Does “The Selfish Gene” Theory Explain Women’s Behavior?

If there’s one thing a man learns about women when he literally beds hundreds of them in his own personal anthropological experiment trying to find out what makes females tick (as well as his own taste for hedonism—heh) it’s that there are no unicorns. Those with powers of keen observation and rational analysis notice women are naturally gifted with the innate behavior the philosopher Schopenhauer called dissimulation, that is the tendency to conceal their true thoughts and feelings.

When a man watches female behavior instead of listening to their words patterns begin to emerge. One of the most important patterns a man might notice is that the most powerful force in the universe is hypergamy, not compound interest as Einstein humorously stated. Hypergamy is of course the human female’s tendency to marry up (never down) in social status. Oxford-educated anthropologist Robert Briffault knew this in the 1930s, but of course Utopia-seeking Western social engineers completely ignored what made society stable in mad pursuit of magic theories that were going to fix everything.

Their egalitarian notions of some sort of sexual equality were doomed to failure, and the failure was baked right into the cake. Briffault wrote:

The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.

That simple sentence, followed to its logical conclusion could have stopped the impending sexual disenfranchisement and subsequent disengagement of Western men from their own nations.

Briffault knew if a woman can’t use a man for something—money, social status, power or all three—she wants nothing to do with said man no matter how attractive a man he might be or how altruistic he is. A perfectly equal society is a society in which women have ZERO attraction to men, because men in such a society would be bereft of the qualities that make them attractive to women in the first place. Feminism was destined to create chaos from its inception.

Eggs are rare, sperm is plentiful, therefore males are usually disposable in nature

Eggs are rare, sperm is plentiful, therefore males are usually disposable in nature

Women will do anything for the seed of a top dog. Just watch as they literally faint in old videos of The Beatles and turn into total whores whenever a dominant male enters the room, or orbit actors like DiCrapio. Guys like DiCrapio look and act like douches but have the key female-attracting intoxicants: money, status, and power. (If you want to see what it’s like to be an alpha male and see the power of hypergamy in full swing, go to a country in which you have high social capital and watch how differently you are treated than when you’re in America or Europe. But, bear in mind women’s interest in you as a human being is purely an illusion.)

Feminism fails to account for the fact that removing money, status, and power from men will ultimately unleash chaos on society.

Of course, the fact the world is melting down is based not only on Utopia-seeking sociological behavior that ignores fundamental principles of anthropology. Politicians and social engineers also ignore the primacy of a relatively new concept in science known as The Selfish Gene (which incidentally led George R. Price, one of its discoverers to suicide). They formulate hypotheses about a “perfect world” then try to simulate the real world using Game Theory (not the game theory of the manosphere) which reduces people to mathematical equations social engineers then plug into computer models. These models currently tell politicians the solution to all the world’s ills is to throw everything up in the air, destroy national identities and borders, and pretend ethnic and sexual differences don’t matter in fantastical sort of New World Order that is destined for catastrophe.

The Utopians most crucially missed the implications of The Selfish Gene on male/female relations.

The Selfish Gene

Women are innately solipsistic and selfish as any man who has had many dealing with them knows

Women are innately solipsistic and selfish as any man who has had many dealings with them knows

If it’s been said once, it’s been said a thousand times, nice guys finish last. But why is it that women choose dominance every time over niceness, dooming notions of sexual equality to dismal failure?

The Selfish Gene” theory could explain the tendency of women not only to marry up, but to completely disregard the bottom 4/5 of men as potential suitors as The Pareto Principle suggests and eyewitness evidence in any club in America will illustrate. Here’s a simple definition of The Selfish Gene:

A lineage is expected to evolve to maximize its inclusive fitness—the number of copies of its genes passed on globally (rather than by a particular individual).

This theory is bad news for men in a sexual market that has shifted to look more like a jungle than a civilization since the advent of “women’s liberation” a.k.a. feminism. The Realtalk translation of that very effete sounding definition of The Selfish Gene works out to: Women want to fuck the winners, and they will fuck over the losers.

Women have evolved to disregard and even harbor contempt for “inferior” DNA. In a cruel world in which survival of the fittest has been the rule from day one over 4 billion years ago when life began to form in the slime, being a nice boy doesn’t cut it. Women, more than men, are beholden to the influences of The Selfish Gene, and though we may lament its effects on our sexual and familial prospects as men there are sound biological reasons women have evolved to be ruthless when it comes to choosing sexual partners.

The Pareto Principle appears in many areas of life, including the mating game

The Pareto Principle appears in many areas of life, including the mating game

It all comes down to survival of the genes.

Even though the following information is regularly hidden in academia because it doesn’t fit the West’s cultural narratives, studies of sexual behavior have led to quite the stunning revelation that harems are quite a normal part of human history. And indeed, it seems this tendency of women to orbit dominant men while using weaker men for resources is becoming the norm once again in the 21st century world in which cultural mores designed to keep women’s sexuality from destroying society have blindly been discarded in a vain pursuit of making “a better world.”

As reported on my blog in June in The History of Harems: Women Orbit, Too, anthropological studies have found evidence that harems have been quite the norm throughout most of history:

Here are some other parts of the world in which women were in harems of a dominant man rather than the one and only of hapless Beta males, the exact type of male they show open contempt towards today:

  • Egypt: Pharaohs demanded to be in the constant company of numerous beautiful girls.
  • Sri Lanka: King Kashyapa had a harem that numbered 500.
  • Mexico: Montezuma had 4,000 concubines when he met Cortez.
  • China: One emperor had 2,800 concubines.
  • Africa: Junior wives and concubines orbited Chieftans.
  • Mongolia: Genghis Khan fathered so many children 1 in 200 men have his DNA today.

The University of Wisconsin showed the practice of maintaining harems is far from unusual in history. It surveyed 1,000 historical societies to find out how common polygyny has been, and the findings are astonishing: Just 18% of historical societies were monogamous. Half of rest of the 82% had occasional polygyny and the other half had it all the time. If nothing else, this historical fact helps show why women have such contempt for Beta males – they are not as valuable for providing material things as high status men.

So women (like men, but moreso) are driven by coding from selfish genes, women want dominant men and don’t care about the rest (incidentally this is the rule in other species as well), and they do not think about the consequences of their actions on the long term viability of the civilization they’re in. They’d rather be in a harem with a dominant man than the “one and only” of a nice boy. The West was unique in that it had evolved to offer males a seat at the table of the human family via culturally enforced monogamy. That offer has since been rescinded.

What Does It All Mean

Western social engineers fiddle with Utopian ideals while their countries burn

Western social engineers fiddle with Utopian ideals while their countries burn

The world we are heading into, rather than being an altruistic world envisioned by liberals and other clueless dupes is going to be an increasingly unstable world as men vie with each other in contests to be top dog for the sexual and reproductive advantages. Women benefit, and arguably the human genome benefits because the strongest genes survive, but civilization loses and it loses big as primitive sexual forces and survival instincts are unleashed on a soft, delusional society.

This, more than anything else explains why women are welcoming rapists into cucked nations in Europe and outbreeding in increasing numbers in the U.S. It’s a giant civilizational shit test courtesy of selfish genes, of which women are more controlled by than men, who have greater powers of logic and reasoning.

The West’s attempts at making a better world in pursuit of the ultimate fulfillment of its Spenglerean Prime Symbol of Infinity, in the modern sense a strange ideology that sees world socialism as the be all, end all to humanity’s problems will end in tragedy. This is especially true in that it is blindly meddling with the primal forces of nature. It seems our “wise” leaders have thrown the dice one too many times in a delusional dream to bring about a “better world” but have unwittingly unleashed primitive forces (like The Selfish Gene and concepts Freud also worried about) that will destroy it.

It all boils down to liberalism being a giant Utopian dream that failed, and instead of taking us all to heaven as it claimed it would, it is casting us all into hell.

Read More: The Difference Between A Woman’s Behavior And Her Intent

148 thoughts on “Does “The Selfish Gene” Theory Explain Women’s Behavior?”

  1. There’s one issue with this article: the author clearly has only been around the worst females imaginable. Because… those are the sorts you’re going to get when your goal is sleeping with as many as possible. A high quality girl isn’t going to hop in bed just like that, I don’t care what your game is.
    I admit finding the good ones are tough (impossible in the US haha), but they do exist and they aren’t going to be fooled into bed by a PUA (or whatever other acronym you want to use).
    For the rest of the women though… likely spot on. 🙂

    1. You say seduction is a logical process when it’s not! Put it this way, most men are betas in the west these days. Women are usually surrounded by these weak men that do nothing for them sexually. An alpha comes along and she loses all sense of control. Seduction is a subconscious process bro just like for men where they see a 10 and lose all sense of control. Most will fall to their knees.

      1. That’s my point. Most. Not all. For the majority of women, this article is probably completely accurate. I’m just talking about the exceptions, few though they may be. 🙂

    2. You’re saying that a “quality girl” wouldn’t want to spend time with Leonardo DiCaprio?? LOL. Next joke please

      1. Good God no! That guy is hideous! He was hideous when he was young, he’s hideous now. 😀 And that’s before we get to his acting.
        But if you think that’s a joke, you might not have encountered a quality girl. Nothing to be ashamed of, it’s not like they’re growing on trees…. in the US. 😀

        1. oh please….every female and their mother goes weak in the knees for dicaprio and george clooney and whoever else.
          they all do it. every single last one.
          whether they would all act on such a chance? who knows. you might find the rare odd one that won’t for whatever reason. perhaps one that has found God and fears what happens when she commits adultery or fears her husbands wrath.

        2. George Clooney I can see. DiCaprio, no. 😀
          And you’re wrong. Not every last single one. Sorry. Some exist with standards too. 🙂
          I think the issue here is you (and the author) hasn’t ever encountered the exception. So I can sit here and say “Hey, they exist!” but so what? Until you run into one yourself, they may as well be in the realm of unicorns and elven maidens. (If you’re in the US, you’re more likely to run into an elven maiden!! Sorry, I never get tired of dissing American “women”.) 🙂

        3. just because you cant see dicaprio doesnt make it any less true. and the name is almost irrelevant. just pick the latest big hollywood star and the point is proven.
          clooney, tom hanks, dicaprio, brad pitt…etc
          they all go weak in the knees for them. no exceptions. period.
          we also arent interested in the exceptions here. we hear about the exceptions everywhere on every news station in every place of work in every school and every church. we here deal with the fact that AWALT. not NAWALT.
          the women that wouldnt go weak in the knees are as i stated probably super religion and fear God’s wrath for adultery and/or their husbands wrath…..which is the thing keeping them in check, not their natural goodness. if a woman has natural goodness…know she has some external force beat it into her.
          I’d wager 1% if that much, find a natural goodness and have a good enough moral character to be left on their own, and not under the stern rule of a man.
          so it is important for men, to reclaim their manhood and to throw women back into the homes.

        4. Oh you’re no fun! At least take a shot at one of the Hollywood dorks! 😛 (TOM HANKS!? That guy is a fatty now! 😀 :-D)
          The only real difference in this discussion is that I know women with actual principles exist. You don’t and believe all women are basically amoral unless external checks keep them in line.
          Can’t say I blame you coming to that conclusion either. … Oh what the hell, another dig: if I was still in the US I’d probably have the -exact- same opinion! 😀

        5. eh…tom hanks has money and popular as fuck. believe me i can rant against hollywood if i so feel inclined.
          and you non-american women are getting to be just as bad.
          all women need checks placed upon them. every single last one. no exceptions. period. end of story. no you do not know any that are not like that and the proof is what happens when you inject just a hair of freedom and feminism into them.
          they break instantly and turn into liberal swine unless their core social group aka their family and husband acts as a check against them.
          you keep saying non psycho women exist….perhaps….but thats easily 1% or less of the women population in the world….it is irrelevant.
          the closest to a moral woman i know is my mom….but with red pill eyes i now see her, after 50 years of marriage, still randomly shit testing dad. shes religious, wouldnt dare think about adultery….but still gets weak in the knees for clooney and still hands out shit tests even if she is a far better class of woman than most today….she still behaves like AWALT. she will still say “I’m not complaining about person X” then proceed to 2 seconds later bitch about them.
          shes as close to a unicorn as I’ve stumbled across….and she still fits AWALT….just less so.
          the point….AWALT….all of them. period. no exceptions. do not be fooled. your grandmother, your mother….they all behave like that.

        6. I don’t like absolutes. They generally don’t exist. Like… All black men are criminals. Or… all Muslims are terrorists. (OK, they aren’t but most agree with terrorism. Ahem, bad example. haha) Or… all American women are ugly. (… That one may be true. I’m not helping am I? :-D) All feminists are crazy. (Erm… yeah, I’m losing this one! That is totally true! :-D) So there I went, about proving that absolutes may indeed exist. Haha! 🙂
          Depending on generation, our mothers may or may not count. The Greatest Generation (in the US) I think has plenty of examples that prove the idea of absolutely ALL women are amoral to be false. My parent’s generation was already starting to go to hell but I’ve seen some examples in their group also.
          There’s really no changing either of our minds. You believe none exist, I know (thanks to my own experience) a few do. I would like to caution you about one little thing however. If you believe all women are amoral, you’re likely to miss out on the 0.1% that aren’t. That would be a shame. 🙂

        7. I’ve been around a bit and have come to agree with the second view – women will be as slutty as they are socially able to be.
          Example 1: A Saudi migrant girl in Sydney sampling generous servings of non-halal meat.
          Example 2: An Indian student from a good family unable to resist Aussie beef (actually it was part Chinese beef but I wanted to use that phrase).
          Example 3: Conservative Christian Korean girl travelling alone, anywhere.
          Example 4: An allegedly conservative society where discreet ‘love hotels’ are ubiquitous and frequently frequented.
          Face it, we now know women as well as we know men. There are domestic cats and feral cats, but they are all cats and will default to certain behaviours under the right conditions. Don’t like it? Change the conditions.
          Actually no, don’t do that. I’m a hunter, not a farmer.

        8. “Or… all American women are ugly.”
          I will say….on the off chance you find an american woman who isnt a landwhale and is that sweet 5’3-5’5 130ish pounds and is well groomed and taken care of….theres nothing on this planet that competes with that level of feminine beauty. but she is a rare breed indeed.
          ” I would like to caution you about one little thing however. If you believe all women are amoral, you’re likely to miss out on the 0.1% that aren’t. That would be a shame. :-)”
          its a game of statistics and chances really. the sad fact is marriage or any LTR is suicidal in america if you are a man. short term stuff is well short term. not really fulfilling if you get my drift. Im not saying absolutely that bigfoot isnt real. but all we have our stories and a random video from the 60s.
          “Depending on generation, our mothers may or may not count. The Greatest Generation (in the US) I think has plenty of examples that prove the idea of absolutely ALL women are amoral to be false.”
          the flaw here really is that this generation and the one before it laid the groundwork by raising that idiots who would raise even bigger idiots in the 60s and 70s….who would go on the raise the psychotic 80s and 90s kids….who would go on to produce 5 year olds that are cell phone facebook junkies. its all connected and my point is that maybe the older generations arent as bad, but they did raise the generations that would eventually accept LBGT, and other insane things. so they arent faultless and they arent the greatest generation.
          my rule of thumb is “there is an exception to every rule, including this one”
          so are there any wonderful great american women left? looks wise? yeah a few. mentally? this is where I start to doubt things. I’ve had enough sisters, been to enough school, and worked in enough customer service to be pretty confident in saying….if she is liberal she is broken and odds are she is a liberal feminist twat. sure maybe i’ll win at vegas….but odds are i wont.

        9. well again like i said….God fearing religious types, have a better safeguard in check as that produces morals.
          women can have morals, if something puts them into check.

        10. I’m a woman. Thanks I guess.
          A. Leo has never been attractive. He was effeminate looking when he was young, and he’s starting to look more and more like Jack Nicholson (minus the character substance) with each passing day.
          B. George Clooney is handsome no doubt, but I guess not my cup of tea. Sort of blank.
          Gabriel Byrne from 15 years ago, or John Malkovich circa Dangerous Liaisons: now these are men with whom I want hubby to grant me the “pass”. Substance over style my friend 😉
          P.s.
          I trust you realize that me asking for permission to sleep with people from specific points in time means I wouldn’t actually act on this under any circumstances.

        11. My comments here aren’t really for women. 🙂
          A. Can’t argue, totally agree.
          B. Kudos for not falling for The Clooney.
          C. Malkovich!? *shudders* Well… differences make the world go round. Maybe he was better looking… at some point in the past when I didn’t see him. 😀 (I think Dangerous Liaisons was a -tad- before my time. I do believe I’ve seen the remake with… Colin… something or other. Terrible film really.)
          I think trust is the problem here. A lot of guys here simply don’t trust women. At. All. While I understand the logic (American women these days, yuck), I think it’s a bit presumptuous to declare all women as amoral everywhere. For myself, that’s getting a little too close to complaining territory or just being plain jaded. And.. being jaded about something is just no way to live. Hello, it’s Mr. Nasty. No fun at all! 😀
          If American girls are intent on being promiscuous and hideous, look elsewhere. It’s a big planet.
          Now just so it’s clear, when I say “American women”, I mean my generation. Millennials or whatever the heck the current label is. Previous generations I think fared a lot better before the collapse of the family.

        12. The problem isn’t that women have jobs outside the house. The problem is that the government(s) enforces a situation where women are facilitated in every way over men.
          In this world (heck in all the observable universe), all things follow the path of least resistance. If women truly had to make their own way in life with their own power with the same expectations that men have to shoulder, ninety-nine percent of them would quickly find a good man to marry and settle down.
          But it doesn’t. Women are carried over into positions of responsibility to meet ideological “equality quotas” instead of having to climb their way through. Equality means giving everyone the same opportunities, not handing over the same rewards.
          If a woman where to go to school, get good grades and contribute to society without whining about the things she had to sacrifice for it (and thus demand some form of recognition/retribution), I’d applaud her and shake her hand.
          Whether or not I’d find her attractive as a potential wife/mother of my children is a completely separate matter.

        13. Of course they shit test. In the animal kingdom, courtship behavior never cease. Each mating season the females pick the males that exhibit the desired traits .They don’t pick the previous season’s mate and humans are no different, even if society and need have given rise to monogamy. Even if one’s wife would never leave because of the morals she had been given, the animal instinct to test their mates it’s still there.
          It’s the same reason why an overweight dude on the beach flexes his flaccid stomach and push out his chest. He doesn’t think even for a moment that the hot girl that’s passing by would give the time of the day either way, but he does it anyway.
          Animal courtship behavior. Welcome to the jungle, baby.

        14. i generally agree with this.
          the problem though is that being a mother is a full-time job which means she cannot do both and effective. as you say it is a separate issue, but then again it isn’t. women shouldnt be encouraged or told to or perhaps even allowed to persue other options. men cannot be mothers. we need good mothers. I’m generally all for just stopping their education and career options to a point.
          while your idea sounds nice in theory, and i do agree with it on principle. the problem is we have swung so far in the direction of feminism that we need a very hard course correct the other way.

        15. interesting way of putting it….can’t say i disagree with that.
          we also might as well add rape or sexual coercion or forced sex into that mix. thats an almost universal thing in the animal kingdom. usually the male has to force the female into it and its something that happens their entire existence.
          yet humans call it rape and have allowed her to say she is not in the mood(to be fair a good chunk of american men got that thing known as circumcision which makes sex horrible….so that could be a driving factor in her lack of being in the mood).
          back to what someone in one of these comments said…we have been trained and told we do not listen enough as men….perhaps the real answer is to say “STFU” and then proceed to just bend her over and fuck the bitchiness out of her? seems to be how most creatures on this planet handle the erratic behavior of the females of their species….oddly it seems to always be the females.

        16. women shouldnt be encouraged or told to or perhaps even allowed to persue other options.

          The fallacy in that is that all systems eventually break down and social behavior is no different. Putting up a metaphorical wall to keep women contained would work until conditions for the wall to break manifest. On the other hand if you give them the opportunity but tell them that they are on their own in the cruel harsh world out there, some would try their hand at it, few would succeed and most would fail. The rest would look out from the threshold and decide that, in fact, it’s not for them and I believe these will be the greater majority.

        17. Well said. Exceptions are everywhere and in every place. But we are concerned and have to deal with the “Majority” !

        18. Exactly. These weak, inferior, bitchy, arrogant, whorish, slutty and “ungrateful” women will NEVER accept & acknowledge the Superiority of MEN.
          Almost EVERY thing on this planet (Science, Technology, Education, Medicine, Tools/Utilities/Facilities) are Invented, Innovated and Pioneered by MEN.
          Fuck this Societal & Legal Double Standards favoring these femicunts and fuck this State for handing over these bitches ALL the power on golden plate.

        19. Fed up of this same old shit; Single mother or being a mother is a full-time job blah blah blah.
          MALES do full-time Jobs (plural !). This often is conveniently ignored ! a MAN has to work full-time Job, has to put up with all the “tantrums” of his woman, has to “pamper” her for something that’s Obvious, Natural and Mutually Pleasuring ! Yes, SEX.
          His woman behaves as if only “He” is getting all the Enjoyment, Relaxation, PLEASURE and Health benefits from SEX; despite the FACT that she is benefiting MORE than Him.
          His woman has MORE time (read: absolute privacy) in a typical day than Him, has no “mandatory” obligations, is more relaxed than Him, always stays in her “comfort zone” etc. etc. etc.
          And by the way, what “time consuming and hard work” a (house hold) woman does on daily basis ?
          Laundry ?, Vacuuming ?, Grass Cutting ?, Cleaning Furniture and Cabinets ?
          Cooking: Guess even she needs to eat !
          Cleaning Restroom/Shower: Guess even she takes a shower and pees and poops !
          Taking care of Child/Children: With all the modern facilities, that’s not gonna be a “Herculean task” !
          In majority of cases, MEN, apart from doing full-time Job, helps out their (house hold !) women. When the women works; House hold work is always “shared”.
          Why we ignore the facts !!??

        20. You are woman, so what !?
          Guess you don’t want to represent females who walked as “Sluts & Whores” and are proud to be !
          Guess you don’t want to walk “bare chested” for one day in a year in the name of “equality” with MASCULINE Gender !
          Guess your own opinion doesn’t “reflect” the “Majority” of parasitic leeches !
          Guess this site (and similar others) and this article is/are addressing “Majority” of femicunts out there, not the “exceptions” (hope you are from the exceptions) !

    3. “There’s one issue with this article: the author clearly has only been around the worst females imaginable. Because… those are the sorts you’re going to get when your goal is sleeping with as many as possible.”
      Totally not true. I was Blue Pill through my early 30s and dated daughters of executives, female military officers (not enlisted women), and other “high-status” women. I could have married into a very well to do family but even in my Blue Pill days I wasn’t an idiot. I knew not to do it because a part of me didn’t trust the girl’s motivations or actions. My experience has spanned high caste women to low caste women and in between.
      High class girls, in most cases, are worse to be around and more predatory and calculating than the average streetwalker.

      1. I said high quality, not “high class”. If it’s high class we’re talking about… I can only say that you’re absolutely, 100% correct! 🙂

    4. The only problem is; those kind of “high quality” (!!??) women are hard to find BUT they are LOT of High Quality Men. Heck, fumicunts are winning here again !!!

      1. Quite correct. I’ve commented before on Roosh and company looking in the wrong places but you know what? I’ve looked in the -right- places in the US, and they’re not there either!! Sometimes I think it might be possible to meet a better quality of woman in a club than it is in a US church.
        Yes, it’s THAT bad.

  2. Interesting article. 0.5% of all people in the world and basically 8% of asiatic descendants in the area of Khan’s empire carry his Y chromosome. Holly hell. The dreams of every man I guess, but many men have to die for one man to conquer the gene pool in such a way.
    Of course we are all descendants of Adam. Take that Khan.

  3. Women normally were confided in their role. In the European peoples, the one man one woman principle was what made those civs so great. Men were free from their sexual frustration, unlike those middle eastern rapists who do what they do how they do, because under no other way they may have managed to get access to a woman’s private area.
    For this reason European men could better themselves and try to achieve important goals so that they could better provide for their families. Women were goaded to a beneficial position for them that allowed them inner tranquillity, as much as the men, and when one tried to break that system she was stigmatized rightfully and dealt with ostracizing.
    When feminism brought that down, when women thought that they could do anything, or anyone for that matter for the disease that is egalitarianism, all fell. Now we are at a time were we glorify unpaid whores, or else sluts, by running behind their skirts. The PUA culture was no better than the betas (although omegas would be more accurate) except that the bedding strategy that it had developed was far more efficient.
    The manosphere has managed to find slowly the inner needs of a man again and as it matures will make men more good and more able to find that inner tranquillity. In time, if all other things remain stable, there is the chance of managing to bring the traditional society back to life.
    But whining will not do much, as anyone with half a functioning mind will understand that the current situation is deplorably bad and evil.

    1. “Men were free from their sexual frustration”; doesn’t this apply to Women !?
      Women also Crave, Need, Fantasize, Think, are Crazy and Desperate for SEX (more than Men !!!). Then why it’s always said as if they are a exception !? Damn It !!??

      1. True, but women were always more calculating with their sexuality, that is true even today. In short women’s sexual urges are more a tool rather than a frustration, as even ugly women can score men, but ugly men can score women with great difficulty even when having money. The fact that women fantasize is nearly irrelevant to this. The reason is that men’s fantasies are purely, or mostly, sexual, but women require their bad boy to be also a millionaire or one who can make millions.

  4. I have a question here. How does hypergamy explain the “Alpha fucks” part of “Alpha Fucks/Beta Fucks” strategy ?

    1. Women want the alpha males for the fucks, pre-children. They are, as the author suggests, programmed by their selfish genes to mate with the most dominant males. But women know alphas are only interested in the most beautiful and fertile of them, and if their rank becomes fairly low, start to settle in with beta bucks, if they can find one, as a strategy for ensuring survival of their offspring.
      I remember in my late 20s a lot of women who had children from more alpha types desperately looking for simps with money to help raise the children, as the alphas had moved on to greener pastures.

  5. In order to understand female of the human species you have to always remember – woman has an unconscious life. She is an amorphous aggregate, fused with the people around her and dissolving subject boundaries by means of her corroding sexuality. In her, thinking and feeling are one; while Man possesses self-awareness and self-control, she lacks both. She also lacks self-reflexivity and self-control, is determined by her drives, and is incapable of moral sensibilities.
    But the most amazing thing are the commonalities between Jews and women. Like her, the Jew has a strong interest in sex; both women and Jews live only in the collective, not as individuals. Like woman passively assumes any form, the Jew actively adapts to any environment and any race.

    1. Jews are by far the most feminized of all races. Whether you can see international Jewry in all its forms or not, it is impossible to see any Jew and not be overwhelmed by their girlishness. Maybe, it is this feminization that causes Jews to be similar to women, and not their inherent Jewishness.
      Either way good point and great correlation.
      I would also add, they only pretend to adapt to other cultures, the end game is always to subvert those cultures.

      1. To us, they are ‘femenine’ in the sense that they dont share nor apply our masculine values: they are weak, unhealthy, sneaky, materialist, don’t have honor, etc.
        They are slaves, not masters. Re read your Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morality.

      2. I would also add, they only pretend to adapt to other cultures, the end game is always to subvert those cultures.
        Women have the same tendency – they eventually destroy civilizations.

        1. No doubt, the European man sentenced his progeny to slavery and absolute debasement the day he sold his soul to the jew and the woman for capital.

    2. Maybe that’s the reason Milo Jewnopolous is such a faggot.
      a) He can adapt to any environment, doesn’t matter if it’s greece, UK or USA
      b) He can adapt to any race – that’s why he loves to fuck blacks
      c) He is highly feminized and therefore sucks cocks.

        1. In my personal experience with the Tribe (unfortunately a lot, that’s why I love them to death!) the female of the juden species is even worse than the female in the white species; and worse in every aspect, not only in notch count.

        2. among jewish men, you can (also) count great individuals. Jewish women, on the other hand, are a compact pack of pathologic, sociopathic wolves. If you want to know hell in your life, let one of them in your home.

    3. You really are a sick fuck, aren’t you? You just can’t stop talking about the jews. Jew hatred really is a neurosis.
      I knew you were a stupid douchebag the first moment I saw you in the comments section.

      1. Look at what the jews put on television for children to watch. They attempt to corrupt everything around them to excuse their degeneracy. Just like fallen, whorish women who put money and temporary pleasure over motherhood.

        1. I’m afraid you need to tell me what cartoons you mean for me to know if I agree or not.
          If you mean Bella and the Bulldogs though then I agree with you.

        2. Cartoons are either designed to make you brain dead or program with double think knee jerk responses to ideas they deem ‘troublesome’. The US not being wholly unconcerned about its genetic stock? Troublesome.
          Men pointing out that women on TV often contradict themselves every 5 minutes and are treated as absolutely correct with a dumb dad/dumb kid joke to stop you from realizing it? Troublesome.
          Thinking the fat, female empowerment character is simply fat, and doesn’t have this wonderful personality to compensate? Troublesome.
          Pretty much noticing any attempt the elite use to get people to reward weakness and punish strength? Troublesome.

  6. Don’t worry guys, Lolknee will be here soon to tell us all about the 10’s he fucks daily, while swimming 100k per day in the open ocean, then will close by telling us it doesn’t matter what candidate wins, and we’re all literally hitler for supporting trump.

      1. Actually that was Nietzsche. I want all cowards and faggots to be shot. That includes you as well as the anti semities

        1. I can understand your position / frustration, but the world needs to move on from all that Amalek stuff regardless of the direction of travel. It either is just speech or it isn’t

        2. My basic issue is that it is no different from the lack of self responsibility that feminists bring to the table. Rather than look at one self it is all about some insane secret conspiracy. It takes the pressure off the individual to be great and pushes it out towards some group. Oh you are a special snowflake but the world is against you. How is that any different than what homos and BLM protesters are doing?

        3. I’m not entirely in disagreement with that. Blaming jews (or whoever) for everything may well reflect on attribution style / failure of responsibility etc, (although equally who would deny that politically jews / israel are often major players in the world). I just think that the freer the speech is, the more the substantive issues can be addressed, and the less likely that things will degenerate into threats that could become actual violence. In an a free and open environment most of the time the more outrageous theories will get shot down within free debate

        4. I don’t disagree in principle. And I don’t deny the influence of Israel. I am not sure how malignant I see it as because I don’t know enough. I mean, they do wield a disportionate amount of influence but it occurs to me that it is a good thing to have some no muslims in the area that have a powerful military. I don’t know. Whatever.
          the problem with free and open discourse mixed with the internets ability to give everyone a platform is that instead of self improvement, self reflection and self responsibility people can just search out the web until they find something that tells them they are great just for being what they are, fags, whites, blacks, christians, muslims, pedophilies and when they find the people who say they they are great they build their psyche around the notion that the people who say they are great are right, everyone else must be wrong and the world is out to get them because they are so special.
          Why does my life suck so bad? Because rayciss peeples, because patriarchy, because Jews, because 2nd amendment. It is all the same and it is rank cowardice and weakness that lets a person make 500 mental acrobatic jumps to some conspiracy theory rather than seriously co sided their own failings and how to address them. In a nut shell, I see WN Stormqueers as saying “we are special!!!!!!!!! If it wasn’t for the Jews we would be rulers of the world” which is not one shred different from blacks saying WE WUZ KANGZ

        5. I’ve never really had a problem with Israel, at least in existential terms and bracketing off the conspiracy theories etc. I do think its origins are a bit murky, but heh I seem to remember some academic arguing that every state begins in that way (i.e. through strength / force / robber barons etc). It doesn’t hurt to see things in terms of real-politik but it should also be the case that if there is disproportionate influence it should be possible to examine that in terms of cost / benefits etc. US politiicans like Trump and Clinton kissing Bibi’s ass is never going to reduce the number of conspiracy theorists in the world.
          I do agree that people may make bad evaluations; actively seek the kinds of beliefs that will feed their prejudices etc. in such a way that will permit them to avoid personal responsibility, and in many cases to do so specifically by blaming some other group. At the moment that mainly means muslims or jews, or in terms of gender, if you’re a man or a woman, feminism or the patriarchy etc. But not everything is individual pathology. There are political agendas, including social engineering agendas (ROK is premised on feminism as such an agenda) and some of those are going to seem a lot like conspiracy theories (in some cases because they are c.f. Daniel Pipes). IMO opinion it’s quite possible to address both the personal side of things, and the social / political (again ROK does this quite well), allowing for the fact that conspiracy theories may be without foundation or may reflect some basis in fact. That requires free speech, and the safeguard is the checks and balances that can be built into that. Sometimes people can handle “the truth” and will accommodate to it regardless. Sometimes it’s just better to shift the angle.
          Look at Brexit for example: people have rejected the EU globalist social engineers, but now the city of london itself (i.e. a pretty globalist entity, full of “Rothschilds bankers” as David Icke would say) is in a degree of jeopardy (EU passporting etc): do you think we want to give up the source of most of the UK’s wealth? It isn’t necessarily either / or. There are creative solutions to be had
          What I’m saying is, let people speak, criticise, say nasty things. Some of it will stick perhaps, but mostly people will accommodate to their self-interest as they see fit

        6. You are absolutely right and no, not everything is a pathology, and thinking so would be a pathology in and of itself.
          That said, some of it is actually a dangerous and moronic pathology and I am seeing some of that here which is disheartening.

        7. occasionally I’ll happen upon some extreme right-wing site and a few will be pontificating about ‘finishing the job’ in some form or other. I hope that’s talk, even if a very few of them might well mean what they say (neo-nazis exist – for example the one’s the west ended up funding in Ukraine!). Conspiracy theory / dissent doesn’t have to lead towards extremism (let alone towards nazism) which seems to be the contention of some experts. Some illness at least is in nature i.e. the intervention makes it worse. If people are supported to check their facts, evidence their arguments etc, rather than the whole thing being forced down into some vast miasmic unconscious, some of these things may work themselves out. That might not be to everybody’s satisfaction but it must be better than living in a state of catastrophism

  7. Females are choosy in nature, of course, and males will fuck almost anything. It’s the case with most all animal species. What’s interesting here with humans is the concept of civilization, which traditionally has required restrained sexuality and behavior from both sexes. It seems like we’re in a state now where women are more unleashed than males and are free to live closer to what their behavior was pre-civilization in mating mostly with just dominant males–betas are totally left out. It’s going to be interesting and perhaps scary to see where it all leads if the slide away from civilized behavior continues.

  8. “It seems our “wise” leaders have thrown the dice one too many times in a delusional dream to bring about a “better world” but have unwittingly unleashed primitive forces (like The Selfish Gene and concepts Freud also worried about) that will destroy it.”
    This lets our “wise” leaders off the hook somewhat. Progressive politics works (as it does) because it mixes both doomed-to-fail utopian idealism with absolutely cynical leveraging of the knowledge that it is doomed to fail because it is impossible. Feminism and progressivism is valued precisely because it’s leaders can argue that any failure to achieve the desired outcome is down to a corrupt society / structural inequality that must therefore be changed through their leadership and intervention. The fact that it is doomed to fail, impossible, pie in the sky stupid is precisely the point. It works because when feminism, progressivism, transgenderism meets with reality and gets bruised, there will be an automatic institutional response (media, government, academia) requiring action and remedy be taken.

    1. ….Thus creating a feedback loop leading to the end of civilization. But don’t worry, Lolknee says it doesn’t . He told me so

  9. So what about women like Ann Durham who married Barrack Obama Senior who neither had money, social status or power and after divorcing him,she married another weak Indonesian guy ?

    1. It’s the same like all the women that are traveling to the Calais Camp in France at the moment to fuck HIV infected Googles.
      Love for foreign alpha behaving cock and virtue signaling are the answers.

    2. “So what about women like Ann Durham who married Barrack Obama Senior…”
      The nogs can have the pigs for all I care…unless some fat, ugly, white guy with no money wants them. Then he should get first dibs.

        1. OK, I can admit that one was funny!
          But my question still stands, why do these racial issues peak your interest so much?
          Seems somewhat “personal” to me…

        2. Almost all males, I would guess at least 99%, consider the females of their race to be their property. It is coded into our DNA. IMO, the only ones who would question this are the offspring of parents of different races.

        3. How does what affect me?
          The 4% of mentally ill white females who cross the line? It does not affect me one bit.
          Now, how does it affect you in any way, shape or form?

        4. Clearly it does affect you, considering you and other alt-righters love to harp on it so much. If it didn’t, you wouldn’t constantly bring it up, no?
          And it doesn’t affect me in the slightest who’s fucking who. People are free to make their own choices.

        5. Listen, I obviously don’t know you, but I will admit it is fun trading barbs like this.
          But seriously, I have to believe you have an ulterior motive here. Are you a mulatto? Just curious, as this seems really personal to you. And if you are, and being that you are on this site, I also have to believe you have enough intelligence to understand the fact that blacks cause a TREMENDOUS amount of problems in this country. And we are getting fed up with it! To the point that we are ready to do same bad sh*t. You have to understand that. I remember reading an article where an NYC teacher asked his black ghetto students “what would happen if white people disappeared”? Their answer: “we f*cked!”.
          Most blacks know how useless they are and how dependent they are on whites, yet they continue to riot, and rob, and rape and cause trouble. Is it any wonder whites are ready to go “Auchswitz” on them?

        6. And who continues to buy into white guilt?
          You’re right. All of this bullshit caused by groups like BLM could stop overnight if whites simply stopped buying into white guilt, and subsequently stopped paying the ghetto dwellers to breed on the government dole. But they keep buying into it. And “brainwashing” can only go so far. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, you CANNOT force anyone to believe something he either does not believe or is not already inclined to believe.

    3. In the first instance she was after some diversified Google cock. Second instance after she squirted out another example of a fatherless Google she needed a beta provider.

    4. 1. There are always exceptions to the rule.
      2. That doesn’t mean that Obama Senior & the Indonesian guy didn’t display alpha traits. In fact, for the hook ups to occur in the first place, they most likely did.

  10. Yet, Marxism and Feminism are ideologically opposed to the laws of natural selection and “survival of the fittest”. However, we’re more than brutes, so all forms of modern ideologies like feminism are nothing more then the never to be vanquished ghosts of our ideals derived through our former religious and mythical intuitions.
    The Utopian myth of the left is derived from the nascent myth of a former realm of perfection like the Garden of Eden etc.

  11. as always, a great article, Relâmpago.
    i am not sure this situation is benefitting a positive genetic selection, as I see it more of a triumph of “survivalist humans”, and not of high-achievers (where can you find intelligent and athletic people reproducing, these days?). Chaos will bring (and breed) more chaos, as civilizations were born as a defense mechanism from instinctual, animalistic portions of us, Humanity. The demise of European civilization is, at best, a Pandora ‘s box.

    1. This 80/20 rule has worked pretty much for the entirety of human history before the industrial revolution with the strongest of the tribes or the chiefs or land owners having all of the power…. Problem is nowadays every has a relatively comfortable life in the west so it’s much harder to stand out… Perhaps i’m being ignorant, but i can’t see how this 80/20 rule is still benefiting humans because as you said the smartest and highest achievers are having either no children or 2 or 1..

  12. DiCrapio…hahaha!
    That could be Leonardo DiCrapio or Bill DeCrapio, the second crappiest mayor in NY HIstory after David Dinkens Donuts.
    But seriously, spot on commentary.
    I would add one thing. In addition to money and power, today’s western sluts are also obsessed with “fun”. They want to go out clubbing till 5 AM and do coke and ketamine all night, and then pop xanax after the “after party” so they can fall asleep. These are the same morons who get are most likely to be raped by mohammedan cab drivers. Very difficult to feel sorry for these fun crazed sluts if/when it happens.
    What the hell happened to this country??? How did we let the 60s completely destroy our once great and dare I say SUPERIOR culture. Where good, decent, honest, hard working men were sought after by young, thin pretty girls. And their highest hope was to get married, and cook, clean, and raise good children for her husband. Every intelligent, decent, honest, hard working male deserves a young, pretty female to satisfy his physical needs. No, deserve isn’t the word. Males like that have a natural RIGHT to a young, pretty female! I have to say even though he was a mentally ill, deranged murderer with a strange, effeminate way of talking, Elliot Rodger was correct in his assessment that males have a right to females.

    1. problem is that we no longer have females in the west…we have hildabeasts. how can men claim a right to something that doesn’t exist? WW3 has already been fought and won and western men had no idea what hit them. the global elite absolutely decimated our women through propaganda, the forced taking of resources from men, and the general empowerment of every minority group that ever existed. all men should go galt and leave the war torn USSA.

      1. Sadly, you are correct.
        I have been to South Korea 4 times.
        If “Hildabeast Prime” wins, there will most likely be a 5th time, and I will most likely not return.

      2. “all men should go galt and leave the war torn USSA.”
        Some of us already have, but as I and others can tell you it is creeping in everywhere.

  13. “Utopia-seeking Western social engineers completely ignored what made
    society stable in mad pursuit of magic theories that were going to fix
    everything.”
    No they didn’t. They exploited women’s behavior to increase the power of the state and the wealthy elite that control it. Their utopia is not what it is advertised to us to be. It’s utopia for them, but a weakening or even destruction of society for us.
    “In a cruel world in which survival of the fittest has been the rule from
    day one over 4 billion years ago when life began to form in the slime,
    being a nice boy doesn’t cut it. ”
    If this were true civilized behavior would have died out long ago and the present world would be like that of Star Trek’s mirror universe. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_Universe )
    Productive men were always necessary for women up until recently. When the welfare state blossomed. Now they marry the state. They don’t need productive men because the state will steal from the productive men and give to the women. The next step is the men ceasing to be productive. That phase has begun.
    “It all boils down to liberalism being a giant Utopian dream that failed”
    It isn’t a liberal dream, it’s a progressive dream and remember republicans are just progressives that are behind a bit. Just a foil for our WWF viewing pleasure. It’s been progressing towards something and that something is total domination and management of society by a tiny elite. The first third of the 20th century is where the ancient techniques had scientific methods added to them. The result is the scientific management of society which is at the root of the utopia building.
    When industrialists created company towns in the 19th and early 20th century these weren’t to be altruistic societies. They were to be command and control societies. Managed societies. The elite managing people’s lives for their own good like a rancher or farmer manages livestock. Plans of course got derailed but they have continued forward in less obvious ways since.

      1. What I call living the “Han Solo” lifestyle. On the fringes. Don’t bend the law to the extent that you gain Big Brother’s attention, but don’t just be another chump that blindly follows the rules.

        1. thats exactly it…knowing how to play the game, hanging out on the fringes. you have to have a pretty good understanding of how the world is working. so websites like this and others can help a bit.

        2. Didn’t Han Solo wind up with a bounty on his head so large that every bounty hunter in the galaxy was after him?

        3. Because he double crossed Jabba. There is a lesson to be learned from that. Don’t draw the attention of the government and don’t double cross powerful gangsters.

        4. Han Solo married his young princess,turned in a fat old ugly pain in the ass.The best caracthers of Harrison Ford turned in beta chumps,Han Solo and Indiana Jones.

    1. “Productive men were always necessary for women up until recently. When the welfare state blossomed. Now they marry the state. They don’t need productive men because the state will steal from the productive men and give to the women. The next step is the men ceasing to be productive. That phase has begun.”
      Exactly. The need for security is what kept hypergamy in check in the past. Women would have literally died if they didn’t accept, and remain faithful, to somewhat of a productive man. Then after being tied down, with kids, there simply weren’t any meaningful ways to socialize… so options to trade up weren’t exactly abundant. With the welfare state though… it’s game on. That, and the fact that there is no more social shame either for floundering carrousel riders… women live in groups with other women (at least in cities like LA) working menial desk jobs, and simply whore themselves out on social media (LITERALLY cocaine for hypergamist instincts)… waiting for that “big catch”. The media, magazines, film, ect… do nothing but encourage this behavior.

      1. You know, I’m nearly 30 and have just really begun to discover the red pill. But, the funny thing is, some where, deep in the back of my mind, I already knew it. I guess somehow it was suppressed.
        I wish I had known this 10 years ago. Part of my problem was that I was raised in a 2 parent home. Now my dad wasn’t hen pecked or nothing, in fact he was always in charge, but mom was more traditional as she was raised in a very religious household.
        So I was under the delusion that every woman was like my mother. So when I started having experience with women who were wild, for lack of a better term, I rationalized it away that she was just one off. But I began to notice a pattern which let me know that these women were the norm, not the exception.
        One experience stands out in my mind to this day. It was 2008 and I was 21 at the time. I met this girl at the time who was 17. Now I did everything for this girl she asked me to. Which in a relative sense wasn’t much, it generally consisted of me acting as a 24 hour jitney service, except no cost on her part. I drove her here to there and everywhere. I even took her to her “ex” boyfriend’s house because he didn’t have a car. I did. I did this thinking that I could win her favor.
        The last time I saw her, was to drive her and a group of her female friends to the mall. I can only imagine how much of a dunce I must’ve looked like to them.
        After I dropped her off at the mall, that was the last time I saw her. I tried to call her, she never answered. Text messages went unreturned. So about 2 weeks later I called her and she answered this time. She was very cold and dismissive and after about 4 or 5 minutes she abruptly told me she’d call me back which she never did.
        Later, she texted me and told me to stop contacting her and I was a loser. At the time I didn’t know what I did. And she wouldn’t or couldn’t say.
        I now know that I was too nice and supplicating. But experiences like that helped sour my attitude towards women.
        For instance, I used to think it was the most terrible thing in the world to hit a girl. Now I could care less about domestic violence, seeing as girls would rather have wild sex with a man who beats them rather than return the text messages of a guy who’s nice to them.
        I used to care about rape, but I don’t anymore seeing how women have rape fantasies and how lots of women are promiscuous anyway, what’s one extra penis
        In short as a whole, I don’t respect women anymore or view them as my equal

        1. A honest account brother. We all been pass that, but the sooner we do, the better. What we see as kindness, is nothing but weakness and submission to them. Stand your ground, have a strong frame and tell them to fuck off if needed. Believe me…they will love you for that!

        2. If you haven’t already done so, read therationalmale.com . After you have gone down the rabbit hole, gone through the anger stage, then learn game….Good luck bro

        3. Women want to live in their wild, natural state while expecting men to behave in a civilized manner. If male sexual nature was released to its wild, natural state, beating and raping women would be the norm. But before feminism a Happy medium was struck. Women weren’t subject to rapes and beatings but on the other hand, hypergamy was restrained
          But men have been lied to. We’ve been told that women value the beta provider. And yet, men who do what they are told that they are supposed to do are punished with forced celibacy. I mean who do you think is more likely to have more sexual experience and the genuine love of young women in their prime
          A. A typical 40 year old mid management corporate drone who played it safe his whole life and did everything he was told he was supposed to do. Graduated from college, his criminal record only consist of a parking ticket which he promptly paid
          Or
          B. A early 20s Hispanic gang banger who dropped out of HS, unemployed, multiple felonies with everything from Domestic violence, sexual assault, armed robbery everything short of murder.
          Now which one likely makes babies with fertile women in their prime and which one gets to maybe have one kid with a overweight, middle aged career woman who 15 years ago likely wouldn’t have gave him the time of day?

        4. This is the problem. Men are mistaking weakness for being ‘civilized’. The gangbanger is loved by women because he indulges in society’s understanding and compassion, creating an image of invincibility and then using that illusion to create a perception of fear so men do not rise against him.
          The right thing to do with criminals like this is not to put them in ‘time out’, or a prison. The correct response is for normal men to realize they outnumber the gangbangers, brutally murder them and resign the women who followed them to the dregs of society as an example to all other women. The idea that power can only be wielded by those who are entirely wicked is a lie.
          Men can choose who recieves their leniency, and who recieves their fury. Sticking to your decisions on this is the root of frame control and its nature as an alpha characteristic.

        5. Exactly. Seeing them lined up dying in the sun will dispel any silly notions in women that good men are weak simply because they are nice to them, or that criminals are top alpha.

    2. Why is it so hard for most people to believe that the richest and most powerful and most ambitious people of recent history had a long term plan to subdue the world? What we now call our ruling class knew that Marxism and progressivism and socialism and feminism would eventually cause the whole world to fall in to their hands like an over ripe fruit. Nothing about our predicament is an accident, and neither is it the result of any organic or natural imperatives. Machiavellians figured out how to manipulate human nature and bend us all collectively to their will. And nobody is easier to manipulate than a stupid idiot who thinks they cannot be manipulated.

      1. What is today called conspiracy theory used to be normal behavior. In 1967 or 8 on top of decades of previous conditioning the CIA created the term “conspiracy theory” to ridicule anyone who questioned official government narratives. It’s a social tool of control. In reinforced the nature of people to go along to get along. To do what is socially acceptable and then turned it to serve the power structure. Added to this over the years has been another arm of the state, psychology. People who noticed these ambitious power hungry sociopaths were to be considered mentally ill. Lately they’ve been trying to make disagreement with government to be mental illness and thus reaching the end goal.
        Another facet of human nature that is exploited is that when people discover lies they like to speculate. The speculation often is unsupportable and even strange. It’s human nature to do when an untruth is discovered but it allows everyone who discovers the lies to be discredited as a crazy person so less people speak about it. For instance, people have discovered evidence of TV production, acting, in the coverage of Sandy Hook. Then they go off on wild speculations instead of stopping with the evidence.
        Then there are a lot of people who simply can’t imagine the level of ambition and evil there is because they project themselves on other people.
        Put it all together and its quite an uphill battle to get people to so much as accept well established history. I can present government documents, legislation, whatever, I’m still a kook. They are fact resistant. Most people aren’t evidence based. I swear an alien spacecraft can land on the 50 yard line of the superbowl and a government narrative that it was really a holographic projection and hoax or that it never happened would stick.

        1. The problem with that line of thought is that it assumes that “the elite” is a single united front out to get us, without any sort of power-struggle and infighting and perfectly capable of sticking to a (relatively) secret scheme over the course of several decades and different generations of (their own) people.
          In short they are capable of keeping and trasmitting their values/priorities without suffering from any ideological pollution whatsoever, like some kind of hive-minded species immune from ideological corruption.
          Now, something like that would beliavable if they were in fact an alien species, like those Reptilians that conspiracy theorists are so fond of.
          … if you don’t hear from me again after this, run. Run for your lives.

        2. I make no such assumption. All they need to be is of relatively the same mind. Considering they come from the same schools, the same social circles, etc of course their thought falls within a standard deviation about some mean. I’m looking at the mean here. There’s outliers of course, but those really aren’t important for this discussion. And yes they do fight with each other. So do democrats and republicans. That’s the only saving grace for everyone else. However you can quickly see a political D-R fight end when the racket is threatened and the same is true of those on the top of the pyramid.
          There’s nothing secret about the overall scheme. It’s all written. Practically nobody reads it and those who do are ridiculed with tired old lines as you are doing here. For the details there are leaks or at the very least cracks that say we are being lied to. As I stated earlier the problem is people speculate instead of stopping at the lie.
          ideological pollution? Occasionally some elite stray away. It’s been known to happen. Things are tried and fail. That’s why we can have this discussion today. The work has been imperfect. There’s no magic involved. The whole idea it requires magic is to get people to dismiss the idea this step wise program to fully domesticate humanity does not exist. We are also talking a little over a century and David Rockefeller has been alive for almost all of it. So it’s not like we’re talking passing the mathematics of astronomy down in oral tales for thousands of years (which has been done btw).

    3. What they are doing is not scientific, it’s mistaking technology for their own ability and arrogantly thinking this means they can rewrite the rules of nature. Their masters brainwashed them in such a way that they ignore great truths no matter how they try to think about something.

  14. Can people stop calling it a shit test, a test implies it’s preplanned. People back down when they’re met with a stronger, smarter spirit or know when to back down

    1. True, however it’s also evolutionary. Females of all species choose the fittest male to reproduce with. Males dance, have plumage, build nests or bring shiny objects in hopes of mating. Humans are no different.

  15. In the western society womenfolk has reached or is close to reaching its pinnacle.
    However, things will not get better, not soon, at least.

  16. “They’d rather be in a harem with a dominant man than the “one and only” of a nice boy.”
    True, but many women grow tired of the competition. Any man who’s spun plates knows that many drop out as it becomes clear that they’re not eliminating the other girls.

  17. Another way to think about this is to realize that the female IS the fundamental gene which is competing against the others for dominance in reproduction. The evolution of the male sex and the process of sexual reproduction was simply another evolutionary tool the fundamental gene used to compete for reproduction.

    1. Nope, it’s actually quite standard through all animal species, not just ours. Yes, it’s oversimplifying & overgeneralizing it, but you can’t call it ‘dumb’ just because you don’t understand the concept of survival of the fittest.
      For example, ask yourself, what is your ideal male? Write down a list of requirements on a piece of paper & be honest. From looks, to physical stature, to economic power, to behaviour, & then you’ll start to realise the truth.
      What’s the ideal woman for a man? She has to posses the ability produce offspring (something which all women have built in), takes care of herself, & is loyal. That’s basically it.
      Women are instinctively designed for hypergamy, it’s how species survive & thrive. It’s how the fittest, strongest genes are passed on. It’s how the survival chances of individual women (child bearers) increase, with stable protection/security/providing abilities of disposable males, & the welfare state is increasingly taking the individual man out of this equation, they’re just robbing them blind without giving them anything in return.
      The male is a genetic mutation designed for added protection & advancement of a species in a complex/competitive/dangerous world. Would it not make more sense for every single being to hold the ability to give birth? If we completely discounted any external threats. Even allowing for genetic mixing to create such births, not just self-replication.
      Have you never wondered why the dirty, risky, physical donkey work always falls on the males of the species? Nope, well you wouldn’t would you? Because you’re quit comfortable in your position & it’s an ‘expectation’ of said male/disposables of the species.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *