fail the test and should not be allowed to vote.

        Basic facts about the people you are voting for should also be on the test. Under Obama, for example, gas prices have been higher on average than under Bush. Not many people know that.

        Like


      • Give the entrance exam to everyone, then, to make sure everyone knows.

        Like


      • That’s a little to far. Women are human and hold some responsibility in society. Move it back to the 1/2 a vote…

        Ah, the failure of nerve sends men to (literal) half measures.

        We cannot deal in fractions. The bureaucratic-ratchet worms make their living in gray areas. Social Security that was meant to protect widows now serves a majority. The “penumbras and emanations” meant to apply privacy to married couples now includes the “rights” of transgendered he-shes to inflict their sexual schizophrenia on our politics, and not incidentally, eliminate those married couples’ original ethos. A food stamp program meant to serve the very poorest now serves one in six households, thanks to an active recruiting campaign to lure able-bodied men into dependency. “Last month, 80,000 Americans signed on to new jobs, but 85,000 Americans signed on for Social Security disability checks.”

        No, the political manifestation of our nature must be grounded in nature. Women are not “half” men. They are wholly other, with different strengths and different weaknesses. A compromise in this regard gives credence to the idea that we may tinker with our nature to produce intentional, political results.

        Full repeal of the nineteenth, or revolution. One or the other will happen this century. Hard as that may be to believe for those who lack a historical perspective, these matters come to a head quickly.

        Matt

        Like


      • on July 25, 2012 at 6:47 pm Dan Fletcher

        To those seriously advocating women’s suffrage:

        If you truely believe in giving women the right to vote you have either not truly digested the redpill yet or have no problem seeing society get flushed down the toilet.

        Like


  7. on July 23, 2012 at 3:03 pm The Man Who Was . . .

    There are many paradoxes in female nature. Women really are (on average) more agreeable and (on average) really do feel other people’s pain more than men.

    And yet they are absolutely ruthless in weeding out beta males as potential mates, and, as shown here, they will do terrible, terrible things at the behest of an alpha male, or an authority figure.

    Like


  8. This theory is totally true and my behavior toward women is directly related to this exact idea. I use to ask chicks on dates. Now i send them a text and say..”Meet me at X at 6:30, lets grab a drink.” Rarely do i get a “can’t do it.” Where in the past i use to ask..’You free Thursday? Want to grab a drink?” blah blah beta.

    Women love to feel the confident command of an alpha.

    Ordering their food for them is another panty dropper. “She will have…blah blah alpha.”

    Chicks love to submit so I might as well give them what they want, because at the end of the day, i don’t really care what they actually want, i just to have sex with them and the only way to get what i want is to give them what they REALLY want.

    Like


  9. An excellent example of this is netvideogirls.com. The guy who does those porn job interview videos has tight game and gets girls from being skeptical and downright hostile to sucking his cocking with a big, greedy grin on their faces within 30 minutesl all on film and later posted to the Internet. Watch about 5-6 to see how much is a repititive routine.

    Like


    • If you cannot see that those things are scripted then you’re too stupid to be allowed access to a keyboard.

      Like


      • I can only hope Tyrone is joking. If not, I think he should unplug his keyboard to prevent any further embarrassment lol

        Like


      • I watched several of them while bored in my hotel room in Oklahoma. None appeared scripted to me. The guy is very careful not to get charged with rape for one thing. If they were scripted, it wouldn’t be an issue at all. The same is true of Backroom Casting Couch. You must be some kind of genius to have such special powers. I bet you have two keyboards you can pound on! Wow can I be just like you day?

        Those of us who can actually accomplish such a thing don’t see it as scripted, they see it as tight game.

        Like


      • If someone ever shoots video footage of me out in the field and in the bedroom, some would probably say it’s scripted; when it’s doing well that is.

        Like


      • Sorry dude:

        http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?101884-Performer-Guide-Netvideogirls-com

        That doesn’t mean there aren’t game lessons to learn from certain “reality” porn though. Backroom Facials was good back in the day (the camera dude had a thick foreign angry accent, super dominant/alpha) and if I remember right some of the seducing women in the Couples Seduce Teens vids had solid game, lots of LMR-busting and 2-steps-forward-1-step-back comfort-building sexual-conversation leading etc. stuff.

        And of course every dude should watch Squirting 101 lol

        Like


      • Not to mention that simply being a porn producer shows some level of game. A good video would show real-life from when they first encounter the chick until she is on video where the whole world can watch her take a load on her face. So what if they are paying her?

        Like


      • Exactly. Even if these are scripted, they are good for illustrative purposes.

        Like


      • I like squirters. Do you still have her number?

        Like


      • Am I the only dude in the world who hates squirting? Too damn messy! Too much cleanup afterward! Yeah probably. A great disqualification or IOD though haha.

        Like


      • lol normally I love it, a little mess is fine but recently I ran into a Cytheria-level squirter. It was the most insane thing I’ve ever seen, no build-up or anything required she was just a constant waterfall anytime anything got near her pussy. It was literally like her vag was dumping out 1L milk cartons of liquid over and over. I’ve seen a lot of girls squirt but this was like the kraken unleashed.

        I actually felt bad for her because she couldn’t masturbate (I tried dirty-txting her when we met and she couldn’t play along) because it would just be too messy to rub one out in her bed before sleep etc. Before we hooked up when we were talking about fantasies she wanted to do public stuff and I told her I’d take her to a crowded dance floor and get her off but holy shit everyone on the dance floor around us would slip and crack their heads open on the massive lake that would be under us.

        I couldnt imagine dating a chick like that long-term even if she was amazing as fuck outside of sex, I had to wash my sheets, pillows a ton of towels etc and my mattress was drenched all the way thru to the bottom and reaching all 4 corners so I had to sleep on the couch. It would be an LTR of nothing but sex in the shower FOREVER.

        I ended up only hooking up with her a few times and then let it go cold because I honestly just didn’t want to have to wash my sheets and piles of towels and everything so frequently lol I thought about laying down a dollar-store shower curtain but it was all just too much hassle. Never told her why I didn’t want to see her anymore, she was already pretty self conscious about her squirting but I’m sure she knew and was used to guys peacing out lol

        Like


      • The squirt fetish is latent faggotry, like most porn — produced by men, for men. (Where else in life would you run into a parade of hard cocks, inches from your nose?) (Besides your mother’s trailer.)

        Men ejaculate and cause a mess. The woman is the container and leaker, the passive object of the sentence, the one who takes the exchange; not the shooter or actor, the subject of the sentence, the one who initiates the transfer. The arrow goes in a single direction, from man to woman. The reversal of this natural process is what puts the gay in gay.

        A woman squirting follows the masculine exhibitionism of porn — skinny, shapeless, muscular actresses with exaggerated female traits (silicone) in a caricatured attempt to balance the masculinity of the rest of her, giving her own “money shot”; anal sex; the impossibility of fertility; exhibiting the sex drive of men with a penchant for quantity, variety, and psychologically improbable kink; two dudes rubbing peters (but it’s straight because it’s surrounded by a giant snatch?).

        But hey, whatever trips the basement-beta’s id. Everything goes.

        Matt

        Like


      • “The woman is the container and leaker, the passive object of the sentence, the one who takes the exchange”

        lol I’d feel bad for girls who have sex with you, but I’m not sure they exist.

        Making a woman squirt is awesome. When she’s laying there completely mind-fucked and dazed, her legs jolting and shaking randomly every few minutes for an hour afterward, barely able to form words beyond “how did…what…you….omg…” and you just chuckle and pull her in to cuddle knowing you just blew her world sexually beyond what any other man has done or could do or beyond what she even thought was possible, with just a couple fingers…ahh, one of the best feelings in the world.

        Enjoy your 3 minutes of plain fully naked missionary sex in the bedroom only followed by no cuddling or enjoyment in general. I’ll be over here fuckin’ like a pornstar. 🙂

        Seriously guys. Squirting 101, watch it and listen to the guy teaching how to do it. Dude knows his shit and you’ll blow girls’ minds.

        Like


      • Have to agree with Yareally about making women squirt. It is truly awesome. They sit there and quiver gazing in your eyes with a look of awe and deep gratitude. No question as to whether they were faking or not either. Talk about making them bond with you- nothing works better in my experience.

        Like


      • Making a girl come “is awesome.” No shit, Frank TJ Mackey. I will add that to the list of YaReally’s Tips for the Asexual Oblivious.

        Is it possible I was not talking about the orgasm itself, but the porn industry fetish? Wait, there it is in the first sentence: “The squirt fetish is latent faggotry, like most porn.”

        “I’ll be over here fuckin’ like a pornstar.” So, you will depilate, frost your hair, over-tan, dip into bisexuality, and take sexual direction from the real (female) star who makes four-times as much as you?

        Men don’t take their cue from male demi-prostitutes and cartoonish Pizza Delivery porn. Little boys think heroism is Superman in tightie-reddies and a cape, just as they imagine peak-sexuality is muscly gay-icons making jaded skeezes moan, “Ooh. Come. On my. Face. Ooh.”

        But of course, insecure little you read yourself into my critique and responded as expected. Here is a tip you seem to be having trouble gleaning from your Pick-Up Priests: when you take disagreements personally and respond personally, that says more about you than it does about your opponent. At least make your insults mildly witty (“missionary” position? I’ll bet he never has sex, amirite! Etc.), rather than the stock response of the wounded. That will go a long way to hiding that little omega inside whom you’re afraid might peek out at the worst time.

        Matt

        Like


      • “Is it possible I was not talking about the orgasm itself, but the porn industry fetish?”

        Half the time I have no idea what the fuck you’re talking about. And I often wonder if YOU do lol I didn’t bother reading past this line because I just assume it’s a bunch of your usual BS.

        Like


      • Is there a link to the Squirting 101 video you’re talking about?

        Like


    • Scripted, brah? Woodman’s old castings are the only real shit.
      And even him lulls them with promises of fame, travels and cash.

      Like


  10. The really sad thing, is that 50% of the males acted like women. And that society is structured around these kissasses. I mean, the immediate, mechanical reaction to someone telling you, not asking you, what to do, should be gunfire in his direction. And eventually it will be, just like it was in Mogadishu. But man, how slow things move.

    Like


  11. So many women cannot do anything unless a man tells them what to do. How often have I observed that! No initiative.

    Like


    • on July 23, 2012 at 7:08 pm Dan Fletcher

      Exactly. Women lack agency.

      They drift aimlessly. They may give the illusion of having goals, plans and a deep inner-life. It is all surface, no interior.

      They drift until a strong man anchors them.

      Like


      • On the other hand, Dan, it’s impossible to ignore the fact that serendipity has played a HUGE role in some of the most important inventions and accomplishments made by men. Mendel, for example, admitted that he got lucky. Many of our famous musicians, actors, etc admit that they were similarly lucky.

        It’s often better to be lucky than good.

        Like


      • “Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.”
        — Thomas Edison

        Like


      • on July 25, 2012 at 6:49 pm Dan Fletcher

        The point and relevance of your post is not clear.

        Like


      • You know, “you didn’t build that” is essentially what is being said here. Democrats have no respect for the efforts of others.

        Like


    • I’ve noticed that with a lot of men too, but yeah, nine times out of ten, women seem to want somebody to decide for them

      Like


  12. on July 23, 2012 at 3:29 pm Obstinance Works

    Though preselection is probably the biggest DHV eadership up there. I just discovered last night that my knowledge of fighting is a big DHV as I was teaching this hippie chick how to fight. All kinds of opportunites to show leadership as men would come over to share advice and argue as I was the center of attention. A lot of people where watching the rukcus.

    Like


  13. on July 23, 2012 at 3:31 pm The Shocker

    Okay so yes and no.

    SOME women, yes absolutely. There are some women where you can literally glide your face into hers as soon you meet her. (Fun, but not a close.)

    However, a lot of women call me out on being a “you here now” caveman every time. It’s not that they aren’t compliant, or shit-testing you, they just aren’t going to let someone walk over them. They’re, you know, actual people.

    This definitely correlates with attractive girls with lots of social experience.

    It’s probably the #1 reason cold approach pickup attempts fail. When you walk up to a girl and drop a gimmick in your conversation, you’re asking to knock her down from her socially savvy state. Example, I’m hanging all day with a group of girls and some random guy starts chatting one up. After a few minutes, the girl turns to the group and says, “This guy says our baby’s middle name is going to be Patrick.” We laugh at him. It’s dumb. Not a fit with our state at all. He tries to laugh his way through it and I neg him with, “Love the confidence, bro.”

    So yeah, rock the caveman thing. I do all the time and it’s fun. But understand what’s happening when it doesn’t work and adjust accordingly (also sense if it’s going to work or not before you try, you give up a LOT of hand if you give up aloof to be caveman).

    Tyler talks about exactly this:

    Like


    • You just proved the point. “The state” is the herd. Cold attempts won’t work without it. A lot of pickup lit has been on how to control a group oh ye of little faith. I think that Roosh did mention in one of his posts that girls in groups of 3 or less is who you should attempt to pick up cold.

      Like


    • I think the power of “aloof” has something to do with Krauser’s “love bubble” theory. I connect this, in my own mind at least, to the fact that you have not created enough value to begin with when you “cash in all your chips” and escalate. Of course it’s much easier to go caveman at night.

      http://krauserpua.com/2011/10/01/a-street-kiss-close/

      Like


    • I scrolled down and passed by a Tyler video and a few seconds later I was like “wait-a-sec, I haven’t posted in this article yet!” lol

      Also someone trying to caveman a girl who’s in a group that’s clearly hanging out together (you said she just turned around to the group so I’m assuming you were all standing together) isn’t exactly calibrated. Doesn’t necessarily have much to do with the girl being an “actual person”, it’s more like watching someone shit on a table in a business conference…that’s weird socially awkward behavior.

      I’m not disagreeing that there are girls that don’t respond to caveman stuff, but in the scenario you described I’d say that had more to do with the low value demo going on.

      Like


  14. An excellent example of this is netvideogirls.com. The guy who does those porn job interview videos has tight game and gets girls who come to interview for a chanec to be photgraphed for his calendar from being skeptical and downright hostile to sucking his cocking with a big, greedy grin on their faces within 30 minutesl all on film and later posted to the Internet. Watch about 5-6 of these videos to see how much is a repititive routine.

    Like


  15. Interview after interview of passengers on the Costa Concordia: ‘No-one told us what to do!’

    Like


    • False comparison. During the lifeboat drill, they tell you to sit tight and wait for instructions from the crew. I would have no idea how to lower a lifeboat into the water.

      Like


  16. If you peruse discussion forums for women or where women tend to congregate it is amusing to see how often there are discussions involving a need for affirmation or consensus (This can involve plenty of adjectives and exclamation marks. SUPER cool!!) even in ostensibly feminist spaces.

    Like


  17. also, obedience allows women to abdicate personal responsibility in a more plausible manner. the hamster doesn’t need to spin as fast.

    Like


  18. on July 23, 2012 at 4:09 pm Nine Furies

    With this and the Chicks Dig Cruelty post you are doing the lords work CH.

    Whenever I flirt with girls it is usually a light role play form of rape. I issue orders and if they dont comply I respond with something physical that gives them pain like a playful charlie horse or somethin. Depending on the calibration I might leave it at that level or get even more sexual and dominant depending on the circumstance. Funny how if I verbalise this sort of thing to chicks they will adamantly deny that they ever respond to such chauvinism. However when my actions are basically right in your face shameless douche bag touching you, commanding you and they light up with lust its just simply hilarious.

    The other day I grabbed this chicks tit walkin into a bar because she had a shirt that said “all natural jugs”. Her response?

    “youre a bad ass arent you?” hahaha

    As I have progressed in this form of game I call Cave Man Game I say less and less to chicks and do more touching, staring, walking them down type shit. This is the form of game that came most natural to me so I went with it. I remember that when I lost my virginity with this chick I had a crush on at 16 the tipping point to get over her LMR wasnt words at all. I simply took her hand and put it on my cock.

    I do this with my current girl who is 10 yrs younger and she responds immdeiately on command. Even when she doesnt want to or is sore from last night she will take it again regardless.

    You want a blowjob? Whip your dick out and put it in your girls mouth!

    Like


    • Hang on. If “Chicks Dig Cruelty” in men, why are we honoring the fact that 50% of men became disobedient out of a refusal to be cruel to the puppies? Wouldn’t a properly cruel man find no basis for the moral refusal to continue shocking a dog, and aren’t we therefore honoring the wrong half of the sample?

      If someone “commands” me to eat a bowl of ice cream, I might chow it down because I like rocky road. If someone “commands” me to eat a bowl of shit, my gag-reflex might be the disobedient factor, not my manly independence. In other words, we are skipping over the moral presumption against cruelty and not controlling for preferences in alignment with the researcher’s “command.”

      In the one post we celebrate cruelty. In another we celebrate the refusal to be cruel. What explains these contradictory instructions? Do we attempt to be cruel to get the chicks, or do we refuse to be cruel to show our independence from their desire — to get the chicks?

      This is what happens when pseudoscience (i.e., “conclusive” hypothesizing about the nature of men and women based on a handful of observations of behavior) is treated as authoritative. The confirmation bias is not just tempting, it is unavoidable — even to the point of contradicting oneself from one post to another. Isn’t consistency a scientific value too?

      Don’t answer. Really. I’m just talking to myself. I can’t conjure a mood to argue against the distinctions without differences and freshman seminar casuistry sure to follow.

      Matt

      Like


      • Damn dude, are you ok?

        Like


      • As usual, you’ve misunderstood due to your own casuistry. This is the result of excessively logical reasoning, the big clumsy boner sported by all of Aristotle’s progeny.

        You posit a contradiction: cruelty is bad when it’s a puppy being shocked by women, good when it aids in bedding women.

        There is in fact no contradiction or inconsistency for the common and consistent factors are women, cruelty, and authority.

        This fact speaks to a psychological truth with which your stodgy Old Testament / Trivium-obsessed brain, for all the scatter-shot insights you might make, for all the brilliantly verbose padding, cannot reckon in real terms. You are, after all, not a psychologist or a neuroscientist; neither are we, but we have probably read more about that stuff than you. You’re too good for it, as you never tire of telling us.

        Simple truth is that women:

        [a] obey authority to the point of inflicting cruelty
        [b] act cruelly to men who are not cruel / authoritative
        [c] require authority, laced with a measure of cruelty, to disarm the liberated-bitch tendency and submit to being used as units of pleasure / reproduction

        I don’t believe it has ever been claimed by any PUA writer that men must be wantonly cruel in themselves, and that because we all know that that would be a true contradiction. The very problem is that so many of us are mild and compromising and need that programmed out of us to be effectual with the desouled.

        Game is an act. It can and must be internalized, but it is still a put-on. I’m sure we have all run into dozens of hand-wringing posts on the usual blogs about whether one should let one’s guard down for the right assclcocokedxxxlxopzz, but that only confirms that men in themselves are inclined to fairness. We made morality, laws, courts, not women. In celebrating the men who refused to be cruel, we celebrate something natural to us which must be suspended or dissembled to gain access to sex.

        Calling the study, all studies, into question is an easy manoeuvre. Nearly everyone does it. There are studies studying studies and meta-studies of those studies. Earnest philosophical essays, thesis papers, lectures, probably books, on the implications of studies, studies, studies, studies, from every possible angle.

        Whatever. The fact is that a man came up with a little test to measure the sexes’ (and various nationalities’) response to presumed authority. Women failed the fucking test because they very easily slip into an amoral idiocy. One minute they’re cooing like children over the cute puppy; the next, they’re weeping as they shock the poor thing because a man in a coat told them to do it. And you’re calling us contradictory, you supercilious christbot?

        Women obey any authority. Men obey rational authority. In the best circumstances, anyhow.

        It follows from your feigned inability to understand an illusory “contradiction” that you would laud the three DEAD WHITE KNIGHTS of the Aurora massacre, for therein we see clearly what happens when behavior good for a natural group is maladaptive (i.e. hindering survival and genetic transmission) in a modern aggregate population. But you’re a fetishist of “virtue”, so your mind is inflexible in both of these cases.

        Like


      • Could you engage Queen B a little bit more often? You’re the only one around here skilled enough to damage his big wordz shield.

        And your verbal fights will be like watching gladiators.
        *nibbling popcorn*

        Like


      • Sure. But watch him now wax defensive by revving up the gongorism.

        Like


      • “Gongorism”? Had to look that one up.

        Who is the worse practitioner of “a literary style characterized by studied obscurity and by the use of various ornate devices”? Me, or the one who employed a word like “gongorism” in the first place?

        Like


      • on July 25, 2012 at 8:47 am Art Vandelay

        You misunderstood the experiment. The setup was not “here is a puppy, torture it if you like”, the setup was: “I order you to torture that puppy”, the authority in this case being the researcher ordering the subject.

        Here is another hint: When you want to talk to yourself you don’t need to click the “Post Comment” button.

        Like


      • My point was, it’s easier to follow orders if you are naturally inclined to performing the task, as was claimed of alpha males in “Chicks Dig Cruelty.” The “authority” factor was not properly isolated in a manner that could yield scientific conclusiveness. “I order you” to eat a bowl of ice cream is qualitatively different from “I order you” to eat a bowl of shit. The findings of obedience turns on what one is being asked to obey.

        Is cruelty the equivalent of ice cream or the equivalent of shit for a man? For a woman? The study is ambiguous, but the “Chicks Dig Cruelty” post was not.

        Anyone who goes to stand-up shows a lot knows that the best male comics are sometimes relentlessly cruel, either to the invisible characters populating their anecdotes, or to hecklers in the crowd. And when they are cruel, merciless sadists, the women in the audience are laughing their pedestaled asses off.

        If the alpha male naturally exhibits a cruel streak, he may shock the puppies for fun (or to impress the hot researcher lady), not in obedience. So which side of the 50/50 divide do the alpha males go, considering both posts? The side of obedient cruelty or the side of independent charity?

        Pick one or the other. The temptation is to draw fine distinctions between cruelties and motivations, but that doesn’t obtain here in our exploration of principle. We have established that alpha males do not tend to being obedient. Now, given the contradictory assertions, do we also agree they tend to be cruel? If that is the case, the study cited above is conceptually flawed, because obedient betas would shock the puppy, and cruel alphas would shock the puppy.

        The most elegant (Occam’s razor) solution to this contradiction is to acknowledge that alphas are not, in fact, predisposed to cruelty. According to both posts, “cruelty” means inflicting senseless pain on a puppy or insulting a weaker or defenseless man. Those are omega traits. An alpha confident in his strength takes on his equals or betters, challenges a man to his face; the bitter omega stabs in the back, concentrating on the targets that can’t return volley which would underscore his paucity of strength. A mangy dog can get the jump on a sleeping lion.

        I am not saying low trickery doesn’t work on women. One of the most persistent myths in these parts is the presumption that landing today’s slut constitutes a manly achievement. I am saying that such trickery does not define alpha, other than by the low threshold of temporary mimicry sufficient to game today’s naïve young women. Being cruel is an imitation of alpha strength applied to the omega’s resentfulness. But being alpha means the very idea of resentment is foreign, and the thought of cruelty cannot naturally occur any more than the bird of prey can be said to be “cruel” to the field mouse. Now, incidental damage may follow from alpha being alpha, but cruelty requires by definition the willful intent to damage. The omega, like Nietzsche’s examples of “slave morality,” can only comprehend strength as a manifestation of cruelty, rather than the unintended side-effect of the blond beast living according to his nature.

        Matt

        Like


      • I think Matt’s question is a good one. The nature of the experiment, in light of our favourite Dark Triad, may make the results less conclusive than one might otherwise think at first blush.

        Would be interesting to “control” for the Dark Triad’s elements by ordering all parties not simply to shock the puppy, but also in subsequent tests to do other things that are silly, stupid, boring, etc., thereby raising the “taking of orders” factor to the fore. What we should be looking for is independence of thought and action, adherence to/congruency with values, etc.

        Battle not with monsters, right?

        Like


    • You have to be attractive to get away with that.

      Like


      • Yeah, I did it the other night at the bar. Caught a girl staring at me, sat down and started flirting with her, ignoring the two guys she was with. The conversation turned to boobs and I grabbed hers.

        Turns out one of the guys sitting across from us was her boyfriend, him and his friend flipped out in a bitchy, beta kind of way

        Of course, the girl did nothing to stop it, she loved it. I would have kept going but the security was hardcore at this place and I didn’t need the hassle. (I had the manager called on me later on for ordering shots, clubs in my city are insane)

        Incidentally, I understand what you guys mean about bitchy American feminazi girls. Earlier in the night (around 9pm) I facepalmed this girl who was flirting with me so she’d go away. In a flirty way of course, DHV and all that.

        Next thing you know her fat American friend comes over and starts yelling at me for disrespecting women, saying she’s going to get us kicked out. I let my buddy handle it, he loves a good fight more than me. He told her to fuck off and get the fuck out of our country, but apparently she’s marrying some little bitch who lives here. Too bad. She called security. A bouncer came over and stood next to us for a while, but he didn’t say anything.

        I made out with the friend later on, she was only about a 6 (and a smoker) but I wanted to make a point to the fat bitchy one. Then I facepalmed her again and gave her back. Good times…

        Like


      • You could have been arrested. Bad move, even though you got away with it.

        Like


      • Thanks for that Kenny Powers…

        Like


      • Well if by attractive you mean…have game, then yea I can agree. Looks alone Im probably avg to slightly above avg in the face but I have had a broken nose that is noticeable upon inspection and also one eyelid droops lower than the other, probably from being punched alot.

        One of the best compliments I recieved recently was from a friend who said
        ” Man I dont know how you get chicks cuz youre ugly as fuck!”

        BAM I got game! Wooo.

        Like


  19. I record my own music..play guitar. When a girl asks what I do, how does “im a recording artist” sound? does it sound try-hard? Sounds tacky as fuck to me but I hate that question and i want a quick, efficient dhv answer. seems girls respond to that superficial shit, that would make most mens eyes roll….thoughts

    Like


    • on July 23, 2012 at 6:04 pm first time caller

      Why not just tell them you’re a musician? You play a musical instrument for a living. “Musician” seems pretty self explanatory and a good DHV. Some girls probably wouldn’t get what a recording artist is.

      Like


    • on July 23, 2012 at 7:14 pm Dan Fletcher

      “seems girls respond to that superficial shit”

      Women respond to the superficial and vapid the best.

      Twilight, one example of millions….

      Like


  20. “The other day I grabbed this chicks tit walkin into a bar because she had a shirt that said “all natural jugs”. Her response?

    “youre a bad ass arent you?” hahaha”

    Nine, I believe your story and agree with what you have to say, but grabbing strangers’ tits is way too extreme for most of us. Too many guys could wind up in a whole lot of trouble attempting something like this.

    Like


    • on July 23, 2012 at 5:01 pm Nine Furies

      Sure its extreme. I never wouldve thought to do anything like that years ago because of beta programming. Just because something is extreme isnt any reason not to do it!

      Hell alot of innovators did some pretty extreme shit.

      Potentially anyone could end up introuble doing it including me. Do I care? Should you care? Sometimes you just gotta say fuck it and follow your impulse(to a degree!). If you have strong frame and awareness then I think there is alot of room for manueverability.

      Like


      • Tell it to the judge. He’ll no doubt dismiss the case as soon as he sees your strong frame and awareness.

        Like


      • I’ll stand with Nine on this one. Used to act that way all the time, zero game beyond boyish good looks. Most chicks are so degraded they won’t much care. If it becomes a dispute it’ll be you and her “guy frenz” at worst. Remember, we’re dealing with chicks who, for the most part, have by their late teens engaged in truly wanton sex acts which would make our ancestors faint. If not then they have a crusty dildo under their mattress.

        A man is far likelier to be falsely accused of rape than go to jail for grabbing a drunk broad’s titty. Think about it. Unless they are self-described feminists, they’ve been there before, are used to it, and aren’t going to call a halt to the whole party just because some cad felt them up.

        Like


      • I’ve met a few guys who had to do community service for grabbing a drunk girls titty. It can also get you on a sex offender register.

        Like


      • on July 25, 2012 at 8:37 am Art Vandelay

        At least in prison you get love letters.

        Like


      • Are you seriously justifying sexual harassment because you’ve decided that x random girl is “probably a slut who’s used to it anyway”? Guys like you are why I can’t go to bars or clubs without feeling like I always need to be swatting hands away like mosquitoes. Some of us actually have only had one boyfriend or two and assaulting us because you assume we’re all whores can be really traumatizing for a girl.

        Like


      • 1 or 2 boyfriends = slut.

        And what do you mean, you need to be swatting hands away? Show us your pics in a sexy outfit, I smell bullshit.

        Like


      • Yes.

        And you are all whores.

        Like


      • Since when are 1 or 2 long-term relationships meant to evaluate a man’s prospect as a husband “slutty”? Doing otherwise, a woman could end up with a crazy ax-murderer for a husband.

        Like


      • The “crazy ax-murderer” lives inside your head. You’ve probably never met one. Nor have your girlfriends. Nor did your female relatives ever meet one. Try to grasp that “crazy ax-murderer” is one of the rarest of demographic segments.

        There could be an entire post on this AX-MURDERER!!! shit. “You never know!!!!” they say.

        Was it A&E specials going viral, or the meme itself?

        It seems to function as a defense against lone white men above all. They’ll drink themselves to oblivion at clubs filled with kaffirs, stumble home in one high heel, periodically puking into potted shrubbery, but meeting a man of their own kind who acts straightforwardly and without the imprimatur of social proof, their first thought really seems to be: OMG AX-MURDERER!!!

        Stranger at the gates phenomenon become hysterical? It’s normal for women to be wary of lone men, but immersed in crowds, with one of the world’s best police forces at one’s disposal, and no great statistical threat? Something is wrong with this picture.

        To hear white women tell it, and they all do, every white man is a potential “ax-murderer”. When they say this to me, I check out of the conversation immediately. Maybe not overtly, but the flag goes up and I’m formulating a quick exit strategy. Can’t waste time on that bullshit. Move on to woman who is rationally cautious.

        Like


      • Uh says: “To hear white women tell it, and they all do, every white man is a potential “ax-murderer”.”

        This is either drugs or a terminal case of head-meets-ass.

        What planet are you LIVING on, Uh? Seriously, I would love to fisk your comment, but I don’t know where to even begin. There’s just too much.

        Like


      • Are you on drugs? I never said anything about assuming a random horny man at a club is a “crazy ax (axe?) murderer.” That’s your assumption, not mine.

        I just don’t want to be groped, assaulted and shoved up against a wall when I’m just walking to get a drink because men like you are used to “whores”. No, I don’t think I’m particularly hot, and as a woman, you really don’t need to be super smoking for guys to grab at you. Hot != assumed to be slutty.

        How many of you have sisters, daughters, or other women that you genuinely care about? Do you think your daughter is a whore? Do you think it’s okay that some guy grabs her breasts at a bar just because “all women are whores and she’s used to it anyway?”

        Like


      • I wouldn’t let my mother, sister, or daughter go near a club.
        But if she goesanyway, getting groped, raped or murdered is a possibility that I’m prepared to deal with.

        I’m under the impression that you live around a bunch of betas who pedestalize you cause you’re pretty. You definitely need a real man in your life.

        Like


      • on July 25, 2012 at 3:22 am Nine Furies

        Dude I hadnt read alot of your posts till today in several threads and man you fucking owned it. You are absolutely right of course. I think that alot of guys who havent been in a nightlife environment for any extended period are extremely biased in their views simply because they have never been in alot of the situations to where it is normal shit.

        Thats weird for me at this point but 12 yrs ago it wasnt. You dont realize that shit you never fucking thought possible is completely true and possible. You couldnt possibly allow yourself to believe that because your worldview and entire set of beliefs that determine your self worth are based on a lie.

        Like


      • Reaching for the forbidden fruit is a total bad boy act, too. Most times they’re so shocked you did it they forget to be offended. Can’t tell you how many have said, “WOW — I don’t know if I should be offended or flattered!!”

        Like


      • It will work until it doesn’t – one time.
        And then you are a registered sex offender.

        But then, that can also be just another form of DHV.

        Like


    • Cue the onslaught of uncalibrated newbies who read this stuff and think “what?? I can skip the whole “learning to be a cool guy” and “learning to socialize like a normal human being” and “learning to read other people’s emotions and feelings and calibrate to the interaction so I don’t creep everyone the fuck out” thing that takes actual work, and just run around grabbing tits?? WOOHOO!!!” and then get their faces punched in by guys at the bar, tossed out by bouncers, charged with sexual assault at the office, etc.

      That stuff is totally do-able, I do it too, but it’s not for socially awkward newbies lol

      Like


      • Some people gotta go through the school of hard knocks, I suppose

        Like


      • I think the school of hard knocks should be avoided when those hard knocks come in the form of enormous penises of hardened inmates pounding your ass after a sexual assault conviction.

        Like


      • Agreed. I’ve never been in a fight or thrown out of a bar and I’m out a LOT. But I learned the art of “not being socially retarded” before learning to be socially retarded lol

        Much as I love RSD, I hate that they churn out so many “whatever!! So what if I get punched! So what if I get arrested or she charges me with assault or I ruin her night!! You think I give a fuck you fucking phaggot??” uncalibrated newbies.

        Break society’s rules after you understand how to seduce within them. It’s a slower process but your results will be a lot more consistent and less of a Russian Roulette crapshoot numbers game where 10% of the time you succeed and 90% of the time you’re posting about how “the faggot bouncers threw me out cuz I was too badass and they’re all beta chumps”.

        Like


      • I’ve been that type of n00b, but I did eventually have the humility to ask myself if I was in fact being a tard and to go through the process of learning how to comport myself. I think you nailed it with, “Break society’s rules after you understand how to seduce within them.”

        Like


      • I think this is such a key point.

        Only once one has mastered a thing can one bend the rules of the thing so deeply. Picasso was an accomplished classical painter first, and then became the “Picasso” we know. The same follows whenever and wherever we see mastery, in whatever field imaginable.

        First things first.

        Like


      • @YaReally: Agreed! A girl walked by me one day at a bar wearing one of those “55” shirts (I guess that’s 5 gallons worth of tit each). I stared at her tits as she walked by, looked her in the eyes, and simply said, “Damn girl!” and continued drinking my drink. I just said it like a dude genuinely impressed with a nice rack; no beta eagerness. A few seconds later, her friend approached me and said, “My friend,” pointing to the “55” girl, “wants you to come over and meet her.” I said, “Tell her to come here.” And she did. Point being, you can be aloof without grabbing the tits and still get the girl. (I did that night).

        Like


  21. Shocking The Puppy is a great band, yo.

    Like


  22. speaking of women whoever said they’re actual people too is not on the same planet as the rest of us- women are snakes with tits. Use them, treat them as bad fathers psychologically and sexually abuse their daughters. Game is giving women the manipulation they want. do NOT afford them human nature.

    if you want to see the real feminine condition as it festers, set up fetlife profile or check out the poisonous shit the strum to on literotica.

    Like


  23. Anyone else laugh at the little dead girl being called veronica moser? I’ll leave y’all to do the gooling.

    Like


  24. Whenever I flirt with girls it is usually a light role play form of rape. I issue orders and if they dont comply I respond with something physical that gives them pain like a playful charlie horse or somethin. Depending on the calibration I might leave it at that level or get even more sexual and dominant depending on the circumstance. Funny how if I verbalise this sort of thing to chicks they will adamantly deny that they ever respond to such chauvinism. However when my actions are basically right in your face shameless douche bag touching you, commanding you and they light up with lust its just simply hilarious.

    THIS.

    Like


  25. There is no love, there is no honor, there is no mercy. There is only power.

    Like


  26. And if any of you doubt what is written here, just take a loot at how miserable women in charge are. They HATE being in charge and hate the people who do as they say. Why? Because they know it’s a farce. They know they have no real power. They know it’s an act. It isn’t the natural way of things. A butch woman is simply waiting to be punched in the mouth. Don’t act tough if you aren’t.

    Like


  27. I haven’t seen this taught in game, but a lot of naturals seem to know just how and when to get the target to sext them, presumably w/o triggering ASD. What a great compliance test – high risk, high reward.

    How do they do it?

    Like


    • I would like to see a chateau post on “naturals.” I don’t see them as all the same. Some play more of a “high risk/reward” type of gambit, because they are more a “it’s all number’s game natural.”

      Like


      • Then again, there is the type of natural who knows where he is at in the situation and is not really taking much of a risk. He keeps track of the moves he is making and how the girl is responding and he already has a deep understanding of female nature even when he can’t read her response well. He can make an NBA 3-pointer turned around backwards.

        Like


      • This, basically.

        They have a lot of experience with women so they have massive calibration. Like how the Dog Whisperer dude knows all sorts of shit about what a dog’s body language indicates it’s state is that anyone who hasn’t spent that much time with dog’s would be oblivious to.

        Testing the waters is usually key. You drop a tiny bit of innuendo in a conversation. If she bites on it and plays along, you can escalate it (slowly, radio knobs and all that) to sexting, if she doesn’t bite, she’s not in the mood keep the conversation normal or txt her later.

        After you’ve already fucked her it’s a lot easier, especially if you’ve set the frame that all you’re offering her in the relationship in general is sex and flirting.

        Like


      • A natural is usually qualifying the hell out a chick right off the bat anyway. They get chased the entire time almost. This may have nothing to do with the timing of a sext message, but they already have mega value (a lot of chips to cash in) to begin with. I think most naturals are proably very good looking to begin with. I know that isn’t the only DHV out there, but I feel that good looks may be the easiest indicator for most men, so that makes them more confident from a younger age. My looks have been on the decline in the past couple of years, because I’m a lazy fucker, so I kind of know the game from both sides of the fence.

        Like


      • ya, naturals I’ve hung with screen IMMEDIATELY for whether the girl is DTF fast or not. I joke that my one buddy rates how hot a girl is based on how easy the lay will be before he bases it on her looks lol

        They’re not necessarily screening for sluttiness, more for sexual frigidity and logistics. If they run into a nice church girl who’s leaving town on a flight at 6am because she’s just up visiting her 2 cockblocky sisters he’ll walk away mid-conversation and go talk to the girl who’s local and there with a friend who’s getting laid that night. Naturals are just very efficient at knowing “this is a situation that will work out” or “this is a waste of my time” and tend to be pretty ruthless about weeding out the latter.

        Far as looks go, most naturals I know are good looking but I’d say that has more to do with the incredibly (even delusional) high opinion they have of themselves. A fat Warcraft nerd with no confidence wears shitty Wal-Mart clothes and doesn’t work out or get a decent haircut because he doesn’t value himself. Naturals at the gym are like “fuck I’m hot, look at that bicep raaaahhh” and flex in the mirror and shit lol so naturally they’re going to be in better shape, wear better clothes, etc.

        Though there’s definitely a subcategory of naturals who are just ugly-ass scumbags and still tear pussy down lol those guys are epic to watch in action.

        Like


  28. on July 23, 2012 at 7:43 pm Virgin4Life

    i’ve said it once, i’ll say it again.. being alpha is a function of male physical attractiveness, which is testosterone-regulated and therefore genetically pre-determined. if you’re ugly and/or have no money in the bank, you aren’t going to be telling any woman anything, i don’t care how good your social skills are.

    alphas are born, not made. only a moron would think otherwise.

    Like


    • Well, I agree that it’s testosterone regulated, but it certainly can be developed over time. Otherwise I wouldn’t have been able to go from 22 year old good looking dude with a full head of hair who had only slept with one chick his whole life, to 30 year old beer gut bald guy who fucks 50-100 chicks a year.

      Like


      • And I couldnt have gone from a fat,beer bellied bald unemployed drywall hanger with 2 missing fingers who fucked one older widow three times in 5 years to a one-legged blind,toothless homeless cancer-survivor with hep-C who fucks 15 hot bitchez a week!!!!

        Like


      • Amateur… I was dead for a week and still got Jessica Alba and Cameron Diaz to sandwich me… while E. L. James handed me her royalty check for the month of July.

        Like


    • judging by the avatar, youve either been changed by the host, ur a troll, or being sarcastic. That is true that many alphas are genetic and natural. But men can deliberately develop the skills of alphas to better seduce women. Many testimonies confirm this. This comment of yours is one of the most repeated and constantly refuted beliefs by Hrtste. If ur joking, nevermind.

      Like


    • Ehh…you’d be surprised.

      Certainly not every woman will submit to you, but you keep trying until you find one that does. If you’re willing to follow feminist advice in reverse, you can be surprisingly successful even with relatively poor fundamentals.

      Like


      • on July 23, 2012 at 9:17 pm Virgin4Life

        you guys still don’t get it.. women prioritize physical attractiveness in a partner just like men; the only difference is that women will relax those standards for material resources when considering long-term relationships.

        that means that if you’re ugly and broke, you aren’t getting with anyone or anything. you can pretend to be “alpha” all you want, but in the end, genes trump culture and its what your face looks like which determines whether you pass on your dna or not.

        Like


      • on July 23, 2012 at 10:15 pm SheCantSayNo

        If you fully believed that yourself you wouldn’t be reading this blog.

        Start here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apEoEbyIEO8 and allow yourself at least the chance to consider that you might be wrong.

        Deep down, do you feel you deserve to be a virgin for life? Listen to the part that screams no.

        Like


      • No , YOU still don’t get it . I agree with you to a point. Natural alpha traits are a birthright . BUT the average guy ( assuming he has sufficient wit and determination ) can learn to fake and assimilate those attributes well enough to pull exquisite tail.

        Do NOT make the mistake of confusing your personal lack of will power with the power of game. Like almost anything else in life you get out of it what you put into it. Negativity and your defeatist attitude are getting the better of you.

        Start by working on your inner game. All the lines and tactics in the world wont help you until you get that sorted out.

        Most importantly you MUST believe in you. No one is going to validate you or mentor you or make you believe in yourself. It comes from within and if you can’t find it on you own, then you will live up to your pseudonym.

        Like


      • @Virgin4Life: Defeatist bullshit. Get the F off the Internet and do P90X and report back here in 90 days.

        P.S. You are what you think you are. If you think you’re a virgin4Life, you will be exactly that, but I suspect you’re no older than 30, so what are you going to do, accept defeat for the next 50 years or get busy improving your self-confidence and sex life? Try starting your new journey by changing your handle to VirginNoMore also.

        Like


      • Starting Strength by Mark Rippetoe is way better. Oh and leangains.com

        Alpha behaviour is just a proxy for power. In all go human history, has every powerful person been attractive? Of course not. Point proven.

        Like


      • You can’t tell me in one breath that women prioritize something and then in the next breath tell me how they DON’T prioritize it. You sound crazy. Women aren’t just like men!

        Like


    • Strong username to post content correlation.

      Like


    • If you are a male 4, let’s say, game will not magically enable you to bang 9s and 10s (although it is definitely possible). Perhaps you couldn’t get any girls at all? Now maybe you can get a female 4 instead of zilch. With more game understanding and self improvement perhaps you can score a 6, and if you desire an LTR, game will give you a better chance of keeping her.

      It’s not all or nothing. It’s trite, but you do the best you can with what you got. Or you can be alone. I’m not saying it’s easy, life isn’t fair. But you are better off knowing game than not knowing it, maybe one day you’ll trip over a girl who shows an attraction to you, and you’ll be prepared instead of clueless.

      Like


    • Bullshit. Building up your testosterone levels through working out and diet is standard advice for beginners because IT WORKS. I was a skinny 5’7″ D&D player with acne who never got laid. Now I am a semi-muscular 5’7″ guy with a cheeky smirk who regularly gets SDLs. Genetically I will never be Jason Statham but the difference in my life is HUGE.

      Like


  29. Very interesting. I was chatting and building comfort with a 29 year old Chinese flight attendant I had gamed on OK Cupid but had not met yet.

    I calibrated quite early that “cock-funny” would not work well on this girl so switched to first making assumptions: “you look korean…”

    To the asking her direct questions from her profile: “You give advice? What kind of advice”. She was into it and impressed with power.

    During the course of this comfort-building phase she admitted women love power saying there is a Chinese saying: Women resist then submit” or some such.

    Elsewhere here it’s been written that if a woman doesn’t feel lead, she’ll lead—therefore the need for shit-testing.

    It’s worth noting that the elements of attraction are: 1) Leader of men 2) Pre-selection- wanted by other women 3) Protector of women and children.

    The girl I went out with all last year was truly an example of this. She was constantly shit-testing and freaking out. Finally I broke up with her.

    It’s strange….since we broke up she has been more submissive to me than when we were going out.

    We don’t bang, but she now does everything for me—no request is too small—gifts, favours, cooking, support etc.

    After breaking up with her i’ve met and banged 5 different women which she may or may not know about —-but it doesn’t matter.

    Like


  30. I noticed long ago whenever a there is a political group made up of women, left right or other, it always pushes for bigger government and less personal freedoms. N.O.W., Concerned Women for America, M.A.D.D. etc etc.

    Like


  31. I agree 100% and Although I am a natural Asshole, social conditioning, feminest garbage, pot, and video games has nagatively altered my male psyche. There’s that and being a junior military memeber for two years. plenty of other things to hit on here-
    my biggest problem is pulling hot hoes. i just can’t seem to pull that shit off… I go to the Gym; I run; I’ve done steroid like prohormones; I use a penis pump; I use a penis stretcher; i do everything i can to make myself look attractive out in public; i dress well; and I don’t make stupid mistakes. my biggest problem is my pride. i don’t chase and i don’t do follow ups [play “tennis with me, or get lost. that’s black talk for give and take] i recently hooked up with this crazy woman that had me cum on her face and pee on her. she’s like ten years older than me. yesterday i told her that i can’t see her anymore because i’ve been cheating on my wife (i don’t have one) and and that lying to her has been tearing. i’m pathetic. lol you should hear what i told the last girl-evil.

    Like


  32. Anti-miscegenation folks are gonna fa

    http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshhXRzRC5V9z2W581wF

    I almost fainted.

    Like


  33. If u know a girl is outside your leagues would you game or give in? And beta up! .. When is d number of days to give up if she is given in …. am on a trip with dis Girl i have know for 3 yrs.. I have to smaSh her

    Like


    • From the way you type it sounds like every girl is out of your league. wtf are you asking dude.

      Like


    • If you are worried about leagues you already lost. The general advice around here is to not desperately chase one particular pussy. When you fail with this chick and she shits down your throat move to the next one. Practice the advice routinely given here on as many (preferably attractive) women as possible until it becomes a part of you. Start by going back 160 or so pages and reading every post ever written here if you don’t have a good theoretical grasp of the subject.

      Like


    • on July 24, 2012 at 5:15 am Days of Broken Arrows

      To add to what the others have already said about your comment, I’d be careful throwing around the “out of my league” BS. I was brought up to believe that crap by my Beta father. Consequently, I passed up girls I assumed were beyond my reach only to watch them date and/or marry guys who were worse-looking than me, less successful, bald, shorter, and sometimes even overweight (which I’m not).

      What’s worse, these guys were often a “variation” on me, meaning I was definitely in the field of who these girls would have wanted. Live and learn.

      Like


    • If a girl is higher value than you, you have to neg/qualify more.

      Like


    • on July 25, 2012 at 8:03 am Art Vandelay

      Always remember this sports analogy: You play in the men’s league, by definition you are superior.

      Like


  34. I can’t find a good video of a scene where the man is ordering a meal for a woman.
    Any help?

    Like


    • Why the fuck do you need a video? You take her to a restaurant. You read the menu. When the waiter shows up you say “I’ll have the Kansas City strip, rare, and she’ll have the carpaccio” (or whatever). Then you tell him what wine the two of you will be drinking. Then you hand him the menus and tell your date “they do great carpaccio here” (or whatever).

      Christ, people are going to need videos explaining how to piss next.

      Like


    • Yeah, a variation on the betamax Harry when he met Sally.

      In short, wait for an orgasmic response from a female at another table and point to her and tell the waiter “My woman will have what she’s having.”

      Like


  35. Birthing a child is extremely painful. Therefore, all mothers hate their children and want to try to inflict torture upon them.
    They tell their sons to be supplicating nice-guys so they will thereby get to watch them drown in pain. They will get disgustingly fat right after a daughter is born to make sure that hot guys with options will reject her daughter with extreme pump and dump cruelty.

    Like


    • on July 24, 2012 at 6:21 am collapseofman

      Dont forget, they develop a taste for human flesh in preparation for devouring their young, and experience strange hungers and cravings in pregnancy to prime them for it.

      Like


    • “Birthing a child is extremely painful.” Yes and no. It’s not a picnic, that’s for sure. But you sound like you’re possibly parroting all of the feminist boo/hoo childbirth is painful propaganda. When done properly, (which includes the right environment/medical provider and no drugs or medical intervention), natural birth is absolutely glorious (despite (or possibly because of) the pain). But if you say that aloud, people think you’re crazy. It always amazes me that women who insist they’re so liberated and feminist, so freely give over control to male doctors who decide their birth outcomes. (Or at least the feminists who end up procreating, since many feminists refuse to be pregnant/have kids)

      Like


      • The much-ballyhooed female high tolerance for pain is just so much pap… indeed, their inability to stoically bear even minor discomfort is what drove men to invent the things that have made our culture so soft.

        Like


      • Isn’t modern medicine/vaccination/anesthetics for surgery/not having bubonic plague a good thing, though?

        TV has made people soft, too: the average American watches something like 30 hours of it per week, but TV doesn’t relieve discomfort either.

        Like


      • Woman, I was talking about the creature comfort crap, like air conditioning every possible moment of the day in the summer, and having to keep rooms at 75 degrees throughout the winter.

        Like


  36. […] Obedience To Authority Game « Chateau Heartiste […]

    Like


  37. I wholeheartedly agree.
    In my experience, while it was difficult to order a girl around at first, eventually it became a necessity due to countless rejection and ‘no’s’ i get from a girl in the beginning stages.

    Eventually, i started to see that the best way was to be dominant. They naturally respond to dominant men.

    Many of us seem to realise this half way through to our development.
    It does get deeper than this however.

    Girls will willingly put up obstacles and act dismissive when telling them to do something. Whether this is a test or not is a mystery. But i know that part of the game is to not back down.

    So in short… Act with authority and never back down.

    Like


  38. […] they can act in accordance to the design and produce results that are favorable to them. (I.e study women’s psychology to be happier in love, Study how money works, study what manliness is and become better at being […]

    Like


  39. I witnessed a great example of herd behavior in women back in college. We still had women’s and men’s dorms then, though ours were two halves of a single building. The dorms had a “house council” which allocated the little allowance of money from the college housing office.

    My men’s dorm council meetings were like steel-cage wrestling matches. Insults, catcalls, intense debate, grudges, arguments, deal-making — all the classic elements of politics turned up to 11. It took about two hours to get through a weekly meeting, even if there was nothing on the agenda.

    The women’s dorm council meetings took about fifteen minutes because all the issues were decided in advance. The voting was just a formality, and the actual decisionmaking took place over the course of the week in informal discussions that ironed out any disagreement.

    In short, the men had loud dick-length contests every week, while the women had a tranquil hive-mind.

    Like


  40. Obedience to authority = Alpha. SS officers, WASP prep school elites, martial artists, jihadists, and yes of course knights were/are the men of history. Beta bitches whine about orders and get to dig holes, or get their holes dug, while alphas come home to their fans.

    Like


  41. What’s more attractive to women: male authority, or male insubordination?

    Like


  42. on July 24, 2012 at 11:22 pm feminist killjoy

    My brain and vagina are in the hugest disagreement over this blog.

    Like


  43. on July 25, 2012 at 7:58 am Art Vandelay

    Hmm on Mondays “The Colbert Report” was a guy who played a guru for a documentary. Sure enough more of his followers were women.

    http://www.kumare.org/

    Like


  44. […] The Godfather and Grandmaster explains “Girls love cute things, but they love powerful authority figures even more.” […]

    Like


  45. Fat girls love domination even more.

    Like