Commitment means nothing to women

When the average man commits he thinks his woman will reciprocate out of a sense loyalty.

That is not how the world works.

We truely live in a world where up is down. Left if gang bang and I love you is I slept with your best friend. We’ve been fed nothing but pretty lies.

The only thing that keeps a woman loyal, to any degree, is the amount of emotion she has toward you. The “commitment” you show towards her means nothing.

In actuality it  makes her less loyal beause you will become less of a challenge and seen as less alpha.

Refusing to commit and having multiple girls will keep you on your toes because you’re always ready to walk and call her on her shit at anytime.

The Alpha male jealousy female insecurity dynamic; exploit it to your maximum advantage – it makes the whores want you more and ladies want to stay. It will get you more poon and respect then all the flowers and choclates in the world.

PS- the ladies are whores at heart too- they just lie about it.

Advertisements

You’ve been lied to since childhood

The hardest thing that anyone has to accept when breaking free of the Matrix of modern soceity is that they’ve been lied to since childhood.

Everything that they’ve been taught that is “bad” for a man to do (be a jerk, date/sleep with multiple women, make her jealous, look out for our own interests first, listen to our thoughts and opinions and ignore hers when she stops her little feet, etc) is actually the right thing to do if you want lots of sex or even a happy and successful relationship.

I’ve seen with my own two eyes that when you bark orders at a woman, treat her like she’s easily replacable, laugh at her demands, and otherwise treat her like garbage then she’ll happily lick your feet clean and ask for seconds.

Yet if you take that same woman and then start being nice, calling all the time, telling her you love her all the time, take her to dinner every night, etc (basically doing all the AFC things that you’ve been taught by “soceity” (TV and movies) to do since you were a kid) you’ll quickly find that those feelings of “infinite unending love” and “we’re soulmates meant to be together for life” will disappear faster then you can say “what the hell just happened” and she’ll have a heart of Ice towards you. Its extremely counter-intuitive…. the fact that the social reinforcement flows almost completely in the AFC direction makes it even harder to identify these facts- let alone change your behavior.

Don’t ever beg for sex

Denial of sex is a self-perepuating cycle with lack of desire on the woman’s part at the root of the problem.

It starts with man wanting sex and woman denying it. Man begs- and women might or might not give in- either way its irrelevant because begging for sex is the act of a lesser man and dimishes her attraction for him. Added with other beta acts it leads to a vicious cycle where she sees him as more and more beta and dosen’t want to sex him up.

Beta vs Alpha….

Morality is mediocrity

I think half of the AFC problem is men taking women at their words and trying to make the object of their affections happy- which makes sense on a topical level; you love someone and you enjoy their company so you want nothing but the positive for them.

This is confusing to the average man. You want nothing but the postive and you act in that direction- so they should appreciate it and reciprocate; but they don’t. That’s what a man would do. This is women we’re dealing with and they’re wired differently.

Saying you’re “trying to make the object of you affections happy” is really Orwellian nice nice talk to hide the truth. Lets rephrase and reveal it for what it is: you’re trying to please her. Not quite their yet…. the naked truth isn’t quite revealed: you’re trying to placate her. That’s what you’re doing when you “try to make her happy”. And what type of man is a man that placates at the expense of his own happiness and welfare- is it a strong man or a weak man?

A weak man of course.

A strong man takes his own interests and desires to heart- if a womans interests run counter to his he acts in his own interests. To a woman’s hindbrain this signals that he is both strong and desirable to the female population- which strengthens her “bond” (aka love) to him. Her biology is compelling her to pursue and stick with him for the purposes of reproduction since his behavioral signalling is telling her that he is of good genetic stock. Conversly the placating male who is “trying to make her happy” is signalling that he is of bad genetic stock/social positioning.

All this dates back to our pre-language evolutionary beginnings and ideas such as religion, philosophy, and politics/political correctness have now altered our natural thought patterns from what they would have been in the absense of language. Simply speaking these three areas function as lingo-pschyological reprogamming that changes the idea of what is “good” for the average male.

In pre-history the “good” was the strong. It lead to social positioning, mating opportunites, and a better life then “weak” who would be victimized and exploited by the strong. (The weak would also attempt to placate the strong to avoid physical damage- which is another reason I believe that placation to a woman is a turn off to women- its indicative of a “placation” personality that is in the habit of sacrificing/placating to other stronger males).

However the big linguo-social reprommers have fliped the script so to speak. “Good” has been substitued by “Moral”. The difference between the two is once again hidden by the terminology. Lets once again rephrase to reveal the truth. What is “Moral”. Most would define it as “the greater good”? And who is that? Everyone but yourself of course!

Moral/Greater good is nothing but placation to everyone but yourself.

Sacrificing for “soceity”- a group of strangers that care nothing for you- is “moral”; you’re giving up your needs/desires/dreams/life for nothing but their praise and high opinion of your morality.

Sacrificing for the wife/woman- an amoral creature who, in the vast majority of cases, who will despise you for the very morality you hold in such high regard!

Sacrificing for religion- again another group of faceless strangers that will gladly accept your donation and use it to give to another group of people- to prove their “morality”.

Everyone and everything is a moral cause…. except for looking out for yourself and your own benefits! Everything is moral except making yourself more power and using it to benefit yourself…. why?

Because the “morality” is the opposite of the “good”. To be benefited by morality you must be weak- you need the sacrifice of the strong; you need to feed off of them like a parasite and morality is nothing but a way to convince them that they’re somehow better off, in someway, for it.

Being strong, rich, powerful, sexually attractive, are all “good”. You need to excel in some fashion to be any of those things. The poor and mediocre are, by defintion, the opposite of “good”. Only by crippling the “good” and defining it as “evil” can they eliminate the rewards of “good” and sieze it for themselves.

I for one am sick of the whining about “morality” online. Grown men are whining for month, no YEARS, on end about the immorality and injustice of the world for not rewarding them for being “Moral” and “Nice”. In reality they’re blinded to the truth. Let us strip away the lies of lingustic deceit and show the truth for what it is. Men want to be rewarded for being “Moral” and “Nice”- in reality want to be rewarded for being mediocre and weak.

“Nice” is the stragegy of the weak man. “Moral” is the psychological refuge of the medicore man. These men, these dandies, want to have the rewards of the strong, rich, and powerful without having to earn them. They want to have the benefits that the “good” have (namely beautiful women who are loyal to them) without having to be “good” and excelling.

They whine about the rich being greedy- and then whine that women are attracted to the rich: yet they refuse to admit that wealth is a sign of intelligence and determination (which is psychological strength). They refuse to admit its a “good”.

They whine that women are attracted to “looks”: yet they refuse to go to the gym and change what they eat/drink. Once again- looks is a “good” that they expect their “morality” (aka weakness) to compensate for.

They whine that women are attracted to jerks/thugs/a-holes- yet they refuse to change their personalities and let people walk all over them. They’re “Nice”- which is really weakness in that they are too psychologically weak to withstand the social pressure that would result from looking after their own interests. If they’re too weak too look after themselves- how can a woman expect that he’ll be able to look after her and the children?

Ultimately- all this boils down to is a break between two menalities.

Neitzche called it the master vs the slave.

In reality it is that of the good vs that of the mediocre.

You can either deny that you’ve been lied to and manipulated into a poisonous thought process where you expect your mediocrity and weakness to be rewarded- and whine when it isn’t.

Or you can change- one day at a time.

The 6- more expensive then you think

Men want a 10.  Most men can’t get one, but with effort, the “average” man can get a woman who ranks between a 7-8.5.  However, doing so requires effort.  Getting shot down multiple times, dating, being at the top of ones game.

This is far more effort then most men can muster.  Their ego can’t handle constant rejection, let alone overcome the approach anxeity they feel when they see a girl that catches their fancy. 

So what do they do?  They settle for less then their best, for mediocrity.

Now, this isn’t a shock to any of you- you’re saying “but NYC Bachelor- we’re all alphas here- this is something we’re well aware of- what is your point?”

My point is that Alphas are just as guilty. Many underbang by keeping a 6 on the side.

They get wasted, and settle for the 6 when the beer goggles are on.

They don’t feel like going out, so they go to the 6’s place.

My point is that every minute and dollar that you spend seducing, maintaining, or fing a 6 is a minute/dollar that could be spent on a higher quality lay.  A 6 is cheap on a direct minute/dollar analysis, but the cost quickly shoots up when one considers the opporunity cost involved.  The minute you spend with that 6 is the minute that 8 decides to go home and use her dildo, or the minute that beta with the popped collar, filled with liquid courage, moves in. 

In other words- by choosing the 6, you’re not choosing the 8? Savy?

Of course, some of you will rationalize this by saying- “ah, but see the 6 has a purpose- it keeps me stone cold aloof by keeping my sack nice and empty!”

This argument does have some merit- but only if the male in question is accustomed to female beauty.  If he still values an 8 for being pretty then an empty sack will not produce an aloof male- he’ll still be invested in the outcome because he sees her as valuable. 

Long story short- you should only be fucking a 6 if it makes your game better. Like if you’re on a cold streak.  A slump buster is needed occasionally.

Beta males in movies…

Compare the guys from 40 year old Virgin, Something about Mary, Night at the Museaum- to say Captain Jack Sparrow (Pirates), James Bond, or John McLain (Die Hard).

Betas may be protagonists, but they’ll never be heros. Every movie, that I can remember, that has a beta as a protagonist has been a comedy; beta males are good for laughing at- no one actually admires them.

Women have Co-opted morality

Piece by little piece I’ve been analyzing a problem that’s been bothering me ever since I had my eyes opened to the Matrix and the way the world really works; namely how is it that women can manpulate men so effectively? How can they get men to avoid their own interests and submitting to their own? Why are shaming tactics so effective? 
In another’s words- “Women, like little Caesars, can order men about at their will.”

Why is that?

I think one of the primary methods is that of controlling morality.  Social conventions that women employ; this, along with shaming tactics, is another piece of the puzzle.

I believe the primary reason is that women have co-opted morality to their own ends and thus have not only become the controllers of social behavior but the arbiters and definers of good and evil, as it relates to inter-gender behavior, as well.

I believe that there are two primary causes for this. The first is the nature of man. Most men have an innate tendency (whether it socialized or natural is another question…) to adhere to what they believe is “good”. We need a moral code of behavior, and stick to it, like a fish to water.

When we’re young most of us are indoctrinated with a golden rule- treat others…- version of morality complete with religious indoctrination and the heaven/hell reward scheme for such behavior. To put it succinctly, we’re indoctrinated with a self-sacrificial altrustic ideal as the basis for our morality. This is also known as the slave morality.

Women, on the other hand, have a much greater tendency for amorality. They are not guided so much buy ideals of good/evil as much as they are by the ideas of benefical/non-beneficial; consequently things that benefit them are labeled as “good” and things that don’t are labeled as “bad”. As a result when intergender conflict arises things that benefit a woman are labeled as good and things that don’t are bad.

Man is too busy for wife “he’s a bad husband”
Buy’s jewelry: “Good husband”
Leaves her because she’s a *****: “Bad man”
Stays and takes her sh*t: “He’s a goodman”

In fact, I would actually go a step further and argue that “justice” and “fairness” are actually impediments to a woman’s mating perogatives; if she acts with “justice” towards her beta provider, and stays loyal, she misses out on the alpha/quality genes that she could have provided her children with had she been amoral and self centered….. in other words amorality had positive sexual selection in women while “justice” was selected against.
This is nothing new.

The reason these works is becauses of men’s moral code. They accept the social conventions/shaming tactics because in a man’s mind they’re not standards of good/bad but rather a standard of good/evil. For most men, going against them would mean going against their moral code and dealing with both inner and outer moral condemnation for their own “selfish” benefit.

In other words- men are not enslaved by women and shaming tactics. They are enslaved by the slave morality. Women merely employ them to their own benefit.

To rid yourself of manipulations, shaming tactics, and the chains of artificial social conventions you must rid yourself, once and for all, of the self destructive slave morality.

It’s the only way to become an alpha.