Because I’m far too lazy to keep thinking up puns that involve the word “plug,” I’m sticking with one title from here on out.
New bloggers on the roll include Bob Belvedere, who I introduced in this post. He describes himself as follows:
I like to describe myself as an 18th Century conservative. I am not an ideologue and, therefore, do not subscribe to any ‘ist’ or ’ism’. I want to be left alone. I believe the Federal Government should not be allowed to take any actions not permitted by The Constitution. State and local governments should, likewise, be bound by their constitutions and charters. Life is absurd. Any man who does not have at least one vice should not be trusted. The 17th Amendment should be repealed [and possibly the 19th]. Thomas Jefferson was a blackguard.
Mr. Belvedere’s blog skillfully blends the high and the low, as evidenced by his strict adherence to Rule 5. I dig it.
Another good site, Fishersville Mike, linked me up last Sunday. The blog consists of pithy observations on politics – the best kind.
I’ve also added Sean MacCloud (who I’ve seen commenting on my site and at The Spearhead), Luv(sic) (same), Darwinian Conservatism by Larry Arnhart (linked at Chuck’s place), Joe Bageant (forgot where, but I’ve been meaning to read his book Deer Hunting with Jesus for some time – Fred Reed has a good review), Everyday Thoughts on Life (linked at Novaseeker’s), Instapundit (which I’ve started reading again), and The Sartorialist (again, forgot where). I’m generally free and generous when it comes to linkage, so if you’re a blogger who reads and enjoys In Mala Fide, let me know and I’ll add you to my almighty blogroll (and less mighty reader).
Moving on, Cless Alvein introduces a mathematical way to calculate male attractiveness:
Men can improve their situation dramatically by increasing their sociosexual confidence. It’s difficult to do this, because PUA gimmicks only offer a marginal benefit, but it can certainly be done by improving one’s social skills, learning to tolerate rejection, and developing confidence through experience in all areas of life. A man’s sociosexual confidence also tends to improve over the course of his life. For this reason, although a man’s physical appearance peaks in his late 20s, as it does for women, his overall attractiveness to women is likely to peak in his mid-40s, with his gains in sociosexual confidence sufficient to offset his (mild) physical decline. A man who improves his “game” from a lagging 4 to an average-plus 6, with no changes to his physical appearance, increases his “batting average” by 237 percent. His dry and single spells, if he maintains the same standards, will be three times shorter.
Very cool stuff.
Knack, a Venusian Arts coach, guest-posts at Roissy in DC on gameless PUA instructors teaching useless skills:
That’s one of the things that pisses me off about all these people coming out about “natural game”. 95% of “naturals” are just good looking dudes that girls want to fuck. They have always been good looking and women have been approaching them for sex and dating. Because they have always been approached they have been positively reinforced for sexual aggression (even though they rarely actually start out sexually aggressive). These men can’t teach you anything. Because they never learned anything. It was handed to them. You see, like girls, very good looking men rarely have had to develop an actual personality (the key to pickup).
Also see Assanova’s response.
Whiskey writes on how e-books are changing the media world:
Already e-books are offering fast, and cheaper alternatives to printed books. Project Gutenberg has free, public domain HTML, audio/mp3, and “Plucker” e-books of classics such as Jules Verne’s “Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea” and Mark Twain’s “Roughing It.” Plucker which is software available for both Palm Pilots and Pocket PCs, and runs on Linux, Macintosh OS X, and Windows, can read e-books prepared in that format. [Currently the Plucker site is unavailable, Sourceforge.com has various project files available. I have personally tried this with a Palm Tungsten, while offering limited readability, the software and content are free. Iphone owners have the option of using free application “Stanza” to read public domain books.
Another nail in Old Media’s coffin.
Bhanu Prasad posts on how culture affects sporting prowess:
A Culture that encourages competition and risk taking
In addition to sporting institutions, a nation needs to have a strong competitive culture. Competition ensures quality, and quality ensures the steady supply of champions.
There are few eastern cultures that actively discourage risk taking in favour of family and relationships. Such cultures are a death knell to sports. As sporting involves an unlimited success or a spectacular failure, and hence fraught with risk. The classic example is my own culture. Here men prefer stability to glory, wrapping nappies to war etc., No wonder we do not have a single explorer/conqueror on the lines of Zheng He or Belisarius.
He makes a number of compelling points.
Al Fin reports that the rate of evolution has exploded in the past 5,000 years:
One of the greatest intellectual curses of modern day humans is “groupthink”, which includes “political correctness” and excessive deference to authority. Mass incompetence provides groupthink with its power over populations. Mass incompetence is fed by poor childraising, perverse educational practises, a self-destructive popular culture, and the mass indoctrination into the groupthink cult by media and higher academia.
I look forward to the smashing of egalitarian shibboleths in the years to come.
anoukange tells the story of her life in descriptive prose:
If you were my man I would stand before you as an offer. I would work to know you and dream your dreams with you. I would vacuum in lace, I would time release my secrets and my desires to extend the ride of intrigue, I would be elegant on your arm and never question you in public, I would whisper dirty deeds into your ear and leave your thoughts to wander, I would keep my wrists skinny through out the years so that you may always pin them down with one hand only, I would give you the pillow you preferred, I will keep my skin firm, my muscles toned, my mind flexible, I would go deep, I would go down, I would cook your favorite foods, I would water your roots and iron your shirts, I would carry myself with class, I would fill your cupboard with Jack, I would kiss you with my hands on your face, I would sneak my foot up your leg under the table at dinner, I would steal glimpses of you in movie theaters and memorize your profile, I would keep my hair long and lush so you could pull it, I would absorb your stress and melt it, I would desire your brain, your ways and your pauses, I would trim your hair with precision, I would never stand in the way of your spirit, I would listen to your stories, I would digest you in inches, I would allow you your space and freedom, I would love you, hold you, fuck you, know you, believe in you, travel with you, stay in with you, drink with you, sleep beside you and live beside you.
Beautiful.
Alex Birch explains what differentiates CORRUPT from other anti-modern groups:
Our positive psychology sets us apart from the rest, because if you think like we do, you can achieve so much more good in life. Think about the whiners who always complain about how violent society is, how corrupt our leaders are, how NWO is controlling us, and how unfair life is. What do they really get done? Not much. Then think about the people who are aware of the problems around them, but believe they at least can change their daily environment. Who do you want to be? What do you want to be–bitter and angry or positive and successful?
The world is fucked. Now get over it and enjoy your life.
Φ reports on divorce statistics:
Taken at face value, the survey shows that either the common belief that women only initiate divorce for really good reasons is far from the reality, or the standard of what constitutes a “really good reason” has changed dramatically over the last 50 years. Conservative commentators have almost certainly fallen victim to the first delusion; however, the latter explanation appears to account for the behavior among women in the broader society.
Talk about confirming everything that the MRAs have been saying for years.
FeministX inveighs against the gay male influence and insistence on excessive thinness in the fashion industry (NSFW image):
But I don’t buy this anymore. These excuses are repeated so often that people don’t stop to think about the baseless nature of these claims. If designers want clothes on hangers, why don’t they just put them on hangers and mechanically lift them onto the runway? And why exactly are the clothes supposed to be on human hangers? In the 80s, fashion models were attractive to normal people and the concept of fashion didn’t collapse because of this. The idea is supposed to be that the clothing becomes fashionable, which means that some real women will wear them. And why do men with no interest in female bodies insist on making careers out of designing/presenting/marketing etc clothing for the female body?
It always amuses me when feminists rant about how starvation chic in the fashion industry is a product of the Evil White Heterosexual Patriarchy, when in fact it’s the fags who are making those girls stay thin.
Aoefe argues a controversial point – women are naturally submissive:
I believe the desire for a woman to be submissive to her man is innate, plus I believe women are wired to be submissive to proper authority in general. Submissive, as I see it, is described as agreement, respect, duty, or deference. I don’t personally view it as meek, passive or tameness. I believe submissiveness is a feminine trait and I believe women have lost touch with this inborn need.
Alias Clio has also prepped a interesting response on her blog.
Chuck asks whether single men or married men are better at sex:
Having relations with a variety of women allows a man to know how to respond to the various sexual tastes of women. Some prefer the long game, some the short. Having the dexterity to handle both facets allows a man to quickly adapt to the given situation. Being with the same woman only lets the man adapt to the facet that the woman prefers. Being with a variety of women lets a man learn different techniques for pleasing women in general. If something doesn’t seem to push the buttons, a man can respond by digging deep into his bag of tricks. He adds to his tool-belt – if you will.
The answer will hopefully not shock anyone.
Gunslingergregi posts a picture of himself with his girl and this note:
Fuck thats hot shit god dang.
Go look at that picture, now. Gunslingergregi is a model of alphatude. He just oozes badass from every pore. Congrats to him and his woman.
Trumwill tells us why it’s not easy being a tall woman:
One of the things that some of the taller guys didn’t get is that it’s different when a tall guy is joshed around with because of his height and when a taller girl is. Tall guys, unless they’re freakishly tall, do not generally have reason to be self-conscious about their height. None of the bullies I ever had made fun of me because I was tall. Maybe it’s because my width was a more obvious point of criticism, but I also think because there’s no percentage in going after a guy because he’s tall. Notably, some people made fun of Clint for being short. But he wasn’t short. He was just standing next to me a lot. For girls, though, it’s different. Being tall is considered unfeminine by some. Some guys do discriminate against them. They are likely to have an even more difficult time finding clothes that fit than a tall guy is and the clothes they purchase matter more. So even lighthearted ribbing on a woman’s height that would be perfectly acceptable on a guy can be more problematic with a woman.
As an aside, the Justin that Trumwill mentions as claiming women prefer men fatter then they are is the same Justin who denounces game as “soul killing poison” (despite not knowing what it is), the same Justin who claims “feminism is a weak force,” and the same Justin who thinks picking up strippers is easy. Just saying.
Kamal S. posts on ways of dealing with penis injuries:
Injuries involving extreme bends – by whatever embarrassing means through which they occur – are best iced down immediately. Medical care should be sought at once. It is possible to, well, break the thing in such a way that it’s shape is permanently affected.
Yeah yeah, I know some of you are laughing, but this is important information.
MarkyMark masterfully tears apart a blog posting by a feminist harpy who presumes that all men are potential rapists:
The reason why guys fail to respect what women say is because what women say is bullshit. For example, they say that they want good, decent guys, yet they take up with the worst jerks imaginable. If your actions are going to constantly go against what you say, then you cannot expect guys to take your words seriously. It’s cause & effect, not that women have a grasp of something so hopelessly obvious.
A great takedown of a terrible piece.
Rake goes out with some seduction community guys and comes to a terrible realization:
It’s becoming more and more clear to me that this sort of an outing is simply an exercise in the blind leading the blind. None of these guys really have any clue what they’re doing. They don’t know what they want to open with, how to transition, how to build attraction, establish comfort, etc. I don’t think any of them really understand how to escalate. I believe I mentioned in a previous post that there are just a handful of guys connected to the Seattle Lair that have any real game.
Yep, that’s the seduction community to a tee.
Talleyrand educates readers on the ways of sociopathy:
Antisocial really is a nonsense term that psychologists use. It is a catch-all for people that behave the way society does not want them to. There are hundreds of ways (perhaps thousands) of getting this diagnosis, and it is entirely circular.
Not to mention that women find sociopaths sexy.
Coldequation reminds us that the Axis leadership was completely and totally nuts:
Hitler’s decision to declare war on the US was even worse. He had already bitten off more than he could chew by fighting a two-front war which, as had already become apparent, would be a long slog rather than the quick Blitzkrieg knockout he had expected. What do you do in that situation? Declare war on the country with the largest economy in the world with little tactical benefit when you have no way to even strike at them, of course (there was a minor benefit in that the U-Boats could then engage in unrestricted warfare against American ships that were supplying the Allies, but that didn’t amount to much).
This is a good opportunity to pull out Gary Brecher’s classic column “Why I Hate WWII,” in which he makes a similar point.
Marquis posits an experiment you can run that will both improve your game and allow you to experience what’s like to be a chick:
In going to a gay bar as a male who is good looking or even simply not ugly, you will immediately notice something: eye contact. Guys will invariably stare you down like a piece of meat. These are not the furtive glances by females, particularly hot ones at that, but rather the looks of those who want you to know that they are viewing/checking out your goods. You will also probably have at least a couple guys offer to buy your drinks. Of those offering, the more overbearing, direct, and “won’t take no for an answer” types will be older men and/or less attractive/or drunk. It is so obvious, yet strange to see this in action. All the basic principles of being a woman are in effect, but to experience it firsthand is truly eye opening/perspective changing.
When you think about it, a lot of what comprises game is using women’s own tactics against them.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with Jack Donovan, The Spearhead’s newest contributor, Chip Smith interviewed him over at The Hoover Hog:
Can you be more specific — about these “highly questionable assumptions?”
The pursuit of knowledge isn’t the primary goal of any “study” program grounded in feminism. There is an obvious political agenda there. That’s the only reason why these programs even exist. While superficial debate occurs over doctrine and details, if you don’t buy into the primary goal and service the central idea, you are not “with the program.” It’s like arguing with someone who studies theology. God is the ultimate justification for every path of study, for every argument. The theologian’s claim to authority comes from God. If you pull God out of the equation, the whole thing falls apart.
If you don’t agree that creating a gender-neutral society is possible or desirable, then “feminist scholars” and “gender studies scholars” wield no real intellectual authority. If you aren’t prepared to accept on faith alone that sex is just a skin-deep costume, or that human societies have some sort of moral imperative to collectively wish-away or blind themselves to any meaningful differences between the sexes and do away with all gender roles, these people’s criticisms can be evaluated more realistically. They are priestesses and priests, propagandists, political operatives, interested parties. I’d no sooner expect objectivity from Karl Rove or a Jehovah’s witness knocking on my door. I’m familiar with their racket and I don’t find their arguments to be especially convincing based on my own first hand observation of human behavior.
A great read that’s gotten me more interested in Jack’s work. (And Chip, thanks for adding me to your blogroll.)
J dismantles the popular “cold climate adaptation” argument for white racial supremacy:
Polar people, like the Lapps, Nenet, etc. live several hundred kilometers to the North, in much harsher climates, and they are always tested as having one sigma lower IQ than Northern Europeans. Cold climate increases head size but not IQ. There is no correlation between latitude and IQ.
Pithy and accurate.
Robert Stacy McCain has two final postings on his brain-damaged cousin. From The American Spectator:
Meghan McCain would be well advised to stop exercising her First Amendment rights and instead invoke her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, as determined under Miranda v. Arizona. Everything she says can and will be used against her in the court of public opinion.
If it seems like I’ve been linking Stacy a lot lately, it’s because he’s just that good.
Assanova offers advice on how to avoid seduction scamsters:
And when you’re looking at testimonials, don’t trust testimonials for the company, look for testimonials about that individual instructor. If no one is mentioning that instructor’s name in the seduction community, then you can bet that he is either a rookie instructor, or he just sucks and isn’t worth a mention. An instructor for a company can be amazing, and get a great testimonial, but that doesn’t mean that the other instructors are also amazing. Don’t make the mistake of reading a testimonial and assuming that it applies to every instructor within that company.
I’d estimate that most so-called “seduction gurus” are con artists. There’s little you can get from them that you can’t get online for free.
Slumlord has two great posts in which he evaluates game from an Aristotelean and Thomistic perspective, respectively. From the second post:
Now a Christian man is supposed to possess Charity. In the Aristotlean sense, Charity is directed toward the perfection of things. Charity seeks to “un-private” the thing to which it is directed. Now Charity in a man is not only directed to things outside himself but to himself as well. Therefore a Charitable man will seek the ridding of his imperfections.. Hence it would imply that activities directed towards finding a mate are a good, since the remedy of a privation is a good.
It also follows that the “goodness” of a remedy is in proportion to the degree in which it is restorative of the privation. Now as traditional dating advice has pretty much been a dismal failure when it comes to finding a mate, whilst Game has been enourmously successfull, the Christian interpretation of Game is that it is a moral good.
Yes, you read that right – God wants you to have game.
Dylan Sauders identifies the types of women who go to nightclubs:
I met an intelligent, attractive, emotionally healthy college graduate with a propensity for long term loving relationships. To be fair, she doesn’t usually go out, but I’ve found that most people you meet in clubs don’t usually go out – they just happened to that night for a special occasion like a roommates birthday.
There is no such thing as a “club girl.” There is no such thing as a “bar girl.” Those are just false distinctions thrown up by lameasses who can’t cut it in those places.
Agnostic writes on the best way to discipline girls who are acting up:
I paced slowly over to her, set my hand down on her shoulder, and said, “Don’t… Do that… Anymore…” I didn’t have a scowl on my face, nor a coddling or reassuring expression. Just that look like, you’re being annoying and need to knock it off. She stopped horsing around at that point, and when she was about to leave the area 10 minutes later, she tugged at my jeans from the floor and reached up to shake my hand and say i’m sorryyyyy with an honest worried look in her eyes. I took her hand but merely half-smiled and waved her off as though she were overreacting and being weird, which must have fucked with her mind a little more.
Always remember to never take shit from a girl.
emach dissects a blog post in which feminists talk about how to go about dating:
At one point in the history of your genetic lineage, your ancestor was the result of a man exercising his right to be with a woman bceause he’s bigger and stronger. You exist because a man’s right to have a woman trumps a woman’s right to turn him down. Men invented rape laws because we are better people than feminists who, if the shoe were on the other foot, would not enact the same laws. I know this for certain because feminists wrote divorce laws and the no-fault divorce is the closest thing to male-victim rape in this country and the feminists actively sought it and successfully made it legal.
Much comedy ensues.
Finally, here’s something I grabbed from Eolake Stobblehouse’s joint. It explains itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment