User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 473
Joined: Sat May 25, 2019 11:06 pm

Enter the Overman

Sat May 25, 2019 11:48 pm


As far as I was concerned, then, the whole point of game was woman (and not, for example, Krauser's notch-counts or Roosh's flag-hunts), so I began by thinking about how woman—or, more generally, the female of the species—had been attained by males throughout history and even as far back as the animals, and right away I was struck by a peculiarity in the whole business. It seemed to me that the major difference between animal and human sexual relations was that animal females (rapist ducks and a few other exceptions aside) generally got to pick their own mating partners, while human ones did not—for essentially all of human history, and for probably most of our prehistory, our females have had their partners chosen for them by their family and/or—in the distant tribal past—by other tribal members and leaders, in the social phenomenon known as "arranged marriages". Arranged marriages persisted well into the 20th century, and indeed in some countries like e.g. India reportedly persist even today, but by the arrival of the sexual liberation movement of the 1960s and '70s they were already on the wane in the West, and the financial independence women finally achieved via feminist pressure on society and the state, plus the prevalence of the pill and other birth-control measures, finally put an end to them, and today women are for all intents and purposes sexually independent and pick their own partners. And this is the crucial difference and the key to the whole business. For, first of all, pick-up itself as a specialized activity and skill-set only becomes possible in this modern, sexually liberated era. I mean, it's not like players like Casanova or Lord Byron didn't exist before, but the game was so difficult, and the odds so stacked against you, that in order to be any good at it you'd have to be a jack-of-all-trades adventurer prodigy or a world-renowned-poet-slash-nobleman-baron to get anything out of it, and even then you'd probably achieve less in a lifetime than a decent PUA could achieve today in a year. And secondly, precisely due to this fundamental difference in the means of partner selection between the two eras, the optimal mating strategies would also fundamentally differ between them. In the old era you could pretty much forget about cold approach, which as I'll be showing eventually is essentially a prerequisite for proper pick-up, so unless you were a Casanova- or Lord Byron-type character the only women you'd be doing besides your wife would be prostitutes. Guys like Roosh and Krauser would struggle to get even a wife, in fact, and all they'd have would be prostitutes—and this is my whole point here. I.e. that, precisely because in order to land a wife they'd have to convince her father and brothers, none of their ridiculous, pitiful little tricks would work on them. No father or brother ever would be impressed by a leather jacket and "cold readings" or "push-pull" buffoonery, for example; they'd demand to see real wealth assets and real achievements, of which Krauser, Roosh and co. would obviously have none (the fags don't even drive lol—they are middle aged men who still take the bus, and they both quit their real professions to become professional street corner rejectees; the kind of "profession", in other words, to which no sane father or brother would ever entrust the future of his daughter or sister). So the most they'd have been able to land would have been some peasant girl, and an ugly one at that, since the pretty ones would all be getting snapped up by craftsmen and merchants and other proper, useful people, and with good reason (this reason being that these people are useful to society and civilization, and we could therefore use more of them, and of an increasing quality, which business is called reproduction and which is precisely what fathers raise pretty girls for). But all of this changes in the modern era; women are left to go wherever they please unchaperoned, from their youngest teenage years even, and any charlatan can go up to them at any hour of the day or night and spit any number of stupidities, absurdities and outright lies at them, without the slightest danger of incurring any repercussion—not even so much as a mild stain on their reputation, if they do it in the perfect anonymity afforded by a big city—in an effort to isolate them and lay them, while all the poor women have as a defense in this assault on their sexuality is their judgement. Their judgement, however, has not been used in this sort of matter (or in any sort of matter, really) for tens of thousands of years, at the least, so it shouldn't be surprising to find that it's so ridiculously out of whack that, on occasion, even a stupid ugly loser like Krauser can fool it. Worse still, it is evident from what we observe in the animal world that, even with hundreds of thousands of years of practice, women's capacity for proper judgement would not improve much: just look at what happens with say peacocks or even lions. The peacock's colorful tail provides absolutely no practical advantage to the bird besides pleasing the females, and is in fact a downright survival risk because it makes it stand out to predators. Nor is the male lion's great mane, whose size and lustre lionesses use to determine which male lion is stronger, of any direct benefit to the poor beast: all it does is make its system overheat faster so that it can't sprint or fight for too long. The females' criteria of mate suitability, in other words, are absurdly superficial, and this shouldn't come as a shock to anyone who understands how judgement and critical acumen work. To expect a female—the weak sex of the species—to judge strength accurately is equivalent to expecting stupidity to accurately assess genius; it's just not going to happen, since in order to assess a quality you must obviously know something of it; you obviously need yourself to have it, ideally to a greater degree than the person you are judging does, in order for your judgement to be perfectly accurate. So for the female to judge strength accurately, as opposed to according to some ridiculously superficial standard, she would have to be stronger than the male, in which case she either wouldn't be female, or the male would be so absurdly weak that even females would be stronger than it (as e.g. happens with garden variety nerds and all types of physical or mental cripples, in which cases womens' judgement of them is indeed accurate and they do well to avoid them like the plague, which they do). For the most part, however, females are weaker than the males who pursue them—far, far weaker: physically, mentally, you name it: in pretty much every dimension of life except child-bearing—so they suck at judging the males' strength=value, and thus their suitability as sexual and relationship partners. The tradition of arranged marriages was thus a brilliant invention that for the longest time protected our species from the evils of womens' inferior judgement, but the social and moral decay engendered in our culture by the rise of mob rule and democracy have done away with all of that today and that's how absurd little creatures like "bad boys" or hipsters or Krauser and co. (who aren't even real "bad boys"; they are just pretending to be; they are losers pretending to be a different type of loser; losers raised to the second power, in other words) can finally have a chance at getting laid.

And this is where the theory of the supremacy of self-improvement for pick-up falters. For raising your value could be the ultimate means of improving your sexual prospects if and only if women were perfectly accurate judges of value. Since they aren't, however, it's not, at which point two types of cases should be examined to see what they tell us about optimal pick-up strategies. The first of these is the case where the player's real value is below the girl's, and the second is where it is above it. In the first case self-improvement is obviously helpful, provided the girl can accurately judge it and understand it, which she will usually be able to, for the type of man whose value is below a woman's is a very weak man indeed, since even the hottest of women have so little value. Most men in that category then stand to gain a lot by self-improvement in respect to their sex lives, because women will be generally able to detect this improvement—and most players will fall in this group, because most players are losers. However, self-improvement, as aforesaid, is not pick-up, and it is moreover a strenuous and time-consuming business, especially for a loser, so a player can simply take advantage of girls' inferior value-judging capacity and deceive them into thinking that his value is higher than it really is: and that's precisely what the PUA tradition from Mystery to Krauser has been mostly concerned with for over a decade now. And then we have the second case, of players whose value is above the girl's, as in my case for example, where self-improvement as a sexual strategy would be a joke since my value is already so astronomically higher than any girl's—or any other male's even—that improving it further, if such a thing were even possible, could not possibly be of any use, since the girl is already perfectly incapable of properly assessing it; so increasing it, ironically, could only make things worse for me. The optimal sexual strategy in this case, therefore, would be for me to dumb myself down to her level, which is to say to deceive her, once more, into misjudging my value, but in this case in the opposite direction than before. And there are indeed many suggestions in traditional pick-up literature about how to accomplish this, the classic piece of advice in this respect being to never engage a girl logically in the initial stages of an interaction, or go into great depth in any discussion subject, because this will kill her attraction for you, but to talk to her in a childish manner mostly about childish and frivolous matters—which pretty much condemns all philosophers and geniuses ever into celibacy unless they are willing to become clowns and deceive the girls as to their true nature by dumbing themselves down for them.

In both cases, in other words, the common element of optimal sexual strategy is deception, while self-improvement has its place (even in the latter case, since for the higher type of man self-improvement is not a choice, as with the losers: it's his life) but, properly understood, it's not pick-up—it's self-improvement, and it has its own type of literature on which PUAs are not any kind of authorities whatsoever; at which point not the slightest sliver of doubt remains as to what game is about, and how it should be defined: game is deception. It always has been and it always will be, for the simple reason that women are not very good judges of a man's value. As long as women are sexually independent, therefore, cutting-edge game will hinge around some type of deception; and when women are not independent, as was the case in the vast majority of our species' past, game will vanish.


Posts: 84
Joined: Sun May 26, 2019 4:20 am

Re: Enter the Overman

Tue May 28, 2019 2:56 pm

When you talk about rapey ducks, do you mean like these ones?

Puppy Love: Amorous Ducks Attracted To Dog

User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 473
Joined: Sat May 25, 2019 11:06 pm

Re: Enter the Overman

Sun Mar 28, 2021 12:38 pm

A demonstration of the kind of stupidity we're talking about when we talk about females (and therefore, by extension, also about effeminate males).


User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 473
Joined: Sat May 25, 2019 11:06 pm

Re: Enter the Overman

Wed Apr 28, 2021 5:17 pm

New Jim essay on women and marriage.

He gets a couple things wrong, but the rest is brilliant. One thing he gets wrong is “all women are like that”. No, especially today we are breeding a race of semi-masculine women that enjoy dominating men. These are typically unattractive and high-T, so they aren’t full females. They are a new gender, essentially, so if seen that way, he is right: ALL women want domination because this new breed of masculine women AREN’T WOMEN—just as their boyfriends who want to be bossed around aren’t men. So his analysis basically doesn’t apply to these people because his analysis is for men and women, and these people are neither. But these people are comprising an increasing part of the society, could even be getting close to 50% now among whites (among other races it is tiny because they are uncivilized). So any analysis that leaves these people out as if they don’t exist—and moreover even implies that they CAN’T exist because the author can’t grasp biology and evolution—will ultimately be inferior.

And he made one more mistake I don’t remember now. I’ll point it out if I reread the essay.

The rest is brilliant, read it.

Oh and of course it goes without saying that women will not be “made property again” because there are no men to do it. First the current “men” will need to be exterminated—once they are no longer useful—and then machines will take over reproduction so women will only be used as pets. And they’ll be robotic women (because they will be better).

So yeah. He has no idea of technology and the future. Probably too old to even read a sci-fi novel. But it’s still a great analysis to understand THE WAY THINGS USED TO BE, and why. ... rty-again/
Make women property again

Women are different.

Very different.

This is not a game post. This post is about the application of Game and Evolutionary Game Theory to religion and political organization.

If you look at the landscapes we create everywhere, it is apparent that we long for our ancestral savannah, the lightly treed environment we entered when we came down from the trees and stood off the lions. And women long for their ancestral environment of successful reproduction. Women reproduce most successfully as property, men least successfully as property, and their behavior makes no sense unless you understand this.

As I have so often repeated: If a man is defeated, conquered and subdued, perhaps because his tribe and country is conquered and subdued, he is unlikely to reproduce. If a woman is defeated, conquered and subdued, she has escaped from defect/defect equilibrium, escaped from prisoner’s dilemma, and also been transferred from weak men and a weak tribe to strong men and a strong tribe, and is therefore likely to be highly successful at reproducing.

Women are always shit testing you. That is why they are so disruptive and destructive in the work place. But they are not really playing to win. They are playing to be subdued by a strong man.

Female aggression against men, shit testing, is fundamentally different from male aggression, because a man is playing to win, and if it looks like he is going to lose, seeks a compromise to lose without losing too much face, while a woman immediately heads out on a thin limb hoping it will break under her. Thus a woman is most apt to dig in her heels bitterly, stubbornly, and utterly intransigently on an issue where her position is completely indefensible, stupid, self destructive, and illegitimate. If on the other hand she has some legitimate issue with you, she will get angry with you without telling you what her anger is all about. You are supposed to divine it by mental telepathy, whereas if a man has some legitimate point giving rise to a dispute with another man, he will lay it out so plainly that a dog could understand it.

The only time a woman will plainly tell you her grievance is when it is absolutely ridiculous and completely illegitimate.

A man is playing a conflict with a man to win by getting the issue resolved in his favor. A woman plays a conflict to discover who is the stronger, to discover if you are capable of frightening and intimidating her, and thus will always play a conflict more intransigently than a man ever will. This is why men and women can never be friends. When you have a buddy, you will engage in mutual domination and mutual submission, as for example friendly insults and the slap on the back. With women, it is dominate or be dominated. That is why if they have grievance with you, will not tell you what it is, but will instead command you to divine it by mental telepathy, or perhaps by confessing to a long, long list of your sins, hoping for her to tell you which one is the right one.

Women are incapable of performing sexually, of enjoying sex, or even of performing the courtship dance, unless they are at least a little bit dominated and intimidated. Not all women are into outright bondage and beatings, but all women without exception are into subtler forms of domination and submission. All women are like that. No woman will get it on with a man that she is not afraid of. No Women Are Like That. They just physically do not respond unless they feel that they could be compelled. There are no women as the blue pill imagines them to be, no women as they are depicted in very single video of courtship and mating. None. Not in our society, and not in trad conservative societies. This is the big lie from the media that everyone is immersed in from childhood.

Many an emperor with a thousand conservatively raised concubines, and unquestioned authority to execute any of them or all of them for any reason or no reason at all, has had women troubles, and many an empire has fallen from women troubles.

A woman will always attempt to top from the bottom, no matter how much she is into domination and submission. A game of pretend domination and pretend submission just is not an adequate substitute for the real thing, so if you are playing a domination and submission game, she will always test and provoke you into making the game a reality by topping from the bottom.

Women have not been subject to selective pressures on their sexual behavior since we looked rather like apes, because populations that allowed female sexual choice disappeared. The men were disinclined to invest in children, or defend land.

Long ago we came down from the trees and out onto our now beloved savannah. If you don’t have some handy trees, need to be able to stand off lions, so you need reasonably sized group of males with strong male/male cohesion. And the males need to have to have some mighty strong motives to defend females and young. And, out on the savannah, no fruit, or considerably less fruit. The stable isotope ratios in the bones of all our hunter gatherer ancestors that walked, rather than swung through the trees, shows that they ate high on the trophic chain, deer, fish, and other predators. Humans do fine on an all meat diet, die on an all veggie diet. (Vegan without fish, eggs, cheese, and milk)

We seem to be adapted to eating a substantial proportion of other carnivores, hence the health advantages of fish. We are not true omnivores, because we cannot survive on an all vegetable diet, and we are adapted to getting a significant portion of our meat from other carnivores. We have been top predator for a very long time. The stable isotope ratio in old bones generally shows that we ate higher in the food chain than wolves or big cats – possibly we ate fish, which ate other fish. Most of these bones long predate the invention of nets and fishing lines, so possibly we ate wolves and lions.

Only males hunt, because adult males are pre-adapted physically and psychologically for violence. So women and children relied on the mighty hunter bringing home the bacon. And if you have defect/defect equilibrium, a society of players and bitches, well, the women can eat by whoring themselves out, until they are past fertile age, whereupon they starve or get eaten by lions, but out on our beloved savannah, their children are going to die. From the isotope ratios in old bones we can infer that women have been property for a very long time.

And the simplest way to end defect/defect equilibrium is that the males assign the women according to deals they make with each other, and let the women think that the top alpha assigned the women. If the women get a say in it, defection is on the table.

point deer, make horse, 指鹿为马

Senator Roark in “Sin City”:
“Power don’t come from a badge or a gun. Power comes from lying. Lying big and getting the whole damn world to play along with you. Once you’ve got everybody agreeing with what they know in their hearts ain’t true you’ve got ’em by the balls.”

They are sons of the father of lies, and their shibboleth is always a big lie.

So we need to make our big shibboleth a big truth that contradicts one of the big lies. The biggest and most shocking truth: That the sexual nature of women is maladapted to emancipation, that emancipation prevents them from reproducing and makes them unhappy. That as individuals, and as a society, we need to make women property again.

Each man must be King under his own roof.

And we need a national sovereign, and a national high priest, that backs the sovereign and high priest under every roof.

That women need to be property, for the good of society, and because each of them is individually seeking a man strong enough to make her property, that men need to make them property, is the best shibboleth to organize around. All faiths that support that can work together. All conflict between males is always ultimately conflict over women, so faiths that fail to support propertization of female sexual and reproductive services will always suffer internal and external conflict, leading to holiness spirals, while faiths that support male property rights over women and support propertization of loose women, are less apt to get into internal and external conflicts.

vive la différence

The largest difference between men and women is inside. We pursue very different reproductive strategies, which shapes everything we do in life.

The evil form of this strategy is players and bitches, defect/defect equilibrium, the lek mating pattern. The virtuous form of this strategy is husband and wife, marriage 1.0, eighteenth century marriage, which is now illegal. All happy families are quietly and furtively eighteenth century. All happy families are alike. There is only one way that works, only one form of cooperate/cooperate equilibrium between men and women. Women and dogs need a master, and are never happy if they lack a master, will always behave very badly if they think they are the alpha of the pack.

Proscribing honor killing is unwise, because good men will engage in honor killing anyway (there is always a handy swamp or ocean) and because you are pressuring men to adopt the player strategy so that they will not feel the compulsion to kill adulterers.

If state, church, society, and family, do not impose strong control over women’s sexual and reproductive choices, we get defect/defect equilibrium, resulting in failure to reproduce and dysgenic reproduction, and resulting in only a small minority of men getting all the pussy, thus demotivating the vast majority of men. If you own a woman, you want a nice house and a nice garden. A third world peasant with a wife and children is apt to live in a very nice mud and bamboo hut (it is very impressive what can be done with bamboo and a machete) with a very nice garden while a first world involuntary celibate is apt to live in a tiny, but high tech, box with crap furniture, even if he has a very high salary. The third world peasant with a wife and children has a much larger, more comfortable, and more attractive living space with nicer furniture than the first world webmaster in his little box, because the involuntary celibate, despite his affluence, does not care about his space and his furniture.

Christianity and sexuality

Everything in the bible about sex is a commentary, explanation, or clarification of the final commandment’s application to sex, marriage and children:

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.

And nothing the bible says about sex makes sense except in this context. If people jump on a line somewhere in the bible and start holiness spiraling on it so that it swallows and destroys the commandments, they are doing what the Jews did to get themselves exiled from Israel.

In a social environment where women are unowned and are frustrated by lack of ownership, old type Christian rules are inapplicable to banging any women you are likely to meet, because old type Christian rules are intended and expected to apply to women in the possession of some man. Fornication is making use of another man’s daughter without his permission, adultery another man’s wife or betrothed. But in today’s society, if a father attempts to restrain the sexual activity of his nine year old daughter, Child Protective Services is apt to take his children and his house away, lose track of his daughter, and sell his sons to a “married” gay couple. (Demand for prepubescent children to sexually exploit is primarily demand for small boys, so Child Protective Services cannot get much of a bribe for whoring out his nine year old daughter, so they leave it to her to whore herself out.)

Furthermore, the Old Testament does not make clear, but the Lord Jesus Christ does make clear, that the law and the prophets are to be interpreted and applied in such a way that they work, that they accomplish their intended purposes, have the intended effect. The spirit, not the letter. By their fruits you will know them.

Incel and female immorality is not the intended effect, is the grossest possible violation of the commandments.

Christianity leading to inceldom, is like the Jews getting so fussed about the commandment on contamination by blood, that in order to avoid walking on ground on which chicken blood had been spilled, they coveted and seized the land that the landord had leased to a Greek, and when the Roman cops came to restore order and respect for property rights, they got themselves covered in the wrongfully spilt blood of a Roman cop who was impartially doing his duty to enforce a fair and necessary law that protected Jew and Greek alike. And thus it came to pass that for holiness spiraling the letter of the law at the expense of the spirit, the Jews got expelled. As prophesied, they were expelled for violating the Lord’s commandments. The spirit and intent of the law on contamination by blood refers to kind of contamination by blood that contaminated Lady Macbeth. References in the Old Testament to this law, as for example: “their heads were covered in blood” are in context referring to the kind of blood that Lady Macbeth had on her, the kind of blood you get on you by killing a cop who is performing his duty in the face of danger, not the kind of blood that gets spilled on the ground when you kill a chicken.

Incels are usually incel in part because they are violating the laws of Gnon, and if they invoke Christianity to justify their inceldom, it is usually because they are weak and afraid, not because they are Christian.

Christians who apply old type Christian rules, intended for a society where a woman’s sexual and reproductive services were clearly under control of some man, intended for a society where patriarchs acquired wives for their sons from other patriarchs, are in our collapsed society, violating, not, observing, the commandments.

In a society that does not respect or protect ownership of land, a farmer must still grow potatoes, and to do so, has to anarchically and illegally take possession of some land, breaking numerous erratically, unpredictably, arbitrarily, and infrequently enforced laws and regulations in the process.

And we must anarchically and illegally take possession of women.

Old type Christian law on sex prohibits acting as if in defect defect equilibrium. But we are, in fact in defect/defect defect equilibrium, and a man can only get out of it by conquest and taking possession.

The only way you can start out with a woman in cooperate/cooperate is if your patriarch is acquiring her for you from another patriarch with whom he is in cooperate/cooperate, which was typically someone who was close kin, or in the the same hierarchy of authority.

And, since you are starting out in defect/defect, it is impossible to conquer and take possession, except by successfully acting within the defect/defect rules. You have to bang them, or else they are going to move on. All women are like that. Including all supposedly good Christian wife material women.

In an orderly society, you first acquire a field, and then you plough it. In a disorderly society, you first plough it, so that other people will know you have a reason to defend it, and think you have a decent chance of succeeding, and then you eventually own it when no one manages to take your crops away from you, or graze his horses on your standing corn. Which likely requires you to have a weapon handy during ploughing and harvest. Gnon does not intend you to starve, and he does not intend you to be incel. You are required to turn the other cheek and walk the extra mile, but by the time that it is time to plough that field, you are already out of cheeks and have walked far too many miles.

Fornication is a particular application of the final commandment.

When you apply those commandments, and read people applying them to sex and family, then unless those people are moderns you need to read them in the social context that the unit of society is the household not the individual, and that men are not women and women are not men.

The prohibition of incest and divorce do not follow directly from the ten commandments, but adultery and fornication does.

And the trouble is that giving fornication a meaning that does not follow from the ten commandments leads directly and immediately to breaking them, as when the Roman Catholic Church before the French Revolution so easily ruled that a marriage was nullified because the woman had not really given consent, or when it encouraged daughters to defy fathers and wives to defy husbands.

This parallels the Jews of the time of Jesus holiness spiraling the law on blood, so that they could wrongfully spill blood, and claim they were acting in accordance with the law of Moses.

To understand what old type Christians meant by whoring, fornication, and adultery, we cannot look at their words, for the meaning of their words has been changed underneath us. We should instead look at what people of that faith who had power, who had legitimate authority, who used that language actually did, in order to understand what those words actually meant when the faith was live and in power.

They did not suppress men from having sex with unowned women, or even suppress unowned women from having sex. They suppressed unowned women from being unowned. The biblical penalty for sex and/or abduction of a married or betrothed woman is death. The biblical penalty for abduction of a virgin is indissoluble shotgun marriage. The biblical penalty for abduction of a unmarried, unbetrothed, non virgin …

The story of Tamar and Jacob makes no sense at all if we suppose Tamar was going to be burned alive for prostitution or sex outside of marriage. Makes perfect sense if we suppose she was going to be burned alive for sex outside of and in defiance of the framework of male property rights in women’s sexual and reproductive services.

Similarly, consider how the authorities in late eighteenth century, early nineteenth century Australia dealt with the problem of a whole lot of casual sex going on. They applied swift shotgun marriage, and supported the authority of the husband in those marriages with disturbingly drastic means. They did not punish men or women for having sex in a beach party. They made women get married, and punished them for speaking back to their husbands.

If you give the biblical laws on sex and family, the biblical condemnation of adultery, fornication, and whoring, an interpretation that presupposes that men and women are interchangeable, and that families do not exist, only individuals, you are turning the Law upside down, resulting in a blue pilled Christianity that tells men that God does not want them to have wives and children.

User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 473
Joined: Sat May 25, 2019 11:06 pm

Re: Enter the Overman

Tue Oct 11, 2022 1:30 pm ... _and_women
Men fall in love with what they see and women fall in love with what they hear. That's why men lie and women use makeup.

Remember how icycalm defined game: "Game is deception."

Remember also how every other PUA defined game: They didn't.

Return to “Endgame: The End of PUA Theory”