Beta males are the builders of civilization. You just can’t do without them. If their interests aren’t catered for, society devolves into a tribalistic jungle.
When traditional mores – that is, the masculine norms that underpin civilization – collapse, female hypergamy is unleashed, leading eventually to soft polygamy. Ironically, this overwhelmingly benefits just a small minority of alpha males (the “alpha fucks, beta bucks” strategy, as per Heartiste – and confirmed by science).
(Incidentally, it is perhaps not surprising that we are seeing a gradual convergence between radical feminism and the “strong horse” of Islamism).
Becoming a player, or PUA, is a natural adaptation of the rational beta male to his environment. To remain in the sexual market he is going to mimic alpha traits, which is ultimately what “game” is all about. The reason many women consider players to be “creeps” is because game is a form of reproductive cheating.
There are many possible solutions to this, both individual and social.
One thing that’s definitely pointless, though, is to blame or resent women for following their instincts (except, perhaps, as instructional examples). It’s not something they have any control over. That is why the MRA crowd is little better than the radfems.
Why shouldn’t you blame people for following their instincts? What an utterly bizarre idea.
I have often felt the ‘instinct’ to be violent, cheat, and exploit others, to consider only myself – but I did none of those things. Its good to know that I shouldn’t be blamed if I did those things. Hey, they’re instincts.
HBD is just one more step in the decline of civilization (and yes I regard PUA as a sub-department of HBD). It pretends to be ‘reality’ but is just irrational apologetics for being animalistic.
I am so glad I got out of HBD and see it for what it is now – not objective, not scientific, and not rational. It pretends to “describe” how things are neutrally, but in fact it seeks to encourage and promote animalistic behavior. You can’t blame people for following their animal instincts is hardly “scientific”, its encouragement and promotion.
HBD is just another non-scientific cultural project co-opting the prestige of scientific language to promote a very irrational modernistic agenda.
There are selfish instincts, and there are benevolent altruistic instincts – HBD not only focuses only on the negative ones, but encourages and promotes the use of only the negative instincts. Of course.
Anyone who has ever felt kindness, friendship, love, benevolence, knows how false the HBD picture of humanity is.
And anyone who knows history knows or has been in non-Western societies knows that the behavior of modern women in WEIRD societies cannot be used to draw sweeping conclusions about the biology of human. But of course, this is completely ignored. So intellectually sophisticated, is HBD.
The interesting thing about today is that the irrational mystery cults of our time all pretend to be “science” because that has the most prestige. In these times if you wanted to search for the most irrational currents in society you would find them all under “science”.
I would point out to people that PUA is bullshit in real life – I’ve picked up more women being polite, friendly, kind, and honest than I ever did being an asshole (nor is this to deny that many disturbed and culturally hollowed out women in WEIRD societies do like assholes)- but I know by now guys attracted to PUA do so out of purely religious reasons and are true believers unlikely to be dissuaded by reality.
Well! Sorry for this little screed – I haven’t looked at this site for a while now concluding that is just too remote from where I am now intellectually and spiritually, and I guess its probably time for me to check out again.
Good comment. Until the fans of the Greek alphabet manage to come up with consistent definitions of “alpha” and “beta males”, their shorthand will be useful but their theories incoherent.
I am so glad I got out of HBD
Don’t convert to Islam, you could run into a major problem.
These are terms taken from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethology
science about animal behavior.
In social and pack animals, alpha is pack leader
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_(ethology)
and beta is the “second in command”. Translated to human society, this means Trump, Obama, Putin, Xi Jinping etc.. are alpha males.
I don’t know, this seems rather unconvincing to me, but then I’m hardly a success with women myself. But that anecdotal “evidence” about Western women fancying Islamist thugs doesn’t match at all with the impressions I get from my female acquaintances. Women who are stupid enough to fall for that are probably pretty low-quality themselves.
“this means Trump, Obama, Putin, Xi Jinping etc.. are alpha males.”
But these are very different individuals…apart from the fact that they are all probably above average intelligence and ended up in leadership positions I don’t see much in common among them.
Putin imo seems like the only really tough man among them who might be desired by women and respected by men…I don’t like him much but I have to admit he comes across as capable, intelligent and determined, with classical virtues like self-restraint and resolve. Trump and Obama are deeply despised by many (not least because they are obviously vain egotists), and Xi Jinping is just some bureaucrat.
Yes, and this should be a hint that human society is different from wolf pack and to compare them gives few useful results.
I agree, that whole “alpha” and “beta” thing seems overly simplistic to me. I like AK’s posts about IQ studies and the like and I think HBD is on to something here, but that PUA-influenced stuff doesn’t do anything for me.
I’ve seen some, specifically including heartiste, define alpha as simply any guy considered desirable by women – i.e the term has no specific content or meaning, and cannot be attached to any specific behaviors or attributes.
It was in response to someone pointing out they knew someone who did none of the typical “alpha” stuff and was very successful with women. They expend reams of ink explaining which specific behaviors and attributes are alpha, then when confronted with a counter-example, they retreat to mere verbal tricks. You really have to be an idiot to not see through this, and its incredible how many smart people don’t.
These people have zero intellectual credibility.
They use “science” to back up their positions – yet this isn’t the kind of science that allows us to build jet engines and submarines, its social studies done exclusively on women in WEIRD societies, which have long been known to be illegitimate as the basis for conclusions about human biology. A fact they just ignore completely. Its science!
Like I said, just zero intellectual credibility.
In the end, its a religious mystery cult. These people have a self-image as “tough” and “realistic” and they construct a world that conforms to their emotional demands, completely ignoring any counter evidence (any truly “realistic” world picture would have to account for altruism, benevolence, kindness, etc) and using poor reasoning.
What’s striking about their world-picture is that while they view themselves as intellectual pioneers and cutting edge innovators they are in fact just the latest iteration of all the mainstream modern intellectual trends – social Darwinism, individualism, capitalist ruthlessness, extreme scientific reductionism, the unscientific focus on the animal side of human nature, using scientific language to lend a veneer of credibility. PUAs are just typical and predictable expressions of the modern mentality. Zero that is cutting edge about them.
Our culture can only produce variations on its dominant themes, themes that have been dominant since the 19th century, which we produce in increasingly lame versions and offer as “cutting edge”.
We are utterly stagnant – our intellectual “revolutions” occur within the mainstream of thought and are just recycled old ideas. We are a completely exhausted civilization.
Monarchy forced a lot of beta males to try and act like alpha males.
One in particular.
Happy IWD, 1917, er, 2017, Russians.
[It was in response to someone pointing out they knew someone who did none of the typical “alpha” stuff and was very successful with women. They expend reams of ink explaining which specific behaviors and attributes are alpha, then when confronted with a counter-example, they retreat to mere verbal tricks.]
Sometimes they remind me of “new atheist” fedoras. All the world’s evils are due to religion, and if you present an example of a regime with an atheist ideology which they cannot endorse, they declare it a form of religion, without any justification except the plenitude of their apostolical authority.
I don’t blame women for following their instincts. I avoid them because their following their instincts is hazardous to my well-being.
In the past, Mr. Karlin used to judge very strongly people who followed their instinct and betrayed their “race” or “motherland” for power, fame, money, cheese or other kind of reward. Are all the “cucks” owed apologies now?
I think a lot about these things, too. But there are some aspect I do not understand.
I think “traditional” masculine norms are not that traditional at all. As far as I understand the work of Henry Harpending hunter and gatherer people are softer, more feminine in general than sedentary people. Which makes sense, because agriculture produces the surplus which makes it possible for warrior castes to emerge – people who do not hunt/work themselves but exploit others. Also in societies after the neolithic revolution the partner market seems to get more unbalanced, with a few men getting a lot of women.
But it was not only war lords / kings / etc. who got a lot of women but also rich people. And this is one of the things I don´t understand:
have societies after the neolithic revolution rather rewarded warrior caste people who took women by force or was it who have chosen the most masculine / strongest / violent men (the latter would of course a kind of feminist paradise)? Or was it the rich guys who got a lot of women, either because of some kind of social institutions, as a gift by the community for example, or because the women have chosen the rich, presumably rather intelligent men. The last scenario would of course be gold-digging, which is, according to the theory suggested in the article above, the basis of civilization. It is also the paradise for Beta Providers.
In any case patriarchal norms in post-neolithic societies seem to have had the function to provide all men with the possibility to reproduce. In this sense the abrahamic religions etc. offer some kind of reproductional socialism.
Anyway my impression is that there is a huge overlap between antiracism (and pro mass immigration projects) and feminism, but not so much between Islamism and feminism. For most non-muslim women the muslim model seems to be a huge turn-off. Also racially, especially western women are not that much interested in Arabs, who still stand for Islam in western countries. On the other side western women are very much interested in subsaharan Africans, or more specific West Africans (and the West African diaspora).
Sometimes I think about what “globalization” and “future” means for the average young western man or the average young western woman, and what they dream about for themselves. The man would like to see himself as a chief engineer or executive of a big technology company in 2040. Married to an East Asian women, living in Beijing in the week and Canada in the weekend.
The average young woman maybe sees herself as the mother of a big African family. Like Madonna. She would work as the head of big Kindergarden or something like this, but only 3 days in the week, the rest of the week she could be with her 11 half-black children.
Apart from that I think you are either born a physical “Alpha” or not, game doesn´t help. But of course there are solutions for men with problems on the partner market.
It’s ridiculous to compare women’s evolved reproductive strategy with your impulses toward crime and violence.
and of course it is silly to blame women for cutting men out of the partner market, for whatever reasons they might have. After all humans, as many species also, only exist because not all men reproduce, while almost all women do. Evolution has only worked because there is some kind of selection
“I think “traditional” masculine norms are not that traditional at all. As far as I understand the work of Henry Harpending hunter and gatherer people are softer, more feminine in general than sedentary people. ”
Stop complicating the narrative. Science tells us modern women in WEIRD societies are a certain way and clearly we don’t have to know anything about other societies or previous periods in history. This is cutting edge science, you see.
Joking aside, there was an interesting article in the NYT a while ago about how modern movies cast the male hearthrob of Pride and Prejudice as this strong, masculine guy, with a square jaw and broad shoulders – you know, pretty much the usual modern Anglo idea of male hotness – when in fact they found that male hearthrobs of the 18th century were highly feminine, with sloping, unmuscular shoulders, narrow elongated faces, pale smooth skin, undeveloped muscles, etc. A square jaw and broad shoulders were considered distinctly unsexy, as it is today in much of Asia.
Lol, having lived a large part of my life in non-Anglo societies and having actually read some history none of this came as a surprise to me. Even in Europe, non-Anglo countries today have a more feminine male ideal, like in Spain.
But don’t tell heartiste or the other genius PUAS – they have science on their side, and besides, its bad manners to criticize someone’s religion.
MB
“It’s ridiculous to compare women’s evolved reproductive strategy with your impulses toward crime and violence.”
Hmmmm, let me see if I can get the rhetoric right. My impulses towards crime and violence are my evolved strategy for survival, every bit as irresistible as women’s evolved reproductive strategy. There, fixed it. Better, now? Did I get the pseudo-scientific verbiage right?
Darin
Karlin’s a pretty intelligent and amusing writer, but like all prisoners of ideology, he is far from capable of applying his principles consistently. I have caught him on other matters also not being consistent. When ideology rules your mind, this is how it plays out. Its quite irresistible and we should hardly blame him for following his ideological instincts. Ahem.
As far as I understand the work of Henry Harpending hunter and gatherer people are softer, more feminine in general than sedentary people.
I once read and reviewed on my blog Napoleon Chagnon’s book about the Yanomamo Indians of the Amazon. They’re mostly hunter gatherers. There is a bit if what I would call gardening among them.
Chagnon spent decades gathering statistics about the Yanomamo. I think about a third of the deaths are violent. The men who have killed have many more wives and children on average than the men who haven’t. Being a killer is a point of pride.
They raid each other’s villages for women. Men try to defend their village’s women, and this is where a lot of the deaths occur. Each of the women who are captured in these raids is raped by the entire raiding party on the way back to the other village. She then becomes the wife of one of the raiders.
They also challenge each other to several kinds of duels, which also sometimes end in fatalities. If I remember correctly, in one kind of duel men hit each other with stones that they hold in their fists. You have to take the hit, otherwise you’re a coward.
Don’t know how typical this is of hunter gatherers though.
Actually, it was a quite common feature of Victorian England for many women to be spinsters – George Gissing wrote an entire novel on it, Odd Women. And before that many women were nuns. A huge percentage of women historically didn’t reproduce.
Since mostly alphas reproduced according to alpha theory, all males today have the genes of alphas. So we’re all alpahs today – yay!
As for selection pressure – in historic times,female preference never came into it, as parental choice was the selection pressure, in pre-historic times nearly all males in the community mated and the concept of alpha was unknown as the social structure was very egalitarian (hierarchical social structures first emerged in agricultural times)
So when did females develop this preference for alphas? In pre-agricultural times there were no alphas – society was egalitarian. In hierarchical agricultural times, parental choice was key, not female preference.
But again, I should really stop noticing things as Steve says. Why must I complicate a simple and clear narrative that is utterly based on cutting edge science and excellent reasoning and gives many young men today a sense of purpose and meaning in an otherwise bleak and empty world.
I will desist.
Even in Europe, non-Anglo countries today have a more feminine male ideal, like in Spain.
You’re delusional. Do you know who Julio Iglesias is? Have you ever seen a picture of a bullfighter?
OK, I looked up my old review.
“Chagnon determined that Yanomamö men who had killed fellow men had 2.6 times more wives and 3.1 times more children than Yanomamö men who had not killed.”
According to his data a quarter of adult Yanomamo men die violently. So my recollection above was a bit off. He wrote about women goading their men into attacking neighboring villages, calling them cowards if they didn’t.
For anyone curious:
http://lazyglossophiliac.blogspot.com/2013/06/review-of-yanomamo.html?m=0
“As far as I understand the work of Henry Harpending hunter and gatherer people are softer, more feminine in general than sedentary people.”
Is that actually true? I haven’t read about the subject in detail, but I thought there were studies about hunter gatherers in the Amazon that showed a high degree of violence (e.g. men had some super-high risk of dying a violent death). Maybe those societies are more egalitarian, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re soft.
Thank you…that was what I had in mind, hadn’t read your comment before I posted mine.
because agriculture produces the surplus which makes it possible for warrior castes to emerge – people who do not hunt/work themselves but exploit others
The Yanomamo don’t have elites. Everyone works and all the men fight.
This looks potentially interesting:
https://www.amazon.de/Violence-Warfare-Among-Hunter-Gatherers-Allen/dp/1611329396
“Everyone works and all the men fight”
that´s like I imagine a sailor bar or the evening entertainment for siberian lumberjacks.
Dude, I’ve spent much time in Spain. I know whereof I speak. The ideal is very far from the hyper-masculine douchebag so prized in contemporary Anglo culture. Scandinavian countries are another place I’ve spent time where the ideal is far more feminine – they even dress well! How gay, right? And even Anglo countries have only recently acquired this ideal, as the vulgar materialistic element in Anglo culture has grown. In the 18th century the Anglo male ideal was quite refined and feminine, as would befit a culture that still had a strong spiritual and intellectual element, now utterly gone.
As for Napoleon Changnon, Steve Sailer wrote a while ago about how he read his own (modern) masculine preoccupations into the people he was studying, which does not surprise me. The general anthropological consensus is that HG were far less violent – violence was mostly ritualistic and highly contained – egalitarian, and chilled out than agri-societies like ours, although there are probably exceptions based on stressful local conditions.
Our civilization seems doomed to oscillate within a narrow band of choices that it cannot escape from – pathological leftism, or toxic hard masculine dominate the world rightism that created the anhedonia and life-dissatisfaction that is killing us now. Our harsh dominate-the-world-and -nature attitude robbed life of its poetry and savor and led to suicidual leftist self-hatred, and the only response we can call forth to combat pathological leftism is to double down on and escalate (return to?) the pathological dominate-the-world harsh attitude. We are doomed. We lack the cultural resources to escape our predicament.
Oh well, let it end and something new and healthy grow on the ashes.
Hunting accounts for only 10% of Yanomami food. This is by no means “hunter-gatherer” society. This is why women are so important – they work the fields as slave labor, “means of production” in Marxist talk.
http://www.survivalinternational.org/tribes/yanomami/wayoflife
There is no such thing as “typical” h-g society, as is there no “typical” agricultural or industrial society. If you survey actual documented societies, you find peaceful ones on one side and on another one societies so violent that will make Yanomami look like Amish. And whatever you find, you can say “this is how human nature looks like”.
Share of violent deaths for non-state societies – Max Roser2
https://ourworldindata.org/ethnographic-and-archaeological-evidence-on-violent-deaths
This is why women are so important – they work the fields as slave labor, “means of production” in Marxist talk.
Chagnon wrote that the Yanomamö (his spelling) hunt, gather and garden for a total of 3 hours a day. There’s no labor shortage.
It seems obvious to me that they raid for women in order to have sex with them. Darwin, not Marx. Look up what I wrote above on the difference in reproduction rates between those who’ve killed and those who haven’t.
This is the most basic behavioral pattern among humans: kill their men, take their women, have more children.
Who is being animalistic here ? All those things you mentioned occur in animals as well, they pre date human civilization and thus are not what determines great civilizations. One would think intelligence would be an important factor in determining civilizational greatness, your dismissal of this single most important trait and instead focus on “love, kindness, kumbaya, …” is ridiculous.
they work the fields
There are no fields. In Chagnon’s day they set up little gardens in the forest. Plus they hunted and gathered a lot.
The aristocratic ideal, that marked you as one of the 1% of 1%, far above the common peasants and laborers.
Yes, the spiritual culture of 18th century of England, based on colonialism, piracy and slave trade abroad and destruction of peasants at home. Culture constantly at war, culture with one of the most corrupt governments ever, culture with 220 crimes punishable by death.
Start with your house first, and tell us how it worked for you.
Am I right in saying that this whole Greek letter thing is not a genetic thing ? As in alphas produce alpha offspring, and beta produce beta, and so on. If it is not genetic but something that is determined during pregnancy (like left or right handedness for example), then even if soft polygamy becomes the absolute norm for almost everyone there would still be all the Greek letters.
I didn’t say the whole culture was spiritual, just that it still had a spiritual element now lacking. Romanticism, for instance.
I’d agree with you that overall it was pretty horrible. I generally think post-renaissance European culture is pretty horrific, but it is dying of its own implications.
While I think aristocracy is superior to democracy and market capitalism, I don’t support the aristocratic ideal, as you put it. But an aesthetic that involves refinement and less of a preoccupation with brute strength and materialism is clearly spiritual, even if aristocrats tend to adopt this aesthetic as their own.
I’m actually not a fan of civilization. My ideal society is more like the easy going anarchy and egalitarianism of prehistoric times. I favor the social ideal set forth in the Tai Teh Ching. Civilization is certainly no ideal of mine.
Yes, I am opposing benevolence, altruism, and kindness to brutality, selfishness, deceit, and violence – the PUA ideal. That does seem more animalistic to me, sorry.
As for intelligence, since I don’t value civilization – technology, hierarchy, organization, “accompmishment” – highly I don’t think it’s that important. While a certain amount of intelligence is indispensable for spirituality, the spiritual traditions I value most – Buddhism, Taoism, and early Christianity – have no use for what the modern world means by “intelligence” (mainly inventing conveniences, cheating others, and being restless and unhappy) and frequently extol the foolish, the childish, the naive, and the simple.
So no, I would be very far from ranking high intelligence as understood by modernity as of prime importance to human felicity.
PUA has worked for me*, but I suspect that you might be in a place where you are meeting women not of the Western persuasion. At any rate, the notion of HBD is reinforced by the fact that much of conscious decisionmaking might not be so conscious(The Ethical Brain) and the very ability to “slam the brakes” on instinct may be a hereditary trait.
I can see how this can be a distasteful or even useless trait from a spiritual perspective, though. Its a good argument how society should be structured to try not to encourage the baser instincts of humanity, or channel it into an useful urge, but of course, we’re not having any of that here in the West as individualization is seeking to take on its ultimate form.
Incidentally, its good to hear from you. The spiritual perspective is one that is much welcome, and appeals to a part of me that I’ve mostly lost, but which I find ultimately beautiful.
I really couldn’t blame anyone for doing what they needed for cheese. Its perfect food, such traitors clearly know what’s gouda for them.
My knowledge of North American Native Americans suggests that they had at least a moderately violent life for males – true, dedicated violence does require enough wealth to fund a warrior class, but it does seem like that males are conflated with hunters and fighters. Valor is prioritized in men, rather than women, and there’s a pretty consistent level of posturing even if it doesn’t entirely spill into outright violence.
I suspect that there are some African tribes which are extremely shy and avoidant; Bushmen may be largely passive and engage in rituals such as “insulting the meat” which is supposed to lower the pride felt by traditionally male hunters. Such societies practice both infanticide as well as suicide by the old, though; they maintain an extremely low population and seem pretty fragile.
They’re primitive even by the standards of say, the Yanomamo.
They do have chieftans with more wives than others, and his bigger warriors who form a rough elite, imo. Their practice of slash-and-burn agriculture puts them ahead of the most primitive hunter-gatherer tribes, though.
Being newly exposed to this PUA concept, I wonder if it is an excuse to rationalize primitive cultures and behaviors. From my modest observations, more civilized people exercise greater self control and are less likely to fall prey to simplistic notions like game. It seems like a sick joke at the expense of gullible and scared middle class people trying to stay a step ahead of the undertow while chasing after the success train.
Maybe there is a psychological and cultural diversity of tribal types and not”everyone is soft” or “everyone is not”.
Have you tried not avoiding them but denying them your essence?
http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/02/does-the-manosphere-morally-corrupt-men/
ps I’ve nothing against PUA per se, you can’t blame people for adapting, even if the adaptation itself furthers the degeneracy instead of putting a stop to it. but that’s the nature of feedback loops, you get something like that e.g. in societies with a long history of lawlessness or invasion, border tribes etc.
and, of course, wrong != false. I think PUAs are onto something regarding the (spherical, in a vacuum, ceteris paribus etc) female nature.
The evidence that smart Western women fancy Islamic thugs is more than anecdotal. It’s summed up in the old expression “every woman loves a fascist”, as in the case of the Boston Marathon bomber’s wife: “Tsarnaev’s widow, Katherine Russell (a.k.a. Karima Tsarnaeva or Katherine Tsarnaev), was born on February 6, 1989, in Texas. She was raised in Rhode Island; her father is an emergency room doctor and her mother is a nurse. Their home has been described as nominally Christian and Russell reportedly wasn’t religious “at all” in high school. She attended North Kingstown High School, and graduated in 2007 at the top of her class. Her yearbook entry lists her plans as college and the Peace Corps. She was remembered for her talent in painting and drawing.”
Anatoly, as you state, women instinctively know who the Alpha males and Beta males are … and they prefer Alpha males as their protectors, companions, and the fathers of their children. As such, their mating choices are a keen barometer of cultural health.
That said, is it possible for an entire generation of males to express Beta characteristics as an aspect of national culture?
I believe so. I’m thinking of the current generation of males in Northern Europe and their weak response to the invasion of immigrant Muslim males. Indeed, the males in Northern Europe appear to have abrogated all interest in territorial survival, having turned the management of their countries over to coteries of radical feminists.
Is a preponderance of Beta males within a culture that is at the same time coextensive with females increasingly being attracted to alien males evidence of a dying culture?
I believe so. I first noticed this in my reading of the decline and fall of the Western Roman Empire. By the 5th Century, Roman princesses appeared to show a preference for liaisons with Germanic chieftains rather than the feminized Beta males in Roman society. These princesses clearly saw the handwriting on the wall. Their keen instincts told them it was time to abandon the sinking ship … the Roman Empire … and seek their futures and fortunes elsewhere.
Hence, there is predictive value in changing female mating patterns. Given recent events in Northern Europe, it makes sense to “sell short” regarding the future of Western Civilization in these countries.
Women generally want a perfect men, alpha, beta and whatever Greek name… And not just one type. This explain why most men believe women are illogical. They don’t know what women want…. Women want a protective, wild animal sometimes preferably in bed, romantic, smart etc… A complete men while selection usually create a diversity of incomplete individuals who need cooperate one each other “to complete” at least in terms of survive. And also sexual dimorphism tend to create mutually and partially atomized sexes.
We’ve heard that Tsarnaev was innocent … ok, no one is truly & totally innocent of everything, but … innocent about the alleged bombing: http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/01/05/murdering-the-innocent-in-order-to-support-the-lie-paul-craig-roberts/
Why is there contradiction between Darwin and Marx? For all recorded history slaves were used both for labor and sex.
Roman empire in 5th century was place of endless treachery, massacres, coups and civil wars, not my idea of soft place. The “princess” seems to be recollection of recollection of recollection of story of Galla Placidia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galla_Placidia
Fascinating, capable and lucky woman, but her life have nothing in common with your pornographic fantasy.
This was in some article about embargo and counterembargo about year or two ago, too lazy to look it up. Mr. Karlin was incensed when Russian liberals complained about lack of cheese.
If I were Russian patriot, I would be ashamed – what sort of world power is it that could not make world class cheese and must rely on the accursed West. I grant that making good cheese is much harder than building missiles, spaceships and nuclear weapons, but this is reason to try harder, not to give up.
the current generation in western worlds celebrates being Alpha more than any generation ago, because it is a time of female choice
Alphas may be attractive at hormonal levels but not at rational levels. Explain young women and their wild fever.
Alphas have the appearance (even many non alpha men can have good looking) and the supposed protection. Most of your protective and parent-care alphas in the true are “psycho-biologically mixed” with other groups as beta. “pure breed alpha” as well pure breed beta or gama tend not to be good to the women. Pure breed alpha= irresponsibility, over-confidence, lack of romanticism; pure breed beta = too boring; pure breed gama = too emotional etc
Rational layer most women search for the perfect men that embodied all hormonal mantypes. But many women are visually or hormonally attracted to the alpha or based on hormonal/instinctive levels. Instinct evidently it’s not always right.
Hey Daniel,
Thanks for chiming in. I believe you that PUA worked for you, but its hard to say precisely “what” was so effective. Its possible PUA just made you more socially outgoing, or more relaxed around women because you felt you “understood” them, or some such second-order effect that is not quite PUA per se. Its just very hard to say, from a scientific standpoint. As for your wife’s description of her own reasons for liking you, with respect, I find that humans rarely understand their true motivations, and their descriptions of their mental processes often merely reflect cultural preferences, which is why “happiness” surveys are typically meaningless.
I went through an asshole phase, and then I went through a phase where I was just the nicest, sweetest, most loving, polite guy you’ve ever met, with absolutely no concern for status and ego, no posturing and no pretension (as much as I was able, with the assistance of copious amounts of alcohol and other substances). In both phases I was very socially outgoing, and I got girls in both phases, but only in the second phase did I actually get girls hitting on me in clubs and bars. In fact, the response to my “loving” phase from girls was overwhelming, and I still honestly struggle to explain it. It certainly goes completely against PUA theory. My personal theory is that all humans, men and women, find status seeking and ego a burden they seek release from, and when they encounter someone who, if even for a short while, seems somewhat free from these things, who isn’t along with the other men trying to be tough and formidable and dominant, who is almost laughing at these kinds of pretensions and posturings, something inside them responds on a very, very deep level, even if they don’t understand it themselves, and even if they are not entirely won over.
I would be the last to deny that the emotions that PUA tries to hit – selfishness, greed, status seeking, ego – are a huge part of the human personality, but they are far from the only part, and we live in a vulgar materialistic culture that explicitly tries with every means at its disposal to cultivate this ugly side of the human personality. Witness Karlin – under the guise of a netral observer of facts, he takes a specific moral stance in favor of this ugly side. Its no wonder that PUA has some success in such a climate, but this shouldn’t be taken as “human nature”. This is merely the way some women will behave in the last stages of a decadent, declining, and materialistic civilization. There is nothing universal and inevitable about it, even though it is “biological” in a certain sense.
Anyways, I’m glad you enjoy my spiritual perspective, at least.
Triumph of the Will : spirituality. (You may wish to deny it.) Himmler and so many others in the SS were focused on occultism: spirituality. Wehrmacht uniforms: unsurpassed aesthetics. (At this point you may wish to make a distinction between aesthetics that is spiritual and an unspiritual one, but let me finish.) Choosing “9/11” .. a-ha, symbolic, a holistic thinking, further evidence of spirituality.
Globalistic view is, generally, quite holistic. It has a strong spiritual dimension. (And it says ‘amen’ to killing civilians. )
One can see pronounced refinement in the avian and feline predators, while the animals they are hunting: bovine, rats, chickens: tend to be synonymous with crudeness, even nastiness.
All in all, posing spirituality and refinement as a polar opposite to materialism & aggressiveness looks pretty wrongheaded. ( Yes, you didn’t mention aggressiveness, you just insinuated it with terms like “horrific” and “brute force.” )
Incensed?
http://www.unz.com/akarlin/gessen-nyt-cheese/
The Church encouraged the marriage of Roman princesses to Frankish nobles to christianize the next generation. The Franks participated because marrying the daughter of the displaced landowner better secured their title.
That’s because the general anthropological consensus is PC nonsense. Read Lawrence Keeley’s War Before Civilisation. The level of violence in hunter gatherer societies is staggering.
What I know is anthropologists arguing back and forth …
For example, here writes an anthropologist who has actually lived among hunter-gatherers:
“Also I have read both Keeley and Le Blanc and their data is cherry picked and their analysis attempts to retrofit data from the Holocene – especially where populations were increasingly reaching resource limits – to a much more climatically turbulent Pleistocene.”
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/aeonmagazine/how_could_they/#comment-2230711368
It’s probably more difficult to determine the truth on that, than to determine truths in history ( how “easy”, inarguable, is that….)
I remember reading the Neil Strauss book and thought the obvious points were that you have much better chances of mating success if you dress well, are in shape and come off as confident. Frankly the best chance you have of having a great marriage\relationship is finding someone very similar to you who you can be completely natural with. When I was looking for a wife, online dating tools were extremely helpful in filtering out undesirable and incompatible potentials and focusing on exactly what I was after. The rest was just persistence, and the result was more than I could have dreamed of.
Also, women care about wealth and status but up to a point only (granted the point varies depending on the culture they were brought up in). From some of the talk you hear, some of the disappointed appear to think all women are only interested in six foot two zillionaires with eight packs. What they really need to do is think very hard about who they want to invest in and search relentlessly.
The easiest way to go from omega,beta to Super Alpha is Hardmode NoFap (no porn, no masturbation,no sex, no touching oneself,no fantasizing) for 3-4 months….I Gurantee you that hot women on the streets, high end shopping districts, shopping malls,public transport and multiplexes will eye as if you are their favourite cupcake…..bodybuilding while on NoFap increases the effect of semen retention significantly too ….then after 3-4 months when you are getting offers of “just f*** me”, dates and one night stands, you slowly transition into semen retentive sex…
Semen is the virile Life source of men…It is modern porn and medical advice of daily masturbation that has wrecked men
If my predictions donot come true in your life then just cut off my balls…
Now some will now quip that if you donot ejaculate regularly you will get some sort of prostrate cancer..I for one donot believe this propaganda as I believe the elites and the porn industry controlled by the elites make such false studies to keep men under control …(men who fap to porn are basically cucks as they rather enjoy watching other men f*** beautiful women)
Even if those studies are true, I want to ask:
Do you want to live 50-60 years as Alpha or 80-90 years as a feminized Omega cuck
Over to you all my potential NoFap Heroes
PS:Google NoFap Superpowers AND NoFap Female attraction
2 years ago, how fast the time flies 😉 Anything changed in Russia since them, on the cheese front I mean?
Well said, Commader Ripper. We must protect our precious bodily fluids by any means necessary!
I am not a cheese person, I don’t care.
You can get okay Russian analogues for most cheeses. Unfortunately, feta is not one of them (the only cheese I do care about).