Monday, January 3, 2011

Women and Eugenics



Scenario: After being rejected by a woman, you discover that she also informed her friends of the debacle. Now not only has she rejected your advances, but she also ruined your chances with several other women. What is this inclination that women have and where does it come from? I am here with an answer: Eugenics

The image that you see to the left includes tools that have further enabled most women to be quasi-eugenicists. They can now line up all their prospects conveniently on a screen and carefully select what genes they want to allow to propagate. Its almost like shopping in the cereal isle for women. The over-abundance of options that even average plain-janes posses is remarkable, and in combination with social media, they can all use their sexual prowess to their advantage like never before. Make no mistake about it, social media has benefited women exclusively and has almost done as much harm to men that feminism has.

The Theory of Modern Female Quasi-Eugenicists

I am not saying that women are walking around reading your genetic code as a scientist would. That's not what I mean by quasi-eugenics. Your genes are expressed through your physical traits. Gene expression. Also known as phenotypes. Its eugenics on a small-scale; women control who gets laid and how, therefore they control propagation. If they reject you, they are rejecting your genes. When they go back to their social cliques and inform other females of how you were rejected and humiliated, she is sub-communicating that your genes are undesirable, and all the women should reject your genes from passing on as well. Now, she has successfully ended the possibility of your genes propagating with several more women in addition to herself.

Hence my term, quasi-eugenics.

In the following video, Mystery explains how being a victim of quasi-eugenics in tribal times directly relates to fearing the approach of women today:




But there is something else....something, elusive. The "IT" factor that was discussed in a previous thread. I think that women have some sort of intuition or animal-like quality that turns them on to the "IT" factor.

This is why many men can't understand why they are single and it seems to defy logic. Isn't it curious how the dating game has always been sort of an inside joke? In other words, dating has always been a sort of "if you have to ask, you aren't getting any" type deals. Those who have it have it, and they can't even successfully explain it to someone who does not. Kind of like how women always seem to give bad dating advice, as if they want you to fail.

The "IT" factor is something that has yet to be discovered that some lack, and women know it. Most guys have it, but some don't. Maybe its facial symmetry. Most likely, it is the gene that women can sense.

I mean, there are certainly things that can transcend all else, such as wealth and riches. Especially in America. I'm not stupid enough to suggest that even being rich wouldn't help lonely men. It would. My theory by and large has to do with normal people who exist outside of the top 2% of American society. Other guys try to compensate in other ways, such as getting super-jacked, getting nice tats, etc.



Let me give you an example of why none of this stuff even matters anyway: George Sodini

* He was worth $250,000. That is financial security
* He had a nice house, car, and stable job.
* He was built. He worked out at LA Fitness Gym.
* He went to PUA conventions


As you can see, he did everything that most people would jump to suggest for you to do if you complain about not getting women. People will say,

"you need to make at least decent money"
"you need a career and goals"
"you need to workout and become healthy and attractive"
"you need to learn how to talk to women. "

George Sodini did all of this and some. He went right down the checklist of requirements that women have. Yet, it was all in vein. Why?

Quasi-eugenics. His genes simply were not desirable, for no discernible reason. Women severed his genes off from society; forced him into celibacy and loneliness. The female eugenicists destroyed Sodini, so he in turn took the lives of 3 of them. I'm not condoning anything, but you see my point.

The difference between this and regular sexual selection

The abundance of selection that these women have, specifically in Western countries.

Women may be this way partly by nature. But guess what: in the 50's, they could most certainly NOT exhibit quasi-eugenic behavior, because society put barriers in place that controlled their sexuality. Now, those barriers don't exist and women have all the free reign in sexual selection that they want. Also not all women can have the power the be quasi-eugenicists, but most do. As long as she is a 6, she is a god among insects and will enjoy endless options until she hits age 53. 5's as well. Women below this still have options but its not as much and not guaranteed

Michael Savage talked about this. He said that shame is a good thing. When you do bad in school, you should feel ashamed. When women act promiscuous, they SHOULD be shamed by society and scorned. Unfortunately that does not exist in the West anymore. To many weak-minded men allowed this to happen.

I must point out however that I think most women in the dating game fall within the 6-10 range. Beauty seems to be common; Mystery (a famous pick-up artist) said this himself. I can vouch. On my college campus I can honestly say that ugly undesirable women are rare; I find myself attracted to the majority of them. All it takes is the right outfit and makeup, and women can all look above average and be selective breeders. So therefore, the vast majority of women are quasi-eugenicists and have the power to do it to men.

Another example is the Middle East...the men there do not allow their women to be eugenicists and control what genes get passed on. The nice guys in the middle east get their genes propagated, as well as most men there in general, good-looking or bad. Why, social barriers (i.e public shame, beatings. harsh but its necessary)

In China however, the government has become the eugenicist. The gender imbalance there was deliberately done by the communist regime. Men there are screwed to hell and they report very low sexual partners on average...sad.

All women are quasi-eugenicists by nature and as long as they have complete sexual freedom with no barriers, nice guy genes will continue to be weeded out of existence. This is why you see more and more psychopaths and douchebags in bars and clubs hording all of the women. Women chose the fathers of these men for that very reason, make no mistake about it.

10 comments:

Tigerboy said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Women don't like creeps, you fucking cretin. You left that one off your list.

Jeff said...

Don't fall into the nice-guy drivel. If nice guys are so 'nice', why aren't we going after the 'ugly' girls? If Sodini was so nice, why shoot people?

Women 'control' you only as much as you let your dick control yourself. Stifle the desire (it ain't easy) and the control is gone. A Woman doesn't like you? Fine, go read a book written by someone who's worth a shit. Learn a language, workout, take a walk, get a part-time job, learn to juggle or contemplate nature.

As a guy, I'm attracted to women who have a spine--looks play a role, but being spineless has made me dislike women who were prettier than women who stood up for themselves (didn't realize it at the time). From what I understand, this is reciprocal.

It'll be easier just to say that your cajones are the driving force behind your desire, not that you're a 'nice' guy, and just play up the jackass role and satisfy captain winky (though he's never truly satisfied--feed the desire once, it needs more). Or perhaps you can take the high road and do something better until the fire down below subsides and both people are looking for a rational relationship.

Alex said...

You're obviously an educated individual, but you're using genetics and scientific reasoning to explain too much of human behaviour. Yes, women's attraction for men is partly biological (i.e. who has genes that better for my offspring), but another contributing factor is social. Women want to find partners who are caring, who are not narcissistic, angry, over-rationalizing cynics that just want to get laid. In other words, someone who is mentally healthy in order to provide for both the partner and the offspring. As someone who has dabbled in psychology before, I am rather worried about your current state of mind. Getting rejected is one of the most humiliating things to happen to a person, and using genetics to rationalize the event is a natural psychological defense mechanism to protect yourself from more pain. However, fixating on this one explanation and thereby denouncing an entire group of people is immature, and I can't help but suspect that perhaps the women you've approached have sensed your inner insecurity and rejected you because of that, not because you're not physically desirable. Your anger and hurt are natural and undeniable, but your cynical detached-ness is disconcerting. I would advise that you talk to someone, possibly a therapist, about your bottled-up feelings. It must hurt more to keep them inside than to let them out to a professional.

TIC said...

I don't have a problem with any of your comments.

However, I just wish some of you would stick to the issues and actually refute the arguments rather than throw around ad-hominem attacks over and over.

Tigerboy, you have acted like a high-and-might, holier-than-though prick in almost every one of your comments. You family must despise your presence during the holidays. You think your morally superior to everyone. In your world, anyone that has a realistic or cynical view is a psychopathic monster that should be locked up.

Get over yourself. These are my views and I have evidence to back it up, which I will show in my next post. My views are also from honest personal experiences.

Tigerboy said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
TIC said...

Tigerboy, you wish to see things in black and white in order to paint me as an extremist.

Just because I understand and can empathize with someone like Sodini does not mean I wish death upon all women, nor does it mean that I feel as though the women who were killed "deserved" it.

My point is that society, which enables women to be ultra-hypergamous, ultra-picky quasi-eugenicists, is partly to blame for the Sodini's and Loughner's of the world.

Perhaps you've had different experiences with women--I don't know what they are, as you are a coward who has revealed no information about himself. Basically, you are attacking me from a position of invincibility; my views and expressions and personal life is on display while you can criticize without the threat of the same being done to you.

It's cowardly, but I have no anger towards you. Most people are cowards anyway.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ashe said...

The facts are being twisted left and right more than the pretzel G. Bush choked on. Is hte blogger a troll?

Anonymous said...

Here's a tip for you - if you only do nice things for women in order to impress them, if you only listen to them and talk to them because you hope it might lead to sex, if you are not genuinely willing to spend time with them if you know you'll never get into her pants and if you expect credit for every kind gesture you do for a woman, you are NOT a nice guy. You are in no way a nice guy. And guess what? You fit all those criteria.

I might be almost sorry for having to break this to you if you weren't such a thoroughly sickening, contemptible little cuntmuffin, but if, as is the case with you, the only reason a man does nice things for a woman is because he hopes he will eventually be rewarded with sex if he does nice things often enough, then he's not a nice guy by any stretch of the imagination, no matter how much he insists he is. You, and others like you, are in fact far closer to the manipulative, lying sociopaths you outline in your "dark triad" articles than genuine niceness - if women really were so big on the "dark triad" genes, they really DID like assholes...trust me, there'd be hordes of screaming fangirls clawing to get into your living space as we speak. By doing these things, you are essentially lying to and manipulating these women, deliberately misrepresenting your intentions by leading them on and making them think you actually gave some semblance of a shit about them, all just because you think that someday, karma will get you laid. And when it fails to do so, you have the fucking nerve to go on the internet and complain about them all day long, try to make it into THEIR fault that you can't get a date!

Here's the thing: you are not entitled to a girlfriend. You do not deserve to have one just because you want to get laid, and neither the universe nor women as a whole are cheating you out of your karmic reward, because there is no fucking karmic reward. Women are individuals - they have different tastes, different interests, personalities, and when you are faking yours in order to ingratiate yourself with them, it's doomed to failure.

Most women want nice guys, but they mean genuinely NICE guys, as in people who are nice to them because they care about them as people and want them to be happy, who genuinely like spending time with them - they like it when the niceness is HONEST, when it's GENUINE. If you're only doing nice things to get laid, that's nothing approaching nice, so it will always fail eventually. And someone as hate-filled and bitter as you will NEVER achieve this. You will never be genuinely nice, and you will die alone because of it. You will have no-one to blame but yourself, but you will still blame everybody except yourself anyway.

Good night, sir.