Wednesday, December 7, 2016

Alpha Mail: there is always hope

A long-time reader writes in with an update:
Wanted to give you one more update on my progress, since I still consider Alpha Game to have been very influential in helping me transform many aspects of my life.

This is about more than just game, even though I wasn't able to implement every specific piece of advice you first gave (still no awesome bull-headed cane for me). I'm now in law school in a good part of D.C. I go to a good church, have a good social life, and am still growing....

This didn't result from any one action--not lifting (which I don't do enough of), growing a beard, or even being willing to go to more bars and take more chances. Fundamentally, the summer of 2013 was a complete shift in attitude. It took some time to fully inundate my thought processes, and I anticipate continual growth and learning.But, when it comes down to it, it was simply this:

I am responsible for my life.

No one else.

If I'm not where I want to be, I have to fix it.

If I don't have enough friends, I have to fix it.

If I can't find a girl, I have to fix it.

If I'm not in shape, I have to fix it.

Perhaps the only exception is my relationship with God; I'm responsible for that, but can only continue in faith and perseverance with God's help and grace.

All of the practical outworkings and new understanding of masculinity are secondary, even though I learned about them first. Without a fundamental re-orientation--without realizing that I and I alone get to make the choices about how my life unfolds--I could never be where I am today: perhaps the happiest I've been in all of my life.
He even sent a picture of himself with his pretty, slender girlfriend. Now, it would be easy to dismiss this as nothing more than Game-related happy talk by someone who happened to get lucky, except for one thing.

The man is blind.

So, what is holding you back? What limitation or weakness do you have that is so much worse than not even being able to see?

Hope, faith, and love. Don't shy away from any of the three. They are, quite literally, the essentials.

Tuesday, December 6, 2016

Sexism in politics

As usual, the article of feminist faith proves to be false once examined:
Back in 1997, three scholars, Richard Seltzer, Jody Newman and Melissa Voorhees Leighton examined every state legislative race from 1986 to 1994 and every governor's race, U.S. House race and U.S. Senate race from 1972 to 1994. Combined, they analyzed almost 62,000 candidates. They divided the races into three categories: Male incumbents vs. female challengers, female incumbents vs. male challengers and male non-incumbents vs. female non-incumbents.

The results were unambiguous: When women run, women win just as often as men do.

Our study found no difference between success rates for men and women in general elections. Based on the overwhelming weight of the data gathered, the conclusion is clear: A candidate's sex does not affect his or her chances of winning an election.
Hillary Clinton didn't lose because the U.S. voters were sexist. She lost because she was a horrible candidate with a long history of corruption and failure at everything she touched and because she failed to stand against the ongoing invasion of the USA.

Sunday, December 4, 2016

The failure of girl power

A successful business woman belatedly learns that she doesn't like being the breadwinner:
My husband has a life that many people who are "rule-followers," like me, would envy. When I first met him, it was undeniably a passionate love affair. I'd never dated anyone or known anyone like him before. He took risks, lived all over the world, had many passions and has been a loyal friend. He's seven years older than I am, and we met at work, where his power and seniority at the office was insanely attractive to me. The year we got married, he wanted to take a risk and go back to graduate school to find his dream job. I trusted his judgment, and between his savings, my new job, and some sacrifices, we comfortably lived while he went through two years of graduate school. My husband now has his dream job. I'm proud of everything he's accomplished and what we were able to do together to make it happen.

Over the past four years, my career has skyrocketed in ways I never could have dreamed of. I've broken through the hypothetical glass ceiling in a male-dominated industry. I am a huge believer in women in the workplace and always will be. If they become the breadwinners in marriage, more power to them.

Now herein lies my problem — I became the breadwinner in an extreme way. I committed to supporting us for two years, but we're going on four now, and it will likely be five. Our income divide is so extreme that I pay for 90 percent of our living expenses. What I've found is I can't live this girl-power lifestyle that I believe in.

I'm very close to a breaking point, and I never stop thinking about leaving my husband. And no matter what other reasons I come up with, it always leads back to money, power and sexual attraction
Feminism is pure fiction. Any attempt to live one's life by its tenets are utterly doomed to failure. At this point, if you're still a feminist, you're just stupid.

Friday, December 2, 2016

Chicks dig Alpha

Always have, always will. Keep this reaction by NeverTrump Louise Mensch to Trump's newest political appointee in mind the next time you find yourself tempted to moderate or conceal your opinion in order to harmonize it with a woman's.

I read this and started to fancy Mattis *immediately*. I don't care if he's 95. This is what an actual alpha male looks like.

And what was she responding to? This. You know that the feminists won't even TRY to make noise about his language. Why? Because Alpha.

Thursday, December 1, 2016

Feature, not bug

It is reported that Hillary Clinton voters are cutting supporters of the God-Emperor Ascendant out of their lives:
Many Hillary Clinton voters have ceased communicating with friends, and even family members, who voted for Donald Trump. It is so common that the New York Times published a front-page article on the subject headlined “Political Divide Splits Relationships — and Thanksgiving, Too.”

The article begins with three stories: Matthew Horn, a software engineer from Boulder, Colo., canceled Christmas plans with his family in Texas. Nancy Sundin, a social worker in Spokane, Wash., has called off Thanksgiving with her mother and brother. Ruth Dorancy, a software designer in Chicago, decided to move her wedding so that her fiancĂ©’s grandmother and aunt, strong Trump supporters from Florida, could not attend.

The Times acknowledges that this phenomenon is one-sided, saying, “Democrats have dug in their heels, and in some cases are refusing to sit across the table from relatives who voted for President-elect Donald J. Trump.” A number of people who voted for Trump called my show to tell me that their daughters had informed them they would no longer allow their parents to see their grandchildren. And one man sent me an e-mail reporting that his brother-in-law’s mother told him that she “no longer had a son.”

All of this raises an obvious question: Why is this phenomenon of cutting off contact with friends and relatives so one-sided? Why don’t we hear about conservatives shunning friends and relatives who supported Hillary Clinton? After all, almost every conservative considered Clinton to be ethically and morally challenged. And most believed that another four years of left-wing rule would complete what Barack Obama promised he would do in 2008 if he were elected president — fundamentally transform the United States of America.
Because conservatives and Trump supporters are considerably less likely to be solipsistic, emotionally incontinent, logic-challenged individuals. If a Clinton voter declares that she - and it usually will be a she - is cutting you out of her life, smile and tell her that you are doing the same.

And when she comes crawling back, as she will, don't let her. Never let an opportunity to cut a self-serving narcissist out of your life.

That being said, this is one of those "three people are a trend" stories that the Carlos Slim blog likes to run, so chances are it will, like most of those trends, have absolutely no relevance to your life.

Wednesday, November 30, 2016

11 out of 10 pedos agree

But, but, it is SCIENCE that totally recommends gay men should raise little kids, pedophile scientists explain:
From the Abstract:

… The current study applied … meta-analysis to 10 studies … to evaluate child psychological adjustment by parent sexual orientation. …[R]results indicated that children of gay fathers had significantly better outcomes than did children of heterosexual parents in all 3 models of meta-analysis.

The emphasis on “better” was in the original — a word that was noticed in the popular press.

If the results are true, then surely if we want what is best for the nation’s children, they should be placed in the households of men who enjoy non-procreative sex-like activities. (Actual sexual intercourse can only take place between males and females.) Leaving kids to fester with their own parents dooms them to lesser outcomes.

That prescription might to your ears sound absurd, but it does follow if Miller and his co-authors are right. Are they?

The authors used a controversial technique,badly applied and in the service of confirmation bias.

The trio used a statistical technique called “meta-analysis,” which I jokingly define as a method to prove a hypothesis “statistically” true which could not be proved to be actually true. Actually, it is a way to glue together results from disparate studies, so that one needn’t be troubled by the hard work of investigating the disparate studies. In other words, it is a controversial technique, often badly applied and in the service of confirmation bias. I suspect that is true here.

Miller et al. gathered 10 studies culled from “a list of over 6,000 citations of published and unpublished studies from 2005 and later based on the search terms same sex, same gender, gay, child, and parent in any combination.”

Somehow — it is a mystery — in their diligent search, the researchers did not turn up the remarkable 2012 study known by all sociologists,  “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study” by Mark Regnerus. That study made national headlines!
Since we're talking about statistical analysis, it is perhaps worth pointing out that gay men are 14 times more likely to abuse children than normal men. So, this leads to the obvious question: precisely how do the pedo-scientists define "better outcomes"?

Tuesday, November 29, 2016

Your TV lied to you

Even being from a wealthy and famous family, with a first-rate athletic pedigree, isn't enough to overcome the negative factor of being black in the eyes of most young women:
So much for having famous parents. Actress Gabrielle Union said the boys she's raising in Chicago with Bulls guard Dwyane Wade have had difficulty "pulling chicks."

Wade has two sons, 14-year-old Zaire and 9-year-old Zion, with his high school sweetheart Siohvaughn Funches. He had a third son from a different relationship, Xavier, in 2013. He is also raising his teenage nephew, Dahveon Morris. Wade, 34, and Union, 44, wed in 2014.

Union told Harper's Bazaar in an article posted online Monday that she empathizes with her older boys' desire to fit in at school and to be seen as "raceless and truly judged by their character, not for the skin they are wearing."

"So much of their issues with skin color have to do with who girls choose," Union said. "And if you're going to a school where there aren't that many black girls, A) you're already further down on the totem pole, and they're like, 'We've got two famous parents, this should really be helping us pull chicks! But nope? Nothin'? Nobody?'"

Union said their popular female classmates in Chicago are choosing "Bieber looking" boys.
Imagine that! Who would have ever imagined that all those ads and television shows were not faithfully reflecting the realities of male-female attraction?