Comment Of The Week: The Natural State Of Woman Is Submission

King A and I have disagreed before, but I have to tip my hat to a well-executed comment.

When sexual submission is not reflected in the culture — female bosses, lawyertwats and women judges, heck, suffrage itself — the culture is permanently unstable. We have tried it their way for a hundred years. Experiment is over.

The epicenter of the quake was the failure of the Equal Rights Amendment. The further one gets away from that moment (before or after), the more the culture reverts to a sustainable form. We are unfortunate to have been born so close to the blast, but we are lucky that the reverberations are decreasing rather than increasing. It will take another 50-100 years for the repeal of the Nineteenth Amendment. Michele Bachmann is the last (small) chance for a female American president. Hillary Clinton was their best chance in 2008.

We forget just how primal the female need for submission is because we are surrounded by women who have been ruthlessly denatured since birth. Even so, the impulse cannot be completely eradicated by artificial, totalitarian means any more than the Soviets could eradicate dissent forever.

Naturam expellas furca, tamen usque recurret. — Horace

How relieved she finally is on her back, a strong hand binding her wrists above her head! No more burden, she can just be. She reverts to what she is, and she is that which is acted upon. Yes, she is the object. Objectified. That curse word. Man is the subject.

Man fucks wo-man.

Every cultural institution that does not proceed from this truth is a lie. Our sex is the most fundamental distinguishing characteristic of all. Even our language reflects this inescapable reality through gender. It is impossible to imagine the human apart from la différence.

Vive la différence, you tinkering, vivisecting, social engineers! You life’s losers, you resenters, you poisoners of the punch bowl! You philosophesses with weak-chinned daddies! What kind of world is this! You have insisted our sisters become everything but what their entire being is geared for, because you once personally dreamt of possessing a cock.

We will fuck our way back to inequality. It will be a while, and it won’t be pretty.

Just remember this, you sisters awakening out of your dogmatic slumber, slowly scrubbing out the last greasy traces of penis envy: you are demigoddesses.

You are the most beautiful creatures in the universe. You are the measure of all beauty. You know this. You cannot unknow this. Men are ugly, gruesome creatures. You really don’t want to be us, the cheaper of the two sexual commodities by a factor of billions to one (lifetime gamete production).

You are hothouse flowers. You are our most precious of all objects, we protect you with everything we have, to the very last, with our very bodies if we must. We kill and we die for you. We launch a thousand ships because your beauty makes us weep. You and the kids get the lifeboat, we drown like men. You are the mothers of our children, the vessels of our immortality. It’s not a bad place to be. We need some small, official recompense for sacrificing all that we are to keep you there. Is it really so important you get to vote for county commissioner in next month’s primary?

Forget what “game” has to say about pedestals. When the world is right-side-up again, you will be put back there. Let’s work to get you back there. But so long as your sex insists on grubbing around with us men squabbling and clawing and slopping below, you will never be “treated like the princesses” you truly are. You will be made examples so that the women after you might once again be allowed to act like women.

The proposition that women are natural submissives is not new to this blog. It is a core tenet underlying the truth of game. When I say that the natural state of woman is submission, I mean that woman is happiest when she is in a submissive role. Submitting to a worthy overlord. When she is forced to submit to an unworthy ruler — i.e., when her womb is exposed to the threat of beta sperm — or when she finds herself adrift in a sea of weak, apathetic, surrendered men, she is unhappiest, and will lash out furiously to reclaim her prerogative to save her submission for the deserving.

In our present Western milieu of thugs-run-rampant among teeming hordes of emasculated manchildren betas abdicating their inheritance and retreating to the comfortable mini-kingdoms of gadgetry and porn, it’s no wonder the modern woman is unpleasant company. Her nature is not only ignored, it is violated; its opposite exalted and glorified by our propaganda ministers. We have given her the keys to the house, the office and the ivory tower, and like a child she has wrecked them all, daring discipline. Her guiding hand has abandoned her. Game is one of those guiding hands, and plays a part in returning balance to the force.

As for putting women on a pedestal… well, they were never meant to be there. It was a mistake putting them there in the first place. It has led us down the road to where we are today, much like the once-noble belief in universal morality has turned on itself and gutted the passion and capital that built our fortresses from dirt and dust.





Comments


  1. as usual, it’s men’s fault

    Like


  2. I would hate to have to be submissive. Worthy overlords can go hang themselves.

    Like


    • Self loathing is one of the more common effects of the social state the post describes.

      Like


      • I’m a guy. I like game. I like picking up women. I recognize that putting women in a submissive state often makes them a lot more eager to jump into bed.

        But can we maybe leave the woman-hating sexism out of it? Women are perfectly capable of being dominant as well. Lots of women prefer it.

        Don’t confuse situationally-dependent instinctual drives for deep truths.

        Like


      • Pfft! The programming runs deep, apparently. The “dominant” women I’ve met were all looking for a wall who would break them. Be that wall and they cast off their play-acting. They’re perfect, actually. When you tell them to kneel or crawl, they know exactly what you want.

        Like


    • on October 21, 2011 at 5:09 am mcturing mctester

      stated in the infinitive, the biological function of a woman is to be fucked.

      Like


  3. The epicenter of the quake was the failure of the Equal Rights Amendment. The further one gets away from that moment (before or after), the more the culture reverts to a sustainable form. We are unfortunate to have been born so close to the blast, but we are lucky that the reverberations are decreasing rather than increasing. It will take another 50-100 years for the repeal of the Nineteenth Amendment. Michele Bachmann is the last (small) chance for a female American president. Hillary Clinton was their best chance in 2008.

    Nice thoughts but I highly doubt we will ever see the day in which women do not have the right to vote.

    Women absolutely want to submit sexually but that won’t translate to giving up their rights across the board.

    I will agree with the overall sentiment that men have to rise for women to fall

    into place.

    Like


    • No woman will ever decide to give up anything. And neither did any Dinosaur ever decide to give up his life sustaining resources to mammals.

      Like


      • Revolution? Sure.

        My problem is the day after. You think women won’t be at that table when things are being decided and whatever new creed is forged?

        Get real.

        Like


      • And don’t forget the beta suckups…

        Like


      • on October 20, 2011 at 8:04 pm Angryredbirds

        Which is who got us to this point to begin with.

        Like


      • You people have got issues. Don’t confuse situationally-dependent instinctual drives to fuck dominant men for greater truths about people and society.

        Seriously? Repeal women’s sufferage? Put women back into the kitchen? What the fuck for?

        Women have a brain like anybody else. Mine is calibrated to be attracted to looks. Theirs is calibrated to be attracted to dominance plus looks. But attraction is a small part of what my brain or a female brain does.

        You people give pick-up a bad name. Go join the Taliban instead.

        Like


      • “You people give pick-up a bad name”

        So what? Pickup is already despised by fembots and betas from all manginal latitudes. You, sir, are an exception.

        Pickup doesn’t need a good rep. Pickup works, that’s all there is to talk about.

        Like


      • First, I second @Matador above.

        Second, you are the one who has issues insofaras being disconnected from reality, here’s why. “Situationally-dependent” is absolutely correct, in that you have to correct for the situation. Everything is always contextual, obviously. However, what you leave out, is the centrality of sex to a person’s existence, identity and behavior. The “situation” of sex is ever-present and looms over most other things. Men are occasionally able to rise above it, however, women are, as we can see from the comments on this blog, not able to rise over it at all (so far). Attraction is a huge part of what goes on in the brain, and here’s my proof: If women actually used their brains (instead of merely using them for ornament which is the current condition), they would see the merits of relationships and lives with betas. In fact they dont, and compulsively seek alpha-cock instead. So spare me the indignation.

        Get with the program instead, and use the SH*T test for *thinking* women: Samson’s Hypergamy Test (TM).

        Like


      • @Samson

        Women do see the value of relationships with betas. But when they do, people in this blog say they’ve just retreated because their value has plummeted.

        People see what they want to see. The vast majority of women are settling with betas (alphas are not common).

        [Heartiste: ftfy]

        Like


      • As far as I know, there was no “revolution” required for mammals to replace reptiles as the dominant species.

        Right now, as we speak, women who do not vote produce many more offspring than those who do. While medical technology has progressed to the point where the difference in life expectancies between Western cultures and cultures where women vote are far from making up for this difference.

        When some women concern themselves with breeding, and others with voting, it doesn’t take too many generations before the latter becomes relatively scarce.

        Like


      • Right now, as we speak, women who do not vote produce many more offspring than those who do. While medical technology has progressed to the point where the difference in life expectancies between Western cultures and cultures where women vote are far from making up for this difference.

        When some women concern themselves with breeding, and others with voting, it doesn’t take too many generations before the latter becomes relatively scarce.

        Don’t know about all of that. See here..

        Key Quote:

        “For six decades after women obtained the right to vote in 1920, they voted at lower rates than men. However, in the 1980 election women caught up with men, and according to U.S. Census data, in every subsequent election women have voted at an increasingly higher rate than men. In the 2000 elections, 56.2% of women reported voting, compared with 53.1% of men. Because women are a larger proportion of the population and vote at higher rates, about 7.8 million more women than men voted in the 2000 elections, and at least that many more women than men are likely to vote in 2004.”

        I don’t think there is a correlation between voting and reproduction.

        Like


      • ??????????

        How many kids per woman in the 20s? How many i ’80? How many now?

        How many in female franchise societies? How many in societies without female franchise?

        Averages and medians both work well.

        Like


      • The mere fact that game works demonstrates that no woman should be allowed in any sort of power position. This includes voting.

        Game is simply the manipulation of deep rooted biological impulses hard wired into every woman. Give her the vote and inevitably she will be manipulated to wreck society for the interests of those who would seek domination over the rest of men. This is what we see now.

        Like


    • Tmason:
      > Nice thoughts but I highly doubt we will ever see the day in which women do not have the right to vote.

      Women voting is unprecedented in history. Men voting is not. Bet on a return to normality.

      Of course the usual normality is few voting, and often no one at all. I would bet on that also. Decadent societies normally transition to despotism.

      Here is a scenario: The outcome of the election is unacceptable to the government. It attempts to continue governing as usual, as Allende ignored the house of deputys. PInochet comes forth to save democracy, as Sulla came forth to save the Roman Republic. After being saved a few times in such a manner, not much left.

      Like


      • Again, no dispute here. Whatever revolution that is slated to happen occurs.

        My issue is the days and weeks after. Tell me, again, do you honestly believe women won’t be at that table when the new constitutions/etc. are being drawn up?

        Do you honestly believe (1) men at that point will say “oh, women don’t get the right to vote after they had it so long” and (2) that women will willingly give it up?

        I’d love to here the scenarios in which women will acquiesce voting rights that they held for as long as they remembered.

        Like


      • After a revolution the most likely result is nobody gets to vote. Or, to put it differently, only the rich and poweful have influence and the social conditions that artificially increase female achievement in these areas are no longer supported by the government.

        Like


      • Tmason wrote: “Do you honestly believe (1) men at that point will say “oh, women don’t get the right to vote after they had it so long” and (2) that women will willingly give it up?”

        They already are giving up “the right to vote” in droves, along with consistent majorities of all enfranchised citizens who couldn’t give a fuck less about who their county’s Prothonotary Clerk is.

        VOTE OR DIE. Yeah. We freeborn men have chosen the latter, despite Puff Daddy’s quadrennially cool lecturing. You think women will put up a bigger stink?

        Consider it this way. Think of the politically engaged women you know, and place them against the ones who are completely clueless about politics. Which are the generally more attractive? Women will revert to what attracts men over the long haul. This feminist vacation from nature seems interminable and permanent, but it too shall pass.

        A man married to the spirit of his age eventually becomes its uxorious beta supplicant. You suffer from presuming the assumptions of the era are enduring features of the human condition. Or you assume with Leftists that their cockamamie version of “progress” is inevitable and congruent with a certain set of peculiar political preferences, such as those which require a woman’s nature to be inverted. The Left says: you have to break some eggs if you want to make an omelet, so on with the inversion! Forced artifice only works for so long before weeds begin growing through the cracks in the pavement.

        Not to mention that the traditionally minded are re-inheriting the earth from the moribund drybox utopitards who contracepted themselves into a pleasant extinction. D’oh! forgot to have babies. The revolutionary program didn’t cover that little detail.

        Indeed, fat and entitled third-wave femmcunts have chosen to die alone in their house of cats rather than even so much as consider “willingly giv[ing] up” the right to vote. But their daughters will consider it (or more precisely, the daughters of the fecund classes), and their daughters’ daughters will see the wisdom as surely as we clear-eyed men do today. Simone de Beauvoir didn’t rewrite the rules of the universe.

        Like


      • on October 24, 2011 at 8:51 am Dr. Anonymous

        Whoa. R? As in, the O.G.? Is — is that you? No way!

        You’re a traditionally-minded Christian now? Or was all that hip fanaticism promoting the fragmentary Church of (Self-Defeating) Biomechanics, that whole time, really nothing but a fashionable front which you fabricated out of popular necessity? Brilliant.

        In any case, I think I might be enthused, or, in other, less modest words, textually aroused. I say, you should go ahead and proceed in acting like a dark-hearted jerk on a superficial level, that is, until you’ve secured a vow of commitment (at the least, and probably beyond). That’s apparently the only way remaining to effectively subvert a people which seems inherently disposed toward only things of a self-destructive nature, provided they’re sufficiently explicit to stimulate some minimal registration on a willfully dull mind.

        In fact, amid our culture today, virtue arguably demands a man’s genuinely possessing a premium handle on the rude & crude, disruptive mischief of a bona fide rebel to society (especially and specifically to its mores whenever etiquette is somehow supposed to function as a satisfactory substitute for ethics). So don’t let up. You seem to be an aesthete by nature, however, so just make sure you never let your ideals induce that tempting plummet into despair.

        Like


    • I earnestly believe that the 19th Amendment will be repealed in this century. Politically, the human female is a nefarious, preditorial and parasitic waste of oxygen.

      I love her dearly. But God help me, I have no use for the tripe she spews out of her mouth.

      Like


      • HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

        Dude, write a book… WRITE A BOOK!!!!

        Anyways, the commentators on this website are really holding out on this women-losing-right-to-vote shpeal. Same thing happend when we couldn’t keep slaves anymore. Fear for the economy made many people laugh with disbelief and held on to ideas that slavery will return. Same thing happend when work rights appeared and so on and so forth.
        I’m telling you this, to feminists and chauvinists alike, women will NEVER lose any rights that she presently has. Judging by the education she has been increasingly receiving, feminist ideologies will win.
        Biology may have its foundations on gender relations, but as we move away from it through technology and our basic, primal needs, women will never resume the position of subordination they once have.

        Like


    • @ lion

      Well put.

      Like


  4. on October 20, 2011 at 2:19 pm (r)Evoluzione

    Much powerful elocution from King A.

    The trouble is, the SWPL women who buy into feminism have done so with a fervor that cult leaders and third world dictators can only dream of inspiring. The feminist kook-aid, once drunk, penetrates so deeply into their cells that they’re permanently stained. There’s no reforming the current bunch of bull-dykes in disguise.

    Only attrition will solve the problem. The return of masculine-dominant social culture will happen because its evolutionary, scientifically elucidated basis will be demonstrated on the grand stage of culture, which will ironically verify the teachings of traditional cultures: men are leaders, men wear the pants, and capable alpha males get to maintain a harem.

    Yet for its traditional underpinnings, it seems that game remains a scientific revolution. Thomas Kuhn, in examining previous epoch-shattering scientific revolutions, noted that each scientific revolution is propelled by interlopers from outside the current establishment, not reformers from within.

    Thus revolutions in science and culture occur by attrition. The old proponents die off. Kuhn said scientific revolution proceeds one funeral at a time. As an example:
    http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2011/10/french-feminist-dies-in-captivity/

    As King A said in his epic screed, it’s going to be a while. We as men, as Alpha Gamesmen, are the gatekeepers of love and commitment. Thus we must only offer that to those women who hold dear the cultural ideas to which we subscribe.

    Secondly, we must put in the work, as is being done here, to advance the art and science of male dominance. Which should be easy, since we’re simply following our born-in algorithm and hormonal drives.

    Therefore, to thine own self be true. Follow your heart, and your 8=======>
    to revolution.

    Like


    • Thomas Kuhn, in examining previous epoch-shattering scientific revolutions, noted that each scientific revolution is propelled by interlopers from outside the current establishment, not reformers from within.

      Yes. The major way in which Kuhn helped unfuck me was to observe that science does not in fact progress ever onward and upward. Knowledge is lost, destroyed, cast into the shadows.

      As King A said in his epic screed, it’s going to be a while. We as men, as Alpha Gamesmen, are the gatekeepers of love and commitment. Thus we must only offer that to those women who hold dear the cultural ideas to which we subscribe.

      Boom there it is. Love it when the Ivy League lawyer chickcomplains about my arrogance as she follows me in and out of the bar. YOU have the power!

      Like


  5. Agree with King A (except on the pedestals), and agree 100% with our host.

    Women are best in submission, and whether they submit willingly or are forced to may not make much of a difference. Large scale violence by men against women may be an elegant solution to the gender crisis – elegant in its simplicity and speed of execution, and elegant in getting to a sustainable equilibrium of inequality with minimum fuss.

    Like


    • The whole point of game is to sidestep the need for bloodshed to attain this goal.

      Save your bloodlust for worthy folk.

      Like


      • The whole point of game is to get laid. I’m alpha so I can have sex and be successful at my job. That’s all.

        Why would you even want a submissive spouse who doesn’t have a job?? Who are you people??

        Like


      • “Why would you even want a submissive spouse who doesn’t have a job?”

        Because a MAN (as opposed to Ian) feels better that way. And his WOMAN (as opposed to feminist megacunts) will thank him for it.

        Like


      • @Anonymous:

        Agreed 100%. Maybe Ian is just a girl and a troll. Alphas, as our esteemed host has pointed out, are those who get laid a lot – period. PERIOD. Nothing to do with being successful at a job – many alphas are criminals, that’s the whole point behind the meme that chicks dig jerks.

        Like


      • Because we live in a country that allows one to do so. we practice game so we don’t end up a mangina feminist apologist such as yourself. Women like to fuck a lot more when their rested and feel protected and don’t have to deal with the stress of everyday life. Maybe Harriet Harman can give you some insight on this subject while you sit in prison for thinking about heterosexual sex or similar thought crimes. Its not like Britain has much to teach us anymore. You’ve gone from being Great Britain to Air Strip One in a 13 short years. That’s what we’re seeking to avoid in the US. Sod off nancyboy.

        Like


      • “Women like to fuck a lot more when their rested and feel protected and don’t have to deal with the stress of everyday life.
        Wow. I wish I could live this life. Look pretty, not a stress in the world, and have sex.

        Ah, the life. Now what’s in it for the guy?

        [Heartiste: Isn’t it self-evident?]

        I may need to facts to convince my fiance. 🙂

        [Does your fiance know you comment here? Hi, champ! Congrats on your upcoming nuptials! Couldn’t have asked for a better catch.]

        Like


    • Are you kidding me here??? Large scale violence will only make what many feminists say about men valid.

      And what will this violence accomplish? Women only being in the homes, not allowed to vote or be in political office or CEOs? All that violence just for those things?

      Like


      • Women only being in the homes, not allowed to vote or be in political office or CEOs?

        Well, since they pretty much stink at everything they touch, most women need to be in the home – overwhelmingly for their own benefit.

        Like


      • Well, since they pretty much stink at everything they touch…

        I think not.

        And what about women who don’t want kids and/or marriage? Or couples who can’t afford only one partner working? Of course you will probably mention how this is the fault of working women, but even if this is true, women need to support themselves too and not live off their parents for years on end. Not to mention that they need their own funds to fall back on in troubled times.

        Like


      • I know I am addressing a thief and a whore (as *all* women are, and we men love them anyways), but let me just say that violence is but one solution. There are many others, I am sure. The SH*T test is one – Samson’s Hypergamy Test (TM), it states as follows: If a woman claims to have a functioning faculty of reason, let her prove it by showing that she sleeps with a beta.

        Like


      • Sleeping with a beta doesn’t automatically equal a functioning faculty of reason (I would think it would take a WHOLE lot more than that).

        You make it seem as if betas=automatic good, alphas=automatic bad. I don’t know about you, but I look at the guy himself and not judge him a good/bad candidate based off these alpha/beta titles. The titles come after once I see him for who he is. And anyway, betas can be a poor partner or husband choice. Again, it depends on the guy.

        And how on earth are ALL women theives and whores. What about virgins?

        Seriously I wonder about you…..

        Like


    • Samson wrote: Agree with King A (except on the pedestals)….

      The pedestal comment was mostly for female consumption — a constituency ignored for no good reason on this blog. I don’t advocate rebuilding the pedestal any time in the near future, or even our lifetimes. But today’s women need some motivation to consider abandoning the ill-gotten gains of feminism for the sake of their daughters. The official power to live in contradiction (strong at times, weak at times; leading at times, following at times; all according to her inclination of the moment) is a great power indeed, and it isn’t one that women will relinquish without cause. On the contrary, a new generation of girls are being reared, once again, to believe unsustainable paradox is their birthright.

      I can objectively appreciate the male form as well as any ancient Athenian. But a woman’s body is the reason to be alive. It is the purpose of the universe. Even straight women will agree that the feminine defines the beautiful.

      What else do you want up there on our pedestal? A big veiny cock? That’s how all-male dynamics devolve into unintended queeritude when the feminine is ignored. The worst of Summerisle and Fire Island: a “no girlz boyz only” policy, and soon we’ll all be entranced by The Flaming (literally and figuratively) Wicker Dick.

      I’m talking to these kind of ladies:

      The ones farsighted enough to take up guerrilla arms at our side. Fetching coffee and whatnot.

      Like


      • @King A, let me just say a couple of things:

        First, we agree on a lot of things. Second, you write eloquently – the best writing is poetic, and you do ok by that standard.

        And of course, we all define physical beauty as the feminine. However, we dont need to *see* anything on any pedestal (visual as we men are), in fact, perhaps we dont need pedestals at all. Its a new world after all, with technological miracles aplenty.

        Like


      • Samson wrote: “… we all define physical beauty as the feminine. However, we dont need to *see* anything on any pedestal…”

        Semantics. It’s a hazard of using the P-word, which has attained a specific definition in the game community meaning idealizing a woman into some kind of guileless angel rather than recognizing her as the conniving and instinctual animal she truly is.

        My offer to broad-minded broads was to treat them with respect as soon as they begin moving back toward respectability, thus encouraging them. Disrespecting women as weak and/or incorrigibly evil not only will go nowhere, it isn’t what either sex ultimately wants.

        … perhaps we dont need pedestals at all. Its a new world after all, with technological miracles aplenty.

        This is a misplaced faith in technology to liberate us from hard work and hard choices while somehow effecting a pie-in-the-sky egalitarianism.

        One no longer becomes poor or rich: both require too much exertion. Who still wants to rule? Who obey? Both require too much exertion.

        No shepherd and one herd! Everybody wants the same, everybody is the same: whoever feels different goes voluntarily into a madhouse.

        “Formerly, all the world was mad,” say the most refined, and they blink.

        — Nietzsche, ASZ I.5

        Men will always require a muse. Without one they revert to Last Men, dissolving into beta blobs of playstation and porn. We shouldn’t be timid or equivocal about honoring what we admire. We should put it on proud display.

        When women become admirable again, it is in everyone’s interest to make it worth their while to stay that way. If they persist in their slatternly ways, then we are partially to blame. See the female responses above: what’s in it for them to assent to being treated like “thieves” and “whores”? It becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.

        Like


      • “Men will always require a muse. Without one they revert to Last Men, dissolving into beta blobs of playstation and porn. We shouldn’t be timid or equivocal about honoring what we admire. We should put it on proud display.”
        Wow, that’s kinda like courtly love, where you choose a lady and get inspired to do a bunch of good deeds in her name. I like that idea, despite being aware that basing your virtue and good deeds on a fallible human being can really backfire…

        Like


  6. Mira, you only badmouth female submission because you are projecting the loathing and abuse you would inflict on a submissive beta male. Men treat their submissive women much much better and fairer than women treat their submissive men. This is what you do not understand because you are a woman and cannot place yourself in a man’s shoes or understand his nature.

    Like


    • Don’t waste your time explaining… she not only won’t listen to logic but also will badmouth you “a misogynistic pig” as well.

      Like


    • Just want to mention that I am not badmouthing female submission. It’s perfectly fine… for females who enjoy being submissive. I am not one of them – so, yes, I would hate being submissive. If someone else likes it, more power to them.

      (I did badmouth “worthy overlords” because I’m imagining them as arrogant men who would try to force women to submit to them against their will, or try to tell us all what to think and do and like, and people like that piss me off)

      Like


      • (I did badmouth “worthy overlords” because I’m imagining them as arrogant men who would try to force women to submit to them against their will, or try to tell us all what to think and do and like, and people like that piss me off)

        But the vast majority of women submit to their “worthy” feminist “overloards”, who do tell you all what to think and do and like.

        For women, it’s not a matter of whether they submit, but to whom.

        Like


      • mira wrote: “I did badmouth ‘worthy overlords’ because I’m imagining them as arrogant men who would try to force women to submit to them against their will, or try to tell us all what to think and do and like, and people like that piss me off.”

        Then you’re “imagining” us wrong. Who said anything about “against their will”? You are a pristine case of feminist mind-rot, running from the phantoms of your fears rather than considering the actual deal in front of you.

        Add to that the overvaluing of preference — as if “choice” is a paramount prerogative to retain when the typical citizen (let alone flighty woman) can’t decide which of the sixty different kinds of oatmeal to buy.

        The problem with idealizing your “rights” and your “freedom” is never facing up to the rigors that accompany decisiveness. Decision-making isn’t always a hoot the way our consumer culture pretends it is. Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown.

        Your worldview of decision without struggle, choice without consequence, and freedom without duty is what gives us the Occupy Wall Street crowd squatting without pain or purpose or the merest adjustment to their sheltered lifestyle while siphoning off the accumulated social capital of the generations before them — just so they can whine about some trifling unpleasantness that contradicts their bratty little dreams.

        Like


  7. Ayn Rand did a wonderful job of describing the true nature and role of women. Sure, women should be free to the same intellectual pursuits as men, and they are. They are equally free to start a business, write a book, paint a painting or sculpt a sculpture. But they find that natural, subliminal, effortless, righteous joy of purpose when they submit to a worthy man, and the extent to which they evade it, is the extent of their own destruction and that of a society. So we are confronted with the absurdity of women trying to be men, and men abdicating their natural role in the name of “progress”.

    Like


    • Women are equally free to start a business, write a book, paint a painting or sculpt a sculpture – yet the vast majority DO NOT do so when compared to the same number of men. Why? Because such women CHOOSE not to do so. Men are inherent risk takers. Likewise, such activities require so much commitment, indeed a commitment of YEARS if not DECADES to achieve success. This would interfere with their natural desire to get married and have children. Even those women who choose choose the professional path (e.g., lawyers, doctors, etc…), which is more worn and purportedly “secure” than such entreprenurial activities, eventually choose to drop out or scale back their careers to have children.

      In a nutshell, a woman’s nature often overrides feminism’s social conditioning that women “can have it all….”

      Like


      • Second Jay Gatsby.

        Further, Ayn Rand was drastically mistaken on the nature and role of women. Women are much more submissive than she believed. Look at Ayn Rand’s actions, not her words. You will then be closer to the truths of reality as opposed to hamsterizing.

        Like


  8. And this is where I take the greatest issue with the BDSM fetish that seems to be so common (especially in online dating — I have gal pals who forward me some of the messages from guys looking to dominate the gals): the person who is “submissive” in a BDSM relationship is actually the dominant one, because it is the act of erotic yet non-orgasmic submission that is the powerful role.

    The women I know who are the least happy in their lives are:

    1. Women who held the strong role in their relationships (beta doormat men)
    2. Women who wanted to “swap power” roles and verbalize that they prefer relationships this way
    3. Women who wear the pants in the married household
    4. Women who always have to be the decision-makers in life (work, kids, beta boyfriend, friends)
    5. Women who don’t have female friends to listen to their drivel and dump it on their guys

    Breaking down all 5 cases, you have:

    1. A woman who wishes her guy would take the strong role,
    2. Women who are temporarily attracted until the power is swapped, then they’re miserable. It’s not a zero sum game — a woman’s misery will always far outweight any happiness,
    3. When a woman has to wear the pants, she’s not only too tired for sex, but she’s inherently unable to even want it,
    4. Women get turned on when their man makes decisions, even if they aren’t the decisions their outer brains agree with. These are additive: every time a woman has to make a decision, it sucks away her femininity a little bit. A man who can make decisions in the relationship is subtractive: her femininity grows with each decision he makes on her behalf,
    5. Women need female friends, period. Don’t date women who only have male orbiters — without having those bitchy BFFs, women will attribute their failures to the man they’re dumping it on.

    In each and every case, it’s always about submission. Always.

    Like


    • Should also mention what could technically be a Maxim:

      Avoid having female bosses.

      Like


      • Don’t know if life is that easy. Would you walk away from a position making a higher salary if you had to respond to a female boss?

        Like


      • “Higher salaries” are almost never ther main interest of men. They usually use it only to attract more females. If you can game the girls into you you’ll keep your salary and skip the headache.

        Like


      • Agreed, thinking about not just single men, though.

        Like


      • I like to buy guns, ammo and other toys. I like a higher salary myself, but have also vowed to avoid working for women. They are just generally crappy managers.

        Like


      • Nice double entendre, Tyrone. 5 points for that.

        Like


      • Err… that’s dumb.

        Money isn’t just TVs, cars and other shit, money is also health, for me, for my family and friends.
        If having a higher salary means that my family can live a little more calmly, a bit more healthier, that if something terrible happens I can make things right.

        Hell yeah i’ll take that job.

        Like


      • Even though it’s borderline illegal, I know plenty of alpha business owners who take very specific and calculated steps not to move women into positions of power — exactly what the feminists have been screaming for decades.

        The reasons, though, aren’t sexist. A woman who leaves based on the Family Leave and Medical Act costs an employer significant losses in retraining and keeping the position available. The women I know (and actually admire) in positions of business strength all had made the decisions NOT to raise a family and instead focused on using their high testosterone levels for a company’s bottom line.

        I have a few customers who are women bosses or upper managers, and each and every one of them is without child, most without husband.

        If I had to get a job, I would likely seek out employment at a smaller business for less income than a higher income at a bigger megacorp with quotas for specific races or sexes.

        Like


      • Well, we are talking two different angles here.

        One is from the perspective of the man under the female as a subordinate and the other is from a man who has that female supervisor as that subordinate.

        From the standpoint of the guy who is under, the point I was alluding to was the guy working in a middle to low paying job. Not much choice if you work at the Wal-mart / Target and the company hires college grad female assistant managers. Especially when you have to pay bills.

        From the business owner’s perspective, they have to hit hiring quotas too, so their hands are tied on that sense as well.

        I get what you are saying with the alphas trying to do what they can to adjust. Love to hear some of what works to keep the number as low as possible.

        Like


      • on October 20, 2011 at 3:18 pm So, Do the Zonk

        “Avoid having female bosses.”

        Single best rule for a happy and successful professional life in any field — and it is even more true for women!

        Like


      • on October 20, 2011 at 7:43 pm drunicusequus

        Oh my goodness yes. Girls are insufferable jerks to work for – petty, dishonest, cowardly, phony, and beyond callous.
        If you work in math, engineering, finance, or tech, you have a reasonable chance of a good salary, and of not being ruined by some insufferable yupstress.
        So study hard.

        Like


      • Exceptions to every rule: Before I became self-employed, I had several bosses. Two were excellent (the first and the last). The last was a black woman younger than me. We got along great.

        Like


    • “And this is where I take the greatest issue with the BDSM fetish…”

      Good point.
      I always suspected that BDSM was only a circumvoluted way for women and their beta partners to emulate what a real sex session is.
      All women need is an alpha dick. Everything else is superfluous.

      Like


      • I can see it as an acceptable method for high testosterone women who actually like low testosterone men — neither of those two groups are relevant in the grand scheme of society’s sexual roles in the home or the bedroom.

        Like


      • Hilarious when they play pretend though.

        Like


    • A.B. Dada wrote: the person who is “submissive” in a BDSM relationship is actually the dominant one, because it is the act of erotic yet non-orgasmic submission that is the powerful role.

      Paraphrased: “So the last will be first, and the first last.”

      Or: “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.”

      Or: “But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

      Nietzsche (and therefore all of us) interpreted these facts of the universe too directly, as if to say power must always accompany the flashy outward appearance of power. So submission is considered “weak,” when it is actually the mark of the greatest possible strength — depending totally, of course, on what one is submitting to. The smartest women in history have understood this, and quietly celebrated this. Beta betrayal is a man making himself unworthy of a woman’s submission.

      Sexual equality can only be manifest by complementary components: the active and the passive. Feminism and postmodernism have unimaginatively interpreted active power as the only legitimate power, and so they chose to chase after a mirage of strength while doing great violence to female nature.

      Like


      • That’s why I withhold orgasm regularly.

        A man’s act of orgasm *can* and *often* is an act of submission to many hamsters. That’s why so many women love facial cumshots.

        By withholding what they want/need, you show her that *all* your orgasms are for your pleasure alone.

        Like


      • on October 21, 2011 at 8:13 pm (r)Evoluzione

        “That’s why I withhold orgasm regularly.”

        Precisely. Make them earn that nut, whether it’s in’er or on’er.

        Witholding is the ultimate act of qualification.

        Like


  9. Big government’s not the provider beta, y’know. It’s the alpha who MUST be obeyed.

    And liberal men are the cuckolds tweezer-jerking in the corner while they watch.

    Like


  10. This should be a permanent post, right up there at the top of the page with the 16 commandments.

    Like


  11. I’m interested in the rhetorical contests between King A and H.
    When the hell did that happen?

    Like


    • Whenever King mentions restoring all men to alpha status or brings up religion or the pedestal as good.

      H has professed often that “The end is nigh!”, and that instead of making cardboard signs and taking to the street, just sit back and watch the fireworks. Convincing pussified betas that the sky is in fact falling is a wasted effort, unless doing so is personally advantageous to you and your life. Convincing feminists to be demure beautiful creatures after they lost their anal virginity in grade 7 is trying to stop the tide.

      Genie won’t go back in the bottle, the shine back in their eyes, or the swing in their sashay. You can see the militant form to their march, a straight line to a goal that weighs on every corner of their face. Features that even on a homely girl would call to mind feminine qualities of joy and warmth in the hearts of men, but now drawn tight with stress to make them seem constantly angry and unreceptive.

      Women don’t want to be on the pedestal, they don’t want responsibility or expectations. King A wants them on the pedestal, to be princesses, but that isn’t realistic as that sort of chivalry will just eventually restart the cycle. As men with more resources than masculinity once again subvert the natural order to get a leg up on the competition.

      Like


      • Once natural subordinates have the taste of power in their mouths, their lust to rule will consume everyone ere they forget it. This is the modern folie proletaire that shall ever be with us and began with the slave revolt in morals.

        If it came to an endgame, we’d need to throw them all into purdah and live like jealous bearded bazaaris or accept there’s something in us that wants to grovel.

        And you know, centuries of Christianity will do that to a people.

        There is no middle-ground. There will be no do-over. And if there were, I would personally shoot the first motherfucker to propose not revising their status as full citizens under law.

        Like


  12. Mira is projecting the hatred and ill-will she feels toward submissive men and wrongly assumes men would feel the same hatred towards submissive women. This is the core of why most women feel submission to men is a dirty word – female projection.

    Like


    • Not bad.
      Or they are just unredeemable unfeminine dykecunts, whose real nature has been revealed by the ambient feminist culture.

      Like


    • I don’t hate submissive men or submissive women. I do dislike people who try to convince the non-submissive types that they should be submissive.

      Like


      • You simply haven’t met the right alpha yet.

        And I know I just addressed a woman (may God forgive me!). Women do NOT have self-awareness as to their true natures, mother nature has wisely hidden this knowledge from them.

        Gentlemen: Look at women’s actions, not their words. The truths of game and women’s real natures are readily verifiable. Believe the evidence of your eyes, ignore anything women say, regardless of whether they agree or disagree with you. Women’s actions SHOUT a lot louder than their words.

        Like


      • mira wrote: “I don’t hate submissive men or submissive women. I do dislike people who try to convince the non-submissive types that they should be submissive.”

        1) You do hate submissive men. You sublimate this hatred into either pity or repulsion or, at best, indifference.

        2) It’s okay that you consider yourself a “non-submissive type.” Many women celebrate their masculine features, especially in our age. But don’t try to pass it off as feminine. It’s as ugly on a woman as a summer dress is on a linebacker.

        The point is, the submissiveness of women is not some mere accident of the previous 20,000 years of history (save the last 100), nor is it a vast patriarchal conspiracy to make Mira into anything other than what she is. Submission is a brute physical fact informing your physio-psychology. It goes with the hole. The hole gets spelunked. It cannot do the spelunking.

        You obviously require a definitive dog-fuck. To get your humors back in balance.

        Ass in the air now, young one. Close your eyes. This won’t hurt a little.

        Like


      • on November 2, 2011 at 3:22 pm View from inside a hot chick

        Why do you consider being a man superior to being a woman? I thought all you feminist types were all about the feminine. Isn’t there power in the submissive? Or is it really true that men are better, so you want to be one?

        Like


  13. Wake up white man! Can I get a hell yeahzzzzzz!!!

    Like


    • loozozozozozz

      HELL YEAAZZZZZZZZZ

      all hail the chateau!
      all hail, our tireless symposiarch!
      for here at le chateau
      are we free of the feminist’s bark —
      po-mo no’ mo’, ground zero!

      Like


  14. Remember in This Is Spinal Tap when Ian, the manager, abdicates and Jeanine takes over? She runs the band into the ground. Then Ian takes over and puts her back in her place. That’s what this post reminded me of for some reason.

    Like


  15. on October 20, 2011 at 2:58 pm Repeal the Ammendment

    “I remember an artistic and eager lady asking me in her grand green drawing-room whether I believed in comradeship between the sexes, and why not. I was driven back on offering the obvious and sincere answer “Because if I were to treat you for two minutes like a comrade you would turn me out of the house.” The only certain rule on this subject is always to deal with woman and never with women. “Women” is a profligate word; I have used it repeatedly in this chapter; but it always has a blackguard sound. It smells of oriental cynicism and hedonism. Every woman is a captive queen. But every crowd of women is only a harem broken loose.”

    “When, therefore, it is said that the tradition against Female Suffrage keeps women out of activity, social influence and citizenship, let us a little more soberly and strictly ask ourselves what it actually does keep her out of. It does definitely keep her out of the collective act of coercion; the act of punishment by a mob. The human tradition does say that, if twenty men hang a man from a tree or lamp-post, they shall be twenty men and not women…. Democracy was meant to be a more direct way of ruling, not a more indirect way; and if we do not feel that we are all jailers, so much the worse for us, and for the prisoners….It is bad enough that men can only associate on paper who could once associate in the street; it is bad enough that men have made a vote very much of a fiction. It is much worse that a great class should claim the vote be cause it is a fiction, who would be sickened by it if it were a fact. If votes for women do not mean mobs for women they do not mean what they were meant to mean. A woman can make a cross on a paper as well as a man; a child could do it as well as a woman; and a chimpanzee after a few lessons could do it as well as a child. But nobody ought to regard it merely as making a cross on paper; everyone ought to regard it as what it ultimately is, branding the fleur-de-lis, marking the broad arrow, signing the death warrant. Both men and women ought to face more fully the things they do or cause to be done; face them or leave off doing them.”

    G. K. Chesterton
    1910 What’s Wrong with the World.

    Like


    • on October 20, 2011 at 5:25 pm So, Do the Zonk

      Great to see Chesterton here. I wonder what he thinks of this site, from the better place where he is now. No doubt amused that the things that every man in Victorian times knew about women based on common sense now have to be re-learned and validated by scientific experiment.

      Like


      • Just now reading a book of dubious end-value, but which, for being authored by a genuine Englishman in the late ’50s, contains some sparkling gems of oldthink — to wit (CH, you’ll appreciate this):

        ” … I suppose I’d had a good deal of sex for my age; at any rate, devoted a good deal to it. Girls, or a certain kind of girl, liked me; I had a car — not so common among undergraduates in those days — and I had some money. I wasn’t ugly; and even more important, I had my loneliness, which, as every cad knows, is a deadly weapon with women. My ‘technique’ was a show of unpredictability, cynicism and indifference. Then, like a conjurer with his white rabbit, I produced the solitary heart.
        I didn’t collect conquests; but by the time I left Oxford I was a dozen girls away from my virginity. I found my sexual success and the apparently ephemeral nature of love equally pleasing. It was like being good at golf, but despising the game. One was covered all around, both when one played and when one didn’t. I contrived most of my affaires in the vacations, away from Oxford, since the new term meant that I could conveniently leave the scene of the crime. There were sometimes a few tedious weeks of letter, but I soon put the solitary heart away, ‘assumed responsibility with my total being’ and showed the Chesterfieldian mask instead. I became as neat at ending liaisons as at starting them.
        This sounds, and was, calculating, but it was caused less by a true coldness than by my dandyish belief in the importance of the life style. I mistook the feeling of relief that dropping a girl always brought for a love of freedom. Perhaps the one thing in my favor was that I lied very little; I was always careful to make sure that the current victim knew, before she took her clothes off, the difference between coupling and marrying.”

        Like


      • What’s the book/author?

        Like


      • That’s the price you pay for positivism.

        Like


    • I recommend his book on Richelieu.

      Like


  16. I think that even the readers of this site might be surprised at how easily women will surrender their political power after the reconstruction of patriarchy. They use their voting rights to make themselves feel safer, so ultimately political power is just a poor substitute for an alpha male.

    The only political issue 90% of women genuinely care about is abortion. Everything else is an affectation.

    Like


    • Precisely that which damages us most in the long run.

      Don’t be so charitable to natural slaves. An enfranchised slave is an enemy for life. It will use every resource thus placed at its disposal to punish and unseat you. Hence the fervent support abortion, that is to say the murder of kind,/i., finds among white women. You had better believe women exist who reason thus in aborting: “I couldn’t bring another man into the world.”

      They have men writing books on the extinction of men. You think this generation, or the generation raised by it, will consign itself to second class again?

      More Horace:
      Damnosa quid non imminuit dies?
      Aetas parentum, peior avis, tulit
      Nos nequiores, mox daturos
      Progeuiem vitiosiorem.

      Enfranchisement of woman is a symptom of cultural entropy. It cannot be undone. They will not suddenly start coming to their senses. Just as people are still holding hands and talking to Jesus, if we make it another hundred years, we will yet be in the throes of the slave revolt in morals.

      The only dim chance we have of reversing this state of affairs is successfully agreeing upon the identity of the interlopers who have always been the active agent in the revolt, and neutralizing them in all haste. Then we may see some gradual return to normalcy. But that won’t happen. Sip some brandy, gather bitches while thou mayest. There is no going back.

      Like


      • I said that they’ll acquiesce after the reconstruction of patriarchy. Not before. The interim won’t be pretty, I think we can agree on that.

        Like


  17. I wrote a post on the now inactive Girl Game blog about how submissive women are the rule, not the exception. There was some discussion and many disagreed with me, but know it to be true. We crave without knowing what it is we crave. We’ve been led to believe we need to behave like men in order to be ‘real women’.

    As far as the kink community, I waded in to see if that’s where I fit and found I didn’t fit in. I’m too ‘normal’. I went to a submissive women’s group for three meetings in 2009 and was not welcomed. 90% of the women were grossly overweight and honestly I feel like participating in kink may be the only way they would have sex. But besides that I found that submissive women were wearing the pants – it was their orgasms and sexual gratification that they were seeking – not seemingly a real desire to ‘serve’ one man. Group sex is NOT my thing and never would be. I left disappointed.

    I’ve had enough experience with being in love to know that the man who is going to get my devotion is everything our host talks about. A man who’s the King.

    It’s interesting that my blog which is fairly well read does not get comments from Jezebel or other feminists. Perhaps because I speak the truth? Who knows.

    Link to my earlier article:

    http://girlgame.wordpress.com/2009/10/17/submissive-women-are-the-rule-not-the-exception-they-just-dont-know-it/

    Like


    • There is no point in trying to convince women with rational arguments.
      King A is right: we will fuck our way back to inequality.
      Watch us.

      Like


      • You should look up “Why Everyone Else Is A Hypocrite” by Rob Kurzban; it’s a book on the modular view of evolutionary psychology.

        The problem with this concept that women are always submissive is that it’s essentially based on one set of data: how women act towards men they want to sleep with.

        It’s no great secret that being dominant gets you laid. But that doesn’t mean that women are always submissive. Women have a brain module that calculates mate value, and it is heavily skewed towards submissiveness in many situations.

        However to say that women are
        always submissive is like saying that I always like attractive women. Yes, during sex, thats pretty much always true. But I’ve got lots of unattractive friends too. I unconsciously calculate friend value with a different module, and sometimes I’m not even thinking about people.

        In short: it’s okay to have game and not be a sexist retard. In fact, the module that allows you to have game is separate from the module that allows you to have retarded political beliefs.

        Like


      • You’re on to something with the “module” thing. I know and work with a number of men who are pretty smooth with women in general, but but hopelessly pussywhipped with their wives. A lot of men can get in there pretty well to start with, but once they’re attached, they switch to a completely different, subservient interaction module. Their wives or girlfriends despise them for it, of course, and treat them like crap. They never figure out what went wrong. Those men will never get another blowjob again, unless it’s on the side. That’s better than nothing, but isn’t it a bit pathetic? You’re afraid to ask She Who Must Be Obeyed for a hummer, so you sneak out? Sad and sackless.

        I’m guessing you’ll turn out to be one of them. Here’s some good advice that you’ll finally understand 20 years after it’s too late: A woman is a woman before you marry her, and is attracted to what women are attracted to. After you marry her, she’s still a woman. She will always be a woman. She will not turn into a different species after you put a ring on her finger. Not psychologically, anyway. Physically, of course, she’ll turn into a manatee, if you don’t give her what she needs from you.

        So, you’re right: It’s possible to have game and still end up a pussywhipped loser who hates his life. In fact, the module that allows you to have game is the same module that allows you to have a successful LTR or marriage. The other module you have in mind, your political-beliefs module, is one that’ll teach her to bully you, and make you fear her anger.

        Your choice: Make you and your sweetie miserable by putting your ideology ahead of her needs. Or else put her first, and you’ll both enjoy your life together.

        Like


      • Ian wrote: “In short: it’s okay to have game and not be a sexist retard.”

        Your use of the word “sexist” gives you away. Everything you post before and after the word is invalidated. Your observations might be even be accidentally true, but only by withstanding your attempt to shoehorn them into your deeply erroneous equalist categories.

        “Sexism” is a contrivance that depends on the pretty lies we are all gathered here to murder.

        Like


      • if Ian uses the word sexist, he must be a retard.

        Like


      • “Ian” is a chick

        Like


      • on November 2, 2011 at 3:32 pm View from inside a hot chick

        Why do you think women should be men, and be happy for it? That, to me, is a “sexist” remark, not the one that says women should be happy with their own nature, and should understand it. The desire for all women to be men is projection of the worst sort, and is a clear cry that “men are better”. Why is the female way of being not acceptable to you?

        Like


    • Aofe is pushing 50 and she still thinks she deserves the King.

      Like


  18. heartiste

    Comment Of The Week:

    Damn, boss. If I have to write a 10+ paragraph article to just earn mere comment of the week status, I can’t imagine what a slavedriver you’d be if I had to write an entire article.

    Like


    • Come on now, that’s a losing attitude son. I know you’ve got at least 20 pages of racist screeds against blacks in the depths of your leave it to beaver watching, flock of seagulls, cracker soul. If you believe you can achieve.

      Btw, lets jerk each other off, no homo.

      Like


  19. Off-topic question:

    Should a woman’s attention whoring displays be included in the Dating Market Value Test for Women?

    I.e., tattoos, piercings, weird colored hair, weird clothes, etc.

    Like


    • I vote yes.

      Like


    • on October 20, 2011 at 4:40 pm (r)Evoluzione

      Absolutely. They are all at least -1. Maybe -2 or -3 for a particularly heinous tramp stamp or excess in any area you mentioned.

      Like


      • I spent a solid 6 months this year contemplating it, when I’ve been looking at women and trying to gauge their SMV.

        If a gal is a 9 or 10, her SMV won’t fall as much with freakiness as a 6 or a 3.

        I divide guys into 3 groups: vulture (musician, bouncer, bartender alphas), hawks (marriable alphas), and chickens (betas or omegas).

        SMV only matters versus the second group really (hawks). Betas and vultures will both sleep with 4s, betas for LTR vultures for ONS. Hawks know what their minimum is, other than say drunken ONS which can’t be that common as a hawk typically has a rotation of higher valued women.

        For me, one or two tattoos hidden but not on erotic areas are of minimal negative value if they’re for a purpose (dead friend, say), but *anything* more, or visible, or in an erotic area, is a deal breaker.

        So I guess it’s too variable to quantify.

        Still, the DMVT-W needs a refresh for 2011, including:

        A) How submissive are you to your lover?
        B) How many tattoos or piercings do you have that are visible (don’t count one in each ear)
        C) How many tattoos or piercings do you have on your breasts, pussy area, lower back?
        D) Is your hair it’s natural color (including if you dye for hiding gray)?

        Like


      • on October 20, 2011 at 6:14 pm (r)Evoluzione

        Some sort of inverse exponent curve is then needed, with statistically larger minus points for girls in low & mid-range versus on the top end.

        At some point, it gets too complex to keep track of intellectually. Let the male hindbrain do it with the penis-o-meter, a.k.a. the bonor test. The hotter the girl, the harder the erection. The scale and its various +/- stipulations will then fall into line naturally. Thus the mind’s attempt to understand the point system is an post-hoc analysis of said erection factor. Useful in understanding why we like the girls we do, I suppose, but off the top of my head, I’m not sure how useful these intellectualizations are. Maybe valuable data points in ranking our harem–who’s #1 this week and so on. Again, though, the bonor test may provide the most utility.

        Like


    • If you want to quantify SMV then yes. However, most men will just discount the woman’s SMV appropriately with their head. But all the things you discuss above lower a woman’s SMV IMHO.

      Like


    • Can’t see the image. Looks like the host doesn’t allow link dropping like this.

      Like


      • on October 20, 2011 at 8:38 pm a posting handle

        Like


      • That’s a sample size of ten voters! I’d like to see the same survey duplicated someplace with a lot of readers — hundreds of answers would be a good start. Maybe somebody can get Jezabel to do it?

        I read some bizarre X-Files slashfic once where the male star kept getting horrible diseases. In every scene, he was weak, helpless, and in tears. The author seemed to find it intensely sexual. Pretty damn weird.

        Like


  20. “You are the most beautiful creatures in the universe. (…) Men are ugly, gruesome creatures.”

    Heterosexual men and lesbians agree with this pov. Healthy straight women don’t!

    The comment is great, but this part is clearly a manginal faux pas.

    Like


    • In civilized societies, women nurture, raise, care for and soothe. Men beat inert matter, living beings and other men into submission. Most people associate woman’s role with beauty. Men’s with gruesomeness. Feminist women may not, though; which is at the probably at the root of our current malaise.

      Like


    • I think King A needs to romanticize women too much. Even if they deserve it, you can’t do so, as it ruins the spell and they will turn on you. It’s just another paradox of nature. I’m not attracted to men, but they’re hardly all groveling pigs. The highest cultural achievments have all been wrought by men. There are no female Michelangelos.

      Like


  21. I am writing similar things at my blog about game (not in English) and it’s marvelous how many trolls screaming “but women don’t want to be submissive” or “women don’t want alphas” I get. It’s very tiring… kudos to you for keeping up the good work.

    Like


  22. A great comment from King A. But I don’t share his optimism. Read any female-centric mainstream site and behold the fanaticism with which they defend their so-called liberation.

    The damage has been done and it cannot be corrected

    Like


    • Feminists lie to themselves even more than normal women do. Taking anything a feminist says seriously is a waste of time. They’ll welcome back patriarchy as eagerly as any other woman.

      Like


      • Feminists are engaging in a colossal shit-test against men collectively. If men pass this shit-test feminists will shut up.

        Like


      • Precisely. There are two types of women; those who love patriarchy, and those who love patriarchy but don’t know it.

        Like


      • This is exacly what is going on. The MRM will be the correct response. I even had a feminist tell me as much once- “women are just trying to find out when men will tell them to shut up” was her comment.

        Like


      • on October 21, 2011 at 1:00 am Cock o'the Walk

        The MRM is not the correct response – it cedes the primacy of men and accepts the equalist lie of feminism. Men can’t regain their proper place if they’re looking to women for alimony, seeking government protection from “abusive” women, or wanting to be a halftime mother to children.

        MRM is just more of the same.

        Like


      • No they will not.

        Because they are ugly prunes with degrees, who won’t be had.

        Feminism is an ingenious catchment strategy to give ugly old New England witches something to do and profit by.

        The scrivener caste does not go away unless it’s shot at.

        Like


      • Bingo !

        Like


    • on October 20, 2011 at 9:42 pm Delbert Grady

      Perhaps it is they who need to be corrected, sir.

      Like


  23. i miss the lozzll guy

    Like


  24. I think submission is the wrong word. Most women want to surrender to a stronger man.

    The problem comes, the stronger women make themselves , the less (to them) worthy men there are. Being feminine (not helpless mind) increases the number of men who respond to signaling and deliberately not being ferocious Buffy wannabes or slatterns and adapting female values will increase her feminine behavior and increase his masculine making both happy.

    This does mean long term men have a place to play. We have to encourage and allow women to be able to be feminine too.

    As persons on the chase, we have to let them know we want that as well by projecting strength and working to overcome the medias idiot girl power messages.

    As for the natural tough ones (the tomboys and the damaged girls) if you want one of those, you have to be really strong. It can be worth it as they bring a lot to the party but its not for every man and being that manly all the time is draining.

    Like


  25. I find the hothouse flower nonsense sort of gross, but the man speaks sense. There is great satisfaction to be had in a sheltered, cultivated life. All of the pressure to succeed, to be a good feminist, to be assertive, to clearly state my goals and to take no shit, has done me much harm. The days in which I don’t have to interact with the working world and can concentrate on delighting my man with an intricate meal, freshly laundered clothes, a peaceful clean home– such a pleasure for me. An antidote to the anxiety I’ve had ever since college.

    Like


    • Most women secretly feel this way. Especially if they have the right man.

      Like


    • luisa wrote: “I find the hothouse flower nonsense sort of gross…”

      That’s a curious reaction. It sounds like residual anxiety to me, but your viscera might have a point a la “the wisdom of repugnance.” Nonsense, maybe. But “gross”?

      I would find it gross too (I’d use a different word). But I’m not a woman. I don’t know how much women are motivated, like men, by the will to power — which is not the popularly imagined “might makes right” so much as it is the animal instinct to exert its strength. I’d assume you are more driven by the will to beauty, but I know few women with the rhetorical capacity to articulate what truly motivates them. Your honest testimony would be appreciated, if you’re capable.

      “The days in which I don’t have to interact with the working world and can concentrate on delighting my man with an intricate meal, freshly laundered clothes, a peaceful clean home– such a pleasure for me. An antidote to the anxiety I’ve had ever since college.”

      Tell your sisters.

      Like


  26. There is no “natural state” of women, the role women play is highly variable according the environment. Agricultural society (as opposed to the neolithic hunter-gatherers) placed a premium on getting unequal resources, hence the Agricultural desire for the “Alpha” designated as the one with the most resources who dominated other men (something not found in the anarchic, personally violent hunter-gatherers). More recently the West even before Christianity placed a premium upon getting a Beta Male, to see one through the harsh winter, as resources were fairly equally distributed (yes even in Viking times). See Nordic Blondes and Redheads, evolutionary traits designed to compete with other women for a wide variety of men.

    Women’s desire for Alpha A-holes is the result of technology: the pill, the condom, anonymous urban living, increased female income (no need to rely on Beta providers). HOWEVER — Women get old. And therefore no longer sexually attractive. As powerful as an Alpha A-hole can be (Linda Evans still cries over John Derek, who at 45 dumped her for 15 year old Bo Derek), for most women it trades off sex/desire now for companionship later. Few are interested in being the companion of an old, used up sex toy.

    If women’s earnings collapse, society becomes more personally violent, welfare becomes a pitiful allowance, women BECAUSE they are human and therefore adaptable, will trade-off security and protection against sexiness. An absent, John Derek like guy provides little income or protection in a violent world, and the history of the West when empires fall and security becomes scarce is a rush by most women to Beta males. Beta spells P-R-O-T-E-C-T-I-O-N. Beta males are no more immutably dweeby than their grandfathers and great-grandfathers were brutal beasts. Humans change, in response to their environment.

    More broadly, the Western Way of marriage and family is predicated on broad investment by betas, women choosing on their own, fairly thought not exactly equal, to most men, and having basically only one choice, which must be made wisely, based on lifetime companionship AND family formation, and not transient sex. Western Women compared to other cultures, at the time, were always more broadly equal, often shockingly so to travelers from other lands. This equality and that women chose, mostly on their own, which suitor to marry, created a broad-deep society that was more resilient to shocks than other, brittle, aristocratic societies (yes even say Feudal France was more resilient than pre-Islamic Persia). Western prosperity is built on mostly (but not exactly) equality of women and free choice (but only once for most save widows and a few divorcees).

    Like


    • We meet again on opposing views, whiskey. Preface: I appreciate your differing perspective.

      I disagree with this. As I said in a comment up higher, you can’t group males into two categories. You need to group them into 3. I label them hawks, vultures and chickens. Search above for group examples.

      In any society (agricultural, hunter-gatherer), women *want* hawks, but are fooled by the confidence of vultures. Women settle temporarily for chickens.

      An alpha can love, can marry, can raise a family. He’ll do so off of macrosociety’s radar. He probably is not a Putin, he might be Mark the mechanic. He definitely is not Clooney. The hawk has options, knows it, but wants the security and comfort of a healthy, attractive wife for him and mother for his offspring.

      In a crisis situation, hawks are wanted *even more* as protector-providers. Betas with some balls are a distant second. Vultures are either killed by competitive vultures (politicians, soldiers) or are crushed into betadom as society disavows their services (actors, musicians, DJs)

      Thoughts?

      Like


      • on October 20, 2011 at 8:27 pm (r)Evoluzione

        AB, I like your tripartite differentiation. Putin v. Clooney: Putin is clearly a hawk, in multiple ways. But is Clooney the vulture? He produces something arguably of value, does humanitarian work in the Sudan, etc. These are not Vulturistic actions, even if he does pump & dump hot models. A vulture example more true to your model, IMO, would be more like Kaddafi, a total alpha asshole, now a dead one too. As you said, he was killed by competitive vultures. Your model makes sense, and the terminology is easy to use. As you said, women want the hawks, but the confidence of the vulture fools them. This is why aloof and/or asshole game works–it’s a common feature to both hawks and vultures.

        Whiskey, I think you’re onto something that I’ve been considering for a while: the interaction between genes, social dominance and beauty. Just a theory, but I’m gathering evidence of it in the scientific literature: Men’s sexual selection of hotness assures biological, immunological and metabolic health of the child This is most evident in the fact that all humans inherit their mitochondrial DNA from their mothers. It’s always maternal.

        When women select a male, this sexual selection optimizes for… whatever social and environmental conditions apply at the time of the copulation. As you said, social milieus change, and what women find attractive changes.

        So sexual selection of men by women develops more social genes. One inherent challenge we face is that our social and environmental conditions are changing far more rapidly than our genes are able to keep up. This is true on a very long timeline of 10,000 years or more, as we see with nutrition, but the problem is magnified many thousandfold by the hyper-accelerated change we are seeing now.

        So in these times of change, I would suspect that female sexual selection will, over wide social scenes and broad populations and races, select for the most adaptable genes. Survival of the fittest is not survival of the strongest, or most dominant, but survival of those that can adapt most efficiently and effectively to current circumstances. My theory is, then that these qualities are passed on to offspring by the father.

        Like


      • It sounds nice, but the math doesn’t work.

        No, when the environment changes 2-3 orders of magnitude faster than evolution can respond the result is that evolution collapses into a chaotic meander that doesn’t produce any net change in the gene pool. This state will persist until the environment calms down, or until the organism evolves the capacity to adapt at a faster rate.

        Or, in our case, until genetic engineering renders natural selection largely moot.

        Like


      • on October 21, 2011 at 8:22 pm (r)Evoluzione

        Maybe, but some research shows that evolution can happen shockingly fast. Darwin’s finches modified their beak lengths significantly to adapt to changing circumstances on Easter Island. It took 12 years for that to happen.

        DNA research on domesticated dogs shows that it appears that the dog was domesticated from the wolf in a single human generation, probably by a single human individual who figured out the concept of selective breeding.

        We have yet to truly plumb the depths of the mystery that is the process of evolution. The genome may have been sequenced, but much of its meaning is a mystery–all that “junk” DNA clearly has a purpose. Then we have the epigenetic realm, a whole ‘nother can of worms.

        Genetic engineering probably won’t come to have any large scale impacts, except for those negative impacts from GMO crops, which have already been show to be damaging to humans and animals. The input and development costs of GE far outweigh the benefits, especially considering the benefits are dubious, and the side effects, horrific.k

        Like


      • Well put, and I agree totally.

        Vultures are the guys that women in their youth generally use to ride the cock carousel with; and the one’s that “don’t count” when she starts looking for the security of the Hawk.

        Like


      • Perhaps women can be put into three categories too.

        Kill, Fuck or Marry.

        Kill – The ugly, overweight, megacunts.
        Fuck – Whatever is fuckable.
        Marry – Women worthy of one’s time, efforts and energy and capable of being good, loyal mothers.

        Like


    • a interesting comment….

      you say a dangerous world would change women’s calculus on the best mate, i.e. a beta who provides protection. it would seem betas’ present plight is due to their succeeding too well–they have created, over centuries, the rule of law and a culture that stigmatizes violence, one that socializes men to check their worst impulses and leads both sexes to take for granted a safe and orderly world. we’ve all forgotten the brutality that prevailed in the past.

      so women didn’t have to lean on a particular man for protection; beta men made the world safe and civilized. ( i’m reminded of the gang rape in ‘two women’. since the women were unaccompanied by men, they were fair game. if someone had done the same to one of the rapists’ sisters, he’d be strung up. private justice vs. citizens’ respect for the rule of law.)

      that safety, that social infrastructure, enabled feminism and all its attendant pathologies (at least by the lights of this blog) to get off the ground. i don’t know if it was inevitable, but if you think about, wouldn’t you prefer the civilized world betas have made to the savage postwar italian one portrayed in ‘two women’, even if it means a beta’s protection is no longer a criterion in a woman’s choice?

      i’m not trying to be disrespectful. it’s an honest question.

      Like


      • The key error that makes a hash of all this armchair anthropology is blithely asserting without evidence that adaptation and selection are the engine of evolution. Leave aside the truth of the unfalsifiable matter and just consider their theories’ over-reliance on a single precept which may or may not be true. They are better off examining the reliability of that precept, or treating it as the flat-out article of faith that it is, than efflorescing it into a thousand potentially erroneous permutations with the appearance of scientific “fact.”

        Natural selection is an article of faith that even Darwin himself was skeptical about. In the years since his death it has taken on the character of a cult more than a science. Hence the tendency of the imaginative writers above to craft intricate Rousseauean narratives of the origin of the species (and the relation of the sexes).

        whiskey starts out his recitation of the creed by declaring, “There is no ‘natural state’ of women, the role women play is highly variable according the environment” which is epistemologically indistinguishable from “I believe in one God, the Father the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth.” How again did we acquire the certitude that “there is no natural state of women” now? Through backward-extrapolation of an unfalsifiable theory?

        From there, you, carolyn, draw conclusions like “beta men made the world safe and civilized.” Your string of assumptions must be scrutinized at every point along the line, beginning with the whiskeyan precept that man is animal and dynamic at his essence, making alpha the highest among animals but still beastly, and concluding with the almost weird definition of civilization builders and sustainers as “beta men.”

        Man has animal qualities, but he is categorically different from animal. Civilization is an alpha construct: men did not organically and spontaneously organize into techne. They were organized by men who disciplined their animal natures and sublimated them into leadership.

        The just-so story that redefines leadership instincts into vestigial traits of our animal days is too clever by half, and not to mention, self-refuting: we’d all still be organized into instinctive wolf-packs if the Adam beast never transcended his beastly nature. The incomplete theorizing of these one-dimensional game blogs originates in this error, and by time the theories advance in complexity enough to explain a social dynamic we might recognize, there is no room for the cooperation and communion without which civilization is impossible.

        It’s what happens when you fixate on one component of social dynamism — the relationship of the sexes in order to game a male advantage — at the expense of all others. Yes, you might pick up some clever street-magic tactics that work on the ground level. But your explanations why they work will always be thin, and your ability to apply your wisdom beyond this narrow specialty will be circumscribed.

        There is a natural, permanent, unmalleable state of woman that defines woman qua woman, beginning with the obvious and undeniable, like their ability to gestate offspring, and ending with the contingent and invisible, like their will to submission. I assert that with the same evidence that the amateur Darwinistas marshal against it, which is to say: none.

        i’m not trying to be disrespectful. it’s an honest question.

        Your deference is sexy.

        Like


      • evidence for the principle of natural selection is overwhelming. However, it usually operates over much longer spans of time than the brief period since the invention of agriculture.

        Like


    • Whisky wrote:
      “More broadly, the Western Way of marriage and family is predicated on broad investment by betas, women choosing on their own, fairly thought not exactly equal, to most men, and having basically only one choice, which must be made wisely, based on lifetime companionship AND family formation, and not transient sex. ”

      But that had to be enforced. The girls all wanted Byron. It was their fathers that married them off to Raffles.

      Monogamy has always been an arrangement between males – roughly equal distribution of pussy to keep the peace, and patriarchs seeking to ensure maximum outsider male investment in the patriarch’s grandchildren.

      That women only get one choice once had to be enforced. Without that enforcement, we get a prisoner’s dilemma problem. The women defect by pursuing alpha sperm, and the guys defect by withholding support for women and children, and everyone (except for a few alpha males) is worse off.

      Like


  27. wow. that’s one impassioned call to arms. i agree women for the most part want to submit. even megabitches who boss around other women are looking for a guy who can tame them.

    i don’t get the anti-franchise sentiment. the erotic and sexual world we inhabit is not the political one. in that other compartment, both flavors of homo sapiens are considered grown intelligent adults making informed decisions. ideally, the 2 worlds don’t intersect. of course you’ll claim the reality is different, but it works well enough. what choice do we have? ‘democracy is the worst form of gov’t except for all the others’-churchill

    but whatever. another quibble is your insistence on men as subject, women object. i don’t know if that was metaphorical in that it extends beyond coitus to all of life, or it’s just extreme language in line with the rest of your polemic. i can assure you that in our own lives, women, however submissive, are subjects of their own

    Like


    • above is a comment on king a’s comment.

      Like


    • Women have used the vote to elevate their condition at the expense of men and at the same time have made it ever more difficult for them to find a worthy man.

      Like


    • In any species of two sexes, the life producing, specie sustaining unit of production is the male-female one. Or the family unit in human terms. That which strengthens this institution, increases survivability in competition with others for scarce resources. That which weakens it, decreases survivability.

      Franchise limited to men, does not mean women have no say. But simply that each household speaks with one voice (the tiny amount of women in monogamous cultures with no husband aside.)

      Extending the franchise to females, serves only to increase the rewards going to those who specifically try to get woman to vote differently than her man; reaching into and breaking the boundaries of the family unit from the outside. After all, if the household, represented by the man, were already voting for him, there would be no need for a politician to attempt courting the woman’s vote. In the vernacular of this blog, it is an alpha strategy. Cuckolding the man, by having him care for a woman who works directly against his interests in the polls.

      When pitched against each other in competition for limited resources, cultures with the above weakened family units, will always succumb to those without.

      Like


      • ‘when pitched against each other in competition for limited resources…’

        god help us all. do you really think we live in a zero sum world?

        ‘…cultures with weakened family units will always succumb to those without.’

        iow, dog eat dog. can’t we all just get along? did you know there is such a society where families are strong, so strong you don’t owe charity or even justice to anyone outside it. in sicily ‘amoral familism’ is so potent, nobody can organize so much as a soccer tournament.

        okay, i know you probably weren’t envisioning this dystopia. what’s ideal are families that aren’t so weak they resemble ghetto families, but not so strong that it gets in the way of social cooperation and trust of non-relatives (fukuyama, ‘trust’). your comment makes me think that you believe your family is pitted against your neighbor’s.

        comparing swaying a woman to vote for a candidate the husband doesn’t support to cuckolding is over the top. in her home and bed she is a sexual creature. at the polls she is an equal citizen.

        Like


      • “god help us all. do you really think we live in a zero sum world?”

        We live in a world that, while it sums to above zero, sums to something way less than the growth rate of a society of fertile women. Inevitably leading to resource scarceness and competition for what is there. And that is a good thing, not something bad. People evolved to evolve. Take away selection pressures, and the entire species degenerate.

        There are several societies organized along family, or kinship, lines. And they tend to have stayed that way for a darned long time. Afghanistan is my favorite example. They get lots of bad press these days, both as part of war propaganda and general feminist drivelspeak; but fact is, they still live the way people have pretty much always lived. While the Roman, British, Soviet and American empires, yakking incessantly about their own supposed superiority, invariably have gone under, taking all their “equal citizen” claptrap and other nonsense with them.

        A corollary to our host’s observation that women is the most valuable sex, is that it behooves a culture to make maximum use out of that feature which make them so valuable. While letting us less valuable men handle the rest.

        Like


      • on October 21, 2011 at 4:39 am Reactionary_Konkvistador

        I am not sure humans can compartmentalize that well. Remember as anyone who makes women’s gina’s tingle knows, the bedroom is everywhere.

        Like


    • Horseshit, I call troll.

      You can’t separate the growing nanny states from the clearly seen emasculation of men and the increased masculinity of women.

      Get your head out of your ass.

      Like


    • ALL THE BETAS YOU NEED TO STOP FEEDING FEMALE TROLLS!

      You cannot convince or negociate with hamsters. Your only weapon is between your pants. What are you trying to prove? What point are you trying to make?

      Go out and start or keep fucking, that should be your only interaction with females. The more you respond to females, the more you will feed their attention whoring, the more they will fuck up the comments section.

      The comments in the recent posts were getting more and more interesting, because females seemed to finally understand that their place is in the kitchen.

      Let’s keep it that way for fuck sake.

      Like


      • Thank you.

        If women responded to logic, we would not be in this mess in the first place. This blog would not even exist.

        Trying to convince women logically is tantamount to plowing the seas.

        They respond to emotion only. Save your energy and time for something worthwhile.

        Like


      • Agreed, brothers. Amen!

        Like


    • what choice do we have?

      Purdah, so I never again have to hear another airhead like you making artificial distinctions like the above to justify your inclusion in matters which your kind can only confuse and stymie to my detriment as a white man.

      Women in politics = abortion, immigration, miscegenation. Name one female Honourable Member of Parliament in Churchill’s day. Just one.

      Wait, I shall save you that trouble. It was the Viscountess Astor, of course — an American, and “vicious anti-Semite” who opposed war with Nazi Germany. Sensible yet!

      So you have a choice. You can acknowledge that what the word “democracy” in the mouth of Churchill referred to an Aryan men’s club, as it was long long ago in Athens, in which women were certainly not intended to have any role, or you admit that the advent of women to politics makes for some disquieting conflicts of interest that were best avoided for the good of all.

      but whatever. another quibble is your insistence on men as subject, women object. i don’t know if that was metaphorical in that it extends beyond coitus to all of life, or it’s just extreme language in line with the rest of your polemic.

      It may interest you to know that feminine gender (“she”) is a late addition to the English language. Originally, you were literally not a datum in the subjective narration of events which is writing; you were thus pure object, sold, traded, put away or put out as the situation dictated.

      Further, and this stuff is killer, it is by now well-known and agreed that men’s orientation is outward and women’s inward — men orient to things, women to relationships. The last consequence of this is that men are responsible for history, i.e. all narrative and thus subjectivity, or the self-referential consciousness that comes with exteriorizing reflection, while women have only lately been enfranchised by the literary process, but retain their sociobiological concern for relationships. Remember, it was men who gave you what you enjoy; their innovations, their generosity, their weakness forms your total environment, just as you find yourself in it, right now. The computer. The internet. The words pouring from your fingers emanating from the brain full of memes in the shape of a language which, until a few hundred years ago, hadn’t even a pronoun for your kind. The markets which provide you with your “Six Things I Can’t Live Without” and everything beyond. You are an enfranchised product of male discourse. The acted upon, not the actor.

      extends beyond coitus to all of life,

      All life is an extension of coitus, thus how could it not hold everywhere?

      You fucking broads never quit. But hey, what we’re actually doing here is arriving at the precisest picture of your inferior sociobiology, so I don’t blame you for dissenting.

      Like


      • whoa. you really tipped your hand. i know it’s pointless to argue with one as retrograde as you, but let me bring up one point for you to consider, however handicapped as i am by my feeble lady brain.

        everything ‘man’ has accomplished, every cultural advance for the last 300 years (and it is ‘man’ since women were in one or another variation of ‘purdah’ until lately) is a result of the the western enlightenment project whose goals included empowering the disenfranchised.

        Like


      • If we follow you in defining “everything ‘man’ has accomplished” as “every cultural advance”, where “every cultural advance” is defined as “women’s rights”, you’re almost partially right, sort of.

        But then you’ve just dismissed the most important 99% of everything man has accomplished in the last 300 years, because virtually none of the real, valuable stuff was the kind of soft, lady-sphere wibble you care about. The real business of civilization is the hard technological and organizational stuff that made our culture so absurdly rich that we can afford to let women pretend to be like men.

        Mass production, the internal combustion engine, radio, and the semiconductor are not “cultural” advances related to empowering the disenfranchised. Without them, your adorable little lady brain would be in the kitchen worrying about how best to please its man.

        So, BZZT. Wrong. But it’s cute of you to try.

        Like


      • i was including all of it. the scientific empiricism and rationality that led to all our modern gadgetry. the notion of the perfectibility of man. the respect for all humanity. do you think, say, the abolition of slavery, or to be more specific, the moral reasoning underlying it, was possible in anything but a western society informed by the enlightenment?

        getting the jews out of the ghetto, colonizing the world, (‘white man’s burden’) then reconsidering that colonization because of its injustice. it is all of a piece. women’s suffrage was inevitable.

        ‘man is born free and everywhere he is in chains’-rousseau. i don’t think that was gender specific.

        Like


      • let me further ask, don’t you think our technological advances would have run out of steam and sputtered out if there were no enlightenment? previously downtrodden peasants now could work for ‘the man’ gladly. more specifically, give 100%, knowing he’d get a fair shake.

        not so back in the day. really, would you knock yourself out if you only thought you’d be fucked over one way or another?

        Like


      • is a result of the the western enlightenment project whose goals included empowering the disenfranchised

        High-entropic effect. There was never a “western enlightenment project”. Myth of agency. You picked it up at Uni or wherever. I’m sure you wrote some great book reports about it.

        i know it’s pointless to argue with one as retrograde as you,

        Retrograde is better than anti-nature — your position, in brief.

        everything ‘man’ has accomplished,

        Curious that you can’t disprove that woman is object, yet feel comfortable tossing men into scare quotes. Talk about tipping hands. But I never concealed anything. I don’t have to.

        women were in one or another variation of ‘purdah’ until lately

        It isn’t a metaphor. It is a discrete practice, and you won’t find it in your hated West until you go back to Greece, locus classicus of the merging of Near Eastern and Aryan social forms.

        You ought to part from our company.

        Like


      • ‘There was never a “western enlightenment project”.’

        well, if we can’t even agree on a basic fact of european history, there’s no point in continuing.

        ‘It isn’t a metaphor. It is a discrete practice’

        don’t you think i know what purdah is? i find you arrogant, and not in a good way.

        ‘You ought to part from our company.’

        gladly. but first some advice-put down the nietzsche love doll.

        i’m done here.

        Like


    • carolyn wrote: “i don’t get the anti-franchise sentiment. the erotic and sexual world we inhabit is not the political one.”

      You have been programmed to simply not “get the … sentiment.” Your entire education was designed to transmit received wisdom and acknowledge the fact of something rather than construct a defense of its truth against a challenge. Same with your blithe assertion that the sexual and political world do not overlap, case closed, end of story, nothing to see here, move along.

      Feminism injected sexuality into politics. “The personal is the political” is a mainstay of the radical Left. Our attempt to extricate and liberate our nature from these recent artifices is not an inappropriate mixture of two incompatible spheres; that development already occurred the moment men first capitulated to protofeminist grumblings. The subsequent injection of ideology into the political dynamic isn’t respectable or tenable because you think they are venerable, and they aren’t venerable because they were invented before you were born.

      “i can assure you…

      You can assure me nothing. Maybe you can assure me a sloppy hummer and a nice breakfast. But your Declaration of The Rights of Woman has long since lost its ability to faze me, or likely anyone else here, and soon society at large. We’ve been living far too long, and have seen way too much, to credulously accept these “assurances” that magically never have to produce results, much less be defended with any vigor whatsoever from the likes of high-pitched, ponytailed regurgitators like you. “I write a woman’s oaths on water.”

      Like


  28. Excellent comment by King A (as always).

    Being submissive is certainly benefits a woman, perhaps more than the man she’s with. It is fascinating how easily a submissive woman can bring out alpha traits in an otherwise beta man.

    However true submissiveness (not the superficial type displayed by some TradCon women) requires a fair amount of self-awareness and self-control. Women lacking these traits consistently behave against their own self-interest and have to be gamed into their natural state of submission.

    Like


  29. on October 20, 2011 at 6:27 pm (r)Evoluzione

    Re: the original comment, after consideration, I can see how the equal rights act may seem like a natural epicenter, but with Whiskey’s above comment in mind, and at least some reasonable thought towards basic human rights, I don’t see how women’s sufferage by itself can be as problematic as it’s made out to be by King A.

    These cultural trends were at play for far longer than the US suffragette movement. And to be more specific, the problematic behavior and beliefs held by women today don’t stem from suffrage itself, but precisely from the 3rd wave sex-positive feminism that made sluttitude, divorce, and other problems magnified by 1000x.

    Two more bones of contention with King A, above, whom I mostly otherwise agree with: women voting effectively gives dominant men more leverage in the voting booth, since he can subtly influence the wife’s voting choices. That’s assuming voting does anything in elections larger than those for the county dogcatcher.

    Voting outside the local level doesn’t to shit in this corporatocracy. Only money to buy lobbyists and congresspersons, that’s the only real voice that anybody has in this culture, and it’s been that way since before suffrage was even enacted in to law (1920). As GBFM would remind us, the Fed was created, and thus Bernankification of women, in 1913, before women could even vote.

    Paul Elam and others have shown that feminism and suffrage were actually corporate-sponsored efforts by ruling elites–Carnagies & Rockefellers–to accomplish a multitude of corporate goals, including suppressing labor costs by flooding the market with more labor from women, breaking up the family to decrease family and church control of culture and give it to corporatocracy, and several other goals. Most of their goals have been accomplished. There’s a lot more to it than that, but when it comes down to it, we’re ultimately up against much larger cultural movements than feminism, and that is one controlled by men, the den of vipers that are the corporate elite.

    Like


    • “Paul Elam and others have shown that feminism and suffrage were actually corporate-sponsored efforts by ruling elites–Carnagies & Rockefellers–to accomplish a multitude of corporate goals, including suppressing labor costs by flooding the market with more labor from women, breaking up the family to decrease family and church control of culture and give it to corporatocracy, and several other goals. Most of their goals have been accomplished. There’s a lot more to it than that, but when it comes down to it, we’re ultimately up against much larger cultural movements than feminism, and that is one controlled by men, the den of vipers that are the corporate elite.”

      please provide the most credible link(s) to elaborate on this point. im interested in the premise, but a google of paul elam turned up a bunch of stuff id rather not waste time on. the guy seems like a feminist for dudes, only more shrill and ridiculous. case in point: http://www.avoiceformen.com/misandry/chivalry/did-they-get-what-they-deserved/

      man beats the shit out of two women who had slapped and walked up to him. he uses a metal rod on them even after they are down. you don’t need to understand what the legal notions of assault and proportionality to understand why this guy is a perp and not a victim.

      Like


      • I agree that Elam and other MRA’s get too shrill and occupy some ridiculous intellectual real estate, as you mentioned above. I don’t subscribe to all, or even most, of what’s said on that site.

        However, some of what is said there has value, their shrillness doesn’t change the fact that feminism did develop largely from motives of the elite.

        The only link I have off the top of my head is here. (he does have some footnotes at the end. Some of his contention, e.g. Steinem’s dating habits, are common knowledge).

        http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-governance-feminism/this-truth-really-hurts/

        I can’t really be troubled to look up more links about that right now, but they’re out there, if you’re really a serious student as you claim.

        There are men who write on this board, I’m sure, that have more credible evidence on the roots of feminism.

        Like


      • “There are men who write on this board, I’m sure, that have more credible evidence on the roots of feminism.”

        Hm. Do you know etymology?

        What sort of name is Steinem? how about Abzug? Dworkin? Klein, Goldman, Luxemburg? or how about “Beate Sirota Gordon”, who wrote women’s rights into Japan’s post-War constitution?

        Man, there’s almost, like, a trend in this. Help me out here. What could it be?

        Like


      • Where’s Leon Degrelle when you need him? That guy was a stud.

        Like


      • on October 21, 2011 at 8:30 pm (r)Evoluzione

        As a matter of fact, yes, I’m a student of etymology by avocation. And I am picking up clearly what you’re putting down.

        The question then becomes, is it an organized semitic movement, or is it simply a genetic trait passed along like Tay-Sachs syndrome? I see the trend clearly, but have trouble believing it’s anything organized. It may be cultural, and being cultural, it likely has a strong genetic component.

        Consider that the original tribes of Israel practiced polygamy, and how. Solomon had hundreds of wives. Perhaps the traits you identified, being so reactionary in the opposite direction, is an attempt to move the needle back to the center.

        Like


    • Women voting was first established in the American wild west as a means for the married ranchers to weaken the cowboys and other single men. After that, the married evangelists in the east gave women the vote so they could double their power overnight against “liberal” single guys who liked things like taverns and prostitutes. Conservatives basically thought they could control the way their women would vote and, thus, double their own vote. In that they were wrong. Way wrong. The resulting infection spread to other countries.

      Like


  30. “Let me say this to all the literary know-it-alls and philosophers of equality: Do not deceive yourselves! There are two separate arenas in the life of a nation: that of men and that of women. Nature has rightly ordained that men head the family and are burdened with the task of protecting their people, the community. The world of the woman, when she is fortunate, is her family, her husband, her children, her home. From there she can see the whole. The two arenas together join to form a community that enables a people to survive. We want to build a common world of both sexes in which each sees its own tasks, tasks that it alone can do and therefore can and must do alone.”

    -Unknown

    Like


  31. OK, but how do we make them stop being fat?

    Like


    • Game creates submissiveness and attractiveness.

      Once more and more alphas come into the scene and give attention to the hot girls the sludge with have no choice but to shape up or age out of existence.

      Like


  32. I would have to disagree slightly with the statement at the title of this blog. The natural •sexual• state of woman is •sexual• submission. Now it might depend on how broadly you expand a sexual context to, but I think this is more accurate.

    Mothers do not want to have sex with their sons. So there is no natural state of submission in that relationship; which is why mothers try their hardest to eliminate all alpha behavior expressed by their sons. Especially alpha behavior expressed by their sons towards them. This is also why treating women like you treat your mother (i.e. beta) turns women off so much.

    Single motherhood and the more general feminization of our society has the ultimate effect of confusing the sexual roles of men and women. Feminism and equality work well outside of a sexual context. But there are very few situations where sexuality can be completely eliminated.

    Like


    • I would have to disagree slightly with the statement at the title of this blog. The natural •sexual• state of woman is •sexual• submission. Now it might depend on how broadly you expand a sexual context to, but I think this is more accurate.

      Wrong. Sexual relations underpin everything.

      You are trying to separate humans from mammals. Humans are just the highest subclass.

      Mothers do not want to have sex with their sons. So there is no natural state of submission in that relationship; which is why mothers try their hardest to eliminate all alpha behavior expressed by their sons. Especially alpha behavior expressed by their sons towards them. This is also why treating women like you treat your mother (i.e. beta) turns women off so much.

      That’s because mothers always see their sons as kids.

      Single motherhood and the more general feminization of our society has the ultimate effect of confusing the sexual roles of men and women. Feminism and equality work well outside of a sexual context. But there are very few situations where sexuality can be completely eliminated.

      Yes, feminism confuses the sex roles, but you’d be mistaken if they are trying to work outside of the sexual context. They are trying to flip the roles.

      Like


  33. Meanwhile,

    “Two weeks ago the Social Democratic leader Thorning-Schmidt became Denmark’s first woman prime minister. Her left-oriented coalition has promised to loosen Denmark’s immigration policy.”

    http://finndistan.blogspot.com/2011/10/smelly-media-eudiocy-on-display.html

    Like


  34. Hey Heartiste, did you see this article? What do you think of it? A woman who gets it?

    http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-daum-bolick-20111020,0,3980536.column

    Like


    • According to some people commenting, if she “really got it” she would be in the kitchen and bedroom, not writing and certainly not working for such a “big time magazine”.

      [Heartiste: Does she sound happy?]

      Like


  35. When sexual submission is not reflected in the culture — female bosses, lawyertwats and women judges, heck, suffrage itself — the culture is permanently unstable. We have tried it their way for a hundred years. Experiment is over.

    Wait, doesn’t sexual submission only apply to a husband and wife? If that’s the case, who cares if a woman is a lawyer, judge, or CEO as long as she submits to her husband (and no, submitting doesn’t imply loss of rights or any say at all in decision making).

    How relieved she finally is on her back, a strong hand binding her wrists above her head! No more burden, she can just be. She reverts to what she is, and she is that which is acted upon. Yes, she is the object. Objectified. That curse word. Man is the subject.

    Man fucks wo-man.

    I’m pretty sure that sex can involve one another being acted upon depending on the position. Not to mention that we are more than just “subjects” and “objects”.

    Like


    • Wrong. Very few women want to pretend that the man they’re with is a bigger deal than they are. They insist on believing it. The more she feels she outweighs you financially, legally, intellectually, and socially, the more skill it takes for you to turn the tables.

      This is not just about what happens in bed. It is about whether she nags you about your driving, or not. It is about whether she treats you disrespectfully in public, or not. It is about whether she compulsively disagrees with every factual statement you make, or not. It is about whether she wants to feel like she’s making you happy, or regards your needs and feelings with contempt.

      Quietly now, in the privacy of your own mind: Does any of that look familiar?

      It is about whether she feels it’s your job to please her (in which case she can’t help despising you and will never be pleased), or her job to please you (in which case you can choose to be pleased, and please her in return — or I guess if you’re a prick you can choose to be a prick).

      Very, very few women enjoy having the upper hand in a relationship with a man. They strive for the upper hand because they need to believe their man really does outclass them, and can maintain the upper hand in spite of their best efforts. If they become convinced they’ve really landed a man who outclasses them (and has their best interests at heart), they relax quite a bit.

      A woman who’s worried about “loss of rights or any say at all in decision making” is almost certainly a woman in an unstable relationship. Either the man’s a lunatic (in which case just get out, there’s no possible cure), or a pushover. If the latter, she probably thinks her constant power plays are
      “sassy”, “smart” attempts at making the relationship work better by seeking a precisely mathematically perfect and cosmically just distribution of power. But that’s absurd, because there’s no actual math involved, so it’s impossible to know when you’ve reached your goal. It’s a twisted, destructive way to run even a business partnership, let alone a partnership between two people who used to love each other. It’s a guaranteed way to drive out every trace of trust and affection. I’ve seen it, I’ve been there, I’ve tried it my way too. I’m right, you’re wrong.

      Role playing in bed? Irrelevant.

      Like


      • Bravo. Quite possibly one of the best comments I’ve ever read on this blog.

        Like


      • Our always astute host notwithstanding.

        Like


      • Who said anything about pretending? And I didn’t limit the first part of my comment to the bedroom.

        Role playing in bed? Irrelevant.

        Who says it’s role playing?

        Like


      • Which is why YOUR MAN should have the upper hand. Not EVERY MAN. Are you saying that you will only be able to find a woman who considers you her superior if women are not allowed to pursue success?

        Self-esteem issues?

        [Heartiste: It’s a simple numbers issue, not a self-esteem issue. The more women who outcompete, or compete equally, with men, the less likely those women will find men they want to submit to. Women, iow, are their own worst enemies when it comes to satisfying their biological urges.]

        Like


    • Renee wrote: “Not to mention that we are more than just ‘subjects’ and ‘objects’.”

      Of course we are. We’re all human beings, homo sap. sap., with all the distinguishing characteristics that separate our essence from every other in creation.

      But what is the very first distinguishing interspecies characteristic, the most fundamental binary sorting trait possible? Our sex. It is safe to imagine it therefore colors much of what we do. Can we denature ourselves? Yes, to a grotesque degree we can make war against that essence, particularly with
      advancements in technology driven by ideological imperatives.

      When we are speaking in generalities and abstractions — hardly a woman’s strong suit, face it — it’s okay to draw conclusions that do not apply always and everywhere. And when we are examining La Différence generalities are useful, not contrary to our purpose.

      It’s hard to come to grips with, but your thriving in the upcoming world will depend on escaping these malign influences: you are still wrestling with the pretty lies bequeathed you by a generation of unhinged malcontents who were seduced by falsehoods so preposterous that they had to be made universal: the bigger the lie, the stronger the belief. How else to explain the patent untruth that men are substantially indistinguishable from women, which you so reflexively defend!, a lie contrary to a reality understood so deep in our bones that it marks the very languages we speak, dividing inanimate objects into “gender” and reserving special pronouns for the preservation of la différence. (la = feminine; you go, girl!)

      “…who cares if a woman is a lawyer, judge, or CEO as long as she submits to her husband.

      Anyone not enraptured by the supposedly superior dignity of the “lawyer, judge, or CEO” against “mother, mate, and helpmeet” should care. You apparently can’t fathom this possibility, and so your unease will persist, likely to your death, even as the world around you slowly regains sensation and movement in an appendage nearly made necrotic by a tourniquet of fantastical feminist projection.

      Like


  36. Prepare for a gigantic post by King A.
    King, keep it simple and write a damn book.

    Like


  37. True and this si why women shit-test…so that they know WHEN and to WHOM to submit to…

    In some ways it’s like landing the big Marlin, reel them in, give them so slack, reel them in, give them some slack until you finally pull it in and pose beside it Hemingway style…

    Like


  38. Also explains why so many girls I meet love doggy-style position. It’s the ultimate in submission.

    Like


    • Doggy-style. Awesome.

      Doggy-style in the ass. Fucking awesome.

      Reverse cow-girl anal: Artistically fucking awesome.

      Like


  39. All problems in the natural relation between men and women result from an absence of war.

    That hack Pinker recently published a thick and laughable screed trying to claim that human animals have somehow — magically — become less violent, and that all will presently be good animal-rights, feminist, vegan, pacifist SWPLs.

    This is a demented view. The relation between men and women is disordered in the west because the advanced countries have avoided war for too long.

    The entire West is glutted with peace and hatred. In this meaningless space women do whatever they want, which is a whole lot of nothing.

    Men sit and wait for the chance to kill and invent. War creates through destruction, and is the natural state of the human animal.

    When the war is done the man exhales and turns to fuck the women, esp. the women of the enemy. Then all’s well.

    Like


    • Forget it.
      Two things: technological war and nuclear weapons.
      The greatest nations in this world are capable of mutual destruction if a conflict arises between them. And well, they can wipe out any lesser nation in a matter of days or weeks. Besides, colonizing a shithole is an unnecessary difficult task.

      Old fashioned wars would only happen between lesser countries, or worldwide if an apocalyptic cataclysm happens.

      Naah, we’re stuck. Dealing with entitled bitches is not that bad if you don’t want to settle anyway.

      Like


      • The idea that there will never again be an all-out war between the Great Powers is wrong. Human nature adores the speed, decision and freedom of war. Even females wet their pants at the relief from boredom.

        We will go to war with China, of course, and it will start the day they pull our punk card and take Taiwan. But there’s a lot on the line, so we will send ships. When a large number of American boys drown in burning oil, the better element here at home will come to the fore.

        And then the *game of games* is on.

        I’m not saying we won’t get our hair mussed in a limited nuclear exchange, but hell, I’m not even sure the chinks can reach us. If they get a couple in — well — shit happens — and we get last licks.

        Like


    • Well done, n/a and uh. The philosophers of the School of Conan.

      “And then the *game of games* is on.” Love it.

      The true man wants two different things: danger and play. Therefore wants he woman, as the most dangerous plaything. Man shall be trained for war, and woman for the recreation of the warrior: all else is folly.

      (Posted here recently, maybe even by uh.)

      Or the more familiar quote:

      Out of life’s school of war: What does not destroy me, makes me stronger.

      Like


      • KA,

        More like the school of Homer.

        I got a laugh out of your almost sly lumping of myself and that theory-gorged, Goebbels-wannabe “uh,” but I’ve never been in thrall to the excitements, such as they are, of Celine and his epigones.

        The truth remains – no changes of note until the ground is well-turned. A lie prettier than any other is that we have relinquished our love of savagery.

        Oratory of the kind you practice is not likely to persuade women back to their ancient chores, but total war and its total emphasis on reality, may produce a chaos in which ambitious men execute their ideological enemies. Enjoy that time if you live to see it.

        Like


      • n/a, let me put it in martial terms then …

        uh is as smart or smarter than you or me. He is well-read and possesses a great clarity of thinking. Our similarities far outweigh our differences for the moment, and he is a strong ally to have. Same with the proprietor of this website.

        We can proceed with our cold war against the Soviets, but first we have to win WWII. A house divided, and all that. We gather against the proximate, existential threat, then proceed to the squabble (or even greater war) with our erstwhile brothers after we have first assured we will all be around to fight.

        I have no illusion that “[o]ratory … is … likely to persuade women back to their ancient chores.” But, 1) the oratory is for men and female allies who do not need persuasion so much as a vindicating foundation for their intuitions.

        And, 2) there is no going “back” to “ancient” dynamics. History doesn’t repeat, but it rhymes. The goal is to apply unchanging principles in a new context, rather than follow the leftist conceit that attempts to establish new principles but only succeeds in establishing gulags. What will this new context transformed look like? No one knows. It’s subject to the postwar negotiations, and our present aim must be to effect unconditional surrender by every means available, including the motley-mercenary services of uh and Roissy (and you, for that matter).

        Like


      • KA,

        I don’t agree with you about ‘uh.’ He’s a young guy who’s done some reading and is all enthused about disgorging what he’s read. His posts are scattershot, experimental and verge on the incoherent.

        Like gbfm, uh is all agush thinking that the few threads he’s seen and traced somehow cinch and now the total explanation is in the bag, which leads him to the pure stupidity of imagining that the ease with which words make connections is the same procedure by which reality is in fact constructed.

        This is the problem with rhetoricians like yourself and addled theorists like uh and gbfm: you are all hoodwinked by the fluency of your own patter. This is the bathos of style and its vanity.—

        Like


    • Your ideas intrigue me. Could you suggest some readings to enlighten me on these topics?

      Many thanks.

      Like


      • Indirect enlightenment is best. There is very little fiction worth reading for a grown man, but there are a few novels that force an urgent increase in one’s inner sense of vista, range and freedom.

        http://tinyurl.com/The-Shark-Infested-Custard

        This is the very best of anything at all recent. Please read nothing about it; dive right in. It’s a precious book.

        Read it and then find me here at CH. I’ll have a few more *treats* for you.

        Enjoy.

        Like


  40. Vaguely related: I wonder what America’s biggest mistake was. The national suicide act of 1965, the 19th amendment, or simply importing slaves in the first place?

    You could make a decent argument for any of them, I think.

    Like


  41. Even when the balance does begin to come back around women will still feel like we are missing out on *something*. Inherently we understand that, not only are we weaker, we are not as intelligent or often times, as interesting. We see the men congregate, the bonds that you form, the things you create and we know, deep down, that most of us will never have that. We can be a part of it by supporting our husbands doing these things. If we are intelligent enough and can learn to keep our mouths shut we may even be allowed into the group to at least listen and even sometimes comment. However, we will never be a part of what it is to be MAN.

    As a (maybe silly) example. I was watching 13 Assassins a couple of weeks ago and a band of 13 samurai strangers band together to kill a man. WIthin days these men were bonded in a way that woman are incapable of. Some of us do see that and crave that. However, we also understand that if these men were stupid enough to allow a woman in, the entire thing would be finished, merely by her presence and she ruined what she wanted to be a part of by her presence. The best we can hope for is to be outliers, supporters of this. It is a noble place to be and arguably even necessary. But, deep down, we know it is never the same and this can be a very difficult thing to come to terms with.

    Like


    • Well said.

      Like


      • Thank you two ladies for your honesty.

        It’s worth noting that women’s roles have been denigrated by feminism, to the point where the things that women do that men cannot are not valued.

        As an example, men will NEVER have the bond with their child that a woman will have due in large part to breast feeding. (Women who don’t breast feed–GTFO). Not having their intrinsic worth valued, women go about trying to get validated for things men do. And you have what you two posted here.

        Like


      • Yes. Thanks ladies.

        As a practicing “gamer” or, “asshole player” I do indeed embrace the very, sadly very few honest and true women that exhibit knowledge.

        You can further support this by educating the young and fertile women that you have influence over. And the beta men. Of course, so as long as you are not chastising yourself socially or within family constraints. I do understand the difficulty of openly advocating this knowledge.

        Like


    • At last! An honest woman! I had almost forgotten this type existed! Bravo, sister, bravo!

      Like


    • That’s as profound a statement I’ve heard from a woman in a long time, stingray. Brava. But (r)Evoluzione is right. Women have unique experiences that are inaccessible to men, too. The difference is, we probably don’t hit the envy as hard.

      “It’s a man’s world, baby.”

      A key component to attraction, in men and women, is a person’s comfort with who he or she is. It’s an external indication that the person has an internal quality worth pursuing. But this attitude is a function of perspective more than reality, and it’s easily adjusted. You have enough of a clear-eyed view of the world — particularly since you are a woman of faith — to overcome any infelicity based in envy.

      Anyway, your observation is so contrary to conventional wisdom in this upside-down culture (“The End of Men” “Are Men Necessary?” etc.) that you deserve an honorary place among the brotherhood. Men kill each other and die over Penelope’s unshakable fidelity. Is it really so awful to be Penelope?

      I have no idea, I have zero frame of reference. I’ll take your word for it: Your non-hysterical female judgment is rare these days.

      Like


      • You have enough of a clear-eyed view of the world — particularly since you are a woman of faith — to overcome any infelicity based in envy.

        For the most part I have overcome this envy, though on rare occasions it will will rear it’s ugly head. This is something I figured out a long time ago and have been at peace with it since.

        Is it really so awful to be Penelope?

        No, it truly is not, especially when one has the courage to be Penelope. I love to take care of my husband and family and I am good at it. I have earned true respect from my husband and from what I have read and observed that is quite a rare thing these days. He actually enjoys spending a good deal of time with me, so no, being Penelope is a gift. One that I try very hard to not take for granted.

        My point in my above comment was that I think it is important for men to be aware of this envy. I believe that this may be at the root of the beginning of feminism. You spoke in the comment that Heartiste quoted above about putting women on a pedestal and I think this is a mistake. From my perspective we do not want to be put on one even if our men think we deserve it. I have had men try to put me there and I rebelled against it. It don’t know why, but it is not a place I like to be. I do offer this, though. Put the tasks that you admire us doing on that pedestal. The cooking, cleaning, raising the children, and all the little things in between on that pedestal. We will understand that better and be happier with our place if we see that Men find our tasks important and noble. It can be hard for us to see that our daily tasks are important when they so often involve the tedious (let’s face it, cleaning the bathroom is no fun). And the feedback from raising good children often comes much later and is rarely immediate. It can be very difficult to maintain focus without our men standing behind us and truly appreciating what we are doing. (I speak from experience here. It is easy to lose heart when the kids have had a bad day and the floor was just vacuumed for the thousandth time and that is all you got accomplished that day, or spending 2 hours canning applesauce and getting 7 quarts that will be eaten in no time at all.) But when we see the smile of true appreciation, everything we are doing makes sense and it is all worth while. Put all that on the pedestal. We need that to help us remember that what we do, while not challenging or world altering is important and that the work that you Men do would suffer with out what we give you.

        Like


      • Your comment taught me something very important. Thank you very much.

        Like


      • Thank you for saying so.

        Like


      • Start publishing your philosophy and experiences, stingray, if you aren’t already. There are other women like you, but they only possess a vague intimation of distress and have no access to the diamond edge of game wisdom. The upcoming generation of girls needs Roissian guidance direly.

        Raising your own girls to be true women is a life well lived, though. What wisdom you can pass along to strangers is pure gratuitous charity.

        “My point in my above comment was that I think it is important for men to be aware of this envy. I believe that this may be at the root of the beginning of feminism.”

        The phenomenon you’re talking about has a term: penis envy. (And if I’m misusing the term, chalk it up to my allergy to feminist research. I am hereby appropriating it for our purposes anyway.)

        Yes, men should be aware of that motivating factor in women, and we should not gainsay its power to engender world-beating distaff ressentiment. Our understanding and even sympathizing with that particularly insidious strain of envy is important to neutralizing it, but the chief factor in controlling it still must be intermural (intersexual?). It is a burden not unlike the Curse of Eve.

        As a man, I don’t see burdens as bad. In fact, the bigger the better. Not because burdens are fun but because burdens are challenges of discipline, and men love challenges. Do women? Not today’s flab-bodied and flab-minded woman, that much is clear.

        Whatever. Virtue is its own reward. If women don’t relearn that verity after decades of corrupting softness, our culture will continue to dole out the pain and tragedy, no matter what men do.

        Like


  42. I don’t necessarily agree that women shouldn’t be given the right to vote. America was still healthy in the 30s, 40s, and 50’s (although the 50s saw the beginning of crass-materialism). Women ever had the right to vote in National Socialist Germany.

    With that said there are certain roles that must be upheld if society is to remain stable. Women should care for society and men should defend society. Women can run the whole social welfare state and much of the education system for k-8. But women should never have much influence in issues of immigration, race, and war.

    Women have evolutionary weaknesses in these areas. Because women evolved having mostly in-group associations they tend to be more accepting of everyone. In the women’s brain, everyone is in the tribe.

    Men on the other hand evolved making distinctions between people. They had to decide who to go to war with and who to make allies with.

    Of course, the main role for a women as care giver is to care for children. Women should raise children as stay at home mothers. they can collaborate with other women in their communities and expose their children to fun activities while socializing with other mothers. With modern technology they can also run home businesses from the Internet and set up networks with other women (as long as this doesn’t interfere with their motherly duties).

    Women should take pride in and be rewarded and honored for having large families with well adjusted children. This is of course impossible in the modern Schmaltzfucker-run West. But after the West falls apart people with leadership ability will have the chance to rebuild.

    Like


  43. on October 20, 2011 at 10:32 pm Charlesz Martel

    Several comments come to mind.

    George Gilder wrote a book, “Sexual Suicide”, in the early 70’s. Everything he predicted would happen to our culture did. He claimed that the problem with ll the feminist blather about women having no power was that it ignored the ENORMOUS sexual power women had over men; and that if society gave them increased legal and political power, the men would simply leave; i.e., refuse to engage. That, my friends, is what has happened to many men; the MGTOW crowd, porn junkies, gadget collecting, expressions of hyper-masculinity- the current Harley-Davidson fetish, tattoos, the enormous explosion in traditionally male games like poker, the UFC, etc. These are attempts of men to redefine their masculinity, or at least channel it in a not-too-harmful manner. Many others simply refuse to form families. How long can such a culture survive?

    It’s really very simple. If, for WHATEVER reason, your population is not breeding at replacement rates, it is terminal. Game, set, match. The sexual revolution and its’ daughter revolutions have inserted a suicide meme into our brains. If we cannot rid ourselves of it, demographics, and the future, will rid itself of us. Feminism, Liberalism, every single retarded idea of some ivory-towered jerk-off, from Franz Boas to Barack Obama, the end result is the same. Racial and cultural extinction.

    “Men of the West, Stand and Fight!”

    As I used to say, “Female suffrage leads to universal suffering”. Giving the vote to women has to be one of the dumbest things that our Grandfathers ever did. Bets think that being nice to women gets them pussy- YEAH,RIGHT. So let’s give them the right to vote!

    Swiss women couldn’t vote until 1975. Those of us who lived or visited there before that time remember back then as “The good old days”. Swiss women didn’t really care for the right to vote; the Swiss government found it sort of embarrassing in light of the zeitgeist at the time. More fools they.

    As I’ve pointed out before, for thousands of years the status of women was somewhere between a domestic animal and a beaten yellow cur. And who are we to argue with the wisdom of the ages?

    As a final note: if anyone here has never been in a LTR, let me explain something about women to you.

    They have all sorts of ways of manipulating you to act in ways that they perceive are in their best interests or those of their (and hopefully, your) children. To assume that women in societies where they couldn’t vote had no political power is absurd. Ever read “Lysistrata”?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysistrata

    Don’t you think that the Kings of Europe were influenced by their wives, daughters,sisters, and mistresses? In many cases, these women took it upon themselves to look after the interests of the women in their kingdom. To assume that because they couldn’t punch a ballot they were powerless is merely a reflection of how brainwashed the average person is about voting. Let me clue you all into a little secret: If voting could really change things it would be illegal. We fetishize our electoral system because it is in the interests of the people that really run things to make us believe we have power. Sort of like a Student Government Election in High School or College.

    Singapore is basically a fascist dictatorship- but a well-run one. Spain under Franco was an extremely popular place for impoverished American expatriates. The character of a country’s rulers is far more important than what political system they are administering. Revolution is the opiate of the intellectuals, as are fantasies of human sexual, racial, and cultural equality.

    ‘Nuff said.

    Like


    • Indeed. This rivals King A’s comment. A few piddling remarks.

      George Gilder wrote a book, “Sexual Suicide”, in the early 70′s.

      Of course I rushed to Google for this, but the top hit was actually an apparently sympathetic biologist’s website with some grimly satisfying observations from the world of our differently-evolved friends:

      Sexual intercourse is the ultimate bond between a male and a female, but for some hapless males it is also their demise. We are not referring here to financial demise (in the case of some unfortunate male humans), but rather, the abrupt and untimely termination of the male’s life. Not only does the male sacrifice his life for the female, but she often dines on his lifeless body after the sex act. In many other species, the males are not actually killed by the female, but their lives are reduced almost solely for sex, after which they are genetically programmed to self-destruct. These males have little or no social interaction with females, and are merely sperm providers, or in molecular terms, “DNA donors.”

      very sad loozozzllzzozoz

      Singapore is basically a fascist dictatorship- but a well-run one.

      All respect to old Lee Kuan
      who understood the anxiety
      that besets every masochist kwan
      of the dying “open society”

      Spain under Franco was an extremely popular place for impoverished American expatriates.

      I hear it was popular with a certain set of Germans too. 😉

      Like


    • Um, I love you

      Like


  44. A little exchange I had on another blog:

    “Western culture has always disciplined women who transgress established societal and political boundaries”

    And rightly so, it is men who build civilization, contrary to the blather about women’s civilizing influence. Women are not capable of sustaining civilization, they’re barely able to contribute to it, and any civilization that has given them freedom has been destroyed by them. Look at America and the West today. It’s not for nothing that a decadent nation is universally described as effeminate. Women in positions of power are a temporary by-product of wealth, and after they destroy that wealth, after they destroy their societies with their childish emotionalism things will return back to their natural order.

    response: wow, just wow…who ‘liked’ this crud.

    —take it from a woman. You are a FUCKING ASSHOLE.

    ————————————-

    This woman should wrap her tiny little head around this: women are the backbone of leftism, and as such are working to make parts of Europe majority Muslim and bring in sharia law. How crazy is that?

    Like


  45. The Economic Breakdown of Pussy in America

    1) Average Monthly Electricity Bill $30/-

    2) Average Monthly Cell Phone Bill $49.99

    3) 6 Month Membership to AdultFriendFinder $8.99

    Fucking a girl after meeting her in AdultFriendFinder ……. PRICELESS.

    For all the those Feminists out there who believes Feminist Movement is a Success,

    then listen to this.

    “when the cost of pussy is less than All You Can Eat Chinese Buffet available in Food Court, then you know how successful women have become trying to raise their social status”.

    [Heartiste: As an internet nerd might say: THIS.]

    Like


  46. omg heartiste !!!!!

    Watch this video, at least until 1:00 – 1:52. In mere seconds it encapsulates absolutely everything about da bernnankifed ladiezzz:

    http://www.myfitv.com/videos/1486208/the-dating-guy-perfect-10-killer

    One would think you wrote the script.

    Like


  47. on October 21, 2011 at 12:07 am Anti Blue pill

    The bitch knows how i like my sammich.

    Like


  48. i’m surprised no one mentioned this yet.

    beta provider snaps and kills entire family:
    http://gothamist.com/2011/10/20/westchester_tragedy_cops_say_man_ki.php

    “I think it was just the constant berating. Everything he did she criticized. She belittled him in front of the kids,” and that she treated him “like he was a piece of s–t, like he was worthless, totally emasculating him.”

    Like


  49. Women have evolutionary weaknesses in these areas. Because women evolved having mostly in-group associations they tend to be more accepting of everyone. In the women’s brain, everyone is in the tribe @Roy Rhinstone

    Not exactly Roy…

    Since if this was in fact the case, women would also be accepting and inclusive of betas and omegas as being part of that ‘everyone is in the tribe’.

    Just ask Whiskey…

    Like


  50. Forget what “game” has to say about pedestals. When the world is right-side-up again, you will be put back there.

    Oh no we won’t, King, since pedestals is what got us men to this rotten state we currently live in.

    Boy, talk about rinse-n-repeat.

    Like


  51. Bah. The important thing is that sociery was made by men, for men. Theres a reason every society in the past gave votes to landowning free men, and nobody else. Women are not men, and shouldnt be treated the same way. Motherhood is a wonderful thing, but its completely at odds with hedonism or personal status jockeying. But what are you gonna do? We live in a society based on ideals instead of reality, where everyone can do whatever they want but the future will still be fine and dandy.

    Like


  52. on October 21, 2011 at 1:30 am Cock o'the Walk

    You know, I actually stumbled upon game several years ago after perusing some old spanking community list-serves. Not BDSM, I mean the “lifestyle” spankos. Many are weird, but some are basically just manifesting game physically

    Y’all should try taking a woman over your knee without permission or apology in response to a shit test. At least in my experience female submission and arousal are inextricably linked. I must admit that it is very true that once a woman has submitted physically, she’ll be much more engaged in pleasing you in other ways.

    Like


  53. KA,

    What’s with all this nonsense about “princesses” and the “pedestal.” There is no reason to regard women in this outlandish way; and there’s no justification, in any case, for putting women on a pedestal.

    CH (to escape the bot I’ll go along),

    Princesses and pedestals? You’re kidding me. 😉

    Perhaps not the original author of this blog?

    Like


  54. The very fact that there’s any debate over “what women want” is emblematic of society’s decay. Just saying.

    Like


  55. “It will take another 50-100 years for the repeal of the Nineteenth Amendment.”

    Seriously. Democracy as we know it will not survive much longer. You only have to look at the growing fiscal crisis in most developed nations to see that. In 10 years time democratic elections as we know them will be a thing of the past. Forget about whether or not women should vote. Pretty soon hardly anyone, male or female, will have a vote worth anything. That is just as it was for thousands of years prior to the last century. (It really is funny to see people tending to their favorite hobbyhorses while Rome burns).

    As the old saying goes, democracy survives until such a time as people work out they can simply vote themselves more goodies at someone else’s expense. We are well past that point by now in Western Europe and the USA. Once everyone becomes a rent-seeker, it inevitably leads to economic and social collapse.

    That one sentence alone announced loud and clear a commenter without much of an idea. It was an appropriate harbinger for the rest of his romantic, cringeworthy drivel.

    Like


    • why even allow non-taxpayers to vote? that was why only property holders were allowed to vote originally. they were the taxpayers. net taxpayers are the only ones who should be allowed to vote. government employees, no. welfare recipients, no.

      Like


  56. My wife is a Swede and she’s just had a baby. Her family have been sending her Swedish baby magazines. A copy of Vi Föräldrars(we parents) I have in front of me now.

    It’s a tragic insight into the mind of a modern Swedish female. What a mess. Self destruction on every page. Full bullocking. Multicult blended families on every other page. Xenophilias. Every woman a fatty or tattooed freak. Beta gay-looking males with their old-piggish-life-partners and syndromal looking children. The editorial and marketing team- all 14 of them – the only concentration of Swedish faces in the whole rag. Mass destruction, submission.

    Like


  57. A woman wants the king, never his ministers or the fool….

    Like


  58. Hello.

    You can see in this picture:

    http://www.bt.dk/udland/breivik-terror-foerer-til-19-anholdelser

    Breivik has a one hell of a huge cock. How is it possible that he didn’t just take what life would have had to offer to a guy like his???

    Any suggestions?

    Like


  59. “Since if this was in fact the case, women would also be accepting and inclusive of betas and omegas as being part of that ‘everyone is in the tribe’.
    Just ask Whiskey…” (Anonymous)

    Anonymous, women do accept betas. They accept them when they can’t have an alpha. They accept them when they want to fleece them for alimony, or fuck them when they become old.

    Remember the alpha-beta continuum is very much a tribe dynamic. The Alpha ran the tribe.

    Like


    • You forgot one thing. Women do accept betas, but will forever resent the fact that they had to settle for them.

      Like


      • Only because the betas let them get away with it.

        What is needed is a chump-shaming offensive. The Ro’s are leading the way.

        Like


  60. […] Aoefe and Heartiste discuss the idea of women being naturally submissive. As expected some […]

    Like


  61. If woman’s nature is submissive, then why they do marry betas chumps

    [Heartiste: Lack of options.]

    and become domineering over them?

    [Power abhors a vacuum.]

    sorry, poor English

    [sehr gut.]

    Like


  62. “You are the most beautiful creatures in the universe. You are the measure of all beauty. You know this. You cannot unknow this. Men are ugly, gruesome creatures.”

    Only a man with no self-respect believes this. (Sorry King A, but I think you need to re-evaluate things.) I don’t take issue with the thrust of women and their natural submissiveness. But this statement is cringe-worthy.

    Men have built civilizations. If you think that’s ugly and gruesome, you need to hit the books. Men naturally bond and are helpful to one another, and work well together. That is until, you guessed it, women enter the picture, especially in the workplace.

    Men may not be nice to look at, women clearly are. But men aren’t ugly and gruesome by nature. Men can behave in an ugly and gruesome way, but then, so can women.

    Like


  63. on October 21, 2011 at 4:58 pm Recovering Nice Guy

    We hetero guys all put women on a pedestal, but none more than the Pick Up Artist. He may seem to hate women, but this is because he loves them.

    Like


  64. Pffft. King A is an omega keyboard PUA whose only success with women exists in his dreams.

    Like


    • “King A is an omega keyboard PUA”
      No, because calling him a PUA would be a compliment to him, and an insult to the community.

      King A is the King of Mental Masturbation.

      [Mental Masturbation]
      The concept that what you THINK is happening is really just a fantasy about what you want rather than the reality of what has occurred, is occurring, or will occur.
      -Mystery

      Like


    • Did I accidentally pump and dump your sisters or something?

      I mean, if you’re butt-hurt about my presence, fine, but you don’t have to be so uselessly and persistently whiny about it. If you take exception to something I’ve said, then say something stronger. Otherwise you are the classic nag.

      Call out my credibility all day long, if that’s what tickles your taints. I have nothing to prove and nothing to hide. You’d have a much better experience online if you eased up on the permanent gluteal pucker.

      Cheers.

      Like


      • You’d actually have to have sex with someone.

        Like


      • If I’m a keyboard jockey, that makes you an obsessive, pseudonymous online critic of a keyboard jockey. If I’m a sorry individual, you’ll always be one level sorrier.

        Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach. Those who can do neither, criticize.

        What else you got beside your little ejaculations of resentment, glowering in the corner of the playground over there like a molester?

        Like


  65. This article has generated some of the best comments I have seen in a while.

    Bravo to all!

    Like


  66. Queen B: Buzz off.

    While I enjoy reading some of the discussions regarding the genesis of today’s challenge with female pedestalization, it’s time to kick King A off of his.

    King A is well read with respect to history, philosophy, Oxford’s thesaurus and probably has 8 pages of bookmarks in his browser from various historical authors. Fine. Here’s a cookie.

    Whenever there is an opportunity to make a claim about the socioeconomic-politico-philosophical outer most rung of “game”, King A will surely rise to the occasion. And will contrive some interesting long winded prose- most of which consists of unnecessary banter to exhibit his vocabulary. Sometimes there is no clear point at all. Most of the time the point could be made in a just a few sentences.

    Argumentum Verbosium
    Folks don’t be awed or afraid of big words and long writings. It is simply, just that.

    Now when other CH posts are made regarding mid-level and low-level topics relating to game, seduction, strategy, methodology, tactics, experiences, field reports, gambits, interesting questions, inquires from beginners, suggestions of other resources, etc. King A is either not coming to class that day, or pops out and trolls with baseless comments. And provides no other suggestions or solutions, or bases any of his claims from shared experience(s).

    Why is that? I’ll tell you why: He has no game. He’s never had any game. And he has never tried or applied anything. = Has no experiences to show for.

    sedit qui timuit ne non succederet

    Like


    • Ripp,

      This is unfair to the admittedly windy KA. He’s an older gentleman drawn to just those outermost philosophical rungs of game that you oddly discount.

      This blog’s incitement to philosophy, whether it shows itself in the pontificating orotundities of KA or the shrewd moralizing mock-babble of his jester-twin GBFM, is a good thing.

      CH is almost as much an anti-feminist blog as it is a pure game blog. This is not Rooshville. CH goes beyond that (excellent) site; it answers to a wider interest and a greater rigor.

      Variety is the spice.

      Like


      • “unfair”
        Fairness? Irrelevant.

        “older gentleman”
        I estimate ~60yrs. Further solidifying my point. IF (if) he did have success with women, it was a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away. Jerking off jaw wahs for used droid parts doesn’t count.

        “outermost philosophical rungs of game that you oddly discount”
        I’ve made no statements to suggest this. On the contrary it’s of great interest to me.

        Agree with your other statements.

        To simplify: King A brings argument to the outer rung of game (as we’ve titled it) and is educated, academically, to do so. However when baseless comments are made by him in the APPLIED arena of game, and are clearly wrong and inconsistent with reality, I will call him out. Again, in APPLIED game King A is a [Mental Masturbator]. He should be asking questions to learn, and sharing experiences to support. Maybe he can learn a gambit to talk Granny Thelma out of her diapers.

        Variety of hot pussy is the spice.

        Like


      • I must be Ripp’s estranged dad.

        Son, there are only so many ways of proclaiming how uninterested I am in qualifying myself to you before I simply shut you off. This reply is a work of mercy, my child. Take a step outside of yourself for a moment and consider the true worth of your obsessive-compulsion.

        Don’t you realize what your manic criticism makes you? It makes you my bitch. You allow your resentment to control you to such a degree that you become purely reactive to another man. I would appreciate the criticism if it weren’t so transparently indicative of your own little issues that no one cares about.

        And my interests are clearly broader than yours. Admirable as Roosh is in a certain way (or Eric Markovic or Owen Cook), I have zero desire to live their life. That you and the majority of this niche readership wish to emulate your superiors in one narrow regard is just peachy. Vaya con Dios, muchachos.

        CH has wisely shielded the most important elements of his identity from groupies like you for a similar reason: he does not want his hobby to become his identity or raison d’etre the way it so happily dominates his legions of imitators.

        I’m not knocking a man’s choices — in fact they may be the best available to a fellow, and more power to him. I am simply saying there may be superior strategies based on higher goals.

        Now you can take exception to my goals, you can call them delusional, you can claim there is nothing higher than the reproductive imperative and we are all just tussling around down here in the muck. That’s usually what these disagreements devolve into. I won’t quibble with the ultimate ends that motivate you and the PUAs who name themselves after fictional characters, except to flatly deny that they are a terribly good (or even a sustainable) reason to live.

        Yay! you cuckolded a trust-fund brat’s hair-trigger whore of girlfriend (or likelier, friend with benefits). Start a blog. Pick a debonair nickname. Post updates on how Large you are Living. Charge admission. Chumps will pay.

        I like your discovery of the purposes of Latin, btw. Very classy. I think you’re elevating your rhetoric game. You’re welcome.

        Like


      • KA,

        Just as it makes no sense for Ripp to dismiss you utterly, it is unsubtle indeed for you to insult him with such uninspired moralizing boilerplate.

        The guys who post here, esp. the young guys, are *properly* energized by the sweetest hunt there is, and for all your prattling about some obscure species of true manliness, you forget that they are here for one main purpose. To learn how to hunt.

        Virtue of any kind means less than nothing to a man who’s never had the experience of erotic mastery — it’s only when a man rolls off a piece of ass, his body briefly satisfied and his mind beautifully clear, that he cares at all to philosophize.

        Let’s not forget that.

        Like


      • “only so many ways of proclaiming how uninterested I am in qualifying myself to you before I simply shut you off”
        Yet you reply, and continue qualifying yourself…

        “Don’t you realize what your manic criticism makes you? It makes you my bitch. You allow your resentment to control you to such a degree that you become purely reactive to another man.”
        You sound upset. You ok? So you were saying something about being reactive…

        “Admirable as Roosh is in a certain way (or Eric Markovic or Owen Cook), I have zero desire to live their life”
        Exactly my point. And you haven’t. You’re a [Mental Masturbator] of Applied Game.

        “CH has wisely shielded the most important elements of his identity from groupies like you for a similar reason: he does not want his hobby to become his identity or raison d’etre the way it so happily dominates his legions of imitators.”
        Assumption. Irrelevant.

        “Now you can take exception to my goals, you can call them delusional, you can claim there is nothing higher than the reproductive imperative and we are all just tussling around down here in the muck”
        Straw King, I haven’t made those statements. Again, simply: you are purely ignorant in the subject-matter of applied game.

        “ends that motivate you and the PUAs who name themselves after fictional characters, except to flatly deny that they are a terribly good (or even a sustainable) reason to live”
        Do you tell yourself this every year, the only time you fuck your fugly wife, to make yourself feel better?

        “Yay! you cuckolded a trust-fund brat’s hair-trigger whore of girlfriend (or likelier, friend with benefits).”
        I’m sure I have. Would you like to see pictures?

        “Start a blog.”
        In progress.

        “Pick a debonair nickname.”
        Hi Queen B, I’m Ripp. Nice to expose you as the fumbling retard you are.

        “Post updates on how Large you are Living. Charge admission. Chumps will pay.”
        I will give you 50% off, for being King Chump.

        “I think you’re elevating your rhetoric game. You’re welcome.”
        Yes, but light years behind the soporific awe of yours. Thanks.

        Concede, my friend. You have lost this battle.

        Like


    • Skip his posts if you don’t like them.

      I enjoy King A’s comments and hope to see more from him in the future.

      Like


  67. Men are ugly, gruesome creatures.

    Holy lordy what a stupid remark. Does this dude realize how plain women look without their scaffolding and the assorted accoutrements that women depend on to create the illusion of female “beauty”? He’s stuck in the myth of cosmetics-and-airbrushed-photos-as-reality as opposed to the reality of sagging tits, plumpish bod and docile gatherer disposition that defines whiny, matriarchal purpose. Too many decades of jacking off to porn does this, methinks. It rots the brain. Pedestalizing the vag just ain’t worth it. There is a poetic, timeless beauty in the free spirit of a hunter with which boring, bloated, nattering gatherers cannot begin to compete.

    Like


    • You’re too focused on the physical definition of beauty. As abused as this concept has become to rationalize the habits of land Krakens who claim to have “inner beauty,” there is something more to a person’s attractiveness than simple physicality. If there weren’t, game wouldn’t exist for men.

      And who said to put a haggard broad with armpit stubble and laugh-lines up on a pedestal? I’m talking about women at their best — young, submissive, healthy, fresh, and yes, with make-up and clothing to accentuate the qualities they already have (and no one can fake).

      Look, my citation of “pedestal” was misunderstood. Whatever. The problem with pedestalization isn’t the pedestal per se so much as it is inappropriately honoring ugliness as a means of placating one’s ugly master, as betas do to delusional aged hags. Admiration is the one-to-one exchange for her submission. The transaction doesn’t require beta dishonesty or exaggeration or any of those nasty features that have attached itself to modern pedestalizing. She is worthy of being elevated because you are worthy of being dominant. And no, neither position is without its drawbacks.

      I’ll give you one thing. Make up and photoshop and lighting and, even more fundamentally, the angle of observation itself combine into a perception mind-fuck that seems to make a hash out of the very concept of beauty. But if you think that all female beauty is an artifice, I have to conclude you’ve never seen a true ten. They are transcendent and ethereal, and their poetry-inspiring gorgeousness is not explained away by observation bias or man-made enhancement.

      I’d post a photo example, but that wouldn’t help my point: the beauty I’m talking about cannot be frozen in time or possessed, only observed in fleeting moments.

      Like


      • Years ago, my sister and I attended the same university. We were doing different courses, and so we were rarely seen together. But I did realize that she was popular among the dudes (as she always was, even in primary school).

        One time, she and I went to a party together. Word got around that I was coming with my sister, and eventually they put two and two together. “Wow, is that really your sister?” was a typical refrain [and I’d be thinking to myself – put your tongue back in your mouth]. I always thought that she was over-rated. As we do with siblings, though, we don’t see them as others see them. But I still think she’s over-rated. I’ve seen her with dopey haircuts and dumb clothes, training in a tracksuit, and I think that presentation and packaging really are everything.

        Some women are obsessive about their appearance to such an extent that men come to see the packaging as the reality. It’s not. How often do you hear women dreading being seen without makeup? All the time.

        The MSM makes a big deal out of catching women without makeup, from Pamela Anderson to Demi Moore. There must be a reason for it. Here’s their latest scoop.

        I think these assumptions really need to be tested in all earnestness.

        Like


  68. “the once-noble belief in universal morality has turned on itself and gutted the passion and capital that built our fortresses from dirt and dust”

    Morality – Matthew Arnold (1822-1888)

    We cannot kindle when we will
    The fire which in the heart resides;
    The spirit bloweth and is still,
    In mystery our soul abides.
    But tasks in hours of insight will’d
    Can be through hours of gloom fulfill’d.

    With aching hands and bleeding feet
    We dig and heap, lay stone on stone;
    We bear the burden and the heat
    Of the long day, and wish ’twere done.
    Not till the hours of light return,
    All we have built do we discern.

    Then, when the clouds are off the soul,
    When thou dost bask in Nature’s eye,
    Ask, how she view’d thy self-control,
    Thy struggling, task’d morality–
    Nature, whose free, light, cheerful air,
    Oft made thee, in thy gloom, despair.

    And she, whose censure thou dost dread,
    Whose eye thou wast afraid to seek,
    See, on her face a glow is spread,
    A strong emotion on her cheek!
    “Ah, child!” she cries, “that strife divine,
    Whence was it, for it is not mine?

    “There is no effort on my brow–
    I do not strive, I do not weep;
    I rush with the swift spheres and glow
    In joy, and when I will, I sleep.
    Yet that severe, that earnest air,
    I saw, I felt it once–but where?

    “I knew not yet the gauge of time,
    Nor wore the manacles of space;
    I felt it in some other clime,
    I saw it in some other place.
    ‘Twas when the heavenly house I trod,
    And lay upon the breast of God.”

    Like


  69. It’s obvious to me that men created civilization, but it is also obvious to me that we did it to get pussy. Without women, there would be no civilization. If women didn’t insist on it, mankind would not have a warm place to sleep or shit. If it wasn’t for pussy, humans would still be living in caves, drinking fermented spit, farting, and smoking leaves for fun.

    Like


  70. “Men are ugly, gruesome creatures.”
    No… They are cute, inside every man there is a kitten that you can cuddle and play with, even the alphaest alphas have one, they just would never let you see them like that, because that would make you lose attraction. I sincerely believe this.

    Like


  71. ““Men are ugly, gruesome creatures.”
    No… They are cute, inside every man there is a kitten that you can cuddle and play with, even the alphaest alphas have one, they just would never let you see them like that, because that would make you lose attraction. I sincerely believe this.”

    You just disagreed with yourself when you disagreed with “Men ar ugly, gruesome creatures.”

    “they just would never let you see them like that, because that would make you lose attraction.” Hence, they’d become “ugly.”

    Like


    • ““they just would never let you see them like that, because that would make you lose attraction.” Hence, they’d become “ugly.””

      ..not to me! 😀

      Like


    • I have a theory. All men have a kitten, just like all women have a hamster. Betas are guys who don’t have their kitten under control,a nd alphas do. When kittens are away, the hamsters will play :D. That makes SO much sense.

      Like


      • I posted before clicking through to your blog. What you posted above makes sense, after reading your blog (and preferences). Personally, the alpha spectrum is way more important to me in relationship to other men. (somewhat alpha, although not alpha enough to be a death target). In a relationship, though, there has to be enough of a kitten to achieve companionate love. I prefer a greater beta/lower alpha hybrid blended well enough that neither label applies. But I’m not subscribing to the “all guys have a kitten” theory. I’m pretty sure my dad did not. Although I guess it worked out because my mom hates cats anyway.

        Like


      • dont try with ema. she does not do nasty, for she has issues from father who was Hero of SPETSNAZ

        Like


  72. Many, probably most, feminists, and feminism as an ideology, are actually submissive. Just look at how the same feminists who demand equal (well, superior) rights and female quotas in management level jobs prostrate themselves before islam and demand ever more increasing muslim immigration and special concessions towards islam. Even the tough nordic woman around here in her heart seems to want someone even tougher to show her her place.

    Like


  73. we westerners will have disappeared by the time “fucking them back to inequality” would occur. no births means it’s over.

    Like


    • Sad, but true. At least before we go, most of us won’t have to listen to them whine about hard the childbirth THEY wanted so desperately is on them. Women outside the Western world know better than to flap their lips about that.

      Like


  74. Dude breaks it down…

    Like


  75. You are pathetic. I bet you are not getting much attention from women, which makes you rant the way you do 😀

    [Heartiste: If you knew the truth, your wretched soul would implode.]

    Like


  76. “In our present Western milieu of thugs-run-rampant among teeming hordes of emasculated manchildren betas abdicating their inheritance and retreating to the comfortable mini-kingdoms of gadgetry and porn, it’s no wonder the modern woman is unpleasant company. Her nature is not only ignored, it is violated; its opposite exalted and glorified by our propaganda ministers.”

    But here’s the problem: men also are debilitated, and yet they are told to ‘suck it up’ and still take the leadership role anyway. Men are debilitated because there aren’t many real incentives to ‘man up’ anymore; it’s the flip side of the cause of female frustration. Why should the average man compete vigorously when the most likely prize is an overweight, bitter, cynical, overused, empowered American female? Men have legitimate complaints too, but they are still told to abide by old formalities and not let such things disrupt the normal course of society. When do we hear in the MSM any talk of the almost complete lack of incentives for men? We constantly hear the female side of the equation, but not the male side.

    My question: since men are still told to not let their complaints (however legitimate) disturb their normal social obligations, why aren’t women told to do the same? I’m in agreement that women have some legitimate complaints, but why are they encouraged to allow these complaints to disrupt the social order?

    Like


  77. So if we went to a society where women had no political or social say and were all monogamous, would alpha men be monogamous? Would they stay faithful to their wives and provide for her?

    [Heartiste: In a society that revered monogamy and had social and legal strictures in place to encourage it, alpha males would be constrained in stepping out. Not that they wouldn’t try. All through history, under any system, alpha males have acted to get their needs met on the sly. How successful they are depends largely on how much freedom they have to pursue the harem strategy]

    Very curious.

    [No you’re not. Your question was meant as a rhetorical jab to swell your ego instead of enlighten yourself.]

    Thanks in advance

    [You’re welcome in hindsight.]

    Like