The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenters to FollowHide Excerpts
By Authors Filter?
Andrei Martyanov Andrew J. Bacevich Andrew Joyce Andrew Napolitano Boyd D. Cathey Brad Griffin C.J. Hopkins Chanda Chisala Eamonn Fingleton Eric Margolis Fred Reed Godfree Roberts Gustavo Arellano Ilana Mercer Israel Shamir James Kirkpatrick James Petras James Thompson Jared Taylor JayMan John Derbyshire John Pilger Jonathan Revusky Kevin MacDonald Linh Dinh Michael Hoffman Michael Hudson Mike Whitney Nathan Cofnas Norman Finkelstein Pat Buchanan Patrick Cockburn Paul Craig Roberts Paul Gottfried Paul Kersey Peter Frost Peter Lee Philip Giraldi Philip Weiss Robert Weissberg Ron Paul Ron Unz Stephen J. Sniegoski The Saker Tom Engelhardt A. Graham Adam Hochschild Aedon Cassiel Ahmet Öncü Alexander Cockburn Alexander Hart Alfred McCoy Alison Rose Levy Alison Weir Anand Gopal Andre Damon Andrew Cockburn Andrew Fraser Andy Kroll Ann Jones Anonymous Anthony DiMaggio Ariel Dorfman Arlie Russell Hochschild Arno Develay Arnold Isaacs Artem Zagorodnov Astra Taylor Austen Layard Aviva Chomsky Ayman Fadel Barbara Ehrenreich Barbara Garson Barbara Myers Barry Lando Belle Chesler Beverly Gologorsky Bill Black Bill Moyers Bob Dreyfuss Bonnie Faulkner Brenton Sanderson Brett Redmayne-Titley Brian Dew Carl Horowitz Catherine Crump Charles Bausman Charles Goodhart Charles Wood Charlotteville Survivor Chase Madar Chris Hedges Chris Roberts Christian Appy Christopher DeGroot Chuck Spinney Coleen Rowley Cooper Sterling Craig Murray Dahr Jamail Dan E. Phillips Dan Sanchez Daniel McAdams Danny Sjursen Dave Kranzler Dave Lindorff David Barsamian David Bromwich David Chibo David Gordon David North David Vine David Walsh David William Pear Dean Baker Dennis Saffran Diana Johnstone Dilip Hiro Dirk Bezemer Ed Warner Edmund Connelly Eduardo Galeano Ellen Cantarow Ellen Packer Ellison Lodge Eric Draitser Eric Zuesse Erik Edstrom Erika Eichelberger Erin L. Thompson Eugene Girin F. Roger Devlin Franklin Lamb Frida Berrigan Friedrich Zauner Gabriel Black Gary Corseri Gary North Gary Younge Gene Tuttle George Albert George Bogdanich George Szamuely Georgianne Nienaber Glenn Greenwald Greg Grandin Greg Johnson Gregoire Chamayou Gregory Foster Gregory Hood Gregory Wilpert Guest Admin Hannah Appel Hans-Hermann Hoppe Harri Honkanen Henry Cockburn Hina Shamsi Howard Zinn Hubert Collins Hugh McInnish Ira Chernus Jack Kerwick Jack Rasmus Jack Ravenwood Jack Sen James Bovard James Carroll James Fulford Jane Lazarre Jared S. Baumeister Jason C. Ditz Jason Kessler Jay Stanley Jeff J. Brown Jeffrey Blankfort Jeffrey St. Clair Jen Marlowe Jeremiah Goulka Jeremy Cooper Jesse Mossman Jim Daniel Jim Kavanagh JoAnn Wypijewski Joe Lauria Johannes Wahlstrom John W. Dower John Feffer John Fund John Harrison Sims John Reid John Stauber John Taylor John V. Walsh John Williams Jon Else Jonathan Alan King Jonathan Anomaly Jonathan Rooper Jonathan Schell Joseph Kishore Juan Cole Judith Coburn K.R. Bolton Karel Van Wolferen Karen Greenberg Kelley Vlahos Kersasp D. Shekhdar Kevin Barrett Kevin Zeese Kshama Sawant Lance Welton Laura Gottesdiener Laura Poitras Laurent Guyénot Lawrence G. Proulx Leo Hohmann Linda Preston Logical Meme Lorraine Barlett M.G. Miles Mac Deford Maidhc O Cathail Malcolm Unwell Marcus Alethia Marcus Cicero Margaret Flowers Mark Danner Mark Engler Mark Perry Matt Parrott Mattea Kramer Matthew Harwood Matthew Richer Matthew Stevenson Max Blumenthal Max Denken Max North Maya Schenwar Michael Gould-Wartofsky Michael Schwartz Michael T. Klare Murray Polner Nan Levinson Naomi Oreskes Nate Terani Ned Stark Nelson Rosit Nicholas Stix Nick Kollerstrom Nick Turse Noam Chomsky Nomi Prins Patrick Cleburne Patrick Cloutier Paul Cochrane Paul Engler Paul Nachman Paul Nehlen Pepe Escobar Peter Brimelow Peter Gemma Peter Van Buren Pierre M. Sprey Pratap Chatterjee Publius Decius Mus Rajan Menon Ralph Nader Ramin Mazaheri Ramziya Zaripova Randy Shields Ray McGovern Razib Khan Rebecca Gordon Rebecca Solnit Richard Krushnic Richard Silverstein Rick Shenkman Rita Rozhkova Robert Baxter Robert Bonomo Robert Fisk Robert Lipsyte Robert Parry Robert Roth Robert S. Griffin Robert Scheer Robert Trivers Robin Eastman Abaya Roger Dooghy Ronald N. Neff Rory Fanning Sam Francis Sam Husseini Sayed Hasan Sharmini Peries Sheldon Richman Spencer Davenport Spencer Quinn Stefan Karganovic Steffen A. Woll Stephanie Savell Stephen J. Rossi Steve Fraser Steven Yates Sydney Schanberg Tanya Golash-Boza Ted Rall Theodore A. Postol Thierry Meyssan Thomas Frank Thomas O. Meehan Tim Shorrock Tim Weiner Tobias Langdon Todd E. Pierce Todd Gitlin Todd Miller Tom Piatak Tom Suarez Tom Sunic Tracy Rosenberg Virginia Dare Vladimir Brovkin Vox Day W. Patrick Lang Walter Block William Binney William DeBuys William Hartung William J. Astore Winslow T. Wheeler Ximena Ortiz Yan Shen
Nothing found
By Topics/Categories Filter?
2016 Election 9/11 Academia AIPAC Alt Right American Media American Military American Pravda Anti-Semitism Benjamin Netanyahu Blacks Britain China Conservative Movement Conspiracy Theories Deep State Donald Trump Economics Foreign Policy Hillary Clinton History Ideology Immigration IQ Iran ISIS Islam Israel Israel Lobby Israel/Palestine Jews Middle East Neocons Political Correctness Race/IQ Race/Ethnicity Republicans Russia Science Syria Terrorism Turkey Ukraine Vladimir Putin World War II 1971 War 2008 Election 2012 Election 2014 Election 23andMe 70th Anniversary Parade 75-0-25 Or Something A Farewell To Alms A. J. West A Troublesome Inheritance Aarab Barghouti Abc News Abdelhamid Abaaoud Abe Abe Foxman Abigail Marsh Abortion Abraham Lincoln Abu Ghraib Abu Zubaydah Academy Awards Acheivement Gap Acid Attacks Adam Schiff Addiction Adoptees Adoption Adoption Twins ADRA2b AEI Affective Empathy Affirmative Action Affordable Family Formation Afghanistan Africa African Americans African Genetics Africans Afrikaner Afrocentricism Agriculture Aha AIDS Ain't Nobody Got Time For That. Ainu Aircraft Carriers AirSea Battle Al Jazeera Al-Qaeda Alan Dershowitz Alan Macfarlane Albania Alberto Del Rosario Albion's Seed Alcohol Alcoholism Alexander Hamilton Alexandre Skirda Alexis De Tocqueville Algeria All Human Behavioral Traits Are Heritable All Traits Are Heritable Alpha Centauri Alpha Males Alt Left Altruism Amazon.com America The Beautiful American Atheists American Debt American Exceptionalism American Flag American Jews American Left American Legion American Nations American Nations American Prisons American Renaissance Americana Amerindians Amish Amish Quotient Amnesty Amnesty International Amoral Familialism Amy Chua Amygdala An Hbd Liberal Anaconda Anatoly Karlin Ancestry Ancient DNA Ancient Genetics Ancient Jews Ancient Near East Anders Breivik Andrei Nekrasov Andrew Jackson Androids Angela Stent Angelina Jolie Anglo-Saxons Ann Coulter Anne Buchanan Anne Heche Annual Country Reports On Terrorism Anthropology Antibiotics Antifa Antiquity Antiracism Antisocial Behavior Antiwar Movement Antonin Scalia Antonio Trillanes IV Anywhere But Here Apartheid Appalachia Appalachians Arab Christianity Arab Spring Arabs Archaic DNA Archaic Humans Arctic Humans Arctic Resources Argentina Argentina Default Armenians Army-McCarthy Hearings Arnon Milchan Art Arthur Jensen Artificial Intelligence As-Safir Ash Carter Ashkenazi Intelligence Ashkenazi Jews Ashraf Ghani Asia Asian Americans Asian Quotas Asians ASPM Assassinations Assimilation Assortative Mating Atheism Atlantic Council Attractiveness Attractiveness Australia Australian Aboriginals Austria Austro-Hungarian Empire Austronesians Autism Automation Avi Tuschman Avigdor Lieberman Ayodhhya Babri Masjid Baby Boom Baby Gap Baby Girl Jay Backlash Bacterial Vaginosis Bad Science Bahrain Balanced Polymorphism Balkans Baltimore Riots Bangladesh Banking Banking Industry Banking System Banks Barack H. Obama Barack Obama Barbara Comstock Bariatric Surgery Baseball Bashar Al-Assad Baumeister BDA BDS Movement Beauty Beauty Standards Behavior Genetics Behavioral Genetics Behaviorism Beijing Belgrade Embassy Bombing Believeing In Observational Studies Is Nuts Ben Cardin Ben Carson Benghazi Benjamin Cardin Berlin Wall Bernard Henri-Levy Bernard Lewis Bernie Madoff Bernie Sanders Bernies Sanders Beta Males BICOM Big Five Bilingual Education Bill 59 Bill Clinton Bill Kristol Bill Maher Billionaires Billy Graham Birds Of A Feather Birth Order Birth Rate Bisexuality Bisexuals BJP Black Americans Black Crime Black History Black Lives Matter Black Metal Black Muslims Black Panthers Black Women Attractiveness Blackface Blade Runner Blogging Blond Hair Blue Eyes Bmi Boasian Anthropology Boderlanders Boeing Boers Boiling Off Boko Haram Bolshevik Revolution Books Border Reivers Borderlander Borderlanders Boris Johnson Bosnia Boston Bomb Boston Marathon Bombing Bowe Bergdahl Boycott Divest And Sanction Boycott Divestment And Sanctions Brain Brain Scans Brain Size Brain Structure Brazil Breaking Down The Bullshit Breeder's Equation Bret Stephens Brexit Brian Boutwell Brian Resnick BRICs Brighter Brains Brighton Broken Hill Brown Eyes Bruce Jenner Bruce Lahn brussels Bryan Caplan BS Bundy Family Burakumin Burma Bush Administration C-section Cagots Caitlyn Jenner California Cambodia Cameron Russell Campaign Finance Campaign For Liberty Campus Rape Canada Canada Day Canadian Flag Canadians Cancer Candida Albicans Cannabis Capital Punishment Capitalism Captain Chicken Cardiovascular Disease Care Package Carl Sagan Carly Fiorina Caroline Glick Carroll Quigley Carry Me Back To Ole Virginny Carter Page Castes Catalonia Catholic Church Catholicism Catholics Causation Cavaliers CCTV Censorship Central Asia Chanda Chisala Charles Darwin Charles Krauthammer Charles Murray Charles Schumer Charleston Shooting Charlie Hebdo Charlie Rose Charlottesville Chechens Chechnya Cherlie Hebdo Child Abuse Child Labor Children Chimerism China/America China Stock Market Meltdown China Vietnam Chinese Chinese Communist Party Chinese Evolution Chinese Exclusion Act Chlamydia Chris Gown Chris Rock Chris Stringer Christian Fundamentalism Christianity Christmas Christopher Steele Chuck Chuck Hagel Chuck Schumer CIA Cinema Civil Liberties Civil Rights Civil War Civilian Deaths CJIA Clannishness Clans Clark-unz Selection Classical Economics Classical History Claude-Lévi-Strauss Climate Climate Change Clinton Global Initiative Cliodynamics Cloudburst Flight Clovis Cochran And Harpending Coefficient Of Relationship Cognitive Empathy Cognitive Psychology Cohorts Cold War Colin Kaepernick Colin Woodard Colombia Colonialism Colonists Coming Apart Comments Communism Confederacy Confederate Flag Conflict Of Interest Congress Consanguinity Conscientiousness Consequences Conservatism Conservatives Constitution Constitutional Theory Consumer Debt Cornel West Corporal Punishment Correlation Is Still Not Causation Corruption Corruption Perception Index Costa Concordia Cousin Marriage Cover Story CPEC Craniometry CRIF Crime Crimea Criminality Crowded Crowding Cruise Missiles Cuba Cuban Missile Crisis Cuckold Envy Cuckservative Cultural Evolution Cultural Marxism Cut The Sh*t Guys DACA Dads Vs Cads Daily Mail Dalai Lama Dallas Shooting Dalliard Dalton Trumbo Damascus Bombing Dan Freedman Dana Milbank Daniel Callahan Danish Daren Acemoglu Dark Ages Dark Tetrad Dark Triad Darwinism Data Posts David Brooks David Friedman David Frum David Goldenberg David Hackett Fischer David Ignatius David Katz David Kramer David Lane David Petraeus Davide Piffer Davos Death Death Penalty Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Debt Declaration Of Universal Human Rights Deep Sleep Deep South Democracy Democratic Party Democrats Demographic Transition Demographics Demography Denisovans Denmark Dennis Ross Depression Deprivation Deregulation Derek Harvey Desired Family Size Detroit Development Developmental Noise Developmental Stability Diabetes Diagnostic And Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders Dialects Dick Cheney Die Nibelungen Dienekes Diet Different Peoples Is Different Dinesh D'Souza Dirty Bomb Discrimination Discrimination Paradigm Disney Dissent Diversity Dixie Django Unchained Do You Really Want To Know? Doing My Part Doll Tests Dollar Domestic Terrorism Dominique Strauss-Kahn Dopamine Douglas MacArthur Dr James Thompson Drd4 Dreams From My Father Dresden Drew Barrymore Dreyfus Affair Drinking Drone War Drones Drug Cartels Drugs Dry Counties DSM Dunning-kruger Effect Dusk In Autumn Dustin Hoffman Duterte Dylan Roof Dylann Roof Dysgenic E.O. 9066 E. O. Wilson Eagleman East Asia East Asians Eastern Europe Eastern Europeans Ebola Economic Development Economic Sanctions Economy Ed Miller Education Edward Price Edward Snowden EEA Egypt Eisenhower El Salvador Elections Electric Cars Elie Wiesel Eliot Cohen Eliot Engel Elites Ellen Walker Elliot Abrams Elliot Rodger Elliott Abrams Elon Musk Emigration Emil Kirkegaard Emmanuel Macron Emmanuel Todd Empathy England English Civil War Enhanced Interrogations Enoch Powell Entrepreneurship Environment Environmental Estrogens Environmentalism Erdogan Eric Cantor Espionage Estrogen Ethiopia Ethnic Genetic Interests Ethnic Nepotism Ethnicity EU Eugenic Eugenics Eurasia Europe European Right European Union Europeans Eurozone Everything Evil Evolution Evolutionary Biology Evolutionary Psychology Exercise Extraversion Extreterrestrials Eye Color Eyes Ezra Cohen-Watnick Face Recognition Face Shape Faces Facts Fake News fallout Family Studies Far West Farmers Farming Fascism Fat Head Fat Shaming Father Absence FBI Federal Reserve Female Deference Female Homosexuality Female Sexual Response Feminism Feminists Ferguson Shooting Fertility Fertility Fertility Rates Fethullah Gulen Fetish Feuds Fields Medals FIFA Fifty Shades Of Grey Film Finance Financial Bailout Financial Bubbles Financial Debt Financial Sector Financial Times Finland First Amendment First Law First World War FISA Fitness Flags Flight From White Fluctuating Asymmetry Flynn Effect Food Football For Profit Schools Foreign Service Fourth Of July Fracking Fragrances France Francesco Schettino Frank Salter Frankfurt School Frantz Fanon Franz Boas Fred Hiatt Fred Reed Freddie Gray Frederic Hof Free Speech Free Trade Free Will Freedom Of Navigation Freedom Of Speech French Canadians French National Front French Paradox Friendly & Conventional Front National Frost-harpending Selection Fulford Funny G G Spot Gaddafi Gallipoli Game Gardnerella Vaginalis Gary Taubes Gay Germ Gay Marriage Gays/Lesbians Gaza Gaza Flotilla Gcta Gender Gender Gender And Sexuality Gender Confusion Gender Equality Gender Identity Disorder Gender Reassignment Gene-Culture Coevolution Gene-environment Correlation General Intelligence General Social Survey General Theory Of The West Genes Genes: They Matter Bitches Genetic Diversity Genetic Divides Genetic Engineering Genetic Load Genetic Pacification Genetics Genetics Of Height Genocide Genomics Geography Geopolitics George Bush George Clooney George Patton George Romero George Soros George Tenet George W. Bush George Wallace Germ Theory German Catholics Germans Germany Get It Right Get Real Ghouta Gilgit Baltistan Gina Haspel Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Global Terrorism Index Global Warming Globalism Globalization God Delusion Goetsu Going Too Far Gold Gold Warriors Goldman Sachs Good Advice Google Gordon Gallup Goths Government Debt Government Incompetence Government Spending Government Surveillance Great Depression Great Leap Forward Great Recession Greater Appalachia Greece Greeks Greg Clark Greg Cochran Gregory B Christainsen Gregory Clark Gregory Cochran Gregory House GRF Grooming Group Intelligence Group Selection Grumpy Cat GSS Guangzhou Guantanamo Guardian Guilt Culture Gun Control Guns Gynephilia Gypsies H-1B H Bomb H.R. McMaster H1-B Visas Haim Saban Hair Color Hair Lengthening Haiti Hajnal Line Hamas Hamilton: An American Musical Hamilton's Rule Happiness Happy Turkey Day ... Unless You're The Turkey Harriet Tubman Harry Jaffa Harvard Harvey Weinstein Hasbara Hassidim Hate Crimes Hate Speech Hatemi Havelock Ellis Haymarket Affair Hbd Hbd Chick HBD Denial Hbd Fallout Hbd Readers Head Size Health And Medicine Health Care Healthcare Heart Disease Heart Health Heart Of Asia Conference Heartiste Heather Norton Height Helmuth Nyborg Hemoglobin Henri De Man Henry Harpending Henry Kissinger Herbert John Fleure Heredity Heritability Hexaco Hezbollah High Iq Fertility Hip Hop Hiroshima Hispanic Crime Hispanic Paradox Hispanics Historical Genetics Hitler HKND Hollywood Holocaust Homicide Homicide Rate Homo Altaiensis Homophobia Homosexuality Honesty-humility House Intelligence Committee House M.d. House Md House Of Cards Housing Huey Long Huey Newton Hugo Chavez Human Biodiversity Human Evolution Human Genetics Human Genomics Human Nature Human Rights Human Varieties Humor Hungary Hunter-Gatherers Hunting Hurricane Hurricane Harvey I.F. Stone I Kissed A Girl And I Liked It I Love Italians I.Q. Genomics Ian Deary Ibd Ibo Ice T Iceland I'd Like To Think It's Obvious I Know What I'm Talking About Ideology And Worldview Idiocracy Igbo Ignorance Ilana Mercer Illegal Immigration IMF immigrants Immigration Imperial Presidency Imperialism Imran Awan In The Electric Mist Inbreeding Income Independence Day India Indians Individualism Inequality Infection Theory Infidelity Intelligence Internet Internet Research Agency Interracial Marriage Inuit Ioannidis Ioannis Metaxas Iosif Lazaridis Iq Iq And Wealth Iran Nuclear Agreement Iran Nuclear Program Iran Sanctions Iranian Nuclear Program Iraq Iraq War Ireland Irish ISIS. Terrorism Islamic Jihad Islamophobia Isolationism Israel Defense Force Israeli Occupation Israeli Settlements Israeli Spying Italianthro Italy It's Determinism - Genetics Is Just A Part It's Not Nature And Nurture Ivanka Ivy League Iwo Eleru J. Edgar Hoover Jack Keane Jake Tapper JAM-GC Jamaica James Clapper James Comey James Fanell James Mattis James Wooley Jamie Foxx Jane Harman Jane Mayer Janet Yellen Japan Japanese Jared Diamond Jared Kushner Jared Taylor Jason Malloy JASTA Jayman Jr. Jayman's Wife Jeff Bezos Jennifer Rubin Jensen Jeremy Corbyn Jerrold Nadler Jerry Seinfeld Jesse Bering Jesuits Jewish History JFK Assassination Jill Stein Jim Crow Joe Cirincione Joe Lieberman John Allen John B. Watson John Boehner John Bolton John Brennan John Derbyshire John Durant John F. Kennedy John Hawks John Hoffecker John Kasich John Kerry John Ladue John McCain John McLaughlin John McWhorter John Mearsheimer John Tooby Joke Posts Jonathan Freedland Jonathan Pollard Joseph Lieberman Joseph McCarthy Judaism Judicial System Judith Harris Julian Assange Jute K.d. Lang Kagans Kanazawa Kashmir Katibat Al-Battar Al-Libi Katy Perry Kay Hymowitz Keith Ellison Ken Livingstone Kenneth Marcus Kennewick Man Kevin MacDonald Kevin McCarthy Kevin Mitchell Kevin Williamson KGL-9268 Khazars Kim Jong Un Kimberly Noble Kin Altruism Kin Selection Kink Kinship Kissing Kiwis Kkk Knesset Know-nothings Korea Korean War Kosovo Ku Klux Klan Kurds Kurt Campbell Labor Day Lactose Lady Gaga Language Larkana Conspiracy Larry Summers Larung Gar Las Vegas Massacre Latin America Latinos Latitude Latvia Law Law Of War Manual Laws Of Behavioral Genetics Lead Poisoning Lebanon Leda Cosmides Lee Kuan Yew Left Coast Left/Right Lenin Leo Strauss Lesbians LGBT Liberal Creationism Liberalism Liberals Libertarianism Libertarians Libya life-expectancy Life In Space Life Liberty And The Pursuit Of Happyness Lifestyle Light Skin Preference Lindsay Graham Lindsey Graham Literacy Litvinenko Lloyd Blankfein Locus Of Control Logan's Run Lombok Strait Long Ass Posts Longevity Look AHEAD Looting Lorde Love Love Dolls Lover Boys Low-carb Low-fat Low Wages LRSO Lutherans Lyndon Johnson M Factor M.g. MacArthur Awards Machiavellianism Madeleine Albright Mahmoud Abbas Maine Malacca Strait Malaysian Airlines MH17 Male Homosexuality Mamasapano Mangan Manor Manorialism Manosphere Manufacturing Mao-a Mao Zedong Maoism Maori Map Posts maps Marc Faber Marco Rubio Marijuana Marine Le Pen Mark Carney Mark Steyn Mark Warner Market Economy Marriage Martin Luther King Marwan Marwan Barghouti Marxism Mary White Ovington Masha Gessen Mass Shootings Massacre In Nice Mate Choice Mate Value Math Mathematics Maulana Bhashani Max Blumenthal Max Boot Max Brooks Mayans McCain/POW Mearsheimer-Walt Measurement Error Mega-Aggressions Mega-anlysis Megan Fox Megyn Kelly Melanin Memorial Day Mental Health Mental Illness Mental Traits Meritocracy Merkel Mesolithic Meta-analysis Meth Mexican-American War Mexico Michael Anton Michael Bloomberg Michael Flynn Michael Hudson Michael Jackson Michael Lewis Michael Morell Michael Pompeo Michael Weiss Michael Woodley Michele Bachmann Michelle Bachmann Michelle Obama Microaggressions Microcephalin Microsoft Middle Ages Mideastwire Migration Mike Huckabee Mike Pence Mike Pompeo Mike Signer Mikhail Khodorkovsky Militarized Police Military Military Pay Military Spending Milner Group Mindanao Minimum Wage Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study Minorities Minstrels Mirror Neurons Miscellaneous Misdreavus Missile Defense Mitt Romney Mixed-Race Modern Humans Mohammed Bin Salman Moldova Monogamy Moral Absolutism Moral Universalism Morality Mormons Moro Mortality Mossad Mountains Movies Moxie Mrs. Jayman MTDNA Muammar Gaddafi Multiculturalism Multiregional Model Music Muslim Muslim Ban Muslims Mutual Assured Destruction My Lai My Old Kentucky Home Myanmar Mysticism Nagasaki Nancy Segal Narendra Modi Nascar National Debt National Differences National Review National Security State National Security Strategy National Wealth Nationalism Native Americans NATO Natural Selection Nature Vs. Nurture Navy Yard Shooting Naz Shah Nazi Nazis Nazism Nbc News Nbc Nightly News Neanderthals NED Neo-Nazis Neoconservatism Neoconservatives Neoliberalism Neolithic Netherlands Neuropolitics Neuroticism Never Forget The Genetic Confound New Addition New Atheists New Cold War New England Patriots New France New French New Netherland New Qing History New Rules New Silk Road New World Order New York City New York Times Newfoundland Newt Gingrich NFL Nicaragua Canal Nicholas Sarkozy Nicholas Wade Nigeria Nightly News Nikki Haley No Free Will Nobel Prize Nobel Prized Nobosuke Kishi Nordics North Africa North Korea Northern Ireland Northwest Europe Norway NSA NSA Surveillance Nuclear Proliferation Nuclear War Nuclear Weapons Null Result Nurture Nurture Assumption Nutrition Nuts NYPD O Mio Babbino Caro Obama Obamacare Obesity Obscured American Occam's Razor Occupy Occupy Wall Street Oceania Oil Oil Industry Old Folks At Home Olfaction Oliver Stone Olympics Omega Males Ominous Signs Once You Go Black Open To Experience Openness To Experience Operational Sex Ratio Opiates Opioids Orban Organ Transplants Orlando Shooting Orthodoxy Osama Bin Laden Ottoman Empire Our Political Nature Out Of Africa Model Outbreeding Oxtr Oxytocin Paekchong Pakistan Pakistani Palatability Paleoamerindians Paleocons Paleolibertarianism Palestine Palestinians Pamela Geller Panama Canal Panama Papers Parasite Parasite Burden Parasite Manipulation Parent-child Interactions Parenting Parenting Parenting Behavioral Genetics Paris Attacks Paris Spring Parsi Paternal Investment Pathogens Patriot Act Patriotism Paul Ewald Paul Krugman Paul Lepage Paul Manafort Paul Ryan Paul Singer Paul Wolfowitz Pavel Grudinin Peace Index Peak Jobs Pearl Harbor Pedophilia Peers Peggy Seagrave Pennsylvania Pentagon Perception Management Personality Peru Peter Frost Peter Thiel Peter Turchin Phil Onderdonk Phil Rushton Philip Breedlove Philippines Physical Anthropology Pierre Van Den Berghe Pieter Van Ostaeyen Piigs Pioneer Hypothesis Pioneers PISA Pizzagate Planets Planned Parenthood Pledge Of Allegiance Pleiotropy Pol Pot Poland Police State Police Training Politics Poll Results Polls Polygenic Score Polygyny Pope Francis Population Growth Population Replacement Populism Pornography Portugal Post 199 Post 201 Post 99 Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Post-Nationalism Pot Poverty PRC Prenatal Hormones Prescription Drugs Press Censorship Pretty Graphs Prince Bandar Priti Patel Privatization Progressives Project Plowshares Propaganda Prostitution Protestantism Proud To Be Black Psychology Psychometrics Psychopaths Psychopathy Pubertal Timing Public Schools Puerto Rico Punishment Puritans Putin Pwc Qatar Quakers Quantitative Genetics Quebec Quebecois Race Race And Crime Race And Genomics Race And Iq Race And Religion Race/Crime Race Denialism Race Riots Rachel Dolezal Rachel Maddow Racial Intelligence Racial Reality Racism Radical Islam Ralph And Coop Ralph Nader Rand Paul Randy Fine Rap Music Raqqa Rating People Rationality Raul Pedrozo Razib Khan Reaction Time Reading Real Estate Real Women Really Stop The Armchair Psychoanalysis Recep Tayyip Erdogan Reciprocal Altruism Reconstruction Red Hair Red State Blue State Red States Blue States Refugee Crisis Regional Differences Regional Populations Regression To The Mean Religion Religion Religion And Philosophy Rena Wing Renewable Energy Rentier Reprint Reproductive Strategy Republican Jesus Republican Party Responsibility Reuel Gerecht Reverend Moon Revolution Of 1905 Revolutions Rex Tillerson Richard Dawkins Richard Dyer Richard Lewontin Richard Lynn Richard Nixon Richard Pryor Richard Pryor Live On The Sunset Strip Richard Russell Rick Perry Rickets Rikishi Robert Ford Robert Kraft Robert Lindsay Robert McNamara Robert Mueller Robert Mugabe Robert Plomin Robert Putnam Robert Reich Robert Spencer Robocop Robots Roe Vs. Wade Roger Ailes Rohingya Roman Empire Rome Ron Paul Ron Unz Ronald Reagan Rooshv Rosemary Hopcroft Ross Douthat Ross Perot Rotherham Roy Moore RT International Rupert Murdoch Rural Liberals Rushton Russell Kirk Russia-Georgia War Russiagate Russian Elections 2018 Russian Hack Russian History Russian Military Russian Orthodox Church Ruth Benedict Saakashvili Sam Harris Same Sex Attraction Same-sex Marriage Same-sex Parents Samoans Samuel George Morton San Bernadino Massacre Sandra Beleza Sandusky Sandy Hook Sarah Palin Sarin Gas Satoshi Kanazawa saudi Saudi Arabia Saying What You Have To Say Scandinavia Scandinavians Scarborough Shoal Schizophrenia Science: It Works Bitches Scientism Scotch-irish Scotland Scots Irish Scott Ritter Scrabble Secession Seduced By Food Semai Senate Separating The Truth From The Nonsense Serbia Serenity Sergei Magnitsky Sergei Skripal Sex Sex Ratio Sex Ratio At Birth Sex Recognition Sex Tape Sex Work Sexism Sexual Antagonistic Selection Sexual Dimorphism Sexual Division Of Labor Sexual Fluidity Sexual Identity Sexual Maturation Sexual Orientation Sexual Selection Sexually Transmitted Diseases Seymour Hersh Shai Masot Shame Culture Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Shanghai Stock Exchange Shared Environment Shekhovstov Sheldon Adelson Shias And Sunnis Shimon Arad Shimon Peres Shinzo Abe Shmuley Boteach Shorts And Funnies Shoshana Bryen Shurat HaDin Shyness Siamak Namazi Sibel Edmonds Siberia Silicon Valley Simon Baron Cohen Singapore Single Men Single Motherhood Single Mothers Single Women Sisyphean Six Day War SJWs Skin Bleaching Skin Color Skin Tone Slate Slave Trade Slavery Slavoj Zizek Slavs SLC24A5 Sleep Slobodan Milosevic Smart Fraction Smell Smoking Snow Snyderman Social Constructs Social Justice Warriors Socialism Sociopathy Sociosexuality Solar Energy Solutions Somalia Sometimes You Don't Like The Answer South Africa South Asia South China Sea South Korea South Sudan Southern Italians Southern Poverty Law Center Soviet Union Space Space Space Program Space Race Spain Spanish Paradox Speech SPLC Sports Sputnik News Squid Ink Srebrenica Stabby Somali Staffan Stalinism Stanislas Dehaene Star Trek State Department State Formation States Rights Statins Steny Hoyer Stephan Guyenet Stephen Cohen Stephen Colbert Stephen Hadley Stephen Jay Gould Sterling Seagrave Steve Bannon Steve Sailer Steven Mnuchin Steven Pinker Still Not Free Buddy Stolen Generations Strategic Affairs Ministry Stroke Belt Student Loans Stuxnet SU-57 Sub-replacement Fertility Sub-Saharan Africa Sub-Saharan Africans Subprime Mortgage Crisis Subsistence Living Suffrage Sugar Suicide Summing It All Up Supernatural Support Me Support The Jayman Supreme Court Supression Surveillance Susan Glasser Susan Rice Sweden Swiss Switzerland Syed Farook Syrian Refugees Syriza Ta-Nehisi Coates Taiwan Tale Of Two Maps Taliban Tamerlan Tsarnaev TAS2R16 Tashfeen Malik Taste Tastiness Tatars Tatu Vanhanen Tawang Tax Cuts Tax Evasion Taxes Tea Party Team Performance Technology Ted Cruz Tell Me About You Tell The Truth Terman Terman's Termites Terroris Terrorists Tesla Testosterone Thailand The 10000 Year Explosion The Bible The Breeder's Equation The Confederacy The Dark Knight The Dark Triad The Death Penalty The Deep South The Devil Is In The Details The Dustbowl The Economist The Far West The Future The Great Plains The Great Wall The Left The Left Coast The New York Times The Pursuit Of Happyness The Rock The Saker The Son Also Rises The South The Walking Dead The Washington Post The Wide Environment The World Theodore Roosevelt Theresa May Things Going Sour Third World Thomas Aquinas Thomas Friedman Thomas Perez Thomas Sowell Thomas Talhelm Thorstein Veblen Thurgood Marshall Tibet Tidewater Tiger Mom Time Preference Timmons Title IX Tobin Tax Tom Cotton Tom Naughton Tone It Down Guys Seriously Tony Blair Torture Toxoplasma Gondii TPP Traffic Traffic Fatalities Tragedy Trans-Species Polymorphism Transgender Transgenderism Transsexuals Treasury Tropical Humans Trump Trust TTIP Tuition Tulsi Gabbard Turkheimer TWA 800 Twin Study Twins Twins Raised Apart Twintuition Twitter Two Party System UKIP Ukrainian Crisis UN Security Council Unemployment Unions United Kingdom United Nations United States Universalism University Admissions Upper Paleolithic Urban Riots Ursula Gauthier Uruguay US Blacks USS Liberty Utopian Uttar Pradesh UV Uyghurs Vaginal Yeast Valerie Plame Vassopressin Vdare Veep Venezuela Veterans Administration Victor Canfield Victor Davis Hanson Victoria Nuland Victorian England Victorianism Video Games Vietnam Vietnam War Vietnamese Vikings Violence Vioxx Virginia Visa Waivers Visual Word Form Area Vitamin D Voronezh Vote Fraud Vouchers Vwfa W.E.I.R.D. W.E.I.R.D.O. Wahhabis Wall Street Walter Bodmer Wang Jing War On Christmas War On Terror Washington Post WasPage Watergate Watsoning We Are What We Are We Don't Know All The Environmental Causes Weight Loss WEIRDO Welfare Western Europe Western European Marriage Pattern Western Media Western Religion Westerns What Can You Do What's The Cause Where They're At Where's The Fallout White America White Americans White Conservative Males White Death White Helmets White Nationalist Nuttiness White Nationalists White Privilege White Slavery White Supremacy White Wife Why We Believe Hbd Wikileaks Wild Life Wilhelm Furtwangler William Browder William Buckley William D. Hamilton William Graham Sumner William McGougall WINEP Winston Churchill Women In The Workplace Woodley Effect Woodrow Wilson WORDSUM Workers Working Class Working Memory World Values Survey World War I World War Z Writing WTO X Little Miss JayLady Xhosa Xi Jinping Xinjiang Yankeedom Yankees Yazidis Yemen Yes I Am A Brother Yes I Am Liberal - But That Kind Of Liberal Yochi Dreazen You Can't Handle The Truth You Don't Know Shit Youtube Ban Yugoslavia Zbigniew Brzezinski Zhang Yimou Zika Zika Virus Zimbabwe Zionism Zombies Zones Of Thought Zulfikar Ali Bhutto
Nothing found
All Commenters • My
Comments
• Followed
Commenters
All Comments / On "Beta Males"
 All Comments / On "Beta Males"
    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...
  • @Darin
    2 years ago, how fast the time flies ;-) Anything changed in Russia since them, on the cheese front I mean?

    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).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @NoFap_Nation
    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

    Well said, Commader Ripper. We must protect our precious bodily fluids by any means necessary!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anatoly Karlin

    Mr. Karlin was incensed when Russian liberals complained about lack of cheese.
     
    Incensed?

    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/gessen-nyt-cheese/

    2 years ago, how fast the time flies ;-) Anything changed in Russia since them, on the cheese front I mean?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    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).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • 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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Darin
    Well said, Commader Ripper. We must protect our precious bodily fluids by any means necessary!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • 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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @dfordoom

    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,
     
    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….)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @AaronB
    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.

    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,

    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.

    Read More
    • Agree: Daniel Chieh
    • Replies: @Ivan K.
    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....)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Darin

    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.
     
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Darin

    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.
     
    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.

    Mr. Karlin was incensed when Russian liberals complained about lack of cheese.

    Incensed?

    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/gessen-nyt-cheese/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Darin
    2 years ago, how fast the time flies ;-) Anything changed in Russia since them, on the cheese front I mean?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @AaronB
    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.” )

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Daniel Chieh
    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.

    * Tragically or otherwise, my wife let me know not too long ago that the reason why she was with me, and not with "despicable weak men" was because "you didn't ask me, you told me to be your girlfriend."

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Erik Sieven
    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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @TheJester
    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.

    the current generation in western worlds celebrates being Alpha more than any generation ago, because it is a time of female choice

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    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
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Daniel Chieh
    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.

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    Mr. Karlin was incensed when Russian liberals complained about lack of cheese.
     
    Incensed?

    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/gessen-nyt-cheese/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @TheJester
    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.

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Glossy
    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.

    Why is there contradiction between Darwin and Marx? For all recorded history slaves were used both for labor and sex.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @RW
    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."

    - Wikipedia

    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/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @TheJester
    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    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.
    , @Darin

    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.
     
    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.
    , @Erik Sieven
    the current generation in western worlds celebrates being Alpha more than any generation ago, because it is a time of female choice
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • RW says:
    @German_reader
    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.

    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.”

    - Wikipedia

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivan K.
    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/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @ussr andy
    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Read More
    • Replies: @ussr andy
    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.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @MBlanc46
    I don't blame women for following their instincts. I avoid them because their following their instincts is hazardous to my well-being.

    Have you tried not avoiding them but denying them your essence?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @German_reader
    "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.

    Maybe there is a psychological and cultural diversity of tribal types and not”everyone is soft” or “everyone is not”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • 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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Glossy
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @German_reader
    "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.

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Erik Sieven
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Darin

    Why shouldn’t you blame people for following their instincts? What an utterly bizarre idea.
     
    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 really couldn’t blame anyone for doing what they needed for cheese. Its perfect food, such traitors clearly know what’s gouda for them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Darin

    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.
     
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @AaronB
    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.

    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.

    * Tragically or otherwise, my wife let me know not too long ago that the reason why she was with me, and not with “despicable weak men” was because “you didn’t ask me, you told me to be your girlfriend.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @neutral

    pretends to be ‘reality’ but is just irrational apologetics for being animalistic.

    Anyone who has ever felt kindness, friendship, love, benevolence, knows how false the HBD picture of humanity is.
     

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Darin

    In the 18th century the Anglo male ideal was quite refined and feminine,
     
    The aristocratic ideal, that marked you as one of the 1% of 1%, far above the common peasants and laborers.

    as would befit a culture that still had a strong spiritual and intellectual element, now utterly gone
     
    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.

    Oh well, let it end and something new and healthy grow on the ashes.
     
    Start with your house first, and tell us how it worked for you.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivan K.

    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.
     

    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.
     
    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." )

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • 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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @AaronB
    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.

    In the 18th century the Anglo male ideal was quite refined and feminine,

    The aristocratic ideal, that marked you as one of the 1% of 1%, far above the common peasants and laborers.

    as would befit a culture that still had a strong spiritual and intellectual element, now utterly gone

    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.

    Oh well, let it end and something new and healthy grow on the ashes.

    Start with your house first, and tell us how it worked for you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Darin

    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.
     
    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

    Don’t know how typical this is of hunter gatherers though.
     
    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

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @AaronB
    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.

    pretends to be ‘reality’ but is just irrational apologetics for being animalistic.

    Anyone who has ever felt kindness, friendship, love, benevolence, knows how false the HBD picture of humanity is.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Darin

    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.
     
    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

    Don’t know how typical this is of hunter gatherers though.
     
    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Darin
    Why is there contradiction between Darwin and Marx? For all recorded history slaves were used both for labor and sex.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Glossy
    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.

    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.

    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

    Don’t know how typical this is of hunter gatherers though.

    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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Glossy
    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.
    , @Glossy
    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.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Glossy
    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?

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Darin

    In the 18th century the Anglo male ideal was quite refined and feminine,
     
    The aristocratic ideal, that marked you as one of the 1% of 1%, far above the common peasants and laborers.

    as would befit a culture that still had a strong spiritual and intellectual element, now utterly gone
     
    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.

    Oh well, let it end and something new and healthy grow on the ashes.
     
    Start with your house first, and tell us how it worked for you.
    , @dfordoom

    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,
     
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Glossy
    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.

    “Everyone works and all the men fight”
    that´s like I imagine a sailor bar or the evening entertainment for siberian lumberjacks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Erik Sieven
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erik Sieven
    "Everyone works and all the men fight"
    that´s like I imagine a sailor bar or the evening entertainment for siberian lumberjacks.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Glossy
    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.

    Thank you…that was what I had in mind, hadn’t read your comment before I posted mine.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Erik Sieven
    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.

    “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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    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.

    , @Santoculto
    Maybe there is a psychological and cultural diversity of tribal types and not"everyone is soft" or "everyone is not".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Glossy
    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.

    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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @AaronB
    "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.

    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?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Erik Sieven
    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

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Erik Sieven
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Glossy
    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
    , @German_reader
    Thank you...that was what I had in mind, hadn't read your comment before I posted mine.
    , @Darin

    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.
     
    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

    Don’t know how typical this is of hunter gatherers though.
     
    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
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Erik Sieven
    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.

    “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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Glossy
    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?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Erik Sieven
    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.

    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

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @AaronB
    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.

    It’s ridiculous to compare women’s evolved reproductive strategy with your impulses toward crime and violence.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erik Sieven
    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
    , @AaronB
    "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.

    , @Glossy
    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.
    , @German_reader
    "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.
    , @Glossy
    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.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @AaronB
    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.

    Why shouldn’t you blame people for following their instincts? What an utterly bizarre idea.

    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?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I don’t blame women for following their instincts. I avoid them because their following their instincts is hazardous to my well-being.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    Have you tried not avoiding them but denying them your essence?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @AaronB
    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.

    [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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Monarchy forced a lot of beta males to try and act like alpha males.

    One in particular.

    Happy IWD, 1917, er, 2017, Russians.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @5371
    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’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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    [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.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Darin

    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.
     
    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @German_reader
    "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.

    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.

    Yes, and this should be a hint that human society is different from wolf pack and to compare them gives few useful results.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Darin
    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.

    “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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Darin

    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.
     
    Yes, and this should be a hint that human society is different from wolf pack and to compare them gives few useful results.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RW
    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."

    - Wikipedia
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @5371
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    "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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @AaronB
    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.

    I am so glad I got out of HBD

    Don’t convert to Islam, you could run into a major problem.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @AaronB
    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Darin
    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.

    , @AaronB
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    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.
    , @iffen
    I am so glad I got out of HBD

    Don't convert to Islam, you could run into a major problem.
    , @Darin

    Why shouldn’t you blame people for following their instincts? What an utterly bizarre idea.
     
    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?
    , @MBlanc46
    It's ridiculous to compare women's evolved reproductive strategy with your impulses toward crime and violence.
    , @neutral

    pretends to be ‘reality’ but is just irrational apologetics for being animalistic.

    Anyone who has ever felt kindness, friendship, love, benevolence, knows how false the HBD picture of humanity is.
     

    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.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    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.

    * Tragically or otherwise, my wife let me know not too long ago that the reason why she was with me, and not with "despicable weak men" was because "you didn't ask me, you told me to be your girlfriend."

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • http://www.unz.com/isteve/chicks-dig-terrorists/

    Tamerlan Tsarnaev, an unemployed weed dealer and washed-up ex-boxer, was married to an American doctor’s daughter.

    Tamerlan’s pal Ibragim Todashev, an unemployed aspiring MMA star suspected of helping Tamerlan ritually murder three weed dealers in Waltham to celebrate the 10th anniversary of 9/11, was separated from his American wife, but still dipping into her checking account, while living with his Russian girlfriend.

    On the other hand, if you merely convert to Islam and fantasize about terrorism, but don’t actually have what it takes to kill anyone, girls can tell, apparently. Thus 2015 iSteve Male of the Year Enrique Marquez only got a $200 per month immigration fraud fake wife and dismissive texts

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • A common theme that circulates in the HBD/Game blogosphere is that, in the wake of the sexual revolution, an increasing number of men end up mateless, thanks to the fact that a minority of men ("alpha males") monopolize most of the women. A commentor over at Peter Frost's blog even attached his own made-up numbers...
  • […] rates over time and age of first child underscores a pattern I found earlier (as noted in my post Some guys get all the babes – not exactly). Specifically, the Baby Boom was a brief period (at least during the past 100 years or so) where […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous
    > Indeed, youthful male frustration notwithstanding, the situation is hardly as dire as conservatives often make it out to be. Considering the premium people today place on assortative mating, it is no wonder the age of marriage is rising: it simply takes that long to find the proper mate.

    do you even believe this yourself? there is just so much wrong in this paragraph, i dont even know where to begin. just reread it a few times, and you should be able to find atleast one or two flaws in that logic.

    >It’s also worth noting that, as Greg Cochran recently discussed, worry about dysgenic trends is a bit misplaced.

    this is a post about male mating patterns, right? do cads have a lower iq than dads? i dont see how you could bring that sentence after the graphs you posted. anyway, the male iq is not correlated with the # of offspring. the female iq on the other hand...

    The bottom line as a single 39 year old male who blew some good chances with some with nice girls in the past. I know karma is a bitch and now i’m paying for it. The bottom line is to not let a cute girl that you get along with and have great chemistry with slip away when you’re young especially if you’re not the best looking guy. Take advantage of your youth! by 30-35 you got to have been married or have a LTR. Now at my age the young girls barely look at me. I only get looks from 40+ women.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says: • Website
    @Anthony
    The pattern that the Game bloggers describe seems rather exaggerated to me. What I see around me is lots of coupled-up pairs, but they're not married, so it's easier to break up. In college, this often means breaking up when one of the couple goes home for the summer; it also happens when one has to move for a job, or just because they've gotten tired of each others' shit. Or when one of the couple wants more committment (move in togeher, get married) and the other isn't willing to do it. After college, most boyfriend-girlfriend relationships last at least a year, often several years. It's what happens in-between that's most interesting, and that's most visible.

    Between boyfriends, some young women will be rather conservative - they'll date one or two guys they've prequalified heavily, and they won't have (PIV) sex until they're pretty sure he's the next boyfriend. Others will slut around for a while, either to try out men before choosing one as a boyfriend, or just to have some fun with non-boyfriend-material men before looking for a new boyfriend, or one of those hot guys turns out to actually be more interested in a long-term relationship than pump-n-dump. And of course there's in-between - the woman who dates a few guys, and fucks a couple of them before she realizes they're not boyfriend material.

    Observers of the sexual marketplace focus on this in-between period, and ignore or gloss over the large mass of men and women in long-term monogamous relationships, which covers probably 80% or more of both sexes at any one time. A guy who is pretty alpha can stay in the active marketplace forever, finding the hotter women who aren't coupled up, having short-term flings with them, and moving on to the next. The average guy (the AFC) spends more time on the active marketplace than the average woman does because he doesn't approach enough, or he's too beta and dates don't convert to relationships, or because he overvalues himself, not realizing that women don't measure men by the standards the average man measures himself by. The number of guys who *never* get laid is pretty low, but the number of guys in relationships with fat chicks, or nags, or really boring women, and who spend months to years involuntarily celibate between relationships is pretty high. The number of women who *can't get laid* is a lot smaller, but what women want is generally a relationship, and there are plenty of women who can't get a relationship with a guy as "hot" as they want.

    Damn - I need to start my own blog.

    “Observers of the sexual marketplace focus on this in-between period, and ignore or gloss over the large mass of men and women in long-term monogamous relationships, which covers probably 80% or more of both sexes at any one time. A guy who is pretty alpha can stay in the active marketplace forever, finding the hotter women who aren’t coupled up, having short-term flings with them, and moving on to the next. The average guy (the AFC) spends more time on the active marketplace than the average woman does”

    yep, that actually pretty much sums it up in my opinion. The thing with gamers is that they had became obsessed with the desire to become that in-between period guy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    > Indeed, youthful male frustration notwithstanding, the situation is hardly as dire as conservatives often make it out to be. Considering the premium people today place on assortative mating, it is no wonder the age of marriage is rising: it simply takes that long to find the proper mate.

    do you even believe this yourself? there is just so much wrong in this paragraph, i dont even know where to begin. just reread it a few times, and you should be able to find atleast one or two flaws in that logic.

    >It’s also worth noting that, as Greg Cochran recently discussed, worry about dysgenic trends is a bit misplaced.

    this is a post about male mating patterns, right? do cads have a lower iq than dads? i dont see how you could bring that sentence after the graphs you posted. anyway, the male iq is not correlated with the # of offspring. the female iq on the other hand…

    Read More
    • Replies: @John
    The bottom line as a single 39 year old male who blew some good chances with some with nice girls in the past. I know karma is a bitch and now i'm paying for it. The bottom line is to not let a cute girl that you get along with and have great chemistry with slip away when you're young especially if you're not the best looking guy. Take advantage of your youth! by 30-35 you got to have been married or have a LTR. Now at my age the young girls barely look at me. I only get looks from 40+ women.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] was originally a comment on Jayman’s post Some guys get all the babes – not exactly , where he […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] Muddled. In the absolute sense (all men), it’s clearly nonsense. In the particular sense (some men), it’s unclear. For one, which men? How big a fraction of all men are we talking about? In which societies (“different peoples is different”)? But the most confused bit the claim “no incentives.” What would it mean for men to have “no incentives” to engage in monogamy or reproduction? Are biological drives not incentives? Men are continuing to marry and have children. Indeed, the most monogamous men may be having the most children. […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] finding is highly similar to what I found previously for the […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Jayman, mate market value (MMV) or fitness is not correlated to fertility. It isn’t how the modern mating system work. The validity of your evolutionary explanations when you are trying to find statistics on number of children is preposterous. Due to modern birth control methods, these data are bullshit, and mating success is often used as a unuseful rate proxy. You can not predict fitness and mating success; Number of children by man is only evolutionarily relevant in population of hunter-gatherers. While real fitness is not related to reproductive outcomes, fertility does not predict mating succes or mate market value. Therefore your association between reproductive success in modern men is not mediated by differential access to fecund women. It does not reveal his success rate in mating market. It does not reveal his success rate, it reveals only the number to offspring by man. So we still don’t know what his mating success is, we don’t know how many women he can get, his approach/success ratio. All this is only related to mate market value, e.g. social and sexual desirability and attractiveness).

    I´m going to illustrate my argument with an example:

    mate market value: 9.25 (hight attractiveness as potencial partner)
    approach / success ratio: 68%
    number of mates: 27 women in short term relationships and casual sex . With 12 female in the top 10% of quality mates (i..e attractive girls in the 7-10 MMV range).
    number of offspring: 0

    mate market value: 5.50 (average attractiveness as potencial partner)
    approach / success ratio: 9.8%
    number of mates: 1 woman (MMV= 4.65) in pair bond or marriage .
    number of offspring: 2

    who have more reproductive success? and who have most mating success?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • [...] it does… Some guys get all the babes – not exactly It’s not the cads, it’s [...]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • [...] siring more children than “dads”—high paternal investment, monogamous, high-IQ men. While I and others have produced some evidence (primarily from the GSS) that tenuously indicates that this [...]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @MaMu1977
    Men lie upwards, women lie downwards.

    It isnt uncommon, or even rare, to meet women who think that
    Non-vaginal intercourse
    Non-relationship sexual activity
    "Unseemly" sex, as in al fresco (public) sex, club/bar/vacation sex, interracial sex, subpar sex, kinky sex (BDSM, gangbangs get counted as one partner...)
    Don't count towards their partner tally.

    Conversely, it's common to meet men who add
    Video/Skype sex
    Masturbation
    Prostitution

    To their own numbers.

    So, in surveys, a lot of men will count "that handjob at 'Flaherty's", their daily Yahoo Internet Messenger jackathon with CoolCrazeeCougar1973 or those times they received an "around-the-world" from a 19-year old coed for $300 a session. Women, OTOH, *don't count* "that time they got fingered while grabbing a guy's dick at Flaherty's", hooking up with the two "Rent-A-Dread" beachcombers in Aruba, the Japanese guy who just gave her oral, the fray boy who lasted 75 seconds when drunk and 35 seconds when sober...

    Best example: in 2002, an active duty deployed soldier was busted for turning her tent into a brothel. Despite the fact that she had earned over $50,000 at $50-$100/hour per session, she told her superiors that she had been intimate with a dozen men. When dozens of men came forward with details of her operation, when she was discovered to be pregnant and over 60 guys claimed to be the father, she steadfastly maintained that the only ones who "counted" were the men who insisted on PIV intercourse. Out of (at final count) 140 men serviced, her personal count was the 12 guys who always out their penises inside of her vagina; even the men who occasionally limited themselves to non-PIV were excluded from her personal count.
    Interestingly enough, her case is the primary reason for the U.S. Military's insistence on electronic banking. Their logic: keeping large amounts of cash out of the hands of soldiers will prevent a case like this from happening again.

    You’re probably quite correct.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous
    Number of partners data is totally bogus!!!

    Okay, I crunched the numbers and the lying (presumably by the men) is pure commedy. I assume for the sake of simplicity that 10 to 20 = 15; 20 to 50 = 35 and 50 to 100 = 75 partners.

    Then I assumed 100 men and 100 women in the 1970-1979 cohort. For example, the purple band yields 150 partners for the two men at the top and zero for the women since no women reported these.

    Adding up all the bands means that

    100 men in the 70-79 cohort had 1334 partners.

    100 women in the 70-79 cohort had 480 partners.

    Assuming the women are telling the truth, the men are inflating their numbers by 3 x because every time a man counts a woman as partner, the woman should be counting that same man as a partner so the numbers should basically match.

    What a bunch of liars!!!

    Men lie upwards, women lie downwards.

    It isnt uncommon, or even rare, to meet women who think that
    Non-vaginal intercourse
    Non-relationship sexual activity
    “Unseemly” sex, as in al fresco (public) sex, club/bar/vacation sex, interracial sex, subpar sex, kinky sex (BDSM, gangbangs get counted as one partner…)
    Don’t count towards their partner tally.

    Conversely, it’s common to meet men who add
    Video/Skype sex
    Masturbation
    Prostitution

    To their own numbers.

    So, in surveys, a lot of men will count “that handjob at ‘Flaherty’s”, their daily Yahoo Internet Messenger jackathon with CoolCrazeeCougar1973 or those times they received an “around-the-world” from a 19-year old coed for $300 a session. Women, OTOH, *don’t count* “that time they got fingered while grabbing a guy’s dick at Flaherty’s”, hooking up with the two “Rent-A-Dread” beachcombers in Aruba, the Japanese guy who just gave her oral, the fray boy who lasted 75 seconds when drunk and 35 seconds when sober…

    Best example: in 2002, an active duty deployed soldier was busted for turning her tent into a brothel. Despite the fact that she had earned over $50,000 at $50-$100/hour per session, she told her superiors that she had been intimate with a dozen men. When dozens of men came forward with details of her operation, when she was discovered to be pregnant and over 60 guys claimed to be the father, she steadfastly maintained that the only ones who “counted” were the men who insisted on PIV intercourse. Out of (at final count) 140 men serviced, her personal count was the 12 guys who always out their penises inside of her vagina; even the men who occasionally limited themselves to non-PIV were excluded from her personal count.
    Interestingly enough, her case is the primary reason for the U.S. Military’s insistence on electronic banking. Their logic: keeping large amounts of cash out of the hands of soldiers will prevent a case like this from happening again.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    You're probably quite correct.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • [...] children and number of children actually is somewhat different in nature today from times past. As we’ve seen, back in the day, there were proportionally more people who had a lot of children as well as more people who had [...]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • *slow clap*

    This absolutely needed to be done. Great work. You and dalrock are bringing empiricism to the whatever-we-are-calling-it-these-days-sphere, and god bless it.

    Any chance you could make your source spreadsheet available? I’d love to play around with those numbers by seeing what assumption for male partner count inflation and female partner count deflation results in parity – because just by eyeballing the two charts, it looks like it wouldn’t take much to have them meet almost completely in the middle.

    In the final analysis, assortative mating may turn out to trump all.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Audacious Epigone
    Nice to see this reworked from a different angle. The data simply do not back up the Game narrative that guys like Heartiste push. I've felt like a lone voice in the wilderness pointing this out for several years now (along with notable exceptions Jason Malloy and Agnostic). The pattern doesn't just hold among whites--men and women alike--either, it's there among blacks and Hispanics as well.

    Thanks. Indeed, this appears to be the pattern. But there is a major caveat: we don’t know how reliable these numbers are, since they depend on self-reporting of respondents. One would imagine that for the major womanizing men, they are often clueless of the true number of children they have. We’d expect this problem to be particularly acute in the pre-birth control era.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous
    Right, but if those two men were each with 75 unique women, then that is 150 unique pairings reported by the men. The women should report the same thing if they also experienced these pairings (which in many cases they did not because the men made them up). Suppose that the 2 men shared all of the same women for argument. Then you have 75 women whose count is +2 because of these two men.

    You see, the result should still appear in the women's tally, where the masses of women have a few more encounters each.

    Again, the tallies should roughly match if people are being remotely honest. Instead the talliest by the men and women are miles apart.

    Let’s stretch your example out a bit: instead of 100 people, let’s say 10,000. The 500 guys that report sleeping with 50+ women now have anywhere between 50-38,000 women between them, depending on how many unique women between them. If we assume however that each of the women they’ve bed has been with an average of 20 guys herself, the number of women “needed” is only 1,900, well within the sample. Granted, that’s 20% of women instead of the 4% that report 20 or more partners, but hardly impossible.

    Of course, these are Whites only. There’s nothing saying that these sex partners were also all White.

    Every unique hetero coupling event should register a +1 for some man and some woman simultaneously.

    Not necessarily, because of the ranges (10-20, 21-100) I have set up, and as aforementioned, interracial pairings.

    In short, it’s hard to draw too many conclusions about the honesty of respondents simply from how the numbers stack up. That said, they are probably somewhat unreliable, as I admitted in the beginning.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Nice to see this reworked from a different angle. The data simply do not back up the Game narrative that guys like Heartiste push. I’ve felt like a lone voice in the wilderness pointing this out for several years now (along with notable exceptions Jason Malloy and Agnostic). The pattern doesn’t just hold among whites–men and women alike–either, it’s there among blacks and Hispanics as well.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    Thanks. Indeed, this appears to be the pattern. But there is a major caveat: we don't know how reliable these numbers are, since they depend on self-reporting of respondents. One would imagine that for the major womanizing men, they are often clueless of the true number of children they have. We'd expect this problem to be particularly acute in the pre-birth control era.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    Number of partners data is totally bogus!!!

    Okay, I crunched the numbers and the lying (presumably by the men) is pure commedy. I assume for the sake of simplicity that 10 to 20 = 15; 20 to 50 = 35 and 50 to 100 = 75 partners.

    Then I assumed 100 men and 100 women in the 1970-1979 cohort. For example, the purple band yields 150 partners for the two men at the top and zero for the women since no women reported these.

    Adding up all the bands means that

    100 men in the 70-79 cohort had 1334 partners.

    100 women in the 70-79 cohort had 480 partners.

    Assuming the women are telling the truth, the men are inflating their numbers by 3 x because every time a man counts a woman as partner, the woman should be counting that same man as a partner so the numbers should basically match.

    What a bunch of liars!!!

    Another way to think about it:

    Every unique hetero coupling event should register a +1 for some man and some woman simultaneously. If people were telling the truth it is a basic truism that the collective man’s side and the collective woman’s side must increase in tandem. Thus the cumulative totals for a representative sampling of 100 men should be about equal to that for 100 representative women.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    Number of partners data is totally bogus!!!

    Okay, I crunched the numbers and the lying (presumably by the men) is pure commedy. I assume for the sake of simplicity that 10 to 20 = 15; 20 to 50 = 35 and 50 to 100 = 75 partners.

    Then I assumed 100 men and 100 women in the 1970-1979 cohort. For example, the purple band yields 150 partners for the two men at the top and zero for the women since no women reported these.

    Adding up all the bands means that

    100 men in the 70-79 cohort had 1334 partners.

    100 women in the 70-79 cohort had 480 partners.

    Assuming the women are telling the truth, the men are inflating their numbers by 3 x because every time a man counts a woman as partner, the woman should be counting that same man as a partner so the numbers should basically match.

    What a bunch of liars!!!

    Right, but if those two men were each with 75 unique women, then that is 150 unique pairings reported by the men. The women should report the same thing if they also experienced these pairings (which in many cases they did not because the men made them up). Suppose that the 2 men shared all of the same women for argument. Then you have 75 women whose count is +2 because of these two men.

    You see, the result should still appear in the women’s tally, where the masses of women have a few more encounters each.

    Again, the tallies should roughly match if people are being remotely honest. Instead the talliest by the men and women are miles apart.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    Let's stretch your example out a bit: instead of 100 people, let's say 10,000. The 500 guys that report sleeping with 50+ women now have anywhere between 50-38,000 women between them, depending on how many unique women between them. If we assume however that each of the women they've bed has been with an average of 20 guys herself, the number of women "needed" is only 1,900, well within the sample. Granted, that's 20% of women instead of the 4% that report 20 or more partners, but hardly impossible.

    Of course, these are Whites only. There's nothing saying that these sex partners were also all White.


    Every unique hetero coupling event should register a +1 for some man and some woman simultaneously.
     
    Not necessarily, because of the ranges (10-20, 21-100) I have set up, and as aforementioned, interracial pairings.

    In short, it's hard to draw too many conclusions about the honesty of respondents simply from how the numbers stack up. That said, they are probably somewhat unreliable, as I admitted in the beginning.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous
    The charts are proof that the men (and maybe the women) are lying quite a lot. The reports from the men and women can't both be true. Why?

    Reason #1:
    If the Heartiste blog is even 1% true, then there is a small fraction of men pleasing a lot of women while lots of betas are left frustrated. Instead, even among the youngest cohort almost all the men are successful, and much more than the women. This even though everyone knows that young men are in the worst sexual market position of their lives while young women are at the best market position of their lives.

    Reason #2:
    Couplings of a man who is older than the woman are much more common than the reverse. So you would expect young women to get more experience at earlier ages, and for the men to catch up later. Instead, the young men are supposedly having lots of success while the young women are lonelier.

    Reason #3:

    The numbers should balance somehow. For example, if there were more male players (i.e. 10 or more partners) then women should be more successful at the lower numbers.

    Reason #1:
    If the Heartiste blog is even 1% true, then there is a small fraction of men pleasing a lot of women while lots of betas are left frustrated. Instead, even among the youngest cohort almost all the men are successful, and much more than the women. This even though everyone knows that young men are in the worst sexual market position of their lives while young women are at the best market position of their lives.

    There is little by way of hard numbers in anything that circulates in the game world. We just don’t know what the true proportions are. You might be a little charitable to the true plight of some men. A guy whose 2 reported sex partners consists of two one-time hookups where the ladies each no longer give him the time of day would probably report feeling worse off than the guy with the steady girlfriend.

    A key fact to keep in mind: a vocal minority can seem to be much larger than a silent majority, and the former seems to describe much of the game world.

    Reason #2:
    Couplings of a man who is older than the woman are much more common than the reverse. So you would expect young women to get more experience at earlier ages, and for the men to catch up later. Instead, the young men are supposedly having lots of success while the young women are lonelier.

    Reason #3:

    The numbers should balance somehow. For example, if there were more male players (i.e. 10 or more partners) then women should be more successful at the lower numbers.

    See above, on the “ho” effect.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous
    Number of partners data is totally bogus!!!

    Okay, I crunched the numbers and the lying (presumably by the men) is pure commedy. I assume for the sake of simplicity that 10 to 20 = 15; 20 to 50 = 35 and 50 to 100 = 75 partners.

    Then I assumed 100 men and 100 women in the 1970-1979 cohort. For example, the purple band yields 150 partners for the two men at the top and zero for the women since no women reported these.

    Adding up all the bands means that

    100 men in the 70-79 cohort had 1334 partners.

    100 women in the 70-79 cohort had 480 partners.

    Assuming the women are telling the truth, the men are inflating their numbers by 3 x because every time a man counts a woman as partner, the woman should be counting that same man as a partner so the numbers should basically match.

    What a bunch of liars!!!

    The thing that confounds your analysis is that those 2 men who claim more than 50 partners in your example (say 75 each) does not necessarily add up to 150 unique women. Many of the playas who are having sex with multiple women are likely having sex with some of the same multiple women. Don’t underestimate how much the hos are contributing to the equation.

    That said, we really don’t know how reliable these numbers are.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Number of partners data is totally bogus!!!

    Okay, I crunched the numbers and the lying (presumably by the men) is pure commedy. I assume for the sake of simplicity that 10 to 20 = 15; 20 to 50 = 35 and 50 to 100 = 75 partners.

    Then I assumed 100 men and 100 women in the 1970-1979 cohort. For example, the purple band yields 150 partners for the two men at the top and zero for the women since no women reported these.

    Adding up all the bands means that

    100 men in the 70-79 cohort had 1334 partners.

    100 women in the 70-79 cohort had 480 partners.

    Assuming the women are telling the truth, the men are inflating their numbers by 3 x because every time a man counts a woman as partner, the woman should be counting that same man as a partner so the numbers should basically match.

    What a bunch of liars!!!

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    The thing that confounds your analysis is that those 2 men who claim more than 50 partners in your example (say 75 each) does not necessarily add up to 150 unique women. Many of the playas who are having sex with multiple women are likely having sex with some of the same multiple women. Don't underestimate how much the hos are contributing to the equation.

    That said, we really don't know how reliable these numbers are.

    , @Anonymous
    Right, but if those two men were each with 75 unique women, then that is 150 unique pairings reported by the men. The women should report the same thing if they also experienced these pairings (which in many cases they did not because the men made them up). Suppose that the 2 men shared all of the same women for argument. Then you have 75 women whose count is +2 because of these two men.

    You see, the result should still appear in the women's tally, where the masses of women have a few more encounters each.

    Again, the tallies should roughly match if people are being remotely honest. Instead the talliest by the men and women are miles apart.

    , @Anonymous
    Another way to think about it:

    Every unique hetero coupling event should register a +1 for some man and some woman simultaneously. If people were telling the truth it is a basic truism that the collective man's side and the collective woman's side must increase in tandem. Thus the cumulative totals for a representative sampling of 100 men should be about equal to that for 100 representative women.

    , @MaMu1977
    Men lie upwards, women lie downwards.

    It isnt uncommon, or even rare, to meet women who think that
    Non-vaginal intercourse
    Non-relationship sexual activity
    "Unseemly" sex, as in al fresco (public) sex, club/bar/vacation sex, interracial sex, subpar sex, kinky sex (BDSM, gangbangs get counted as one partner...)
    Don't count towards their partner tally.

    Conversely, it's common to meet men who add
    Video/Skype sex
    Masturbation
    Prostitution

    To their own numbers.

    So, in surveys, a lot of men will count "that handjob at 'Flaherty's", their daily Yahoo Internet Messenger jackathon with CoolCrazeeCougar1973 or those times they received an "around-the-world" from a 19-year old coed for $300 a session. Women, OTOH, *don't count* "that time they got fingered while grabbing a guy's dick at Flaherty's", hooking up with the two "Rent-A-Dread" beachcombers in Aruba, the Japanese guy who just gave her oral, the fray boy who lasted 75 seconds when drunk and 35 seconds when sober...

    Best example: in 2002, an active duty deployed soldier was busted for turning her tent into a brothel. Despite the fact that she had earned over $50,000 at $50-$100/hour per session, she told her superiors that she had been intimate with a dozen men. When dozens of men came forward with details of her operation, when she was discovered to be pregnant and over 60 guys claimed to be the father, she steadfastly maintained that the only ones who "counted" were the men who insisted on PIV intercourse. Out of (at final count) 140 men serviced, her personal count was the 12 guys who always out their penises inside of her vagina; even the men who occasionally limited themselves to non-PIV were excluded from her personal count.
    Interestingly enough, her case is the primary reason for the U.S. Military's insistence on electronic banking. Their logic: keeping large amounts of cash out of the hands of soldiers will prevent a case like this from happening again.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The charts are proof that the men (and maybe the women) are lying quite a lot. The reports from the men and women can’t both be true. Why?

    Reason #1:
    If the Heartiste blog is even 1% true, then there is a small fraction of men pleasing a lot of women while lots of betas are left frustrated. Instead, even among the youngest cohort almost all the men are successful, and much more than the women. This even though everyone knows that young men are in the worst sexual market position of their lives while young women are at the best market position of their lives.

    Reason #2:
    Couplings of a man who is older than the woman are much more common than the reverse. So you would expect young women to get more experience at earlier ages, and for the men to catch up later. Instead, the young men are supposedly having lots of success while the young women are lonelier.

    Reason #3:

    The numbers should balance somehow. For example, if there were more male players (i.e. 10 or more partners) then women should be more successful at the lower numbers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    Reason #1:
    If the Heartiste blog is even 1% true, then there is a small fraction of men pleasing a lot of women while lots of betas are left frustrated. Instead, even among the youngest cohort almost all the men are successful, and much more than the women. This even though everyone knows that young men are in the worst sexual market position of their lives while young women are at the best market position of their lives.
     
    There is little by way of hard numbers in anything that circulates in the game world. We just don't know what the true proportions are. You might be a little charitable to the true plight of some men. A guy whose 2 reported sex partners consists of two one-time hookups where the ladies each no longer give him the time of day would probably report feeling worse off than the guy with the steady girlfriend.

    A key fact to keep in mind: a vocal minority can seem to be much larger than a silent majority, and the former seems to describe much of the game world.


    Reason #2:
    Couplings of a man who is older than the woman are much more common than the reverse. So you would expect young women to get more experience at earlier ages, and for the men to catch up later. Instead, the young men are supposedly having lots of success while the young women are lonelier.
     

    Reason #3:

    The numbers should balance somehow. For example, if there were more male players (i.e. 10 or more partners) then women should be more successful at the lower numbers.
     

    See above, on the "ho" effect.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • >Indeed, youthful male frustration notwithstanding, the situation is hardly as dire as conservatives often make it out to be.

    Youthful male frustration in the West leads to XBox.
    Youthful male frustration in China leads to riots.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @M.G. Miles
    Very interesting graphs. So nice to see someone put some numbers to all the speculation...

    While there has been a noticeable increase in the number of men who are divorced or never marry at all, the vast majority of White men are still get married by mid-life

    That never-married jump from 4% to 12% is nothing to sneeze at. It'll be interesting to see the numbers for the 1970s and 1980s birth cohorts in the future. Lots of talk on the internet of a 'marriage strike' and so forth, but is it really happening? Also, I have a suspicion that black marriage rates are at historic (post-slavery) lows, but I don't have numbers to back that up.

    Women who've only had zero or one sex partner = 75% for the 1880s birth cohort (and I'd bet a lot of those 'two sex partners' people were widows who remarried), 30% for the 1970s birth cohort. And on the high end, women with ten or more sex partners went from 2% in the 1880s birth cohort to 21% in the 1970s cohort. I've seen studies posted in the man-o-sphere that one of the biggest predictors for a long and stable marriage is the woman's partner count (1 = best scenario). Does this portend more broken marriages in the future?

    The women's never-married rates are striking. From 7% for the 1880s birth cohort down to 2/3% for the after-WWII generation, then back up to 9% for Generation X. As you mentioned, inside the Hajnal line there was always a lifetime celibacy rate of about 10%. Are we coming back to (or surpassing) that now?

    Despite our strong urge to pair-bond, I have to wonder if the trend in the West is towards less and less marriage, for all the reasons the man-o-sphere writers bring up. Or (as you've posited before) that the conservatives, by reason of their fecundity, shall inherit the earth as the liberals extinct themselves, and this shall all become a moot question...

    Very interesting graphs. So nice to see someone put some numbers to all the speculation…

    Thanks!

    That never-married jump from 4% to 12% is nothing to sneeze at. It’ll be interesting to see the numbers for the 1970s and 1980s birth cohorts in the future. Lots of talk on the internet of a ‘marriage strike’ and so forth, but is it really happening?

    The key question is who are those 12% that never marry? Are the men whose genes we’d want to keep? I’ll do a deeper look to find out.

    Women who’ve only had zero or one sex partner = 75% for the 1880s birth cohort (and I’d bet a lot of those ‘two sex partners’ people were widows who remarried), 30% for the 1970s birth cohort. And on the high end, women with ten or more sex partners went from 2% in the 1880s birth cohort to 21% in the 1970s cohort.

    I’d suspect, as per your blog post, the old-time numbers are likely somewhat under-reported, since good little ladies just didn’t do that back then. Part of the apparent increase in the reported number of sex partners probably stems from women being more honest these days. I’ve added the 1980s cohort, and the pattern of their predecessors seems well underway.

    I’ve seen studies posted in the man-o-sphere that one of the biggest predictors for a long and stable marriage is the woman’s partner count (1 = best scenario). Does this portend more broken marriages in the future?

    It’s probably not causal. Women who have racked up a large number of sex partners are probably those with higher sex drives and lower penchant for commitment (aka, hos). Hence, these women are more likely to have unstable marriages.

    The women’s never-married rates are striking. From 7% for the 1880s birth cohort down to 2/3% for the after-WWII generation, then back up to 9% for Generation X. As you mentioned, inside the Hajnal line there was always a lifetime celibacy rate of about 10%. Are we coming back to (or surpassing) that now?

    Yes, the post-War boom times are very evident here. I’m betting of the old cohorts, the never-married are the spinsters, who were relegated to celibacy and childlessness. Probably not so of today’s never-married, but, overall, the proportions have returned to something close to their historic values.
    Many commentators today are concerned with that sizable divorced share. I don’t what percentage of those remained alone and never re-marry, but I’m sure it’s sizable.

    Despite our strong urge to pair-bond, I have to wonder if the trend in the West is towards less and less marriage, for all the reasons the man-o-sphere writers bring up. Or (as you’ve posited before) that the conservatives, by reason of their fecundity, shall inherit the earth as the liberals extinct themselves, and this shall all become a moot question…

    I’m betting we’re seeing the new normal. I don’t anticipate a huge amount of change in either direction in the near future, due both to the slow pace of genetic change (ala Greg Cochran) (which will prevent marriage rates from rising too much) and the fact that people do have an instinct to pair-bond, as you note (which will prevent them from falling too much).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Very interesting graphs. So nice to see someone put some numbers to all the speculation…

    While there has been a noticeable increase in the number of men who are divorced or never marry at all, the vast majority of White men are still get married by mid-life

    That never-married jump from 4% to 12% is nothing to sneeze at. It’ll be interesting to see the numbers for the 1970s and 1980s birth cohorts in the future. Lots of talk on the internet of a ‘marriage strike’ and so forth, but is it really happening? Also, I have a suspicion that black marriage rates are at historic (post-slavery) lows, but I don’t have numbers to back that up.

    Women who’ve only had zero or one sex partner = 75% for the 1880s birth cohort (and I’d bet a lot of those ‘two sex partners’ people were widows who remarried), 30% for the 1970s birth cohort. And on the high end, women with ten or more sex partners went from 2% in the 1880s birth cohort to 21% in the 1970s cohort. I’ve seen studies posted in the man-o-sphere that one of the biggest predictors for a long and stable marriage is the woman’s partner count (1 = best scenario). Does this portend more broken marriages in the future?

    The women’s never-married rates are striking. From 7% for the 1880s birth cohort down to 2/3% for the after-WWII generation, then back up to 9% for Generation X. As you mentioned, inside the Hajnal line there was always a lifetime celibacy rate of about 10%. Are we coming back to (or surpassing) that now?

    Despite our strong urge to pair-bond, I have to wonder if the trend in the West is towards less and less marriage, for all the reasons the man-o-sphere writers bring up. Or (as you’ve posited before) that the conservatives, by reason of their fecundity, shall inherit the earth as the liberals extinct themselves, and this shall all become a moot question…

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    Very interesting graphs. So nice to see someone put some numbers to all the speculation…
     
    Thanks!

    That never-married jump from 4% to 12% is nothing to sneeze at. It’ll be interesting to see the numbers for the 1970s and 1980s birth cohorts in the future. Lots of talk on the internet of a ‘marriage strike’ and so forth, but is it really happening?
     
    The key question is who are those 12% that never marry? Are the men whose genes we'd want to keep? I'll do a deeper look to find out.

    Women who’ve only had zero or one sex partner = 75% for the 1880s birth cohort (and I’d bet a lot of those ‘two sex partners’ people were widows who remarried), 30% for the 1970s birth cohort. And on the high end, women with ten or more sex partners went from 2% in the 1880s birth cohort to 21% in the 1970s cohort.
     
    I'd suspect, as per your blog post, the old-time numbers are likely somewhat under-reported, since good little ladies just didn't do that back then. Part of the apparent increase in the reported number of sex partners probably stems from women being more honest these days. I've added the 1980s cohort, and the pattern of their predecessors seems well underway.

    I’ve seen studies posted in the man-o-sphere that one of the biggest predictors for a long and stable marriage is the woman’s partner count (1 = best scenario). Does this portend more broken marriages in the future?
     
    It's probably not causal. Women who have racked up a large number of sex partners are probably those with higher sex drives and lower penchant for commitment (aka, hos). Hence, these women are more likely to have unstable marriages.

    The women’s never-married rates are striking. From 7% for the 1880s birth cohort down to 2/3% for the after-WWII generation, then back up to 9% for Generation X. As you mentioned, inside the Hajnal line there was always a lifetime celibacy rate of about 10%. Are we coming back to (or surpassing) that now?
     
    Yes, the post-War boom times are very evident here. I'm betting of the old cohorts, the never-married are the spinsters, who were relegated to celibacy and childlessness. Probably not so of today's never-married, but, overall, the proportions have returned to something close to their historic values.
    Many commentators today are concerned with that sizable divorced share. I don't what percentage of those remained alone and never re-marry, but I'm sure it's sizable.

    Despite our strong urge to pair-bond, I have to wonder if the trend in the West is towards less and less marriage, for all the reasons the man-o-sphere writers bring up. Or (as you’ve posited before) that the conservatives, by reason of their fecundity, shall inherit the earth as the liberals extinct themselves, and this shall all become a moot question…
     
    I'm betting we're seeing the new normal. I don't anticipate a huge amount of change in either direction in the near future, due both to the slow pace of genetic change (ala Greg Cochran) (which will prevent marriage rates from rising too much) and the fact that people do have an instinct to pair-bond, as you note (which will prevent them from falling too much).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • [...] Some guys get all the babes – not exactly – from jayman. (luv the photo! (~_^) ) [...]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • It would be interesting to know the collective nature of gender performance and sexual market in activities typically associated with two main contexts, like urban nightlife and online dating, in which men substantially outnumber women. These rituals were designed to reinforce contemporary courtship rituals but operate as ineffective collective strategies of mating management.
    There are structures of inequality within as well as across the socially constructed gender divide between women and men. You should find an operational sex ratio, which is the number of sexually available men per 100 sexually available women, multiplied by 100. What’s the real pool of single women available and effects of gender imbalance on the mating market?

    If you go to a bar or club (interaction ritual associated with approaching women), you will likely see a number of men trying to meeting women and a much smaller number of women rejecting most of those men. This is repeated, bar after bar, city after city. The women tend to choose the most attractive male solicitor in the establishment (even if the women are only of moderate attractiveness or uglies). And online dating is worthless as a way to meet quality women. There are too many indiscriminate men and too few cute girls. The dynamics are totally in the woman’s favor. Women are not seeking a physically similar partner, so they only reply messages of 5-10% highly attractive men on the website.

    On bars/clubs and online dating, women increase their hypergamous standards and they prefer men of high attractiveness rather than that similar to their own. Female are not trying to pair up on assortative mating (women mate with similar phenotypes men) because the number of prospective men partners is large and costs of searching or being rejected are low. Women are in demand (and undersupplied). Women pursue alpha males until the age of 34-36 when their desirability drops precipitously and not even single beta males she used to reject are interested in them. Single men prefer an attractive and young woman (18-30 years old).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The pattern that the Game bloggers describe seems rather exaggerated to me. What I see around me is lots of coupled-up pairs, but they’re not married, so it’s easier to break up. In college, this often means breaking up when one of the couple goes home for the summer; it also happens when one has to move for a job, or just because they’ve gotten tired of each others’ shit. Or when one of the couple wants more committment (move in togeher, get married) and the other isn’t willing to do it. After college, most boyfriend-girlfriend relationships last at least a year, often several years. It’s what happens in-between that’s most interesting, and that’s most visible.

    Between boyfriends, some young women will be rather conservative – they’ll date one or two guys they’ve prequalified heavily, and they won’t have (PIV) sex until they’re pretty sure he’s the next boyfriend. Others will slut around for a while, either to try out men before choosing one as a boyfriend, or just to have some fun with non-boyfriend-material men before looking for a new boyfriend, or one of those hot guys turns out to actually be more interested in a long-term relationship than pump-n-dump. And of course there’s in-between – the woman who dates a few guys, and fucks a couple of them before she realizes they’re not boyfriend material.

    Observers of the sexual marketplace focus on this in-between period, and ignore or gloss over the large mass of men and women in long-term monogamous relationships, which covers probably 80% or more of both sexes at any one time. A guy who is pretty alpha can stay in the active marketplace forever, finding the hotter women who aren’t coupled up, having short-term flings with them, and moving on to the next. The average guy (the AFC) spends more time on the active marketplace than the average woman does because he doesn’t approach enough, or he’s too beta and dates don’t convert to relationships, or because he overvalues himself, not realizing that women don’t measure men by the standards the average man measures himself by. The number of guys who *never* get laid is pretty low, but the number of guys in relationships with fat chicks, or nags, or really boring women, and who spend months to years involuntarily celibate between relationships is pretty high. The number of women who *can’t get laid* is a lot smaller, but what women want is generally a relationship, and there are plenty of women who can’t get a relationship with a guy as “hot” as they want.

    Damn – I need to start my own blog.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    "Observers of the sexual marketplace focus on this in-between period, and ignore or gloss over the large mass of men and women in long-term monogamous relationships, which covers probably 80% or more of both sexes at any one time. A guy who is pretty alpha can stay in the active marketplace forever, finding the hotter women who aren’t coupled up, having short-term flings with them, and moving on to the next. The average guy (the AFC) spends more time on the active marketplace than the average woman does"

    yep, that actually pretty much sums it up in my opinion. The thing with gamers is that they had became obsessed with the desire to become that in-between period guy.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • More young men than young women find themselves mateless, even though the sex ratio in society is always roughly 50-50 and there are about the same number of young men as young women. This is because humans are naturally polygynous (Alexander et al, 1979; Kanazawa & Still, 1999), and throughout evolutionary history some men have always had multiple
    mates. The mathematical consequence of polygyny is most ¡obvious in societies that sanction and practice (simultaneous) polygynous marriage, such as many African tribes and Muslim societies in the Middle East. If every married man has four wives, for example, it means that, given a 50-50 sex ratio, three-quarters of men are left mateless. A large majority of men in such societies are in the same situation as you are; they find themselves alone on a Saturday (and every other) night. However, as Daly and Wilson (1988, pp. 140-142) point out, “polygyny is a matter of degree” in human mating systems; every human society is more or less polygynous, even in an officially monogamous society like the United States. This is both because some married (or otherwise already-mated) men acquire and keep additional mates (in the form of mistresses and girlfriends)2 and because men in such nominally monogamous societies practice serial polygyny, where divorced men go on to marry younger women in their second and subsequent marriages. One of the strongest predictors of remarriage after divorce is sex; men often remarry, women often don’t.

    Now if men only practice serial polygyny and do not acquire multiple mates simultaneously, then it means that there are an equal number of available women as available men. However, given men’s preference for younger women and women’s preference for older men (Buss, 1989; Kenrick & Keefe, 1992), most of the now available women are older women who have been married and divorced and have had some children, while most of the available men are young men yet to have their reproductive opportunities (if they are lucky). They do not make good matches for each other. In polygynous societies (either simultaneous or serial), most women get their reproductive opportunities and have children (if followed by a divorce in the case of serial polygyny), while many men are left out of their reproductive opportunities altogether for life and spend their entire life mateless. The more polygynous the society, the more young men face the distinct possibility of ending their lives as complete reproductive losers. Such is the mathematics of polygyny.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Most positive news I’ve read all week. I’ve always thought game followers have exaggerated their problems, and here’s some nice solid proof. Maybe it’s because I live in a southern city, but I’ve never seen a guy who wasn’t a total loser that couldn’t at least land a steady girlfriend every now and then of the same level. The ones I’ve met that cannot easily get laid are either lazy or stupid. Or both. I wouldn’t want them reproducing anyways.

    If anything, the divide isn’t between alphas and betas. It’s between lazy people who refuse to take care of or improve themselves and people who put effort into making themselves happy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “what proportion of men end up lonely (i.e., without a wife/girlfriend) in middle age and older?”

    Except this is the wrong question. What matters is getting women at their peak, not landing bitter women settling at the wall. If beta men go from getting grateful women who treat them well and give them the best years of their lives (and 2-3 children) to getting ungrateful women who treat them crappy and give them the tiniest sliver of their youth they can before having 0-2 children for them its obvious they have been downgraded.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.