tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7803646793315574963.post3550299761679623985..comments2024-03-28T22:02:38.159+00:00Comments on Anglobitch: The Ineffable Mystery of Anglo HypergamyRookh Kshatriyahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05970184074924214959noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7803646793315574963.post-90575345433915870682018-11-25T03:24:41.301+00:002018-11-25T03:24:41.301+00:00Its so funny how this anonymous poster keeps tryin...Its so funny how this anonymous poster keeps trying to rationalize away female biology and its hystobrillia inclinations.<br /><br />You cannot fight natural urges. Unless you shoot yourself in the head then congratulations you won against nature.<br /><br />Even if now you feel rational and logical. At the presence of evil you will illogically be drawn to it or submit to it. Its nature.<br /><br />Older men who have been around the block tell me these things. Even though i belong to the generation of men raised by women and was raised to be that beta sucker.<br /><br />We can all see that Jeremy Meeks "hot felon" is now set for life after inseminating his billionaire heiress.<br /><br />From life in prison to set for life. <br /><br />Mother nature is as real as it getsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7803646793315574963.post-42758736525334295822014-04-19T19:43:51.105+01:002014-04-19T19:43:51.105+01:00Except God does not exist. And if he does, he can ...Except God does not exist. And if he does, he can go to hell.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7803646793315574963.post-16070690043966037972013-07-22T11:13:59.360+01:002013-07-22T11:13:59.360+01:00You will find a lot of people who always check out...You will find a lot of people who always check out Delhi to have the capability to remove their isolation by looking for older fun with Delhi call girls. If you're also certainly one of people people you will want to technique a qualified and expert company which resources amazing alternatives of friends. Delhi Companions is well able of provide the customers in methods they need these to be.<br />http://nikitaroy.escortfiles.com/<br />Priya saxenahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17278217845276559536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7803646793315574963.post-44143247918337258842013-04-30T13:18:57.321+01:002013-04-30T13:18:57.321+01:00Nah, some of his GF's were better looking than...Nah, some of his GF's were better looking than he was. Plus they were probably taller to. <br /><br />"Ultimately, it's not for men to say what women should find physically attractive. There's nothing you can do about it."<br /><br />You know, I actually agree with you on this point. Why? Because like attracts like in the end. You figure out the rest.DaRicknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7803646793315574963.post-22190274823758292082013-04-30T13:15:31.157+01:002013-04-30T13:15:31.157+01:00"Clearly men have very odd ideas about what c..."Clearly men have very odd ideas about what constitutes handsomeness!!!"<br /><br />Do Anglo feminists think that ANY man is really handsome? I'm not sure...DaRicknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7803646793315574963.post-5273549725098266082013-03-17T07:32:44.064+00:002013-03-17T07:32:44.064+00:00You could do with addressing his argument, rather ...You could do with addressing his argument, rather than just the spelling. DaRicknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7803646793315574963.post-42404322921199020862013-02-05T13:06:42.203+00:002013-02-05T13:06:42.203+00:00'Jack',
Richard (Scarecrow) has martial-a...'Jack',<br /><br />Richard (Scarecrow) has martial-arts training - read his blog. <br /><br />It's likely that he can handle himself OK in a fight with most people. DaRicknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7803646793315574963.post-54716939877821604182013-02-04T09:57:08.075+00:002013-02-04T09:57:08.075+00:00Rookh,
I might agree on Bronson, but Kuklinsi? Th...Rookh,<br /><br />I might agree on Bronson, but Kuklinsi? The man killed dozens of people - how does that differentiate him from a Ted Bundy or Martin Bryant? Also, Kuklinski regularly did other people's dirty work. Not really an 'alpha' thing to do.<br /><br />(That and I suspect that many of his claimed killings were actually performed by others)DaRicknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7803646793315574963.post-80392401604487136182012-10-14T05:03:25.558+01:002012-10-14T05:03:25.558+01:00Ah yes, I definitely agree with you there. The soc...Ah yes, I definitely agree with you there. The socio-cultural aspect is very important. This is what I refer to in the context of women choosing TYPES of men. The men that women choose have to stand for something. They have to have a label attached, make a statement. If a woman prioritises being provided for, then that label will usually be a success marker, usually defined in terms of a man's career... like CEO, lawyer, doctor, soldier, etc. If a woman prioritises fashion statements and fitting in, then the label that she will notice might be "pack leader", "tattooed thug", "party animal", or "reprobate layabout". The wonderful thing about the plasticity of women's sexuality is that they can actually get off on ugly men. But remember the first rule of type. It's not enough to be just a naked blobfish. The ugly man has to have a label. A limping, tattooed midget with attitude and a hunch-back, on his own, is not a sure thing. But he can increase his odds by becoming a leader of a pack and sporting a patch over one eye... see what he's doing? He acquires agency over his label. And he can increase his odds even further by becoming a celebrity... e.g., the Hunchback of Notre Dam... then bingo, his odds skyrocket. Women love celebrity... and by definition, the celebrity is the label.<br /><br />The plasticity of women's sexuality is integral to how culture works. It enables ridiculous stereotypes to become reality, and this alleviates God's boredom, providing him with centuries of entertainment and amusement. He must be laughing his arse off, seeing the handsomest, most charismitic, genetically gifted dudes competing against genetic throwbacks.Chuckeedeenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7803646793315574963.post-88549638159463809172012-10-13T14:15:49.775+01:002012-10-13T14:15:49.775+01:00I like your term 'paper alpha' - something...I like your term 'paper alpha' - something like an adolescent court jester. Women prefer that kind of tiresome monkey - agreed. Where Game goes wrong is in calling that kind of impish turd an 'alpha'. Genuine badass alpha dudes like Richard Kuklinsky in the States or Charles Bronson in Britain are not in the least attractive to women. If Anglo-American Gamers stopped confusing court jesters with genuine alphas, I'd have a lot more time for them. In fact, I would suggest genuine alphas have never evolved much Game, as a psychological type - historically, alphas have never had to 'court' women. They used soft (cultural) and hard (physical) rape to perpetuate their genes.Rookh Kshatriyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05970184074924214959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7803646793315574963.post-77325829158133189812012-10-13T14:05:22.361+01:002012-10-13T14:05:22.361+01:00'Sex schedules' imply that female sexualit...'Sex schedules' imply that female sexuality is comparatively weak and much more amenable to cultural manipulation. I mean, can you imagine a Mongol Khan rationing himself to sex 'three times a week' with the hot young women of the world at his disposal?Rookh Kshatriyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05970184074924214959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7803646793315574963.post-49423438244385193232012-10-13T13:58:28.664+01:002012-10-13T13:58:28.664+01:00*Who would go out of their way to choose that whic...*Who would go out of their way to choose that which is inferior, the worst of the crop? If you had a pick of 10 grades of apple in front of you, why would you choose the worst?*<br /><br />This is the crux of the matter. While there is much truth in what you say, one important factor is that female sexuality, having a much higher level of plasticity (and therefore biological dysfunction) than male sexuality, is far less rational and effective in its instinctive decision-making. And this is explained by the 'soft' and 'hard' rape that have shaped human development for millennia. Because female mate-choice was obviated by power, money and war, it never evolved with the same purposive clarity as male sexuality did. This explains why men all over the world prefer youth, thinness, a slim waist and other physical signs of reproductive fitness. All attempts by feminists to make men prefer fat, old women have fallen on stony ground (thank God). Men in China, Sweden and the Amazon all want the same things, basically. You seem to be saying that female sexuality is much more shaped by social/psychological concerns, and this interpretation fits my general thesis quite well - sex, in short, is much more tangential to their sexuality.<br /><br />While your psychological insights have much value, the psychological cannot be separated from the socio-cultural. And in the Anglosphere, women are told from earliest childhood that they are princesses in waiting. This, as we know, is an expression of the puritanical repression that forms a distinctive backdrop to Anglo culture. Many regular posters here (especially Americans) suggest that this 'pedestalization' creates a uniquely entitled outlook among Anglo-American women, especially the few attractive ones. One expression of this is the notion that 'no man is good enough', leading to spinsterhood on the one hand or thug-fucking on the other. All this is supported by the cultural exclusivity of dysfunctional female mate-preference - it is not nearly so strong outside the Anglosphere, despite continental Europe having far more generous Welfare programmes. <br /><br />However, your own points about the female fear of formidable men suggest that Anglo women - knowing themselves at heart to be inferior - are by nature ill-at-ease with their 'exalted' status. In itself, this doubtless contributes to their obsession with useless deadbeats. The higher they fly the harder they fall, and all that.Rookh Kshatriyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05970184074924214959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7803646793315574963.post-16936539037193177352012-10-13T08:56:06.618+01:002012-10-13T08:56:06.618+01:00Rookh, I agree with you that women often go to uni...Rookh, I agree with you that women often go to university in order to score a husband. An ex of mine used to joke about that. She mocked Arts as Marriage 1 and Law School as Marriage 2. And then she chose me - go figure... I guess she knew first-hand what she was talking about! But I digress. A compelling anecdote does not a study make.<br /><br />However, I do disagree with one aspect of your interpretation. Women do indeed choose sub-par men. But it's not because they go out of their way to choose degenerate, ugly men. Far from it. Who would go out of their way to choose that which is inferior, the worst of the crop? If you had a pick of 10 grades of apple in front of you, why would you choose the worst?<br /><br />No, here's the reason to explain women's choices. Because women are, at a primal level, inspired by the formidable (respectable) in man, they feel intimidated by that which they most desire (as I explained previously). This situation predisposes women to self-esteem issues. Women are fundamentally uncomfortable in relating to formidable men. That's why it is so important for men to be able to disarm women, to make them laugh, have a sense of humour. THAT's the reason women choose degenerates. A degenerate is an optimum choice that provides a substitute for the formidable that a woman can never relate to. That's why many women relate most comfortably to those men who retain their adolescent immaturity... you know, the shallow, paper-alpha routine. It's the reason why Game works so well... it harnesses women's low self esteem. It's also the reason why many women choose harmless dweebs of the beta persuasion, where Game could actually jeopardize your chances. (It's also the reason why feminism tries to level men, tries to make men look ridiculous, but I digress, that's stuff for another time)<br /><br />Alles ist Klar, nein?<br /><br />The end result is, of course, that women make ridiculous choices, but women do NOT go out of their way to choose the fuglies. They don't say to themselves, "ewww, there's an ugly creep, I hope he hits on me." That's patent nonesense. Quite simply, women feel most comfortable, least threatened, by inferior men.Chuckeedeenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7803646793315574963.post-9897314026880262472012-10-12T17:28:54.617+01:002012-10-12T17:28:54.617+01:00"And another thing - men drop out and 'fa..."And another thing - men drop out and 'fail' (educationally if not economically) because Anglo-American women dislike any sign of intelligence in boys/men. If a guy wants a girl-friend he has to 'play the game' and pander to the reflexive female preference for thugs and morons."<br /><br />That's quite pathetic, isn't it? You have claimed in other posts that men are only interested in women for sex - and so just for sex they would sacrifice their education? You've never heard of going solo? This does not say much for the future of the male gender. <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7803646793315574963.post-24738753886074419942012-10-12T16:27:22.855+01:002012-10-12T16:27:22.855+01:00If women's education were that significant, ho...If women's education were that significant, how come they still earn less? Besides, women generally shun 'difficult' subjects requiring mathematics or formal logic and prefer pointless degrees in subjects like art, English and sociology.<br /><br />And another thing - men drop out and 'fail' (educationally if not economically) because Anglo-American women dislike any sign of intelligence in boys/men. If a guy wants a girl-friend he has to 'play the game' and pander to the reflexive female preference for thugs and morons. The alternative is found in the life of James Holmes: he followed the 'intellectual' path and experienced only involuntary celibacy for his pains. It doesn't take much smarts to see that dysfunctional female mate-preference is the primary cause of male educational failure in the Anglosphere.Rookh Kshatriyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05970184074924214959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7803646793315574963.post-73349908622978588842012-10-12T12:46:01.263+01:002012-10-12T12:46:01.263+01:00"It is often said (and I doubt it not) that m..."It is often said (and I doubt it not) that middle class women attend elite colleges not to study but to snag rich husbands."<br /><br />Often said by whom? Go to any university and you will find women out-number men. Women go to university because they want to excel, because they want to "snag" a good education and a good salary. And they do - it's mostly men that drop out and/ or fail. That seems to suggest that arbitrary reasons when perhaps they should consider vocational training.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7803646793315574963.post-78153112145004770372012-10-12T11:58:59.577+01:002012-10-12T11:58:59.577+01:00Seems like we're on the same page. Though our ...Seems like we're on the same page. Though our interpretations could do with a bit of refinement. Women are drawn to the formidable (respectable) in man. However, the formidable presents something of a quandry. Almost by definition, the formidable spooks women... it is intimidating, and this sets her rationalization hamster into overdrive. "Oh he noticed my blemish" "Oh can he smell the garlic on my breath?" "Oh he thought I meant x when I meant y" "Oh is he mad at me now?" "Oh he's noticed my small tits". Solution? The ideal compromise for a woman is to choose that version of formidable which has eliminated the spook factor. Enter mumbling degenerate, stage left.<br /><br />She chooses an idiot, one that combines the best of both worlds - excitement without the spook factor. He is threatening, yet not threatening. He is threatening because as a tattooed, nose-ringed mumbling thug there's an obvious element of danger about him, yet because he is dense and insensitive, he's easy to read and predict. Most importantly, as an insensitive brute, he does not expect much of her, and so she won't feel so self-conscious, like she's under the spotlight. See how it works? If you are a woman, you can combine threatening with predictable by choosing a mumbling idiot slumped at a bar... and through such an astute choice, you get the danger without that constant nagging feeling that maybe he expects more from you. You get the excitement without the booooring. And as an added bonus, you have the government handouts to fall back on in the event that you should birth his spawn. But you've got to make a choice... exciting thug or reliable provider? What's it to be girl? Quick, decide. Tradeoff. Do it. Submit. Spread those thighs, baby, before he gets away.Chuckeedeenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7803646793315574963.post-42274850375012435482012-10-12T11:32:34.627+01:002012-10-12T11:32:34.627+01:00Eric, no contradiction at all. Regarding the assum...Eric, no contradiction at all. Regarding the assumption, post sexual revolution, that everyone is doing "it" (having sex)... How correct is this assumption? Who are the ones most likely to make this assumption, and who are the ones who are going to try to put it into practice? What do men assume to hold true about this assumption and what do women assume? How many alphas/ degenerates "service" a majority of the "nice girls"? How many sluts and/or prostitutes service a majority of the men? Who knows? The averages that pan out across men and women may surprise you... and me. The thing is that none of us has the complete picture. The question is, who's servicing whom and by what numbers? The only thing that I can suggest with any amount of certainty is that it is wrong to assume that men and women are going for it one-to-one. In this light, no, there need be no contradiction at all.Chuckeedeenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7803646793315574963.post-29025051862534375722012-10-12T09:08:51.387+01:002012-10-12T09:08:51.387+01:00Chuckeedee:
Reading your posts, one observation ...Chuckeedee:<br /> Reading your posts, one observation that seems to mitigate against the idea of 'proximity' is the fact most of the so-called 'bad boys' are not in the least bit monogamous. In fact, most of them have more female attention than they can reasonably handle.<br /><br /> There was a story in the US media recently about a male, living in small town, who had fathered 30 children by 11 different women. The news mentioned that he was something of a local legend (i.e. all the women involved with him fully knew of his reputation). The photographs depicted him as being a rather unintelligent-looking guy, not at all handsome, and chronically unemployed. I don't see where 'proximity' fits into that schema since obviously he wasn't the only available male in the town.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7803646793315574963.post-76739425475615605462012-10-12T09:01:13.484+01:002012-10-12T09:01:13.484+01:00Rookh:
I tend to believe that females have sexua...Rookh:<br /> I tend to believe that females have sexual impulses, but under feminist-dominated education, these impulses have atrophied. If they are taught to despise and detest men, how can they exhibit any genuine sexual attraction to men? The examples you gave of the media dictating their choices seem to bear that out.<br /><br /> Another thing I've heard discussed amomg women in pop culture is when it is 'appropriate' to have sex. Apparently the general consensus among American females is that sex is acceptable after the third date; and that sex three times a week is what's expected of her.<br /><br /> Who else other than American women would actually need a schedule for sex? This kind of 'relationship advice' sounds like a physician prescribing a diet to an anemic patient!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7803646793315574963.post-35067705372749401412012-10-12T06:30:37.244+01:002012-10-12T06:30:37.244+01:00It is often said (and I doubt it not) that middle ...It is often said (and I doubt it not) that middle class women attend elite colleges not to study but to snag rich husbands. That would be an example of women seeking out environments congenial to their hypergamous aims rather than merely accepting the environment they grew up in. In fact, women are also now more likely to go to college in the Anglosphere than men. I think working class women still accept their environment and adapt to it - but that goes for working class males as well. <br /><br />One of my pet ideas about female mate-selection being arbitrary and dysfunctional is that it has undergone little evolutionary refinement. That is, female mate-choice exerted little influence for most of human evolutionary history - all that was taken care of by 'soft rape' (sexual coercion of women via formal institutions such as arranged marriages) and 'hard rape' (direct sexual coercion in the aftermath of war or conquest). Consequently, female mate-selection (a relatively new concept) has far greater plasticity (and is far more prone to dysfunction) than its male counterpart. So, in the 80s women were attracted to girlish men because the media told them to be; now, it tells them to like thugs and criminals, so they like thugs and criminals. As men, we find this malleability hard to grasp - male sexuality has evolved logically to prefer youth, thinness, large breasts and symmetrical features. Female sexuality is far less 'logical', largely because it was never subject to rigorous evolutionary competition. And this applies to women in general: because they are mostly 'guaranteed' the right to reproduce (whatever their personal qualities), they are generally retrograde in mental and physical terms. For example, 70% of photosensitive epileptics are women; women have lower average IQ; women are more superstitious; and so on.<br /><br />Rookh Kshatriyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05970184074924214959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7803646793315574963.post-34149910319409973632012-10-12T05:03:28.101+01:002012-10-12T05:03:28.101+01:00(Oops, intended as reply to Rookh)(Oops, intended as reply to Rookh)Chuckeedeenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7803646793315574963.post-41098657264298456272012-10-12T04:56:22.439+01:002012-10-12T04:56:22.439+01:00As per my reply to Anonymous immediately above, I ...As per my reply to Anonymous immediately above, I disagree. You often find young women from "proper" upbringings (e.g., catholics or the more refined folk from mid-upper classes) choosing from the dullest dweebs, often because of the promise that they might show as future providers. Usually, in conjunction with said signs of future promise, fertilized, well-nurtured proximity yields a woman the desired result. And if it all gets too hard and her plan goes awry, there is usually a bevy of ever-present beta orbiters to rescue her. <br /><br />I think the key to understanding women's choices is proximity, and NOT independent self-determination. In other words, women's choices are more arbitrary than they are controlled or directed. It is true that women often engineer the proximity that they desire by manipulation, but in view of women's materialistic priorities and/or what they define as sexy in men (eg., the mumbling bad-boy), these manipulations usually run their course with ridiculous outcomes.Chuckeedeenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7803646793315574963.post-14647908106326454862012-10-12T04:26:42.591+01:002012-10-12T04:26:42.591+01:00No, it's not impossible at all. It works by ch...No, it's not impossible at all. It works by changing the dynamics of pairing-up. If you think in terms of free-ranging, independent males pairing up with free-ranging, independent females, then you won't get it. Instead, the free-ranging, independent males (or patient beta orbiters who have learned to bide their time) typically find themselves pairing up with dependent, serial-monogamist females who are on the rebound. Women continue to be "monogamist" and they continue to be dependent. Hence the notion of serial monogamy, where women who are in the process of transitioning across relationships are typically caught on the rebound. In this model of serial monogamy, women might choose from fresh, uncharted territory, or they might fertilize future prospects who, as stable beta orbiters, strike when the opportunity avails itself. Because women don't understand men, choosing from uncharted territory (like going to a pub to meet PUAs and other assortments of strangers) is risky, hence these choices tend to the ridiculous. It is usually safest for a woman to select from her ever-present bevy of beta orbiters.Chuckeedeenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7803646793315574963.post-50967785780637744482012-10-11T17:46:37.733+01:002012-10-11T17:46:37.733+01:00But what makes you so sure that you could "ou...But what makes you so sure that you could "out-think, out-fight and out-do" him? Out-fight, fair enough even though looks can be deceiving and people can be stronger than they look (and you don't even need to be strong to defend yourself if you have the right training). Did you hear him speaking? If not, what makes you so sure you're so much more intelligent and less of a loser?Jacknoreply@blogger.com