"Dark Triad" Genes

The bad-boy question has been answered by science.

Nice guy genes do exist, and many unfortunate men have them. Women want these genes severed from the gene pool and thus existence:

Why women really do love self-obsessed psychopaths

"Peter Jonason, of New Mexico University in Las Cruces, believes that these traits may have an innate, genetic component that explains why some men seem unable to stop themselves behaving badly."


- Steve Connor, "Why women really do love self-obsessed psychopaths",

The traits that he refers to are "Dark Triads". These are traits such as narcissism, thrill-seeking, psychopathy, etc. Basically, quintessential bad-boy behavior. This study proves that it is what women really want, while they lie about wanting a humble honest respectful guy. What a fucking surprise, right?

However, let's use our intellect to take this a step further. Let's go beyond what the study says using deduction and logic. If there are "dark triad" genes, or in other words bad boy genes, then conversely there must exist nice-guy genes. These are the genes many lonely men possess, and it explains why they are alone and suffering.

Like I've said many times before, for the most part women want to weed the nice-guy genes out of existence. That's why they reject so many men and also inform their social circles not to date us after the rejection takes place. They don't want to be treated well. Women want psychopathic narcissists and they are lying if they say otherwise. I'm tired of every girl claiming they want one thing then turning around and blowing some guy with a neck-tattoo and a criminal record.

The looks faction is close, but they fail to make the quantum leap and recognize it comes down to genetics. The confidence mafia (those that believe the key is confidence) are way off.

"Looks" and "Confidence" are simply byproducts of good genes. Its all genes. And women are quasi-eugenicists.

The Arizona Shootings: Who's To Blame?

Yet another mass shooting has occurred recently, ironically right around the time I posted about the one that happened back in 2009 (see below post). Is this nothing new? Has this not happened before and for a similar reason? Or was he a lone nut? The answer, as it usually does, lies somewhere in the middle. Like with Sodini, this shooting (and the reasons it happened) is not cut-and-dry. There is more to this guy than meets the eye, and it surpasses the nerd-loner stereotype in my opinion.


All politics aside, this man, Jared Lee Loughner, was deeply troubled.


Most leave it at that.

"He was disturbed"
"He was mentally ill"
"This guy had a few screws loose"

What sickens me about society is the cowardice and disturbing inability to display empathy for those deemed unstable. Loughner may have been irrational, but why does no one ask what made him that way? My answer to that is one that I will always have in these situations: society has trouble pointing the finger at themselves. No one wants to admit that perhaps, just maybe, there were other factors that contributed to Loughner's shooting rampage.


And what of Lougner's politics? There is no doubt that his conspiracies about the government led to hatred of certain politicians. Some of his theories had slight merit; for instance, language does indeed control thought. However there is not substantial evidence that the government is forcing or subtly encouraging its population to speak a certain way. There is such a thing as political correctness, but those who wish to exercise free speech are still welcome to do so.

When I first heard of this story, I immediately knew that his failures with women had something to do with it. I just had the feeling, deep down. And, sure enough, the Wall Street Journal proved me to be correct recently when the following article was published:


"Postings of a Troubled Mind"

Whenever something like this occurs, miserable interactions with women are a culprit, if not the biggest one. What cannot be stressed enough is the importance of consistence sex and companionship that a man needs to keep his sanity. Its no joke. Its life and death. We are seeing examples of it over and over again. Men need sex, men need women that truly care about them as a person. One might jump to say, "But all people want that, including women!" Well, women are not the ones that experience loneliness the way men do.

Here's a question everyone must ask themselves: If Loughner had a girlfriend that loved and cared about him, would this tragedy have happened? No one can say for sure. It is a question for critical thought.

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.