Corporate orbiters

This made me laugh:

"Chloe Kim was hangry. The snowboarder hadn't finished her breakfast and now, halfway through the Olympic halfpipe competition, she was regretting it.

So she did what many 17-year-olds might do: She tweeted. "Wish I finished my breakfast sandwich but my stubborn self decided not to and now I'm getting hangry," she wrote from Pyeongchang, South Korea.

On the other side of the world in Richmond, Va., Mary Beth Brault woke at 6 a.m., rolled over and checked her phone. Someone had sent her a screen shot of Kim's tweet. "We've got to jump on this," Brault told the public relations team at Hamilton Beach. The company quickly tweeted: "Congrats on the gold! We'll send you a @HamiltonBeach #Breakfast Sandwich Maker so you never go #hangry again!"

A slew of companies — Roy Rogers Restaurants, California Pizza Kitchen, even Oreo — joined in to promote their sandwiches. Vermont Smoke & Cure jumped in with a recommendation for its high-protein "meat sticks."

"We don't like to brag, but our breakfast sandwiches are also [gold]," tweeted Einstein Bros. Bagels, using a gold-medal emoji in the message. "We've got a breakfast of champions waiting for you when you get home."

"Turn that hangry to happy with these digital churros and chocolate," offered Cocoa Cinnamon, a coffeeshop in Durham, North Carolina.

"If you're ever in DC, we got you," added Red Apron Butcher in Northwest Washington."

These corporations really need some game. 

Though Vermont Smoke and Co. offering her "meat sticks" is getting into Roissy territory.

The female buzz cut

As Heartiste and others have observed, women getting buzz cuts is a reliable indicator of severe emotional stress. I'm sure this:

Her blonde tresses have become her trademark over the years.  But Kate Hudson revealed she has bid her long locks goodbye on Tuesday as the actress was pictured with a bold new buzz cut while on the set of her new movie, Sister. The 38-year-old star proved her beauty knows no boundaries as she defiantly sat in hair and make up with her striking new hairdo. 

Is totally unrelated to this:

When a woman is replaced by a younger, prettier woman, it is a savage blow to her psyche. In past times, shaving a woman's head was a sign of grief. It still is, it simply isn't usually recognized as such.

It is a good question

This confusion on the part of a Return of Kings reader cracked me up.

I was out with one of my readers the other night, who had the good fortune of never really coming across an American woman in his life. But this month, he’s traveling through a few parts of Europe that are more dense (quite literally, in this case) with American women. And you know what he said to me?

I’ve only heard an American girl speak a few times in my life before this week, but now that I have heard them…I don’t understand. What the fuck is the nonsense that they are talking about, all the time?

I couldn’t help but laugh at his complete shock. I also couldn’t help but laugh in despair at the fact that I really didn’t have any answer for him.

In my experience, most of it is content-policing noise meant to prevent anyone else from talking. Once I detect a woman is in the-shark-must-swim-or-die mode, I don't even bother trying to interrupt her, much less say anything of any substance to her. Just nod, smile, occasionally make interested noises, and extricate yourself from the situation as soon as is reasonably possible.

This one is for the snowflakes

The Grand Inquisitor of the Evil Legion of Evil announces the Great Triggering:

If I didn’t make it clear enough eleven days ago, Donald Trump’s re-election campaign begins now. Moreover, the SJWs, the special snowflakes, the thumb suckers of collegiate campuses, and the legion of the perpetually outraged are all going to help us get him re-elected.

For those who don’t like Donald Trump, think of it as the campaign to keep unutterably corrupt Democrats who hate you because you’re either white or an Oreo/Uncle Tom or, in any case, a doubleplusungood male, or a conservative or other than lesbian female, or at least someone who hasn’t embraced victimhood status, away from the White House silver and china. We all have a part to play in this and we can have great fun, fantastic fun, while we play our parts.

This is what winning feels like. This is what Alpha feels like. This is what Making America Great Again feels like.

Had enough?

I didn't think so.

Snark not, lest ye be gamma

Ivan Throne cites an insightful tweetstorm by ClarkHat and draws some pertinent conclusions.

Snark is more dreadful than men realize.

Snark arises from bitterness. That bitterness is the product of resentment, and that resentment in turn is spawned from internal recognition of comparative weakness.

Do not be weak. Harden yourself, my brothers. Do not be resentful of weakness. It is curable.

Weakness arises in the mind and in the heart. It comes from refusal to accept reality. It comes from refusal to put in the work required to advance and grow. It comes from despair applied to the demand for cultivation, and refusal to delay gratification in preference for instantaneous appearance of victory rather than the true achievement of the apex predator: the human being.

The world was dark when I arrived. I did not make it dark. Nor did you.

But it is what it is.

Read the whole thing. It explains how three generations of sitcom programming have taught boys to rely upon snark rather than proper rhetoric and cultivate weakness and victimhood rather than strength and the will to overcome.

Sexual histories are relevant

As usual, feminists want to decouple female actions from consequences:

Both witnesses said she behaved with them in detailed sexual terms as Evans had claimed she did with him. And so the judge agreed that evidence of the woman’s sexual history could be admitted. I believe this will have a devastating impact on victims – and that it will in future stop them coming forward for fear of what they face in court.

I was part of a research team in 2003 that monitored the effectiveness of the laws preventing routine cross examination of a complainant’s sexual history. I sat through a number of rape trials and heard the flimsy reasons used by defence barristers when arguing that the judge should make an exception and allow the jury to listen to salacious details about the complainant’s sex life.

In our research, judges granted permission in two-thirds of the cases that we observed and did allow sexual history evidence, which was raised even in some cases involving children.

It has been widely reported it is rare for previous sexual history evidence to be admitted as evidence, but this is blatantly untrue. I hear regular stories from friends and colleagues that work in Rape Crisis and other support services of their clients being grilled in the witness box about their sex lives. Sexual histories are already dragged up and they already have a chilling effect on victims’ willingness to come forward. The Ched Evans case has made this many times worse.

They should have a chilling effect. That's a positive thing, because it will prevent more false accusations like the one that Ched Evans's accuser made.

In fact, there should be more chilling effects, such as jail terms for women who make false rape accusations.

There is an easy way for women to not have a sexual history that calls their testimony into doubt. Don't be a drunken slut, and then people will be much more likely to believe you.

Female inattention

Men are condemned for occupying their time with sports and video games while their wives and girlfriends are busy Facebooking:

Women spend more time on their smartphones than they do with their partners according to a new study. According to the study, women spend 12-hours more a week checking emails, sending texts, or surfing social media than they do with their loved one. Researchers also found that if people are unable to be on their phones, it leads to stress, anger and panic. A fifth of those surveyed said it would be harder to be without a phone for a week than their partner.

I don't think most people realize how low an average hurdle the sexbots are facing. Or why an increasing number of men can't really be bothered to work too hard for what is mostly female inattention.

Don't ask about N

As always, men can rely on women to give them terrible, self-serving advice about sex:

Think twice before you actually ask this loaded question. What will you gain by knowing the answer In my opinion, very little. Numbers mean nothing without knowing the circumstances

Knowing the amount of lovers your partner has had without knowing the age and stage they were at when it happened tells you very little. Say they admit to 40 lovers. They might have clocked up 38 of them between the age of 18 and 25 and had a modest two more in that last 20 years. Or they might have had two lovers, then got married and had six affairs, topping up the total after being separated for just one year.

Or perhaps they added the last 20 at an erotic 'sex party' like Killing Kittens – oh, and those 20 happened to be same sex rather than heterosexual encounters.

To make sense of someone's final number, you need a lot of detail. Do you really want to know that much detail? Knowing someone's sex number without the details is a bit like snooping, finding something out and not being able to ask for an explanation.

You drive yourself mad imagining who, what, where, how (and how good). Unless your partner's prepared to answer one hell of a lot of very personal questions, knowing their number is going to accomplish little else but drive you nuts.

Actually, what it will tell you is if they are inclined to be faithful or not. You don't need to make sense of a woman's final number. You only need to know what it is to know whether the odds are in your favor or not.

There are two very good reasons to ask women advice about sex and relationships. And that is to find out a) what NOT to do and b) what she believes to be in her own interest.

The reason this woman advises not to ask a woman about her N is because her own is well into the double-digits.

Diversity indoctrination fail

The negative impact of mandatory diversity training:

According to a recent study published in the Harvard Business Review, mandatory diversity training programs in corporations not only fail to achieve their goals, they also have a negative impact on the hiring of females and underrepresented racial and ethnic groups.

After studying more than 800 companies across the country, Harvard sociologist Frank Dobin and Tel Aviv professor Alexandra Kalev found that companies made no gains in the proportion of white women, black men, or Hispanics in management and that the proportion of African American women and Asian American employees actually declined five years after the implementation of mandatory diversity training programs.

“We were quite surprised at first, because some of the most popular and costly programs — mandatory diversity training for instance — tend to backfire and this is what the quantitative data show,” Dobin wrote in an email to The College Fix.

“But when we began to interview managers to understand why popular programs don’t work, it began to make sense. Social scientists have long known that if you try to control people’s thoughts and behavior, they rebel. That’s what we find — programs designed to reeducate managers or stop them from discriminating directly tend to backfire,” Dobin noted.

I don't think it's merely people mulishly digging in their heels and being resentful of being lectured about how horrible they are. I suspect that if you are an annoying person constantly telling people that everyone else thinks women and minorities make inferior employees, they are going to weigh that evidence versus that of the clueless person hectoring them who claims otherwise, and then they are quite reasonably going to reach the conclusion that those people must be right, since you're observably an idiot.

500k pageviews

Thanks to all of you who made this milestone possible.  Today marks the first time Alpha Game has exceeded half a million pageviews in a month, and it would not have happened were it not for the many contributions made by Delta Man and other contributors and commenters.

The Theory of Game is changing the world through changing each individual man's perspective on both intersexual relations and his place in the socio-sexual hierarchy. The better we can understand the world around us and our place in it, the more effectively we can act to change it for the better.

That's not bad for a "shitty little Game blog" that now has more daily traffic than the site that once dismissed it.

Sociosexuality and the workplace

One of the things we often discuss here is intersexual implications of sociosexuality, but there are also a tremendous number of intrasexual implications as well. Case in point: a man's rank in the hierarchy will have a tremendous effect on his behavior in the workplace. Consider the likely problems caused by each social rank:

• Alpha: He will only accept a subordinate position if he is under another alpha. Otherwise, he will incessantly challenge for leadership. In leadership, he'll be prone to having inappropriate affairs with attractive female subordinates. He will take risks, but they will not always be intelligent risks with a requisite prospective reward.
• Beta: He will often be called upon to succeed the alpha he served. He will be completely unable to do more than continue what the previous alpha started. A caretaker.
• Delta: He will tend to let women run roughshod over him and try to push their responsibilities onto the men under him. In disciplinary situations he will always excuse the women and blame the men, regardless of who is at fault.
• Gamma: He will inject unnecessary drama into situations, refuse to back down when he is wrong, and sacrifice the company's interests to his own feelings. If he finds himself in a position of power, he will become paranoid and dictatoria.
• Omega: He will creep out the women. If anyone is going to shoot up the office, it will be him.
• Sigma: He will quit and go off and do his own thing without warning. He'll probably have an inappropriate affair or two as well, but no one will know about it until he's gone. If given management or executive responsibilities, won't play well with the other managers. Best in a semi-autonomous "skunk works" capacity.

All of these problem tendencies can be successfully addressed, but only if they are anticipated. So, if you've got people working for you, be aware of their tendencies and compensate accordingly.

Maintaining frame, Japan edition

This is the end of a hilarious scene from Natsume Soseki's 1905 novel I am a Cat. Talk about amused mastery!

“In which case, sir, and having with your gracious permission purged myself of error, I would now like to touch upon the matter of the proper proportion between the nose and its associated face. If I were simply to discuss noses in disregard of their relation to other entities, then I would declare without fear of contradiction that the nose of Mrs. Goldfield is superb, superlative, and, though possibly supervacaneous, one well-placed to win first prize at any exhibition of nasal development which might be organized by the long-nosed goblins on Mount Kurama.

“But alas! And even alack! That nose appears to have been formed, fashioned, dare I say fabricated, without any regard for the configuration of such other major items as the eyes and mouth. Julius Caesar was undoubtedly dowered with a very fine nose. But what do you think would be the result if one scissored off that Julian beak and fixed it on the face of this cat here? Cats’ foreheads are proverbially diminutive. To raise the tower of Caesar’s boned proboscis on such a tiny site would be like plonking down on a chessboard the giant image of Buddha now to be seen at Nara. The juxtaposing of disproportionate elements destroys aesthetic value. Mrs. Goldfield’s nose, like that of Caesar’s, is, as a thing in itself, a most dignified and majestic protuberance. But how does it appear in relation to its surroundings? Of course those circumjacent areas are not quite so barren of aesthetic merit as the face of this cat.

“Nevertheless, it is a bloated face, the face of an epileptic skivvy whose eyebrows meet in a sharp-pitched gable above thin tilted eyes. Gentlemen, I ask you, what sort of nose could ever survive so lamentable a face?”

As Waverhouse paused, a voice could be heard from the back of the house. “He’s still going on about noses. What a spiteful bore he is.”

“That’s the wife of the rickshaw-owner,” my master explains to Waverhouse.

Waverhouse resumes. “It is a great, if unexpected, honor for this present lecturer to discover at, as it were, the back of the hall an interested listener of the gentle sex. I am especially gratified that a gleam of charm should be added to my arid lecture by the bell-sweet voice of this new participant. It is, indeed, a happiness unlooked for, a serendipity. To be worthy of our beautiful lady’s patronage I would gladly alter the academic style of this discourse into a more popular mode, but, as I am just about to discuss a problem in mechanics, the unavoidably technical terminology may prove a trifle difficult for the ladies to comprehend. I must therefore beg them to be patient.”

An epic literary shiv! That response to the rickshaw-owner's wife practically defines the acronym BTFO. In general, less is more when it comes to intersexual communications, but in the hands of a master wordsmith, sometimes more really is more. To put it in perspective, this is the end of a long, multi-page soliloquy in which Waverhouse is utterly demolishing the unfortunate Mrs. Goldmoon, a wealthy woman who has irritated him with her pretentions, solely on the basis of her appearance.

Men, women, and intelligence

An NRx purist was having a hissy fit on Twitter over my statement that on average, men and women are of roughly equal intelligence, with men being both more intelligent on the high end and less intelligent on the low end.  He cited this chart, which I've posted previously here on Alpha Game.

However, he clearly didn't understand either what I was saying or the chart, which is rather ironic considering his supposedly superior male intelligence. These numbers are cumulative. Which means that in order to get an accurate snapshot at a given range, one needs to subtract both the higher and the lower levels.

Here was my actual response to Louise's question:

Louise: Do you think that women as a group are less intelligent than men?

Vox: On average, no. At both ends of the bell curve … At the high end of the bell curve, women are less intelligent than men, but in the middle they’re about the same, and at the low end, they’re more intelligent than men.

So, let's look at the average IQ range, which here is 90 to 110. For women, that is a population of 40,006,230 - 13,152,863, or 26,853,367. For men, that is 24,938,369. There are 1,914,998 more women in the average intelligence range than men, and all 26.8 million of them are more intelligent than the roughly 10 million men with sub-90 IQs while being just as intelligent as their 25 million male counterparts.

This is far more relevant to the experience of the average man or the average woman than either the 2 percent difference in IQ mean or how they happen to relate to a relatively rare +3-4 SD outlier such as me.

While it would have been more precise to say that most women are as intelligent as most men in the normal -1 SD to +1 SD range, the fact that I pointed out the bell curve distribution and the male advantage on the right side of it is sufficient to indicate that I was not watering anything down for fear of Louise Mensche's disapproval.

Portraits in Gamma

Notice how predictable the behavior of this Gamma fan of Matt Walsh's is. First he leaps into a conversation that does not involve him and says more than he means to before trying to backtrack without admitting he was wrong. Then, when pressed, he starts posturing and trying to pretend that he is enjoying the situation.

This fools absolutely no one, of course. I did not bother to copy the many tweets by people laughing at the Gamma's attempts to strike a superior pose. It's as if they all go to the same school of Gamma from which John Scalzi graduated.

Supreme Dark Lord @voxday
@mattwalshblog You sneer at Trump's supporters. Trump tells them he loves them and wants them to be great. That is why you lose.

Paul Foeller @pfoeller
I'm not sneering at all. I'm echoing the sentiment that Trump supporters are all surface - and you're proving it.

Supreme Dark Lord @voxday
You claim to be better than Trump's supporters, but you're not sneering?

Paul Foeller @pfoeller
I'm more policy-focused, yes. Do you disagree?

Supreme Dark Lord @voxday
I know nothing about you. The point is that you have publicly claimed to be better than all Trump supporters.

Paul Foeller @pfoeller
I don't think I'm better. I think my views make more sense. There is a massive difference between the two.

Supreme Dark Lord @voxday
You said Trump's supporters are all more superficial than you are. So, is being superficial a virtue or a vice?

Paul Foeller @pfoeller
Again, I've not done so. In fact, I've explicitly stated exactly the opposite. Do try to keep up?

Supreme Dark Lord @voxday
So, you're saying that you are inferior to all of Trump's supporters because you are less superficial?

Paul Foeller @pfoeller
No. Your insistence on defining your opponents as either superior or inferior is not a trait we share.

Supreme Dark Lord @voxday
You have claimed to be less superficial. Is that akin to "less intelligent" or "less corrupt"?

Paul Foeller @pfoeller
It's neither. It's a point of contention in all things, and is defined as positive or negative by circumstance.

Supreme Dark Lord @voxday
You did not say "more wrong", you said "more superficial". Stop weaseling and try owning your words.

Paul Foeller @pfoeller
I'm nor weaseling out of anything. My belief that someone is wrong is not a belief in their inferiority

Paul Foeller @pfoeller
In that they all refer to a lower amount of something - yes. In that any of them imply superiority - no

Supreme Dark Lord @voxday
You're wrong. You're dishonest. You're also a weasel, a coward, and my intellectual inferior.

Paul Foeller @pfoeller
lol. You're seriously adorable. Like when my puppy barks at the pitbull down the street.

Supreme Dark Lord @voxday
And now the Gamma male posturing portion of the evening.... Look, it's not my fault you're cowardly.

Paul Foeller @pfoeller
You're the one running from an actual debate, and I'm the coward? Lol so adorable.

Supreme Dark Lord @voxday
Yes, you are a coward. And a weasel. I don't debate the observably dishonest.

Paul Foeller @pfoeller
I can't help it that I find it adorable when a bunch of lonely pathetic racist losers act all tough.

Supreme Dark Lord @voxday
G-g-gamma. Lolipop, John Scalzi patented your gamma posturing act a decade ago. You owe him royalties.

If you want people to take you seriously, you first have to take yourself seriously. Honesty starts with one's self. If you do or say something that is called into question, then either stand by it or admit you were wrong. But attempting to split the difference by denying that you did what you observably did, then striking a pose on the basis of the person calling you out being unable to follow your self-servingly sophisticated self-interpretations, only shows everyone that you are a cowardly weasel.

Dishonesty is the heart of Gamma. And to follow the main course with dessert, consider the Gamma's eventual reaction:

You are blocked from following @pfoeller and viewing @pfoeller's Tweets.

I guess it wasn't so adorable after all. What a surprise. And I still have absolutely no idea who this person is or why he jumped in and started tweeting at me in the first place. But we do know that he is right about his wife's taste in men being flawed.

Alpha Mail: why SJWs always lie

A philosopher's take on why SJWs have appeared at this particular moment in the West, as well as a credible explanation for why they always lie:

Here’s the famous dialogue between a man and his wife.

She:  Would you like to go out to a movie tonight.

He: Not really. There’s a game on.

She: But it’s Friday ...

He: Yeah. It’s been a hard week. I’m tired. Going out is too much fuss.

She:  But you NEVER take me out …

He:  What are you talking about? We went out twice two weeks ago!

[Fight ensues]

John Gray (of “Mars and Venus” fame) points out, and Deborah Tannen (PhD feminist) agree that women do not use language in the same way as men. A woman’s use of certain adverbs and adjectives is emotive, not factual, they say. Tannen says women focus on the “metamessage” level, on what it means to the relationship, whereas men focus on the “message” level, the literal information conveyed by the words and its real-world accuracy. If they’re right, then the cause of the fight in the above dialogue is that the woman was trying to convey her sense of frustration by the very hyperbolical use of the word “NEVER” and the man was miffed by the literal untruthfulness of its content and consequently defended himself. The woman then perceived this as unsympathetic, the man interpreted her language as dishonest and insulting, and so they got into it.

And the women I’ve talked to about this agree entirely. They say, “When we say, ‘You never…’ you’re not supposed to understand ‘never’: you’re supposed to understand we’re expressing how we feel at that precise moment and become sympathetic to our feeling about the situation. We don’t mean ‘never’ literally, we mean that emotionally it seems much too long since it happened. If you’re sensitive and listening, you’d get it right; and it really would be insensitive of you not to give us credit for being more truthful and honest.  We haven’t forgotten the past. We’re talking about feelings, not about your facts. Don’t insult our intelligence.”

Well, let’s take that logic and run with it (although feminists insist logic itself is sexist, of course). If a woman’s “never” is hyperbolical and emotive, and at root untrue, and is targeted at expressing feelings and producing sympathy rather than conveying information, then what happens when a society becomes feminized in its style of public discourse?

Obvious: we lose control of the facts, and start to make claims that are focused on producing sympathy with our feelings about things. When we don’t get our sympathy, we get more and more shrill. We care less and less about the facts and we find the resistance greater; and we become more and more acrimonious that we are not managing to elicit the kind of heartfelt response we think we deserve. Eventually, we are making factually outrageous statements — outright lies, really — in a more and more desperate attempt to get the sympathetic support we feel we so desperately need from everyone. Truth goes right down the hole, and we stop caring at all about the relationship between manifest fact and our claims.

And eventually, of course, we fly into a hissy fit and capitulate to the women’s greatest fault, which is spite. Simmering spite is a woman’s greatest vice, just as violence is a man’s. If anything, the spite is more heartfelt, determined and long-lasting, though the violence may be more overtly and instantly damaging.

SJW’s are spite freaks. And it’s because they can never elicit enough sympathy to satisfy them, because in order to do so they must overcome a larger and larger body of obvious, contrary facts. Nowadays, our whole public discourse style is based on the exercises of emotive lie-telling, and a feminine distain for factuality.

SJW’s NEVER tell the truth. That’s man language. A woman’s is emotive hyperbole.

Alpha Mail: female communication

This is from a woman whose opinion is well worth taking seriously. Just trust me on this one:

Men vs. Women 101: Handling Criticism. Most non-Gamma men take constructive criticism well. My husband, for instance, will send something to a friend or colleague for assessment, and when his work gets eviscerated, he's very congenial about it and appreciates that this person took the time to identify errors and save him from embarrassment. To him, it's a kindness.

Women, on the other hand, respond to criticism very differently. Here's an example. I'm in an ongoing argument with a colleague about a scientific theory. It's an argument he initiated, but it's objectively helpful, because I'm attempting to write up a detailed treatment, and I want it to be free of errors. In our latest exchange he sent me a long-winded critique of my math wherein he concluded that I've made some errors that completely undermine the whole proposition. He's a nice, sympathetic man who just wants to understand how it all works, but when I read this criticism, I got extremely irritated. For the first moment after I skimmed his critique, I hated his guts, even though, if I truly made those errors, he's just saved me a lot of public embarrassment. (Turns out he's the one who made a fundamental error in his critique, but it was still helpful -- my explanation was far too telegraphic, which is what led to the misunderstanding.)

The lesson here? A woman will always, always, always take even benign, helpful criticism personally. Just remember that when you're dealing with women, either in your family or at work. And the more helpful you try to be, the worse you'll make it. What really made me hate his guts with a burning intensity wasn't that he pointed out what he thought were errors, but that he spent 37 pages of equations and graphs expounding on it. If he'd just said, "You goofed on the integral in equation 3" and left it to me to ask follow-up questions, I would've just been mildly irritated. But all those pages and pages were like he was saying, "THIS is how much of an idiot you are."

So, here's my advice to you. If you are going to offer a woman criticism, keep it as terse as possible. Make her ask follow-up questions if she wants to know more. Why? Because, even when you are dealing with an ostensibly rational woman, she is undoubtedly either seething with irritation or completely devastated over something you probably didn't intend at all. I bet as this guy was writing up all 37 of those pages, he was thinking, "Boy, am I being helpful with all this detail. She'll really appreciate how much time I'm taking to carefully explain everything..." Alas, that we women aren't so gracious as to default to that explanation, but that's just female nature. Save all that extra effort for the men in your lives who will understand it and appreciate it.

Delta Man: This weekend

A bit of advice for the weekend.

Everyone: Don’t be the first to break eye contact with any woman you happen to make eye contact with this weekend. Straight poker face.

If you are single or in a relationship and want to gain confidence: When given the opportunity talk to at least one woman you happen to be near, like the one you are standing next to in line, the cashier etc. Hell, just get out of the house and buy a few things at the grocery store and talk to the cashier if needed. Be confident and keep it short. This isn’t the moment for the ultimate Game and don’t worry about her age, status, or eligibility, it’s to get used to talking to any woman any time with poise.

If you are single: If you have a profile online and are in a dry spell send a couple of messages to women you’d normally not be too interested in. The idea is to keep conversations going and not get comfortable in your dry spell. Who knows, maybe she'll have a cute friend? It happened to me more than once.

How and when to self-deprecate

There are times when it can be useful to self-deprecate. Particularly when one is socially dominant, self-deprecation can help put others, especially introverts, unattractive women and lower-ranking men, at their ease with you. Sitting in silence can be uncomfortable and unpleasant, especially at a social event, and often those less socially skilled (or less socially desirable), individuals can be every bit as intelligent and interesting as their more superficially attractive colleagues.

However, self-deprecation is also dangerous, particularly for deltas and gammas, because it should NEVER be used as a way of attempting to gain either approval or sympathy, much less to generate attraction. While I am aware that Wounded Bird Game is a time-honored seduction tactic, it does not generate attraction, but relies upon the attraction already being present. To attempt to use it in order to generate attraction is a category error.

So, self-deprecation should only be used when you are dealing with people who appear to be uneasy or overwhelmed. Humorous self-deprecation is best, such as an incident when you behaved poorly, something unexpected happened, and you ended up looking ridiculous as a result.

For example, I was at an event where those around me had pretty much exhausted all the obvious topics that occurred to them within ten minutes. All very smart people, all international, but not exactly prom queens and football captains. So I told a story about Americans blundering abroad, which culminated in four very hungover college students urinating in the only patch of green they could find in Tokyo, only to discover, in mid-stream, that they were relieving themselves right next to a little old Japanese lady kneeling down and wearing a giant straw hat as she worked in her tiny garden. It was the worst American behavior since Vietnam!

The ice being completely broken, everyone laughed hard, but the real punchline followed when I told the guy sitting next to me, as if on an unrelated tangent, "You know, I've always wanted to visit (his country)".

He pretended to look horrified, of course, and said, "Please don't", which cracked everyone up again. After that we were all on a socially level playing field and the conversation flowed considerably more naturally.

So, there is a place for self-deprecation, but use it in order to make others more comfortable, not as a passive-aggressive way to make yourself look better, which it really doesn't do anyhow.

The cat has escaped the bag

Whenever you hear a feminist babbling about equality, keep in mind that she has the picture on the right in mind. Equality is a ridiculous concept anyhow, it does not exist in any material, legal, or spiritual sense, and it is not even a coherent abstract ideal.

There is no such thing as equality, and those who claim to believe in equality are absolutely and unequivocally evil.

A hero for men

You may not like Roosh. You may not approve of him. You may not agree with him about much. But the next time you bite your tongue because you are afraid of saying something that a woman or an SJW might look at you funny for saying, or perhaps even confront you and call you a name, remember that this is a man who was denounced, falsely accused, publicly unwelcomed by the mayor of Montreal, protested, and physically attacked, and he still stood up and spoke for his beliefs concerning the interests of men.

Before you dismiss Roosh for one reason or another, ask yourself 'what am I doing? Why is evil not objecting to my presence? Why are the SJWs not seeking to silence and discredit me?'

Roosh is so dangerous to the SJW cause, and is so effective in exploding their attempts to control the very thoughts and behavior of men, that they actually tried to play the "we'll totally be your friend if only you'll denounce him" game with me!

That should be sufficient to convince anyone who supports freedom of speech and freedom of thought to stand up for the man, regardless of any reservations you might have about pickup artistry or neomasculinity. After all, he's standing up for you.