Sunday, July 28, 2013

Game in national politics

Alpha chaser Maureen Dowd shows how the difference between the Clinton sex scandals and the Weiner sex scandals comes down to Game, and specifically, the second and third rules of sexual harassment:
  1. Be handsome
  2. Be attractive
  3. Don't be unattractive
Bill and Hillary Clinton transformed the way we look at sex scandals. They plowed through the ridicule, refused to slink away in shame like Gary Hart, said it was old news, and argued that if Hillary didn’t object, why should voters? 

Poppy Bush thought Americans would reject Bill Clinton in 1992 because of his lascivious ways, but he learned that voters are more concerned with how their own lives will be changed than they are with politicians’ duplicitous private lives. Americans keep moving the marker of acceptable behavior, partly as a reflection of the coarsening of society and partly as a public acknowledgment that many pols with complicated personal lives have been good public servants. 

Now, defining deviancy downward, Señor and Señora Danger are using the Clinton playbook. The difference is, there’s nothing in Weiner’s public life that is redeeming....

[Huma's friends] fear Huma learned the wrong lesson from Hillary, given that Bill was a roguish genius while Weiner’s a creepy loser. 

“Bill Clinton was the greatest political and policy mind of a generation,” said one. “Anthony is behaving similarly without the chops or résumé.” 

As often as Bill apologized, he didn’t promise he would “never, ever” do it again, as Weiner did.
Maureen Dowd, who never met an Alpha Male she didn't like, was very quick to forgive Bill Clinton his peccadilloes.  Clinton wasn't handsome, but he was attractive to women due to his personal charisma and formidable charm.  Anthony Weiner not only looks like an anti-semitic caricature of a goblin, but he has absolutely no charm that is visible to any woman who isn't into late night sexting on Twitter.

The key phrase is: "The difference is, there’s nothing in Weiner’s public life that is redeeming...."  What Dowd actually means is that Weiner is too socio-sexually low in rank to justify giving him an Alpha pass on bad behavior.  And the key socio-sexual identifier is the word "creepy".

Someone previously asked where Weiner would rank socio-sexually.  Now that he has been publicly denied the Alpha pass, we know he cannot be Alpha.  I would say that he is a Gamma, because he's far too tightly wound to be a Beta and too desperate to be a Delta; he's psycho-sexually juvenile, and he won over Huma through traditional Gamma acts of service.  Even more importantly, he is not only married to a woman who is widely assumed to be a lesbian, he is afraid to follow through on pursuing the women he meets online and he appears to dwell in a delusion bubble.  And then, there is the description of him as "a creepy loser".

The clear contempt that so many people harbor for Carlos Danger despite his fame and political power is a good indication of the importance of socio-sexuality.

44 comments:

Shimshon said...

Vox, I always assumed Huma as a means for her to hide her lesbianism, to give her constant contact a pass. You think there's actual interest by her in him?

The gamma-tude and lack of follow-through on his dalliances seems to indicate he was using the relationship as a cover for his own fetishes too. He just got caught at it. Multiple times.

Shimshon said...

That should be:

Vox, I always assumed Huma used her marriage to "Carlos Danger" as a means for her to hide her lesbianism, and to give her constant contact with Hillary a pass. You think there's actual interest by her in him?

Vox said...

She has a material interest in him. He's her partner, after all. If he goes down, she goes down. At some point, he had to convince her that he was a worthy partner, even if he is not a partner in the conventional husbandly sense.

Shimshon said...

True, and I have no doubt that her humiliation is real.

Jack Black said...

Wiener was an affirmative action partner. They used to crow about how awesome it was to have a jew and Muslim married.

yttik said...

"Maureen Dowd, who never met an Alpha Male she didn't like..."

I laughed. That really is an accurate description of her.

As to Weiner, I find him repulsive, but I still don't discount the possibility that there is something alpha about him, in some language I am not recognizing. I can't explain why so many young and beautiful girls would accept sleezy photos and fancy themselves in love with him.

I am not convinced that Huma's humiliation is real. There is something far more insidious going on there that I cannot put my finger on.

Amy G said...

I will say this about Clinton: when I was in high school, our marching band was invited to play at the opening of an airport in Austin, TX. Clinton came and have a speech, then afterward greeted everyone involved with the ceremony. Our band was about 500+ strong, so he couldn't meet us all separately, but as a flute player, I got a front row view of him as he walked by and waved. He was extremely handsome and charismatic, and I immediately felt drawn to him - like a literal magnetic pull. I should stipulate that both of my parents were and still are die hard republicans, so I felt I should have been gazing on the devil himself. It was very confusing to my silly teenage mind. But even now, 13 years later, I can't think of a single time that any other man has had that affect on me.

There's a good reason all of Weiner's indiscretions are over the phone - he'd never have Clinton's success face to face.

Amy G said...

*gave, not have a speech

Conscientia Republicae said...

Bill Clinton: Exhibit A for removal of the voting franchise from women.

mmaier2112 said...

Over two decades later, I still don't get the Clinton thing. He has always seemed like a creepy used car salesman. There is nothing about the man that I would ever want to see in myself.

For some years now I've wondered if there isn't some Satanic aspect to "inexplicable charisma".

Trust said...

Clinton does highlight the shortcoming in the female decision process. They gave Clinton a pass, not because he was repentant, not because he deserved it, but because the felt like it... the decision was made based on that, and the facts were weighed to justify it ex post facto.

Clinton also shows where feminist stated beliefs are nonsense. Every behavior feminists claimed to abhor was more glaring in Clinton than in 99.99% of men. Feminist which think it is fine to jail a man for looking defended Clinton adamantly.

McCain made a huge mistake in thinking a female running mate would help with women voters. The last thing women want is to see an attractive woman succeed. They'd rather see a perverted criminal accused rapist succeed... as long as he's an alpha.

Stickwick Stapers said...

For some years now I've wondered if there isn't some Satanic aspect to "inexplicable charisma".

Inexplicable charisma almost always has an unwholesome feel to it. As Frodo said of Aragorn, "I think a servant of the enemy would look fairer and feel fouler." Weiner is a pathetic, weak, and debased little man. One gets the sense he's no more valuable to the enemy than as a useful idiot, a minor victory for one of his low-level corruptors, a pedestrian manifestation of evil. Clinton, on the other hand, well ... there's almost something supernatural about his power over women.

And, yes, Clinton is a perfect example of why women should never have been allowed to vote. Not to say that men aren't susceptible to the corrupting power of "inexplicable charisma" (or great beauty), but not to the degree women are.

Trust said...

Look at the first sin. God himself told Eve the fruit would kill her. Her husband said she shouldn't eat the fruit.

But the devil charismatically told her to, and he's who she listened to.

Of course, Adam was the first gamma. He followed her as she followed the devil, in betrayal of his God and his conscience.

yttik said...

Bear with me, this is awkward to try and say. I believe that humiliation is different for many women than for men because of biology, nature, being physically smaller most of the time. Childbirth is also not the most dignified thing in the world to experience. Anyway, most women tend to do humiliation far better then men. We have way more experience with it. It stings, but it is nothing like male pride. Unless of course, you are deliberately humiliating yourself for an alpha or even perhaps a beta. In that case, forget the sting. You can clutch your pearls and stand next to an adulterer, and lend him respectability for the cameras, with ease. In fact, the hardest part is to try and keep the grin off your face and instead look properly ashamed. Embarrassing to admit, but it's true.

So when the media, the feminists, the masses, act all puzzled as to why a woman would humiliate herself like that, they are viewing humiliation from a completely male perspective, not a female one.

I've watched women do some unbelievable things, forget about pride, dignity, morals, they're answering a completely different call. That speaks to the power of game and the incredible responsibility that men have to lead.

Anyway, I believe Huma is actually the one leading. Weiner is following, apparently easily distracted by shiny objects on the ground, but following like a little puppy dog just the same. That scares me because I don't know what Huma's game is.

Trust said...

yttik,

What you call pride is actually male honor. Men desire respect the way women desire love.

Women too often define respect and honor as pride and ego. This is inaccurate. Women may envision a politician or CEO demanding ass kissing, but for 99% of men honor is more to serve than be served. Two men find out they were both in the military, and they're will ask "where did you serve?"

This isn't a criticism. It's alien to women, just as what most men chalk up to intuition is really the aspects of femininity that are alien to then.

Unfortunately we have been undermining and dismissing and insulting the aspects of male honor that our society cannot survive without.

Markku said...

Since we're talking about Huma, and the idea was to imagine all other things being equal except it being a man, then yes, we're properly talking about wounded pride. Not wounded honor. It wouldn't be a honorable man.

jlw said...

(1) Also: "Clinton" is a solid, olde tyme American surname. Compare to that to "Weiner." As in Betsy Weiner? Srsly? WEE-ner? Where do you even begin with the jokes? He's cooked with that name. (I prefer steamed over grilling - see? the jokes, however bad, write themselves)

(2) Isn't an omega a "creepy loser"?

Markku said...

Actually it should be pronounced as whiner, since it's obviously a German name derived wrom wein. But apparently he prefers wiener.

Markku said...

I'm sure that's too hard for Ahnuld to remember, considering his German background.

Hey, Whiner, put that cahmra dauhn and ket in te choppa!

Emrys Myrddin said...

"What you call pride is actually male honor. Men desire respect the way women desire love."

Well... it can be pride. But since the mistake of the current age is to equate honor with hubris, it does some good to er in the other direction.

But to return to yttik's point, Honor is not foreign to women, it is simply found in a different way. A man's honor is found in accomplishment. In the ancient world, a man's job was to seek and acquire honor for his family.

A woman's honor is found in discretion. In the ancient world, a woman's job was to keep and guard honor for her family.

Hence the insult that stings women and not men is "slut", while the insult that stings men and not women is "coward".

Circling back, then, women bear humiliation better if it pushes them toward harmony and unity with their in-crowd, men bear humiliation better if it drives them to accomplishment. Shame can either be the opposite of honor, or else honor's handmaid, and it is when shame serves honor that it can be borne.

cailcorishev said...

If Bill Clinton had had the same charisma but the political positions of Alan Keyes, feminists would not have been declaring their willingness to wear kneepads for him, and they wouldn't have defended him against all the accusations of adultery and rape. So that's part of it too: their excitement over having a pro-abortion, pro-libertinism president for the first time in years just bubbled over into making fools of themselves. Combine that with the charisma he apparently had in person, and you get Dowd, who still doesn't have the self-awareness to be embarrassed about it.

Likewise, any liberal, pro-abortion, "women's rights" politician has a certain amount of situational alpha cred built-in with many women, even if he's a loser at home. Tell college girls you're going to D.C. tomorrow to vote to protect them from those mean old Republicans who want to take away the Pill, and some of them will sleep with you or send you naughty pictures. That seems to be what this guy was taking advantage of.

Trust said...

@Emrys,

I agree with you, and about honor, accomplishment, and discretion. I think Vox once said "a woman is, a man must become." A man has honor through what he does, whereas a woman through what she doesn't do.

I think that point goes well with mine, that unfortunately the nobler side of manhood has been misrepresented. A firefighter who races into a burning building is not credited for selflessness, but machismo for example. A husband who breaks his back for his family is no longer a man, but a egocentric patriarch or a sitcome-style doofus.

We've also developed the converse nothing that women who ride the carousel are liberated, whereas those who do the same for their husbands are slaves.

Woe unto he that calls good evil and evil good.

Trust said...

Let me add, my grandpa broke his back for my grandma, who didn't have the law at her disposal... and she reveres him to this day 26 years after his death for what he did for her.

Marriage 1.0.

On the other hand, my mother, and moreso my sisters, who did have the law at their disposal, see their husbands (and ex husbands) as useful idiots who do most the work, make most the money, but get credit for "doing nothing."

Marriage 2.0.

It's not tough to predict where marriage 3.0 is going to take us.

yttik said...

"Unfortunately we have been undermining and dismissing and insulting the aspects of male honor that our society cannot survive without."

I think I completely agree, Trust.

I also just realized why this is so hard to discuss. (Not Weiner, I mean the more personal aspects.) Now days, women aren't supposed to acknowledge or admit any sort of vulnerability towards men at all. We have built a fortress around ourselves, birth control for pregnancy defense, abortion, financial control, legal backup. Then there's the whole hook up culture that declares sex is not only meaningless (ha you can't get us that way either, guys!) but it can now be done unemotionally and commitment free. (And apparently quite badly from what I read on FB!)

But of course, that's all lie. It really is like being trapped in the Matrix. The truth is women need men terribly, desperately, and our culture does too, our society does. Our children do.

So, if anybody hears me saying something that sounds like "man up", that is precisely what I am saying, but not as criticism, not as shaming, more like a primal scream of panicked desperation, like step up to the damn plate already, we're all going to hell in a hand basket! And of course, I also understand that you can't magically fix it all.

Trust said...

The problem with the "man up" argument is our society is not set up for it. It's often illegal for most men to man up in the way that is needed, especially once they become husbands or fathers.

It's really the stereotypical betas that we need more of. They are the ones who will take care of a good woman through sickness and health, and aging, rather than replacing aging women with younger ones. They are the ones who take stick around for their kids, provided they aren't forced out while paying for mommy to ride.the carousel.

My wife of 9 years has had cancer twice, and we have two daughters. I know what it takes to be a husband and father, and how important the roles are. I also know that if push comes to shove, my wife has all the legal power. Anyone who thinks that doesn't lessen how even an honorable wife views a good dependable husband is mistaken.

Emrys Myrddin said...

"So, if anybody hears me saying something that sounds like "man up", that is precisely what I am saying, but not as criticism, not as shaming, more like a primal scream of panicked desperation..."

"Man up" is a prime example. It is, traditionally, a shaming phrase. In the mouths of men, it is a shaming towards accomplishment, and thus is bearable. In the mouths of women, it is a shaming towards conformity, and therefore unbearable.

Might I suggest that you may find more success if you change your phrasing from "Man up" to "Please help?" As much as MGTOW is, absent divine directives, the logical choice, our natural instinct is still to fix things and build things.

Moreover, there is something women can do to help avert the hell-in-handbasket thing. Women have always been the in-crowd of women. This is why the Bible commands older women to teach younger women discretion.

Build a better in-crowd of women. And ruthlessly cast out dissenters until they stop dissenting. It's how the sex, on the whole, was meant to work, and if you take pity on them before they conform, they will ruthlessly cast you out when they achieve power.

Vox said...

So, if anybody hears me saying something that sounds like "man up", that is precisely what I am saying, but not as criticism, not as shaming, more like a primal scream of panicked desperation, like step up to the damn plate already, we're all going to hell in a hand basket!

You do not have the right to say it because you cannot do it yourself. You are not a man. It's like listening to a mother tell her little boy what is and is not attractive to men.

If you truly had any idea how men hear it when a woman says "man up", you would simply not use it because it is a very good way to cause men to tune you out. It comes across as a woman attempting to play the Mommy card. I realize that is not your intention, but that is the effect.

Vox said...

yttik, it strikes me that you have not learned that the way women persuade men is by appealing to their better natures, not challenging them. By challenging a man, you are taking on a male role and encouraging him to treat you like a man.

Combine that with the conventional female argumentative techniques like shaming and name-calling and you will seldom achieve positive results.

APL said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
APL said...

Amy G: "But even now, 13 years later, I can't think of a single time that any other man has had that affect on me."

Girl finds herself (inexplicably) drawn to the most powerful man in the world.

In other news, dog bites man. Shock!!

yttik said...

I promise, I've never said the actual words "man up" to a man, but I've certainly made statements that sound like that, that imply that.

"Build a better in-crowd of women."

I've been working on that for a while now. The other day (re: Dr Helen,) Vox wrote, "it is women who will ultimately bring the truth of Game into the mainstream, not the men who developed its concepts.." That's why I'm here. I know the Game instinctively but not intellectually. I think my brain has exploded and if I have a CPU up there, it's crashed several times, but I'm starting to understand better.

"I also know that if push comes to shove, my wife has all the legal power. Anyone who thinks that doesn't lessen how even an honorable wife views a good dependable husband is mistaken."

I know Trust, I see that all around me. When I was first married, I felt that power, too, but I honestly don't think my husband did or at least he sure didn't let on to me that it held any power over him.

"yttik, it strikes me that you have not learned that the way women persuade men is by appealing to their better natures, not challenging them. By challenging a man, you are taking on a male role and encouraging him to treat you like a man."

True, Vox, but I think I really have learned that. I was once your shrieking lady at the lake. What I couldn't seem to communicate in that thread is that that kind of challenging is not a rejection of men, not a hatred of men, but a rather panicked and desperate attempt to bring them closer.

Don't blame women for being crazy or at least try to understand why they are. Carlos Danger is our white knight who is going to save us all from the War on Women. Wrap your brain around that logic and you'll be acting like a sociopath in no time, too.

Trust said...

@: yttik: "I know Trust, I see that all around me. When I was first married, I felt that power, too, but I honestly don't think my husband did or at least he sure didn't let on to me that it held any power over him."
_______

Whether or not he knew or let on like you had power is irrelevant. You did. I'm talking about how Marriage 2.0 shapes women's images of their men and attitudes about them.

Picture it this way. It's the difference between an armed and unarmed man. Even if others do no know he's packing, the fact that he has it and the others are unarmed will change his behavior and his willingness to compromise.

Stickwick Stapers said...

Whether or not he knew or let on like you had power is irrelevant. You did. I'm talking about how Marriage 2.0 shapes women's images of their men and attitudes about them.

That depends, Trust. My husband provides at least one thing I cannot provide for myself, no matter how badly the courts might plunder him on my behalf: I need male companionship. Strong male companionship. There are probably other women like me in that we don't relate to other women very well, and feel far more comfortable with men. My entire social existence revolves around my husband, and I would be desperately lonely and vulnerable without him. When we were first married, he made no bones about the fact that he would not tolerate a horrible wife. I wasn't used to a man holding a trump card, and for a long time I had persistent nightmares about him leaving me -- until I realized it was better for him to have the power, and all I had to do was be a good wife. That's the power he holds in this marriage -- no court in the world could force him to be my companion if he didn't want to be -- and that certainly shapes my attitude about him.

Vox said...

What I couldn't seem to communicate in that thread is that that kind of challenging is not a rejection of men, not a hatred of men, but a rather panicked and desperate attempt to bring them closer.

I understood that. I am simply telling you that you were going about it the wrong way. You seem to have calmed down considerably since then, which is a positive development.

I have seen women spend literally decades shouting at men and attempting to browbeat them into doing what they want when all they had to do was ask nicely. And yet, they were too proud to do the one thing they needed to do to get what they wanted.

Vox said...

That's the power he holds in this marriage -- no court in the world could force him to be my companion if he didn't want to be -- and that certainly shapes my attitude about him.

And that is the power no court can take away from him. Of course, if the woman is content to settle for an income stream and shelter, it's an impotent power.

yttik said...

"I have seen women spend literally decades shouting at men and attempting to browbeat them into doing what they want when all they had to do was ask nicely. And yet, they were too proud to do the one thing they needed to do to get what they wanted."

I don't think it's "pride" causing the problem, Vox. One of the insidious things about domestic violence laws, welfare, courts, is that they have served to convince women that men have NO better nature to appeal to.

Doorstop said...

Vox said: "You do not have the right to say it because you cannot do it yourself. You are not a man...If you truly had any idea how men hear it when a woman says "man up", you would simply not use it because it is a very good way to cause men to tune you out. It comes across as a woman attempting to play the Mommy card."

I've never heard this idea put so well. Playing the Mommy card is to clearly show contempt for a man- it may be mixed with pity, but it's still contempt. Besides being used as a shaming mechanism, too often it is used by women as a defensive mechanism to protect their egos from having to acknowledge their own vulnerability. Kinda like an a variation of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy that Vox mentioned in TIA. The "logic" goes like this:

"A real man behaves the way a woman needs him to. Joe doesn't do what I need, therefore he must still be a child. He needs me more than I need him."

There's one woman in particular I know that handles rejection this way- every guy who has ever mistreated her was immature and needed to grow-up. The fact that she's overweight, obnoxious, pursing a career in HR management, and the desperate but proud owner of two cats probably has something to do with her success with men...but at least she gets to look down on them for all being inferior little boys.

Trust said...

I often hear women cite their own feelings or desires as justifications for laws. Ladies, your feelings, or a man's for that matter, should never be the basis for laws.

Imagine a man defending legalized rape, noting it should be okay since he wouldn't rape.

Imagine laws where if a husband meets a hotter girl, yet his wife must still supper his sexual needs? How is that much different in terms of liberty infringement from a woman meeting someone more alpha, yet her husband has to keep supporting her while she's tending to another?

This should be obvious. Just because one person won't do something doesn't mean it someone else won't, or that the person won't change their own tune when they get tingles for an alpha.

This is part of why the founders were against women's suffrage while socialists seeking to usurp freedom made it their top priority.

Stickwick Stapers said...

And that is the power no court can take away from him. Of course, if the woman is content to settle for an income stream and shelter, it's an impotent power.

True enough. Maybe the secret is for a man to reject any woman who is proud of her "independence" and has a super-busy social life, and instead find a woman who deeply, emotionally bonds with him, almost to the point of apparent nuttiness. What probably looks like neurosis to some people is the glue that binds me and my husband together. :^D

yttik said...

Stickwick brings up a good point. Women that aren't heavily invested in the world of women may be more likely to bond with men. It does seem to be a common theme. I was so not invested in appealing to women, I didn't even realize we had a pecking order, for goodness sakes.

dadofhomeschoolers said...

Huma's not that hard to understand why she wants to stay with Weiner and politics.
It's because she takes her orders from the Muslim Brotherhood. She's there so they can do two things. Stay on top of what's happening, and influence things to their advantage.
Think of the Muslim Brotherhood as being in cahoots with the communists and things like this start to make sense.

Weouro said...

"Maybe the secret is for a man to reject any woman who is proud of her "independence" and has a super-busy social life, and instead find a woman who deeply, emotionally bonds with him, almost to the point of apparent nuttiness."

I've had that same thought. I know and/or know of quite a few girls who were homeschooled and raised in a very traditional Christian religious tradition. They are pretty dependent and kind of scared of the world. They read a lot of books, do a lot of crafts and things, and have very traditional hopes and values. For the most part they don't move away from home until they marry and some remain there if they cant find a husband. They do sometimes seem to be a little nutty, though, to me as an outsider. I've wondered what kind of wife such a woman would make. Dependence and possibly clinginess and a certain amount of fear of the world in a wife is better, I think, than her feeling deep down that she holds all the cards.

the league of baldheaded men said...

Got to differ on Weiner. He's an ugly, horny little gnome, but his whole public and media persona as a Congressman was cocky, brash, combatitive and quick-witted. Don't know if that makes him "an alpha", but I've seen him tie talking news heads in knots with excellent facility, if not up to the Big Dog's grand mastery of the art.

Pussy-ManiaGirls: http://goo.gl/w9Oepq said...

watching my collection, we have upload more video at here:

Collection Part 1:

Doggy Style and In Missionary Position

Hot Sex Anal With Amazing Girl Friend

Sex Under Hot Lights Bad Girls

Give Me The Cum

Cum In My Panties

Nude Amateur Teen Girls

Sexy Brunette Girls

Young Kinky Sluts

Busty Tattoo Chick On Car

Young Asian fucked anal

Latina Havana Ginger gets

Teen Threesome Porn

Hot Blowjob

Amateur Pulls Down Tanga

Sweet girl amazing hot

Sexy japanese babes getting their tight

TEEN BLONDE ANAL SEX ORGY




Collection Part 2:


Hot asian blowjob and pussy creampie

Sucking dick, Audrey put vegetables in all holes

Blonde love fuck

Naomi Russell And Her Royal Ass

Sexy blonde gives blowjob in the car

ASIAN XXX PORN VIDEO

JAPANESE XXX PORN VIDEO

ARABIC XXX PORN VIDEO

HARDCORE PORN VIDEO

GAY XXX PORN VIDEO

WATCH STREAMING PORN VIDEO

USA CELEBS XXX PORN

LATINA XXX PORN

LESBIAN XXX PORN

Hardcore Porn Celebrity

HOT TURKEY PORN MOVIE

INDIAN NUDES CELEBRITIES VIDEOS

UZBEKS Fuck PORN VIDEOS

HOT RASTA GIRL


100% MAKE you satisfy......








































Reply Delete

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.