Archives For Human Nature

Frame control is a funny thing. Often times it’s so conceptually fundamental that it eludes palpability, but any non-superficial understanding of social dynamics provides a simple truth: frame control is the singular source of social power. In general terms, frame is purely an individualistic interpretation of reality as a whole, and implicit therein is the existence of an objective reality. Meaning: things are what they are, but a given frame is the particular manner in which that reality (or subset of reality) is perceived. Take, for example, global warming. In objective terms, either the earth is progressively witnessing an increase in surface temperature, or it’s not. That’s it. The politics of it, from corporate energy taxes to school recycling programs to oil prices, are borne out of a frame that perceives global warming as either an imminent threat to human civilization or a farcical cultural concoction. All of that, at the end of the day, remains frivolous. To really examine the issue requires grasping the underlying objective reality.

As I’ve grown to dissect modern human social dynamics layer by painstaking layer, the lone certainty I’ve discovered is the simultaneous universality and invisibility of frame. That is, frame does not identify itself nor does it preface an argument; it simply assumes. One of the most frustrating aspects of Western feminism, for example, is the blanket assumption that men (really speaking, boys ages 5 and up) exist solely and exclusively for the service of the females that surround them. It is upon this frame that the tower of modern female psychology rests–and any man who dares to question it finds himself the victim of the screeching hordes.

Imagine my surprise, then, at the treatment of the Brittney Griner story by the mainstream cultural behemoth. We have a male NBA owner who finds himself genuinely impressed with the physical talents of a female college basketball player–and, indeed, at 6’8″ and 208 pounds, its not outlandish to imagine that she may very well have what it takes. Now, given what we know of a starkly feminist media that jumps on any opportunity to propagate an anti-male frame, we expect this story to absolutely blow up. A woman invading male professional sports? This is socially and culturally revolutionary, mind you. When an eight year old girl beats her male peers at kiddie football, it goes to far as to make the news ticker on CNN, ABC, ESPN and NFL Network. So you can understand my shock at the relatively quick dissolution of the Britney Griner story. Where were the screeching cunts forcing Griner to be drafted with the No. 1 overall pick in the 2013 NBA draft? Where were the old spinsters who repeated the story day after day, week after week, until it was pounded into our collective heads and Griner finally put on an official NBA jersey?

Ewwww, you smell!

Are Baylor’s female athletes secretly jealous of us?

Not only were nearly all feminist vaginas taped shut on this issue, but lo and behold they yelled angrily in protest of it! Watch how carefully Jemele Hill re-frames the argument: “What I don’t like about Cuban’s comments is that it perpetuates the dangerous idea that great female athletes need to validate themselves by competing against men.” My jaw dropped in abject disbelief at the magnitude of this re-frame*. It is a pure, utterly shameless 180 degree turn. The decade long cries for egalitarianism between male and female athletics, the very same cultural ideologies behind Title IX and the banning of wrestling from the Olympics, are abruptly defenestrated, only to be replaced by the notion that ‘women must be appreciated within their own sphere’. Note that the fact that such an idea contradicts the very foundations of feminist doctrine is unimportant–what’s important is the only the desired result. And in Britney Griner’s case, what is  the outcome our feminist cunt-masses secretly and desperately yearn for? That Griner not come close to the playing in the NBA.

Women like Jemele Hill re-frame the issue to accuse men yet again, only this time from the standpoint that we fail to appreciate women unless they happen to be competing at the same standards as men. What she really wants, like all feminists, is the secret to be kept under wraps. Listen. I know this as well as you, my readers, do. Professional sports is not a game. They involve men, primarily from 25 to 35 years of age, competing in grueling physical wars to earn a livelihood. It is a cutthroat business, where a single injury can mean the loss of years of future earnings, or a single failure to perform can result in the end of the a career. Were Griner to play in the NBA (and she certainly is enthusiastic about it), these men would not treat her differently. She is an opponent, an on-court enemy that stands in the way of victory, financial security, children’s college funds, and the whole she-bang. But even that fails to cover the real crux of the situation.

You see, I played Division I college ball, in pursuit of a boyhood dream to one-day play in the NBA. [Personal Disclaimer: even at my best I was relegated to the bench: at 6’4″ and 190 pounds, I was too slow to play the point, and too small to play shooting guard. In the offseason prior to my junior year, I suffered a knee injury that effectively ended my playing days.] What feminists secretly witness is that when men are on the court playing, the inner alpha male is inevitable unleashed. What do I mean? The world goes blank–you don’t see the stands, you don’t think about your friends and family, scholarships and prizes, or even the consequences of winning and losing. You just want to dominate the men standing across from you. You want to win yes, but more importantly you want to beat them. It’s an animalistic fire, fueled by rage, brotherhood, and an almost primal do-or-die attitude. The rules go out the window. In the heat of the game, you don’t care about integrity or playing fair or respecting the opposition. You want to win, bad. And find yourself willing and eager to do whatever the hell is necessary to beat the other guy into submission and walk away victorious–a defeat isn’t just an L on the record, but in big way a hit to your pride. This is an environment which no women can ever comprehend, let alone function within. It is a fire in which the most mild-mannered men metamorphose into competitive killers, fouling, shoving, hitting, elbowing, bleeding–all to get a single W.

This precisely is the unspoken reason why women’s sports, at whatever level, are banal, uninteresting and tedious. There is simply no life-or-death investment, both emotionally and physically. Brittney Griner, irrespective of her supposedly freakish body and athleticism, would be eaten alive. Does anyone seriously think feminists want Griner to suffer an old-school hard foul, and for the whole bag of lies to be laid bare? Do you doubt that once men realize en masse that the emperor indeed has no clothes on, they will tolerate the oppressive bullshit behind Title IX? Behind Olympic sports banned for failing to be effectively involve both genders? For tennis players of both genders to be paid the same? The lie must be kept under-wraps, and in order to do that the frame must be shifted. The fact that is involves a serious contradiction to everything else feminism has preached in the past is superfluous.

* Even the manginas and strap-on takers, the male counterparts to seventy-year old cat hording spinsters desperately trying to justify their failed lives to themselves,  spread their sans-testicle groins and scream “Let Brittney play!”. So yes, imagine my disbelief.


One of my favorite bloggers, Dannyfrom504, posted the following video of Crazy-Girl ® on his blog:

Oh my gosh, girls like her are so fucking freaky in bed it’s a godsend. “Rough sex” is such a gross understatement it’s almost criminal. I had the exquiste pleasure/pain of dating a batshit crazy girl (nicknamed her Ms. Flower-of-Death) like the one in this video just last year — and I’m talking the whole shebang: Bipolar Type II, anger-management, fear-of-abandonment, Daddy Issues galore, Borderline Personality Disorder, ADD, ADHD, ex-Juvie (non-violent, she did a short stint in high school for shoplifting) and…is there a word limit to these posts? I stayed with her for a little over eight months, but by-god they were eight months of the sweetest hell I’ve ever lived in.

And the sex. Oh, the sex. Sweet Lord Almighty, the FUCKING SEX. I would often go into work on Monday’s with enough ‘love-making’ bruises to put Rambo to shame. Among my most memorable sexual exploits with Ms. Flower-of-Death were: rape role-plays of the most scrumptiously violent sort (ski masks, accent and all); once tied her up for an entire weekend (room reeked of puss, ahem…vaginal fluids, for a month); choked her so hard she actually passed out one time; had sex in her sister’s house (sis off to work) and literally broke her living room table in half.

My biggest problem turned out to be that any sex after her became instantaneously bland and boring. Chris Rock said in one of his major comedy specials that “men can’t go backwards sexually, women can’t go backwards in lifestyle.” And man-o-man is that shit true. Old school missionary doesn’t cut it anymore. I mean, yeah, I’ll still get hard and bust a nut on her tits, but it’s not even close to the same emotional and sexual high as crazy-girl sex. But trying to break up with this chick almost got me killed, no joke. That story’s coming up, stay tuned for my next post…

Personally, I prefer hair-pulling when I ride doggy. Choking is much better reserved for tied-up missionary.

For quite a while I was decidedly convinced that the frontlines of military combat were a socio-political frontier that the anus of modern feminism would leave untouched. How possibly could twenty-first century women–the most solipsistic creatures in the history of human civilization–even consider risking their own lives for the safety of their compatriots?

But how dearly mistaken and naive I was. My fallacy? Gullibly assigning the exclusively masculine trait of sincerity to the doughnut-fed bloated feminist beast that calls herself ‘Modern Woman’. no, No, No, No Killer Instinct. They don’t want to actually fight in wars! They want men to keep dying by the thousands but be able to take the credit! They want to shove ‘female military accomplishments’ down the throats of the next generation of grade-school boys–to use blatantly inconspicuous hypocrisy to destroy the self-esteem and mental energies of young men across the globe.

Feminists don’t intend to fight just as they never intended to actually participate in competitive collegiate sports. Yet Title IX was passed with the fervor of the 13th Amendment and each year there’s progressively more clamor from shrill, man-jawed ‘fe’-males for federal funding.


Why do I get the feeling this creature would rather be on her knees fellating my black staff long into the night than fight Afghani terrorists in the secluded caves of Kabul?


But everything I’ve written so far is utterly irrelevant; it’s coming from a man after all. The ‘Modern Woman’ must be admired for the contents of her vapid brain and massive stores of excess adipose tissue. Don’t worry, it’s not as contradictory as you may think. Just watch this video, and trust me, it’ll all make sense:



If you haven’t heard as of yet, Hope Solo, mannish US women’s soccer player (I know, I didn’t think it was a real sport either) recently got her ass kicked by husband Jerramy Stevens (no, his parents weren’t good at spelling), an NFL tight end with an enormous history of smacking his bitches if they ever got annoying. I suppose precious Miss Solo was expecting the 250 pound lineman to suddenly metamorphose into an angelic embodiment of love and gentleness in response to her feminine guiles and heaving man-jaw. Sadly, something a bit different happened. He beat her ass like he’s done to every other one of his past girlfriends (excuse me, I think the precise term Mr. Stevens uses for them are ‘hoes’). What is Miss Solo’s response to Stevens? To be a ‘strong, independent’ woman and exact some revenge by manipulating the court system and media to get him in jail for life? Oh, hell naw! Not even close. This is what she does.


Apparently, she’s ‘blessed to have found True Love,’ and would defend Stevens to the grave. Wonderful. I’m curious though if her love is to the man, or rather to the action itself. Does she crave him or the violence? Experience suggests the latter — she is aroused by, addicted to, desperately hungry for — wait for it — his fist. It’s a psychological need not unlike masochism itself, but a bit less nuanced. She needs to be dominated in the most direct, emphatic and aggressive form. She is specifically attracted to men known for their violent predilections, and the blood that drips from her face or arm after he’s finished yet another episode only serves to bolster the attraction. It is a craving as deep, as urgent, as any man’s need to fuck. Women like Solo will go to the ends of the earth, turning down ‘less attractive’ suitors, to find and embrace men like Jerramy Stevens. And to think that the modern West is filled with chumps willing to grovel at her feet, to meet her every demand, to serve her till death no matter the consequence. No, she will never have a man like that. She cannot. Her most basic, primal psycho-sexual makeup demands dominance of the strongest sort.

For the sake of full disclosure, I love women like Hope Solo. In fact, if she ever got some chin readjustment done, I think I’d call her. God knows smacking a hoe is the best kind of therapy.


The Plight of the Nerd

July 18, 2011 — 6 Comments

Nerds are a particularly interesting group of social specimens, due mainly to the fact they combine the theoretically contradictory qualities of intelligence and betatude (i.e. low confidence, meekness, fear, etc). The natural inclination would be to consider any man of relatively high intelligence a shoo-in alpha—-brimming with self-confidence, and strutting with a pride-driven swagger. The intelligent man should have nothing to fear, for he has been genetically granted the most important of all human traits: the ability to analyze and ponder, to yield logic for purposes of personal gain. Make mo mistake about it, aptitude with logic and reason are not just the basis of wealth and power, but the root of all human achievement.

In any contest, the man of superior intelligence is a good bet for victory. From athletic events, to corporate assignments, to political revolutions, men of intelligence are nearly always at the top.  How, then, do we account for the existence of a large population of American men who have as much, if not more, god-given intelligence as these alpha males in power, but never achieve any heights of wealth, power, or sexual success? Why is it that these talented individuals live stagnantly, failing to reach their potentials?

The answers may be obvious to many of you. We have all had numerous experiences involving nerds, and I would hardly be surprised if some of the readership of this blog actually identified themselves as such. Nevertheless, the ‘nerd phenomenon’ has always perplexed me. Intelligence is a trait and talent that supersedes all others; whatever your shortcomings may be, the proper use of the intellect all but guarantees a solution. Having low success with the opposite sex? Well, think, understand social dynamics and game, learn how to trigger attraction in women. Not making enough money? Learn a new skill or trade, switch jobs, go to school and get a higher degree. Too short to play in the NBA? Learn how to pass, read plays, be a solid role-player. This applies to every aspect of life. Intelligence is that fundamental to human success.

Why can’t nerd be alphas? What prevents them from using some of that intellectual ability to change their attitudes or discover social game? The same thing that prevents anyone from anything: fear. Fear of violating cultural norms, fear of taking risk, fear of disapproval or condemnation, and fear of independence. Intelligence grants us, as human beings, nearly everything in life, with one exception: control over our own mechanisms. Fear is a prime example of this. It is your own interpretation of a particular situation; we alone are responsible for experiencing that emotion at any given moment. Intelligence does not offer control over this kind of thing.

The self-understanding we get from reason must be coupled with a willingness to push ourselves into new territory. We must never be comfortable with our current state, both externally (e.g. wealth) and internally (level of emotional mastery), striving instead towards self-expansion. The nerd never nears his potential, despite tremendous natural gifts, because he does not wish to venture into that new territory—–to test and to expand himself in various ways. Never be satisfied with what you have and who you are inside. Seek greater wealth, greater power and influence, sex with more beautiful women, greater emotional control, more knowledge, and better health. Love yourself, have confidence in your abilities, but never stagnate; complacency and familiarity are the realm of the weak and old.

The Bitches of Today

July 17, 2011 — 1 Comment

This sickening clip has been circulating male circles over the last few days: (watch after 4:47)

Enough has been said about the television show itself, and many have berated these women for their sadistic reactions to a victim of physical violence. This particular crime, wherein a man’s penis was severed by his angry wife in response to a divorce threat, is noteworthy because it thoroughly encapsulates our societal attitude towards men. It also offers us material through which to understand the nature of woman.

Now, violence is commonplace even in a nation as developed as these Untied States, and female on male violence, especially in relationships, is far more common than feminists would have you believe. This crime is different because it represents the total domination of the female over the male—-a woman robs a man of his masculinity, his sexual identity, and his biological imperative in a single swipe of her kitchen knife. It is precisely this aspect of the crime that lends itself to humor, as witnessed on CBS’ ‘The Talk’.

Visualize the entirety of it: masculinity has universally been associated with aggressiveness, ambition, drive, physical prowess, competitiveness, sexual dominance—-in sum, masculinity, cross-culturally and biologically, is synonymous with strength. Penile mutilation represents a subversion of this concept of  strength, as if to say: ‘you men think you’re strong? well, how about now?’ The humor and the mockery is perfectly sensible in a feminist culture with a self-declared imperative to raise the feminine above the masculine. Make no mistake about it: the root of feminism has always been a hatred of classical masculinity.

All feminist leaders, those paragons of yesteryear such as Andrea Dworkin and Naomi Wolf, and today’s rising breed of man-hating internet women (read: Jessica Valenti), despise the fundamental qualities of maleness. Nearly all Western women have been indoctrinated with a homogeneous message, and follow in line. One base compliant has remained the same since the beginning of the movement: men have sexual standards. This puts pressure on women, to look a particular way, to meet specific ideals of sexual appeal. Yes, this is true, but the pressure is not one of force; those women who do not wish to conform to male biological hard-wiring are free to live as they wish. Women of today want to have their cake and eat it too (i.e. be fat/absent of sex appeal and still attract high status men). The fact that mens’ sexual standards will never change, is the only remaining thorn of compliant—feminists have been granted everything else they have ever asked for (see: divorce laws, VAWA, rape laws, etc). Thus, despite gross legal advances that have removed innumerable male freedoms and constitutional rights, women remain pissed at masculinity. Thus the humor at penile mutilation.

Have women always been this way? Have they always despised men for making them meet certain standards? Can they never achieve happiness and peace of mind? Young women have, more or less, always fit such a category. They compete for sexual attention, with the most beautiful girls attracting the most powerful and high-status alpha males. Those without the genetic gifts of beauty have been resentful—-towards other attractive women, the alpha men they could never get, and the beta/lower status men who ended up marrying them.* It used to be the case that this resentment would subside as the girl matured into a woman with a family, and was responsible for the well-being of her children.

In the modern world of female empowerment, as women wrongly assume that the older they get, the more advanced degrees they collect, the higher their sexual worth, the resentment towards masculinity does not fade. They go through their sad lives fighting against the inevitable—-that at some point they will have to settle for someone below their ideal. There is not a straight man alive who would not want to have Jessica Alba in her prime, but most of us know better than to hold onto a fairy tale expectation. This is not the same for the modern generation of women. As each day goes by, and their sexual vitality and attractiveness decreases, they naively believe that a prince-charming alpha male is not far away. The resentment and hatred for men only magnifies as time goes by, as the years tear away at a face that was once beautiful.

Can you see it now? The more these women avoid reality, the more justified they feel in laughing sadistically at another human being’s pain. They are despicable, yes. Childish, naive. But their worst enemy is themselves. Happiness, freedom from fear and insecurity is unknown to them. Across the country women are laughing at a man whose penis was severed, a man who nearly bled to death. But remember, we have the final laugh. These women live in a state of self-inflicted perpetual misery that we can only imagine.

*It is useful to note here that lower status men, who usually had less talent, intelligence, competitive drive, sexual vitality, etc, were rarely resentful of their inability to garner more attractive sexual partners—-they were usually satisfied with the quality of pussy they could get. Male resentment nearly always led to violence, and thus was generally too costly to harbor for long.

Growing up in the confines of a specific cultural environment tends to skew our understanding of fundamental aspects of human nature, and thereby hinders our ability to take full advantage of social game. It is crucial to wade through not only the fog of culture but also the bullshit of people’s proclaimed truths in order to identify and explore the true motives of human interaction. I will start with specific ‘lessons’ that I have garnered through experience and study, and then examine each of them in sufficient depth. This post addresses the first of these lessons.

Fundamental of Human Nature (FHN) 1

It’s all about power

Whether an individual is being utterly nice to you or downright cruel, the base motive underlying all social interplay remains the same: power. We all have an intrinsic need to assert dominance over and to control others–those without sense of such power are undeniably miserable. This yearning for social power is distinct between the two genders, and plays out in specific ways, which I will explore a bit later. First and foremost, however, it is imperative to recognize that each individual you meet, speak to, or bond with, is after, primarily, power over you. This includes friends, parents, children, siblings, bosses, classmates, and everyone else you may know. This power is essentially a quest to fulfill a particular psychological need for dominance  or superiority as well as a sense of authority.

It might seem as though I am tarnishing the very foundations of human relationships by asserting that even the ones we claim to love are in purist of power. In a sense, yes, this is true. ‘Unconditional’ love or caring does not exist, even between the closets friends or lovers. The deepest relationships are tradeoffs, with power playing at least a sizable role. The only case where we as a species come close to unconditional bonding is in the face of death–which is why the strongest friendships are built during war or military service; the proximity of death tears away at several layers of psychological desire.

The takeaway here is simple: understand that no individual will be there for you unconditionally. They are all after something, and in the confines of social interaction, that need is power. They want to assert dominance, to make you feel subordinate, and to thereby control you, psychologically and emotionally. This is not something to lament. It is simply the nature of the human species, and a part of reality that we must accept and use to our advantage. We begin with this loss of innocence–no one is truly trustworthy, due to in-built psychological mechanisms that produce a drive for power.

Let’s now explore how this power manifests in social interaction. For men, power rests mainly over other men, and is more about dominance that about control. This need for dominance takes various forms, with violence being the most common manifestation through the course of human history. Social dominance, at least in modern society, is now the norm, with ‘contests’ for dominance rarely being settled by physical means. Social hierarchy is generally established through specific cues of communication: insults, aggressive tones, alpha body language, sarcasm, intentional disagreement, etc. Conversation between men is, thus, necessarily more aggressive and a clear contest for dominance. Men do not share a similar desire for dominance-assertion over women, focusing almost exclusively on getting the lay. Indeed, if supplicating and being meek were effective means of having sex with women, even the most high status men would employ those techniques. The male need for power, therefore, plays out in the form of contests for social dominance over other men (this includes even best male friends).

In the context of power struggle, women are quite different. They’re power is less about dominance and more about control, and is dependent not so much on social mechanics, as it is on their physical appearance. Women’s social power, then, is more or less equivalent to sexual power. A beautiful women (say, an HB10) is able to control male behavior to her will, and, by being a fierce competitor in the sexual market, derivatively controls her fellow females as well. Men will be willing and eager to provide her with resource, wealth and time for the chance to sleep with her, and women will want to associate with her socially so as to increase both their sexual market value (by association) and ability to meet high-status men (the kind of men HB10 would be able to attract). The female desire for power, or more accurately, the need for control, is strongly aligned to their appearance and sexual attractiveness. Interestingly, however, the man a beautiful woman is able to control is not the one she is most attracted to. Women intrinsically judge male status based on their subservience; fundamentally, then, the more difficult a man is to control (i.e. the less power the woman has over him), the higher his perceived status, and the greater her attraction. Female attraction is very intertwined with this cross-gender power play, and is the basis of sexual game. This is something I plan to address in many future posts, but for those of you with an immediate yearning, please read anything by Mystery or Style.

While a man’s psychological need for power manifests in the form of dominance contests with other men (and is separate from his sexual desires) and is determined by both status and social cues, a woman’s yearning for control is satisfied based on the extent of her beauty, and is fundamentally interlinked with her sexual mechanisms.

girl with no power


sexy girls able to control/assert power over men