Tuesday, December 21, 2010

Two new stories about Julian Assange confirm he is an Alpha Male. And just how the the nexus of celebrity and fame operate to create, Alpha Male winners, and losers (Beta Males). That, moreover, women's preference for Alpha Males exists only in a timeless now, where tomorrow never comes.

Assange apparently fathered a son with a girl of 17, when he was only 19. After his first arrest for computer hacking, the couple split up, and she remarried (and remains estranged from him and her son). This is not surprising. Men who have early experience with women, and early success, tend to be more confident and assured. Assange having a child, at the age of 19, seems not have made him less attractive to the women in his life. Rather, the reverse, proof positive that he was in fact, worth having. Assange, despite his rather unimpressive looks, seems to be a "natural," at least among a certain subset of women, able to impress those who are "shy and introverted."

The other story shows how Assange stole a girlfriend right away from a journalist, at a social occasion. While rude (and courting a fight outside say the world of journalism), it certainly cements Assange as a true Alpha male. One able to chat up (through his celebrity) and impress the girlfriend of a journalist, and apparently go home with her. That is not surprising. A man with fame, and one who uses it arrogantly, is practically irresistible to most women. Even if he is not particularly good looking.

Arrogance, and obnoxiousness, are when done right, incredibly attractive for women in a man with a measure of fame or better yet, notoriety. Particularly in today's society where there is no shame.

The journalist later saw his girlfriend and Assange walking hand in hand, and claimed that when he challenged the WikiLeaks founder, ‘he dropped into a classic fighter’s pose, with his fists up’.

He said: ‘Assange seemed to take pleasure in humiliating me.’ The writer slept alone that night.

Of course Assange took delight in humiliating a Beta male. Women find beta male humiliation quite attractive, for the most part, if done by an Alpha male. Yes it is utterly unsurprising that a beta male's girlfriend would dump him on the spot for a fling with an infamous Alpha a-hole. And consider herself the winner of the exchange.

It is alleged that Assange may have been able to smooth the whole thing over by taking an HIV test:

Yet it has been suggested the Swedish police would never have become involved in the first place if Assange had only agreed to an HIV test.

WikiLeaks’ Swedish co-ordinator, who knows Assange and his two women accusers, said: ‘The two women told me, that if he goes to the clinic for an HIV test, then we won’t go to the police. I told him, “Just do it, and anyway, it’s good for you, because you’re sleeping around”.’

Funny. Even among the nerdy set, there are a few Alpha male winners, and a lot of losers. Assange is not that good looking (neither are his accusers) but he has great social power because of his infamy. Indeed, he may like the even greater notoriety around his sexual assault cases because it only makes him more hyper-notorious. Thus, more attractive to women than before. His celebrity endorsement can only help in that regard, like say, Roman Polanski. Not exactly lacking for female companionship after pleading guilty to drugging and anally raping a 13 year old girl. Polanksi's Wife, Emmanuelle Seigner, is many years his junior. She has two children by him.

Are Alpha males a good bet for women? Well, if you are Emmanuelle Seigner, and Roman is getting older, yes. Same for perhaps, Annette Benning (Warren Beatty), but even then, straying is in the cards. A straight up trade, a beta male boyfriend for a fling with an Alpha? It depends, perhaps, on what the priority is and how difficult it will be to get another beta male boyfriend.

The rapidity by which the beta male journalist was dumped by his girlfriend suggests that he wasn't that valuable, that beta males are basically interchangeable and replaceable by women. Whereas, an Alpha Male with some notoriety is the catch of a lifetime.

Consider the women in Sweden swearing out a complaint.

It is not disputed Miss A willingly slept with Assange. A fellow activist, she had invited Assange to stay at her flat while he was in Stockholm to address her political party, the centre-left Brotherhood Movement. Although she was away at first, when she returned on Friday August 13 they went out for dinner and then went to bed together.

But in the police statement, Miss A claims Assange began stroking her legs as they drank tea, before he pulled off her clothes. She claimed she tried to put some clothes back on because the situation was ‘going too quickly’ for her liking, but ‘Assange ripped them off again’.

She tried to reach for a condom but Assange held her arms and pinned her legs, she stated to police. He then agreed to use a condom but, Miss A alleges, he did ‘something’ to it that resulted in it becoming ripped.

When police interviewed Assange, he said he did not tear the condom and was not aware it had been torn. After that night, he continued to sleep in her bed for a week and she had never even mentioned it, he said.

Certainly, that is one of the most puzzling aspects of the case against Assange. For not only did Miss A indeed let him stay, she threw a party in his honour the night after he allegedly assaulted her.

No, it is not puzzling at all. Let us just assume for the moment that every bit of the complaint sworn out against Assange by Woman A is true. Every bit. Why would any woman then host a party in his honor the night he assaulted her?

Answer: Assange is an Alpha male.

Every man, learns sooner or later, that there are two rules for men, in how they are treated, by women. An Alpha male can do anything and everything, and pretty much get away with it. A beta male will have to regularly apologize for his existence. Assuming that every bit of the complaint is true, why of course Woman A would host a party in Assange's honor. He was an Alpha male. It was likely only when she learned of Woman W, that she found behavior she could not tolerate. Particularly since Woman W was younger.

So what is in the future for Assange? Assuming he is not extradited to the US (fairly remote given that Barack Obama is President and Eric Holder the Attorney General), likely dismissal of the charges against him (recall, he is an Alpha male). And even more notoriety. All of which will make him even more irresistible, to a certain set of rich Western Women at least. Assange can live like a rockstar, with rockstar like groupies in every city, for a long time.

At least until his money runs out. Wikileaks mission (undermine the West through selective leaking of Western but not other secrets) is not the same as Assange's (be a big shot Alpha Male and sleep with lots of women). He might challenge the wrong guy (a nerdy guy may decide to fight him) or his funders may tire of him and use another front. But for now, Assange is an Alpha Male. The modern rock star. Stealing other men's girlfriends (and taking special Alpha Male pleasure in doing it), sleeping around, and living the life of a natural A-hole. How long that can last in the endless now, is another question.

44 comments:

Obsidian
said...

Whiskey,As you know, I've been following your blog for sometime now, and I agree with a commenter on a previous post, there is an undeniable strain or tone of bitterness in your posts when it comes to these sexual issues. I need to understand why you seem to accross as so bitter. After all, the fact that most Men aren't deemed desirable by Women is nothing new; I am sure you are aware of the fact that throughout most of human history, the majority of its males left no genetic heirs, compared with the majority of females who did. Simply put, Women tend to focus on a small group of guys they find hot. Nothing new there.

So, why all the fuss? It seems that post after post by you focuses on the fact that most Women don't find most Men attractive. Yea - and...? It occurs to me that nothing positive can be done about the situation merely by grousing about it.

I'm keeping my comments about Assange to myself for now. I'm too busy enjoying all the coverage about him. Will probably have something to say about it in the coming year. Stay tuned...

If there is bitterness, it is perhaps because Whiskey learned this later in life.

For myself O, I see it more as a constant reminder of the nature of women and the stark harsh reality that most men face and the obvious long term consequences this will have as men either "Chav" up and/or embrace psychopathy as a survival technique or embrace being treated like a wimpering cur.

The fact that these seem to be the only two options for men should concern everyone.

Assange demonstrates that you don't need to thug up to be alpha, but increasingly it's getting harder and harder to demonstrate alphaness without violence, so Assange is a specimen of an increasingly rare species.

As the crime rate falls, the returns (in terms of female attraction) to violent behaviour will increase. Assange, therefore, provides a potential model for men who don't want to engage in the violent behaviour women are increasingly demanding (women want the entire world to look like Detroit - sad, but true).

Obsidian, I don't know about Whiskey, but I never knew what was going on with women when I was young. Not a clue, if you can believe it. For that reason I hope Whiskey, and others, continue to post on this particular topic.

I don't mind Whiskey posting on this or any other topic; indeed, I often find what he has to say and his particular take on the issues of the day, to be quite interesting.

It just gets to be a bit grating to hear him grind his axe when it comes to this issue of what Women want. I also find it particulary fascinating that free market types who consider themselves at least moderately to the right, suddenly want massive state intervention when their ox gets gored. The sexual marketplace operates on much of the same principles as any other marketplace, and as such there can and will be, winners and losers. Why should the state suddenly intervene to compel Women to take up with Men they truly do not want to begin with? Would Whiskey and others here among you, really would rather be with a Woman whom you know, from the jump, really didn't want you to begin with? What's the victory in that? How is that somehow better for society?

I challenge you to come up with an example of someone suggesting that the state intervene in the sexual marketplace. There's no "right" to it, and that's not the point.

The point is that the state already HAS intervened to the extent of criminalizing, through the adoption of ridiculous definitions of sexual harassment and assault, etc., the effort of betas to get it. Remember the Tom Brady SNL sketch? Back in the state of nature, the beta could at least walk away, or if he got whacked by a vengeful male relative of the female in question it was still a private decision. Need I remind you that this system was still in place in the south as late as the 50s when race was involved?

Furthermore, the state also has intervened to the extent that betas who are not getting any are still expected to foot the bill for the bastard spawn of women taking up with the small number of alphas.

@ Anon 7:38

True dat. I've often said that the world of the future looks like the 1999 movie Fight Club, with men working as banquet waiters, urinating in the soup at dinners where feminists preen and give each other awards.

Ses,Fair enough, I can't quote chapter and verse on your first point/challenge; but it seems clear that those who take Whiskey's position seem to long for a bygone era where Women knew their place, if you will. And that era was one where the state was clearly more on the guy's side.

As for sexual harrassment, I think the problem is in how it is dealt with, not the issue itself. As you rightly noted with the Brady SNL skit, the way things are setup right now, there are no hard and fast rules and standards that have to be considered and applied to questions of sexual harrassment.

As for the notion that the loser guys of the sex arms race are somehow forced to pay for the kids of the unions of Women and their Alpha Male lovers, the solution is simple albeit not quite easy: divest. Find ways to sustain and support yourself without paying into the system. Off the books arrangements can be done, even when it comes to sizable amounts of money. If one is truly interested in this issue, they will find ways around the system that means to hamper, if not destroy them.

Protecting oneself from the depredations of the feminist/mangina/woman-firster collective is fine - the problem is that it's only a defensive strategy.

What we need is an offensive strategy: a way to start making life miserable for women. A purely defensive strategy won't change anything in that regard.

Truth is, the only weapon we have is technology. Technology can make things easier, e.g. the web made it easier to look for a wife from overseas. Technology can also break old privileges entirely, e.g. the old female privilege of paternal certainty was busted open by DNA paternity testing.

But all this needs to happen faster. We need this stuff now, not ten or twenty years from now. As fast as technology moves, it's not moving fast enough to make any difference to the state of things as they are now.

Obsidian your full of shit, state intervention? Wtf are you talking about? The whole freaking structure of western society subsidizes women's choices and you know it.

Bitter, why the f..ck not, betas get ass raped hard and no one bats an eye lid.

Just yesterday a friend told me his Mrs is suicidal and confided in him she had a threesome while they've been together. Two psychologists later and guess whose fault it is? The dudes 5'6 busting his nut in physically demanding job while the Mrs doesnt work and she's upset because she can't pull alpha cock any more!

Yes, I agree with your advice to divest, but I also agree that it's not easy.

"[t]hose who take Whiskey's position seem to long for a bygone era where Women knew their place, if you will. And that era was one where the state was clearly more on the guy's side."

One thing men don't understand is that the whole notion of "equality" was something sold by feminists back around 1970. Today they make no bones about going for supremacy. They want a world where they can not only mercilessly tease men with "can't touch this", but also to be able to determine whether men will be able to make a living or be jailed or even executed on their whim.

So yes, I want a world in which women know their place. Otherwise it will be a world in which men learn their place. It has to be one or the other; there's no chimera of "equality".

And as I've said before, if we don't get back we will have Fight Club and a lot more Sodinis and Macks to deal with.

Obsidian -- I do not want to live in Pitcairn Island. Read my first post. My beef is two-fold: an unmoderated competition for women turns into Pitcairn Island (or British Chavism on a Council Estate); and changing the demographic balance of the US puts us in Mexico.

Consider your own plight. As a Black man in what amounts to defacto Mexico, you will not find things to your liking, I suspect. The attitudes of Mexicans towards Black people are not very positive, and are unmoderated by even the slightest hint of Calvinistic guilt and desire for redemption.

Yes, I was wrong. Assange is Alpha. Merely not Alpha enough. There are shades of it. Alpha enough to have a woman forgive what amounts to assault, if the accounts are accurate. Not enough to forgive being the #2 or so.

And moreover, what women wanted SHIFTED massively. Go watch any old movie from 1940-1965. Joe Average Beta was considered a good deal for women, Alpha A-hole not.

Finally, women in the West have ALWAYS been more free and unecumbered than their counterparts elsewhere. That was the West's advantage. BUT ... soft social pressure including Alpha women leaders put a bridle on hypergamy. Women could not slide from Alpha to Alpha, un-checked.

Consider "the Scarlett Letter." For all its faults, the society worked because Rev. Dimmsdale was not banging Hester Prynne and every OTHER woman in Boston.

While yes, the "free love" of Dimmsdale and Prynne was not allowed to be expressed, on the other hand Dimmsdale by virtue of being in the pulpit did not have a soft harem of all/most of the available women in the Colony.

I am certainly not a free-marketer (any perusal of my call for protectionism to advantage the US worker would reveal that). But the sexual marketplace is far different for that of say Wheat, globally. You can't just create new entrants into it. You are stuck with who you have.

Swedish society is at its death spiral. Because Swedish women want Alpha A-holes and have made most beta males into Eunuchs, essentially. Therefore their rate of reproduction is abysmal, and they are being replaced in their own cities by Muslims. Tell me what historical right do Pakistanis or Iraqis have to Malmo, no-go zones for Swedes?

I agree Colonialism by Europeans, ruling foreigners in their own lands was wrong, what makes it right to reverse that? Original sin of White Skin? And that colonialism is shaped by White women maximizing their own sexual freedom to the exclusion of all other social needs, including stability and civilizational confidence.

Assange can be Alpha, and that's fine, but a functioning society would not have sexual charges because women in their own self-interest would never act on the attraction. He would not have been invited in the first place to private houses by single women. Who would fear their ability to attract a steady boyfriend who would be their husband.

It is ironic that Assange wants privacy for him, but not say, the US. Funny, indeed.

The sexual marketplace operates on much of the same principles as any other marketplace, and as such there can and will be, winners and losers.

This is not true. The free market is not a zero-sum game. In any freely entered transaction there are no losers. Its called the principle of benefits through trade. You may not have gotten the best deal, the best price, etc. But you did get value for value.

I don't even know if its accurate to call the sexual arena a "market". It might be more accurate to call it an auction house.

And moreover, what women wanted SHIFTED massively. Go watch any old movie from 1940-1965. Joe Average Beta was considered a good deal for women, Alpha A-hole not.

Well gee. Doesn't this go against your deterministic HBD premises? What changed in the past 50 years? Could it be the philosophy of the culture? And if it is in fact a paradigm shift, then perhaps it would be a good question to ask what it changed from and into.

an unmoderated competition for women turns into Pitcairn Island

What does "moderated" mean? And moderated by who? The government? Lovely.

I am certainly not a free-marketer (any perusal of my call for protectionism to advantage the US worker would reveal that).

You're right, you are not a free marketer. You are also wrong. Your protectionism would not be an advantage to the US worker. It would, and has and is, making the US worker poorer. Protectionism is as flawed as Keynesianism.

Swedish society is at its death spiral. Because Swedish women want Alpha A-holes and have made most beta males into Eunuchs, essentially.

No. Sweden is in a death spiral because of its welfare/regulatory state; just like the US. Even if it were all white, it would still be in demise, although the demise would look a little different sans Muslims and might last longer before the ultimate fall.

White women maximizing their own sexual freedom to the exclusion of all other social needs, including stability and civilizational confidence.

If there were no welfare state, no regulatory state, no central bank and thus no fiat money, and no anti-discrimination laws all coupled with no victimless crime laws especially no laws against prostitution - then there would be no danger to "civilizational confidence" (an Austerian term).

but a functioning society would not have sexual charges because women in their own self-interest would never act on the attraction

Irrelevant. A functioning society would only have sexual charges based on actual force or coercion not imaginary bullshit.

Assange is a pasty anarchist-Left wimp. If he tried to steal the woman of a true man, that man would have put his head through a plate glass window and then he would have slapped the bitch upside her head and dropped her ass. The fact that we don't have such men now is because of feminism' assault on masculinity and the Left's assault on individual liberty (in all the ways I described above). We don't need a PaleoCon "Traditionalist" rebirth to save us from the Left. Real freedom would be just fine.

And moreover, what women wanted SHIFTED massively. Go watch any old movie from 1940-1965. Joe Average Beta was considered a good deal for women, Alpha A-hole not.

Well gee. Doesn't this go against your deterministic HBD premises? What changed in the past 50 years? Could it be the philosophy of the culture? And if it is in fact a paradigm shift, then perhaps it would be a good question to ask what it changed from and into.

an unmoderated competition for women turns into Pitcairn Island

What does "moderated" mean? And moderated by who? The government? Lovely.

I am certainly not a free-marketer (any perusal of my call for protectionism to advantage the US worker would reveal that).

You're right, you are not a free marketer. You are also wrong. Your protectionism would not be an advantage to the US worker. It would, and has and is, making the US worker poorer. Protectionism is as flawed as Keynesianism.

Swedish society is at its death spiral. Because Swedish women want Alpha A-holes and have made most beta males into Eunuchs, essentially.

No. Sweden is in a death spiral because of its welfare/regulatory state; just like the US. Even if it were all white, it would still be in demise, although the demise would look a little different sans Muslims and might last longer before the ultimate fall.

White women maximizing their own sexual freedom to the exclusion of all other social needs, including stability and civilizational confidence.

If there were no welfare state, no regulatory state, no central bank and thus no fiat money, and no anti-discrimination laws all coupled with no victimless crime laws especially no laws against prostitution - then there would be no danger to "civilizational confidence" (an Austerian term).

but a functioning society would not have sexual charges because women in their own self-interest would never act on the attraction

Irrelevant. A functioning society would only have sexual charges based on actual force or coercion not imaginary bullshit.

W: Obsidian -- I do not want to live in Pitcairn Island. Read my first post. My beef is two-fold: an unmoderated competition for women turns into Pitcairn Island (or British Chavism on a Council Estate); and changing the demographic balance of the US puts us in Mexico.

O: There is no such unmoderated competition. This country is teeming with White Women who would be more than willing to be your wife, Whiskey - the problem is, that you don't want them, either for aesthetic reasons on your part, and/or because of geographical reasons, lifestyle reasons, etc et al. Heartland America has plenty of Women in it. There is nothing stopping you or any other White guy here from pulling up stakes and heading to Idaho, Wisconsin, Iowa, Utah, North or South Dakota, etc et al.

W: Consider your own plight. As a Black man in what amounts to defacto Mexico, you will not find things to your liking, I suspect. The attitudes of Mexicans towards Black people are not very positive, and are unmoderated by even the slightest hint of Calvinistic guilt and desire for redemption.

O: first of all, I fail to see what Mexicans have to do with the current topic, and secondly, I remain fascinated by this meme by White guys such as yourself, that somehow we Black folk better be nice to y'all, or else when the Mexicans come to power, they're gonna be really meanies to us Darkies! LOL. Come on. You can do better than that, W.

W: Yes, I was wrong. Assange is Alpha. Merely not Alpha enough. There are shades of it. Alpha enough to have a woman forgive what amounts to assault, if the accounts are accurate. Not enough to forgive being the #2 or so.

O: Like I said, I'm keeping mum on the Assange story for now. I'll have more to say about all that in the coming year.

W: And moreover, what women wanted SHIFTED massively. Go watch any old movie from 1940-1965. Joe Average Beta was considered a good deal for women, Alpha A-hole not.

W: Finally, women in the West have ALWAYS been more free and unecumbered than their counterparts elsewhere. That was the West's advantage. BUT ... soft social pressure including Alpha women leaders put a bridle on hypergamy. Women could not slide from Alpha to Alpha, un-checked.

O: I'm not entirely sure about this, Whiskey. My reading of the history of the Western world doesn't quite line up with your Cliff Notes' version.

Man have I learned to love this blog!I don't care how much women use me - in the long run it is "I" who am truly using them - they just can't figure out how when or why until after it happens! I just wished I knew 20 yrs ago what I know now.

Any man who can't see what is wrong with giving women free reign in the sexual marketplace to chase alphas around doesn't understand what the true value of a man is. A man is more than just sex but every man needs sex. If the worker bees can't get what they need - love and support from a woman who is theirs and will give them a family - then they cannot play their role. They are the ones that support civilization, and they are the ones that should defacto be honored.

Obsidian can't see this because they never really had civilization in Africa on the same scale. What else is there to do in the sweltering heat of Africa than screw.

Colonialism by Europeans, ruling foreigners in their own lands was wrong,

Humbug. The foreigners were misruled in their own lands, and it was not wrong to provide them with better European rule. Right now, today, there is not a single African country that would not be better off under British or French rule than it is under local misrule.

Notice how Obsidian waltzes in here and tries to dictate where the conversation goes. How does Obsidian take a topic about Assange and alpha males and degenerate it into a conversation about... Whiskey finding a wife? He always does this; he takes a discussion about institutionalized, societal problems and makes the bad guy the person who is pointing out those issues. Classic redirecting. My advice: just ignore the guy, he'll get the hint eventually.

Assange is also about 6'2" which helps. A 5'8" and under guy would not have the same status generally. There are exceptions.

Let us just assume for the moment that every bit of the complaint sworn out against Assange by Woman A is true. Every bit. Why would any woman then host a party in his honor the night he assaulted her?

Answer: Assange is an Alpha male.

Or the answer could be SHE'S LYING! Why assume she is telling the truth. Maybe she's a bitter, rejected woman who is getting revenge by fabricating a rape charge.

"This is not true. The free market is not a zero-sum game. In any freely entered transaction there are no losers. Its called the principle of benefits through trade. You may not have gotten the best deal, the best price, etc. But you did get value for value."

I don't think you considered the possibility of those who don't have the price necessarily to enter such a transaction--a price artificially raised beyond their ability to pay as a matter of government policy

That's one of the hidden parts of the Scarlett Letter. In the romantic obsession with doomed/star-crossed love, much of the social pressure comes not from an over-weening government but "soft" power of social exclusion by women who don't want to share their husbands.

SOME cheating by men, particularly powerful men but also less powerful ones, is impossible to get out of any social system. But soft social exclusion and ostracism creates incentives for women to self-regulate hypergamy, the way a threat of a fist in the face modulates a man's desire to hit on another man's girlfriend. Women are not men, but the basic principle (social structures that inhibit hypergamy and soft harems) works on both.

Theodore Dalrymple and I see the same things, only I've far less inhibition about calling it what it is. I.E. hypergamy gone wild. As bad as the flip-side, hard patriarchal harems.

As far as women in the West goes, Bernard Lewis quotes in the "Muslim Discovery of Europe" hardened Crusaders, thugs in chain mail, shocked at the treatment of women in the Levant, while Ottoman ambassadors to Vienna were shocked by the Emperor himself acting politely to women (instead of running them over in muddy streets like an Ottoman Turk would). Women in the West did NOT have to be mate guarded in harems, and thus far more social energy was free to be directed for other purposes. The development in the West of craft-based proto-industry meant far more productivity than that of the Islamic realms.

Socialism is quite affordable if you are say, Finland or Sweden before all the Muslim free riders came in. Nokia, Bofors, Ericsson, IKEA, are all world-class companies still. Sweden went from a backwater, exporting of starving peasants, in the 1870's, to a modern industrial society by the 1920's, and remained prosperous and middle class up till the 1990's when Muslims were let in large numbers. During that time it was quite socialist, as it is today.

I will caveat that socialism tends to break down in large nations with geography working against the tidy "village supersized" economies of places like Sweden or Switzerland or Japan.

Capitalist Bob:"This is not true. The free market is not a zero-sum game. In any freely entered transaction there are no losers. Its called the principle of benefits through trade. You may not have gotten the best deal, the best price, etc. But you did get value for value."

As an example, let's say there are a bunch of real smart guys, and they get a law passed saying that only they can sell an item that you need to live. Smart, right?

Then they are SAVING YOUR LIFE when they sell you that item. What HIGHER VALUE could these nice guys give you? You should thank them on bended need for the SERVICE they have performed for you.

Of course, they neither invented this item nor produced it.

The name of this item is penicillin. The name of these really smart guys are doctors.

Needless to say, while Capitalist Bob has never in his entire life seen a problem with this arrangement, he will now say that he is "against" it. Probably. Or he will make up "The Special And Only Exception To The Free Market Number" for the millionth time.

I disagree that this is an "unmoderated" sexual marketplace. The problem is TOO MUCH MODERATION in the double team-up of women and Pimp Daddy State to do a massive theft from men.

Sexual Darwinism is the rule? Fine. But is bull-fucking-shit that women are completely shielded from the consequences of their actions by the great divource court and affirmative action scams. Both need to go.

Incentives matter in human behaviour. I believe that women in general would behave differently if single/divorced moms are let to work their asses ALONE in the streets as they deserve it.

Look Whiskey, this guy is a slimy, manipulative psychopath, an accomplished liar who finds it thrilling to seduce women by pretending to be "the man they have always wanted™". Psycho's are good at reading people's personality and pushing their buttons, remember? That's what makes them such skilled liars. That Assange identifies with his own ego, making it impossible for him to admit being wrong about anything also makes him an even more accomplished liar because he truly believes he is right, and if he is telling a factual falsehood then it's all for a good cause: advancing his own greatness. Better that then admit to the memory of a childhood trauma where he was revealed to be a small slimy nerd.

And what about the men who flock to his cause? Are they also crazy cunts? I would say they are also hoodwinked by his egotistical utopian agitations, the idea that "transparency" will help government stop being so shite is just ludicrous to me. I feel like shouting "heard of Machiavelli, wanker?". I think Assange's male defenders are like the women he seduced and (possibly) had unprotected sex with (whilst HIV positive) - totally hoodwinked and en-tranced by him. Speaking of which I'm not surprised the Swedish women is now trying to get him on trial for rape. It might not actually be a cynical cooked up charge.

I think you're problem is that you understand women in purely negative terms.

Let me take this as an example: "Because Swedish women want Alpha A-holes and have made most beta males into Eunuchs, essentially."

Having actually lived in Sweden I can tell you this isn't actually true. Swedish women I found to be very simple hearted, even kind of "pure" and peasant like in character, they have a word for it: "dygd". A Swedish women who read that would blush and totally deny it but yeah, dygd pretty much covers it, albeit, not precisely virginal, hr hr hr. But how do you think such a person reacts when attacked by a maggot like Assange? They react by being conciliatory rather then do anything that might anger the attacker.

Have you noticed that? That women defuse tense and dangerous situations by being conciliatory; it might be by smiling to a stranger she bumps into, it might be "consenting" to forced sex so as to prevent being beaten. Sometimes they consent to "rapes" in the form of "kinky sex" so as to not feel responsible for the lust they feel because lust makes them feel like dirty sluts but that's a psychological nuance not entirely related to this paragraph but nevermind.

Look Whiskey, this guy is a slimy, manipulative psychopath, an accomplished liar who finds it thrilling to seduce women by pretending to be "the man they have always wanted™". Psycho's are good at reading people's personality and pushing their buttons, remember? That's what makes them such skilled liars. That Assange identifies with his own ego, making it impossible for him to admit being wrong about anything also makes him an even more accomplished liar because he truly believes he is right, and if he is telling a factual falsehood then it's all for a good cause: advancing his own greatness. Better that then admit to the memory of a childhood trauma where he was revealed to be a small slimy nerd.

And what about the men who flock to his cause? Are they also crazy cunts? I would say they are also hoodwinked by his egotistical utopian agitations, the idea that "transparency" will help government stop being so shite is just ludicrous to me. I feel like shouting "heard of Machiavelli, wanker?". I think Assange's male defenders are like the women he seduced and (possibly) had unprotected sex with (whilst HIV positive) - totally hoodwinked and en-tranced by him. Speaking of which I'm not surprised the Swedish women is now trying to get him on trial for rape. It might not actually be a cynical cooked up charge.

I think you're problem is that you understand women in purely negative terms.

Let me take this as an example: "Because Swedish women want Alpha A-holes and have made most beta males into Eunuchs, essentially."

Having actually lived in Sweden I can tell you this isn't actually true. Swedish women I found to be very simple hearted, even kind of "pure" and peasant like in character, they have a word for it: "dygd". A Swedish women who read that would blush and totally deny it but yeah, dygd pretty much covers it, albeit, not precisely virginal, hr hr hr. But how do you think such a person reacts when attacked by a maggot like Assange? They react by being conciliatory rather then do anything that might anger the attacker.

Have you noticed that? That women defuse tense and dangerous situations by being conciliatory; it might be by smiling to a stranger she bumps into, it might be "consenting" to forced sex so as to prevent being beaten. Sometimes they consent to "rapes" in the form of "kinky sex" so as to not feel responsible for the lust they feel because lust makes them feel like dirty sluts but that's a psychological nuance not entirely related to this paragraph but nevermind.

I just figured men are alphas and women are betas. Something changed in the 60s where men convince women that they should give their love for free "for the cause" and it took them about a decade to figure out that was a bad deal. By the '70s every had their own shell game going.

I never woulda guess that someone like Assange might be a serious rival for a woman I wanted. I mean just the that that there was an attraction between them meant that I didn't, and I'd put her on the next bobsled run down his way. I mean, it's all about gravity and we all know where he's going.

In regards to Swedish women, is kinda funny because the vast majority of them are hard-core fema-Nazis who hate men (I know because I met a couple of Swedish guys at my university and I asked them about the women of their country and what they said was right on the ball about what I already know). If I had to choose between with the women of Sweden or the women of Russia, I would chose Russian women over Swedish women anyday of the week. Besides, Russian women are not hard-core fema-Nazis like their Swedish cousins (not to mention that Russian women are ten times prettier than Swedish women).

madmax,

I salute you, mate. As an Australian MGTOWer and libertarian, I would like say to you "keep up the good work". We need more men like you in the anti-feminist ranks ;).

"I suppose it never happens that a woman goes to a party, or it could be a bar, and the guy she's with dumps her for a chick with great headlights. That never happens."

This happens a lot, when the guy is an alpha male with lots of options. I don't recall Whiskey ever suggesting otherwise. But most guys (betas) don't have the luxury of dumping a sure thing for a shot at something with great headlights.

What's more, said alpha knows that even if Miss Great Headlights doesn't come through, he can probably get Plain Jane back into his bed with just a few slick words.

Plain Janes are to Alpha Males as Average Joes are to Plain Janes. Not their first choice, but they'll do until someone more alpha/beautiful comes along... at which time they'll be cast aside like a used tissue.

Off-topic: I just watched The Man From Nowhere, South Korea's highest grossing movie of the year that also won a stupid amount of awards. It's more or less the same as Man on Fire or Taken: a little girl is kidnapped, and it's up to a former covert ops guy to wreck everybody's shit six ways from Sunday. It's interesting to once again see just how popular this type of movie is with audiences, whether they're Western or Asian.

O: And exactly what was it about my posting that you found so very objectionable? You never made that clear in your comment. Please explain?

A: Thank god his blog was shut down a while ago. Shaming language from somebody who's been on Men's rights and Game blogs for years? really?

O: Thank you! And yea, I suppose you're right, I was engaging in "shaming language" if by the term, you mean that I dared to actually question a fellow blogger on a theme that he's written about nonstop longer than I've been a part of the Manosphere, either as a commenter or a blogger. Please note that I never said that he didn't have any merit to what he was saying, only that I was questioning him on his motivations as to writing about it, and what actual good can come of it in public policy terms. I also take note of, and interest in, your own visceral reactions.

One Korean entertainment news program said 2010 was the year of the man for Korean cinema, with the dominance of movies featuring strong male characters. Korean movies tend to e better in that regard than popular Korean dramas. Too many TV actors are also singers or members of boy groups. (Rain has done a movie, but I don't think he'll be shaking his pretty boy image any time soon.)