If she's hot, she must be fake

It is quite educational to see how the gamma male finds the idea of the existence of a highly attractive woman to be literally incredible:

I noted another odd thing: both times the same old photo of Spacebunny emerged. In fact it appeared to be the only photo of the woman. A professionally-taken modelling photo apparently. Hmm....

Before Vox Day's minions (real and sockpuppety) pop up in here to burn me alive in a wicker model of their leader's phallus, I should add this post is no less spurious, cherry-picked and unscientific as anything on Vox Day's blog. If Vox Day can say NK Jemesin isn't fully human, then I can say Vox Day's wife doesn't even fucking exist.

James Worrad can say whatever he likes, but that doesn't make his statements true.  For example, he is correct to note that the only picture of the woman he has found is a professionally-taken modelling photo, but although I know it is very hard for gamma males like him to believe it, "perfect-ten" women who have such photos taken of them do exist in real life.  Some of them even marry SF/F writers.

They just don't want anything to do with creepy little goblins like him.

Assuming Spacebunny's nonexistence isn't Mr. Worrad's only error.  I never said NK Jemesin isn't fully human, in fact, Ms Jemisin is the one who talked about herself that way. Worrad is claiming the right to do something on the basis of something I never did.  As for the false claim that I have a reputation for sockpuppeting, that is totally untrue and the accusation was nothing more than a figment of the Ghastly Toad of Tor's imagination.

Worrad provides a useful example of how strong the gamma delusion bubble is.  It will actually lead a gamma to deny the existence of an individual whom dozens of people on the blog have met in person, and with whom literally hundreds of other readers have interacted.  The delusion bubble can even lead the gamma to conclude that it is more reasonable for him to assume an elaborate sockpuppeting plan rather than accept the fact that a man much higher up the socio-sexual hierarchy than him would naturally attract much more attractive women.

Alpha Mail: can she handle the truth?

CS wonders if he should tell a moderate chunker the real reason he's not interested in her:

Much respect to you for your recent posts in response to NK Jesmin, the nauseatingly maudlin Shattersnipe and the portly, uberreactive atheist. Recently, its starting to seem like the entire brigade of fatuous leftist ideologues is surpassing peak shriek in that their inane emoting in response to equality blasphemers like you is becoming more widely perceived as pathetic and tiresome rather than alarming.

You holding firm to the truth, no matter how offensive, got me thinking: I just went out on a date with a girl and, long story short, the only real flaw with her is that she is too heavy (not fat fat but needed to drop 10-15 lbs). We have communicated enough that I'll actually have to provide an explicit reason why I don't want to go out again. The only honest answer I could give is that she is too heavy.

Do I tell her this (even if gently hinted at in euphemistic language)? I know doing something like this sounds completely socially retarded (a couple friends have told me as much) but think about it; if I tell her "we just want different things", "we live too far apart", "I'm seeing someone else" or some other bs, her hamster will be fueled by one of these excuses and she'll fail to confront the real problem which has lead to her being rejected by me and likely any other man with at least a modicum of SMV. Plus, any other excuse I give is a lie. If I tell her the truth she'll likely cry and be upset but at least she can confront her real problem. What do you suggest?

I suggest that this is an excellent application for the Golden Rule.  It's not your responsibility to fix her.  It's not your job to convince her to stop needlessly stuffing her face.  All of us who could stand to lose a few pounds, (and I could stand to cut about five myself), know perfectly well that we're carrying extra weight and what we need to do to get rid of it.  It's just a matter of willpower and lifestyle modification.

Most men have been rejected by women before.  So, do you appreciate the truth or do you prefer the white lie?  If you'd rather have a woman tell you that the reason she isn't interested in seeing you again is that you're too short, or too poor, or too laddish, then be straightforward with her.  That sort of honesty is appropriate for an individual of your straightforward nature and she will likely expect it from you.

If, on the other hand, you tend to prefer the face-saving deception, then that is the tactic you should take. But don't insult her intelligence; if you're going this route the decent thing to do is to make it credible and give her hamster something with which to work.  The one thing to avoid doing is to tell a lame white lie, which only compounds the rejection with an insult.

A call for Church repentance

Dalrock issues an important call for Christian pastors to repent for elevating the wisdom of the world above God's Word:

Pastors across the western world have quietly done the thankless work of promoting feminism week in and week out, without so much as a pat on the back from feminists.  Yet without the continued support of these unsung pastors feminism would be in extreme jeopardy.  Modern pastors have given today’s feminist woman the moral blessing of Christianity.  Each year pastors take great pains to not only deny the feminist rebellion taking place in their very own congregation, but to heap effusive praise on the women of the congregation on Mother’s Day.  Father’s Day on the other hand is mostly considered a special invitation to cut husbands off at the knees.

Not all pastors have supported feminism out of outright hostility to the Bible.  Many, perhaps most, have chosen to remain silent on the feminist rebellion while blaming men because it was safe.  As I mentioned above, the current rebellion by women is unprecedented historically.  Pastors everywhere know that to seriously preach a biblical view of marriage would put their career in immediate jeopardy.  There is after all a full fledged rebellion going on.  Fighting such a rebellion is dangerous, so concessions must be made in order to be permitted to teach the rest of the Bible.  But this just reinforces how craven the modern pastor has become.  They deny the outrageous rebellion front and center out of fear of becoming a casualty of that rebellion.

Whatever the reason a pastor has chosen feminism over the Bible, repentance is what is required.  While repentance is humbling and painful, it is the necessary first step to healing and redemption.  This is true whether the pastor chose feminism over the Bible out of hostility or shame regarding God’s design for the family, or out of simple fear of losing wealth and prestige.  Since the problem is nearly universal, what we need is a day of repentance.

This repentance isn't merely necessary for the sake of the individual pastor, but for the health of the Church institutions themselves.  Excess worldly influence contra the Bible has always been the main route for institutional decline.  And as one of the pillars of Western Civilization, curing the Church of its feminist disease should be a primary goal of Christians and non-Christians alike.

Don't disrespect the alpha

It's a bad idea.  But even the smartest, most successful men can find themselves temporarily blinded by a ruthless gold digger:

Rupert Murdoch's wife Wendi Deng was ‘totally blindsided’ by his decision to sue for divorce, her friends have claimed. The 82-year-old tycoon is said to have gone to great lengths to be seen to be pursuing his normal schedule as recently as last Tuesday – when he was due to preside at a Los Angeles gala.

However, an acquaintance of the couple says that during Tuesday afternoon Mr Murdoch gave the first clue that ‘something was up’ when he abruptly cancelled his appearance to honour one of his oldest friends, Fox film studio chairman Jim Gianopulos.

Two days later a tersely worded document was filed at the New York State Supreme Court stating the power couple’s 14-year marriage had ‘broken down irretrievably’.

You have to read Wendy Deng's career to believe it.  First she parlays a middle-aged married man's attraction to her into a visa sponsor , then she seduces the husband and replaces the wife, obtaining a green card in the process.  Then she leaves the man, seduces the married Murdoch, and manages to convince him to marry her as well.

What's fascinating is that all she had to do was behave like a respectful wife to one of the most powerful men on the planet, but she couldn't hide her contempt for his inability to see her as she was long enough to see him to his grave.  Instead, she did the one thing she couldn't do - challenge the alpha - and Murdoch promptly did what alphas do to challengers and crushed her.

It's a remarkable sum of stupidities.  Murdoch had to know her history and should have known she was a pure platinum gold digger. Deng had to know that however old and tired Murdoch is, he didn't become rich and powerful by being the pushover his behavior had led her to conclude he was.  It merely goes to show that the vagaries of intersexual relations trump success, wealth, and intelligence.

It's your fault she's old and dried-up

See, if you bastards simply stop being attracted to slender young women with large, firm, breasts, she wouldn't be chopping her hair off and going through hot flashes.  Is there no end to the limit of male evil?

Women go through menopause because men have consistently preferred younger women in recent evolutionary history, according to a study published June 13 in the journal PLOS Computational Biology. Thus, menopause is not evolutionarily advantageous and may be the result of a series of random, harmful mutations that accumulated in women but weren't acted on by evolution because the women had already reproduced by the time the mutations affected them.

It may be because it might possibly perhaps have been... science!  Color me dubious.  Steve Sailer may need to expand his Law of Female Journalism to include scientific studies.

The most heartfelt articles by female journalists tend to be demands that social values be overturned in order that, Come the Revolution, the journalist herself will be considered hotter-looking.

When women play the sex card

Some years ago, a woman by the name of Theresa Nielsen Hayden declared the following about a certain male individual.

"Going through Vox Day's comments here is like reading erotica written by someone who -- well, in the immortal words of Xander Harris, "You've never had any tiny bit of sex, have you?" It's really, really obvious that VD is not acquainted with actual women. I don't just mean sexual relations. I mean he's had little or no social interaction of any sort....  It's pretty clear that VD fears and dislikes women, and that his gender theories are a back-formation. It seems perfectly appropriate that he's a fan of that patently misogynistic suspected female impersonator, Ann Coulter."

Now, keep in mind, the picture above is of the woman who said this.  Moreover, she said that about a man who was not only an athlete from a wealthy, attractive family, but a founding member of an award-winning rock band with three Billboard-charting dance hits.  How does this make any sense at all?  Why would a grotesque toad like Nielsen Hayden ever claim something so patently ridiculous?

The reason is that most men are insecure about their sexual appeal.  Women know this and they instinctively attempt to play on that insecurity in an attempt to gain the upper hand.  This is fairly automatic for them, no matter how low they are on the totem pole, because they are accustomed to thinking of themselves as the pursued, ergo, the more desirable, even if this has absolutely no possible relationship to the actual male-female interaction involved.

And consider: if an obese troll like this is going to attempt to play the sex card with a man who wouldn't dream of touching her with his worst enemy's 10 foot-pole in his scariest nightmare, what will a normal girl who is actually in your league going to do?  The answer is to maintain frame.  Ideally, your response to a woman playing the sex card should be to respond exactly as if the girl looks like Ms Nielsen Hayden, with a mixture of amusement and genuine horror.

We apologize in advance for any nightmares this post may inadvertently inspire.

Why gammas love Star Trek

I've never, ever, been able to figure out the appeal of Star Trek to otherwise intelligent people, nor understood why so its fans are so reliably low in the socio-sexual hierarchy.  But in reading Tom Simon's essay on The Silmarillion, a minor comparison suddenly explained the nature of Star Trek's appeal to the gammas and low deltas of the world, particularly The Next Generation, to me:

Gone, too, are the interesting dissensions among the Valar, for Tolkien in his old age found such things impossible to reconcile with his theological preoccupations. It is duller than the earlier story, for precisely the same reason that Dante’s Paradiso is duller than his Inferno, or that Paradise Regained is duller than Paradise Lost. Or to take another example, distinctly lesser but perhaps more familiar, it is like the difference between the original Star Trek and Star Trek: The Next Generation. The second series was more polished and ambitious than the first, but when Gene Roddenberry laid down the law that there should be no interpersonal conflicts among the crew of the Enterprise D, much salt went out of the work. The friendly sparring of Spock and McCoy, or of Ulmo and Ossë, was an element that should not lightly have been lost.

Gammas hate and fear dissension and open conflict.  So, to a lesser extent, do women. This ban on interpersonal conflicts is precisely why Star Trek was, and is, pure rabbit entertainment. It allows them to indulge in vicarious, collective heroism that does not pay the cost that classic tales usually require of the hero, which is his exclusion from the ordinary folk.