Saturday, May 30, 2015

Telling the Truth to Hurt People

There is a discussion on my blog about Satan being the father of lies and murder. Murder is a lot worse than lying, obviously, but I make the argument it is only necessary to tell the truth when the person has to know it. And some people tell the truth to hurt people. I've seen it.

Let's take a fictional example in Breaking Bad. Jesse is hiding under a car and Walt tells the truth and turns him in.

After Jesse is captured, Walt again tells the truth and tells Jesse he watched Jesse's girlfriend, Jane, die.

Both of the things Walt did was to hurt Jesse. He told the truth to hurt Jesse.

When you tell the truth to sadistically hurt people, that is devilish.

Friday, May 29, 2015

The Five Characteristics of Leftists






Not surprisingly, from a Christian viewpoint there are the characteristics of Satan. The logical conclusion: leftists are Satanic. Since feminism is leftist, it is Satanic and wants only to destroy.

Wednesday, May 27, 2015

"Industrial Success, Dysgenic Failure"

I think it's worse than this. It's not surprisingly women are foolish enough to think they can have career followed by their Dream Man, but the lousy economy and laws against men are encouraging men, even the smart ones, to not get married and have kids. On the other hand, the lower classes are pretty fecund. But not the smart.

This article is from Henry Dampier.

Earlier this year, I read Richard Lynn’s Dysgenics. Unfortunately, I don’t remember all that much from it, in part because it was just retelling a lot of history that I was already aware of from a separate perspective.

The push-back against Darwin by secular thinkers has been far more wide-ranging and successful than the reaction against it by religious thinkers ever was. I remember seeing a performance with Brian Dennehy some years ago of Inherit the Wind, and I think that’s still the extent to which the urban left views evolution: it’s a brickbat to thwack the Williams Jennings Bryans of the world, rather than a theory that describes human evolution as well as it does for other species.

The same people who will snicker at Texans and Kansans for being hicks who don’t believe in evolution will accuse you of being an evil bigot for believing in human evolution.

One of the reasons that this might be is that, politically, it’s difficult to suggest that the consequences of the Green and Industrial revolutions may not have been entirely benign. By weakening selection pressures on the species, we have been deteriorating ourselves in terms of genetic quality.

Shutting off this inquiry has likely lead to an enormous number of health problems in the general population. Making evolutionary thinking unpopular is one of the reasons why sensible dietary advice and research has had to go underground, until recently becoming successful with such buzzwords like ‘paleo diet’ gaining currency, with a backing in evolutionary theory.

The idea of human evolution is also quite threatening to the pretensions of the egalitarian left, which holds that anyone can be remade into anything with the right education. If it in fact takes generations for major changes to happen in generations, absent strokes of fortune, then many egalitarian pretensions must also fade away, and traditional emphases on family, family quality, and child-rearing become more readily understandable.

In particular, with knowledge of evolution, which is not entirely out of step with traditional emphases on blood and family honor, feminism turns from an important moral initiative into something that’s easier to perceive as a dire social problem. To the extent that you encourage the smartest women from the best families to turn themselves into dissolute corporate strivers, you also encourage the race if not the species to destroy itself in terms of quality.

The push to get more women into more high-performance career tracks at the expense of having children stops looking like a noble, heroic advancement of the species, and more like the cannibalization of the world’s genetic cream to try to squeeze out a few percentage points of greater output temporarily before an enormous crash. The demographic collapses in Japan, Germany, the rest of Europe, and even the United States are coincident with high rates of female education and serious workforce participation outside the home.

You have these goofy initiatives about ‘teaching women to code,’ in the present, instead of teaching them to bear sons who will learn to code in 15 years, and will be better at it and be more capable of sticking with it than the women are. Such initiatives are aimed at producing greater profits for companies in a few years, but what happens in 30 years when those same women barely succeed at reproducing themselves effectively?

Sure, you can try to replace a single bright white person with 50 mestizos, but the type of output that you’re going to get from the replacements is not going to be the same, and the culture is not going to be the same either.

Further, encouraging later births also encourages greater birth defects, which further damages the ability of the best and brightest to reproduce itself effectively.

These sorts of programs to deal with dysgenic consequences of inane policies tend to dance around the root causes, because the root causes are the people who shape the policies, and the societies that have forsaken in the future in favor of the present.

Welfare to Men Only?

Our modern society, via government policy, is attempting to make men (specifically fathers) optional. That's bizarre, to put it mildly. Because it's married men with children who are the bedrock of society. Without them society goes down the tubes

Not that all surprisingly, PUAs/cads couldn't really exist without modern technology, which allows such an extensive culture (through fast travel) and also the ability to escape the consequence of what they do by running away.

How what would happen if struggling men got welfare and women got none? Chew on that for a while (I'll give you a hint: women are already 100% dependent on men but don't know it; without welfare (including Affirmative Action) they'd know it. And be shocked.

This is from VDARE.

Via @charlesmurray, at West Hunter anthropologist Henry Harpending writes:

Briefly we are likely to find dad males/coy females in ecological situations where male labor and resources are critical for successful reproduction. Think of labor-intensive agriculture, European peasants and Asian farmers, as examples. In the United States in the past, “working class” meant stable mated pairs who together provisioned and cared for children. An archetype of working class in American television was Archie Bunker.

Social organization with cad males and fast females is found prominently among tropical gardeners where women provide most of the food for themselves and their children as well as for the men, who are often just parasites on the women. The euphemism in economics for these societies is “female farming systems”. These share many characteristics with our industrial “underclass” in which women have no ecological force pushing them into long term stable pair bonds.

Notice that in each of the above descriptions there are two hands clapping: in cad/fast social systems neither a coy female nor a dad male does very well while in dad/coy systems neither a fast females nor a cad male does very well. The two polar social types are deeply rooted in contemporary politics. The zany feminism of the 1980s (“a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle”) precisely advocated the cad/fast setup. Our religious right with its chatter about “the natural family” and “stable marriages” and the like pushes hard for a dad/coy world.

Back to our our social engineers who know biology. They share a goal of a society in which dad males mate with coy females because children enjoy the care and security of a stable home and streets safe from gunfire. The new policy is simple: welfare payments are to be given only to males.

Henry promises an upcoming post with details on how to make this work.

Tuesday, May 26, 2015

Snake in the Grass

I've mentioned I've known about the word "nachash" for a while. At least ten years, since I wrote this in 2005.

When I was in college my girlfriend mentioned to me a guy she knew had told her about me, "You can do better than that." I had met him once and had a short but pleasant conversation with him. Why, I wondered, would he say such a thing about me?

The answer was immediate: he would have liked to take her away from me. He envied me. She was a cute one, it was true. Cute and smart, the kind he wanted but apparently couldn't get. So he wanted what I had. He was, to use a common expression, a snake in the grass. He was talking behind my back.

We use the term "snake" to refer to someone who is a backstabber. Apparently, this particular meaning has been used for thousands of years. Think of one of the best-known myths in the Western world, that of the serpent in the Garden of Eden.

Traditionally, the serpent in the Garden is a symbol of envy, because he wants to bring Adam and Eve down because they are the favorites of God. The word it's translated from is "nachash," which is a very interesting word indeed.

It doesn't literally mean "serpent." It has several interrelated meanings: to hiss or whisper like a snake, enchanter, prognosticator.

The word "enchant" means "to chant," as in hypnotize. Same thing as a "spell," meaning "tale," or "the use of words." The nachash used words in an attempt to cast a "spell" on Eve, to get her to do what he wanted so he could bring her and Adam down.

That's what the envious do. They don't come out and say, "I envy you." Usually they can't even admit it to themselves. Of all the Seven Deadly Sins, envy is the only one that isn't any fun. It is, in fact, one of the most corrosive feelings in the world.

Helmut Schoeck, in his magisterial work, Envy, described envy as "a drive which lies at the core of man's life as a social being…[an] urge to compare oneself invidiously with others." He considered it inborn. Perhaps it is, although the intensity varies in the person, from intense to almost non-existent.

Schoeck came to some surprising conclusions. After showing the ubiqitiousness of envy in primitive cultures, including the superstitious terror of arousing the envy of their gods, and that it was a crippling barrier to progress, Schoeck argued that one of Christianity's greatest achievements was in freeing people to progess, for it "provided man for the first time with supernatural beings who, he knew, could neither envy nor ridicule him," and who offered strong moral condemnation of envy.

Of all the myths I am familiar with, only that of the Garden of Eden condemns envy as a truly bad thing, because it sees it is essentially the cause of the overwhelming majority of evil in the world. Private property, Schoeck claimed, emerged not as the cause of envy, as egalitarians assert, but as a defense against it -- "a necessary protective screen between people," deflecting envy that would otherwise be directed at people onto material goods.

The envious are subtle about their envy, they backstab, they whisper, as Iago whispered to Othello. They attempt to tell the future, to prognosticate. Essentially what my envious backstabbing acquaintance was telling my girlfriend was, "If you leave him for me, it will be better for you." He was attempting to cast a spell on her, to get her away from me. He just wasn't very good at it. Actually, he was terrible, because he was so obvious. But as Aesop noticed, envy always shows. Whenever you see someone trying to pull someone else down, it is almost always caused by envy.

In the myth, when God catches Adam and Eve, Adam blames Eve, and Eve blames the serpent. Blaming other people for our problems is the first defense everyone engages in, and is, as M. Scott Peck has noticed, the genesis of evil in the world. He called it scapegoating. The myth tells us most scapegoating --blaming others for our problems -- is caused by envy. Perhaps not all of it is caused by envy, but probably almost all of it.

That myth, thousands of years old, is a wise and perceptive one. It tells us envious people whisper behind our backs in an attempt to bring us down. They are never upfront. They attempt to cast a spell on the intended, to tell them how wonderful their future will be if they listen. After all, the serpent did tell Eve, "surely you will not die."

The clearest example of envy in a movie I'm familiar with is Amadeus. Salieri is eaten alive with his envy of Mozart. So what does he do? He devotes his life to ruining Mozart, and doing it in such a subtle, devious way that Mozart always thinks Salieri is his friend. Salieri does it behind Mozart's back, he whispers to people, he attempts to cast a spell on them. He is a snake. Of course, he blames Mozart for his failures as a musician. And he ends his life in an insane asylum.

Of all the political systems in the world, the one that has been the most destructive, that has caused the most deaths, is socialism. The heart of it, that which it's based on, is envy. That's why socialists are egalitarians. If everyone is the same, they think, and has the same, then there will no envy. Instead, this attempt to bring Heaven to earth instead bought the worst Hell the human race has ever experienced.

The one political system that is the least conducive to envy is the free market. As the ancient Greek philosophers noticed, the benign form of envy is admiration. At least under the free market, people have a chance to be upwardly mobile. They can attain the same heights, or close to the same heights, as those they envy. They can admire them instead of envying them.

The problem with the human race is not that people are stupid or evil. They're half asleep, hynotized. I am reminded of Kaa, the snake in Kipling's The Jungle Book. In the movie Kaa enchanted his victims by singing to them (and the word "nachash," can also mean "singing"). Kipling also wrote that "words are the most powerful drug ever invented." He was right.

Envy will never be gotten rid of entirely, as long as people are half-awake. It is, as the serpent tells us, part of our animal nature, and will be until our animal nature is overcome, if such a thing is possible. But if not possible, envy can at least be minimized.

Not a Serpent but a Nachash

"Nachash, the snake within man, is the radical egotism which causes an individual being to make of itself a center and to relate everything else to it." - Sacred Texts

"Eve was not talking to a snake. She was speaking to a bright, shining, upright being who was serpentine in appearance, and who was trying to bewitch her with lies." - Sound Doctrine Ministries

I've known for years it wasn't a snake or serpent in the story of the Garden of Eden. It was a nachash, which means "shining one" and to "hiss or whisper" like a snake (and as in the whispering of soothsayers - those who claim they can tell the future). For that matter, "Lucifer," which appears only once in the Bible, also means "shining one." (Not surprisingly one of the negative aspects of the word "Lucifer" means "to boast.")

A "shining one" would appear to be good but in reality is bad. Isn't that the way it always is? And who does the nachash first target? The woman.

Women oftentimes look at the surface of things. Being run by their feelings and lacking analytical ability (not all but a lot) of course they'll fall for something that looks good on the surface.

The nachash is also described as "subtle," as in "crafty and cunning."

So then, all you have to do to con most woman is to shine, to boast, to be crafty and cunning and deceive them. To tell them, like a soothsayer, that things will get better for them if they listen to liars. After all, women are the daughters of Eve, just as men are the sons of Adam.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Monday, May 25, 2015

Genesis 3:16

There is a lot of good, solid, practical wisdom in the Bible. Let's take the correct translation of Genesis 3:16:

"Then he said to the woman, 'I will sharpen the pain of your pregnancy, and in pain you will give birth. And you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you.'

"CONTROL your husband."

That's in the first book of the Bible. How many people know the correct translation? How many ministers have preached sermons on it? None, perhaps?

Women cannot run societies. That's why there has never been a matriarchy. The closest these days is black culture, and it is a complete and utter catastrophe. It couldn't get more dysfunctional.

There is a good reason women have been traditionally been denied the vote. As an example, they're the ones who put Hitler into office (and yes, he was democratically elected).

Ultimately women don't want freedom. When they're allowed to do as they please, they want license and therefore degrade themselves and the culture.

Just look around.

And damn if men didn't let them do it.

"The Keynesian Sexual Marketplace"

I don't accept the "social-sexual hierarchy" and the classifications of Alpha/Beta/Whatever because it goes completely against my experience - and I have a lot of it.

I have never met an "alpha" because they don't exist - at least the commonly-accepted definition: "The alpha is the tall, good-looking guy who is the center of both male and female attention. The classic star of the football team who at a social gathering like a party, he's usually the loud, charismatic guy telling self-flattering stories to a group of attractive women who are listening with interest. However, alphas are only interested in women to the extent that they exist for the alpha's gratification, physical and psychological, they are actually more concerned with their overall group status."

That's a psychopath/narcissist and they should be referred to as such. They're incapable of love. As for someone fitting the entire definition - they don't exist.

The PUAs I've met have been cowards and douches, every one of them. In fact every one of them has been the bottom-of-the-barrel, even if they made a lot of money (which flowed through their fingers like water). They see women as narcissistic supply for their character disorders.

Everyone I've met who has the "Dark Triad" has been a criminal/alcoholic/drug addict who is now dead from drugs, murdered or in prison. None has been popular with women.

I got to know a lot of whores when I owned a taxi and some of the guys who were their customers were bottom-of-the-barrel sex perverts. A lot of drug addicts are, too. I had one living my back room years ago (because he had no place to stay) before he killed himself because of his 30-year drug addiction. He also held a semi-automatic pistol against his slut/whore/drug addict "girlfriend"'s head when I was in the front room and had no memory of doing so. He was also a kink who, it turned out, wore women's silk underwear. Among other things.

As for his "girlfriend," I once woke up in the middle of the night to find her giving me a blowjob - with her "boyfriend" sleeping in my back room. And the cops stopped me on the street wanting to know why this whore was living in my apartment - which was when I found out she was a whore.

After his skeleton was found in the woods (after six months) a cop showed up at my door (with the attitude we were gay lovers and I had killed him) wanting in to search the place. No dice on that. The second was a detective who informed me he was wearing women's underwear (which I found under his bed, along with hypodermic needles). No dice on his searching the place, either.

By the way, long before the internet I heard Ted Nugent babbling on TV about being an "alpha." I know something about this douche. He's been long known for liking teenage girls and I have one friend who knows him, since he and some friends were going to go into business with him. They decided not to, since Nugent is what the British call "unclubbable." He's not an "alpha"...he's close to being an "omega." Who just happens to have a lot of money.

I don't agree with everything in this article, of course, but it makes more sense than the cartoon concepts in a lot of the Manosphere..

This article is from the from No Ma'am blog and makes a lot more sense than mental cases like Roissy, buffoons like Roosh and the naive like Vox Day.

(This article was originally written in reference to an article which featured an interview with well-known PUA, Neil Strauss, who boldly stated his support for feminism - it caused a tizzy in the manosphere at the time, since many felt it is not possible to be pro-game and pro-feminist.)

The art of seduction, commonly known as "game," has become a big focus in the manosphere over the past few years. I would like to make clear that I believe many of the elements of game are real and I agree that men should know about the attraction triggers of women. Game is essential to understanding the problems that we face as men in society. Without this knowledge, men will continue to be run around in circles, never getting anywhere – as has been evidenced over the past forty years. However, I learned about game in a bit different of a way than most. First, I learned via observation and through two friends of mine who both had extremely high partner counts - one I estimate has slept with 200 people and the other I suspect is in the 400 range. (Both are 40'ish now and the numbers add up over the decades). Things like social proofing and increasing one's sexual market value by "climbing" from one chick to the next I had figured out on my own by the late 1990's. But it wasn't until I read the Book of Bonecrcker at somewhere around 2005 or 2006 that I really seen it laid out in print in a way that corresponded with my own life experiences and observations.

The Bonecrcker is different from much of the game-o-sphere in one key way: His definitions of Alpha, Beta & Omega are entirely different from the conventional definitions we are using today. I still believe that he is closer to the underlying "Truth" with his ordering of these definitions because he goes beyond merely "scoring" and a high partner count in his definitions, for he includes social status and the ability to co-operate with other men - in order to create power - as part of his definition of "alpha."

Here are the definitions I learned it under, which will make sense further along in my argument.

Alpha: The “top” male – both sexually and socially.

Beta: Most males in the population. The average guy.

Omega: The scum/deviant/criminal class

Zeta: Weak-willed males

Alpha males don’t usually get the most partners. Alpha males get the best chick around and she beats off all the other women with a stick. Alpha males are respected in society – they are not only sexually attractive, but they also have great social power and have the respect and admiration of other men. Think back to when you were in high-school. The star quarterback, while he could have shagged a lot of 6’s, 7’s and 8’s, that is not generally what he does. What happens is he gets the prom queen – the best/hottest chick – and they usually stay together for quite a while. He does not trade his “10” in for quickies with a series of “7’s”. The top male pairs off with the top female and they tend to stay together.

Keep in mind that female hypergamy comes into play with the Alpha. If the prom queen is dating a "10", then who would she "trade up" for? Most men are not 10's and there is pretty much only one Alpha in any closed group (it's zero sum). Most males are 5's (average), leaving the range from 6 to 10 for female hypergamy to wish to trade up for when she's dating an "average guy." At the top end of the scale, however, there become very, very few prospects for her to view as better than her current 10, and so the top pair tends to stay together.

“Beta” males are almost all other males. They are not weak wimps, as they are so often derided as. They are merely the males that come in second place (or further). Not everyone can win the footrace and place 1st. The sexual marketplace is a zero sum game. There cannot be 12 alphas of equal sexual-social rank. It just doesn’t work that way with hypergamy. She prefers only the best, and that does not refer to the “top dozen,” but only number one is “The Best.” Beta males generally have more sexual partners than Alpha males as they screw around lots when they are younger and sort out their socio-sexual rankings before finding the right socio-sexually ranked female to pair off with. Being 2nd place does not mean you are a slow runner – it merely means you are second place, which is still higher than third, which is still better than fourth. You cannot have 12 firsts – except in modern feminist-inspired schoolyard sports.

“Omega” males are the scum class as well as the sexually deviant class. These are the bad-boys and these are also the guys who have multiple sex partners. A key characteristic of Omega males is that they cannot form stable relationships. They are not powerful like Alpha males. They might get lots of girls, but essentially they are powerless in society and have little real respect from those around them - especially other males. Girls may screw them, but girls don’t stay with them. Not having the respect of other males makes them socially powerless, and this is the key to why they are not Alpha males.

“Zeta” males are weak-willed males. They rarely get sex and when they do, they are ruthlessly manipulated and exploited by women.

When the game community talks “Alpha” they are really describing “Omega” and when they say “Beta” they are really describing “Zeta.” The proper references to Real Alphas and Real Betas are missing.

Now, one has to keep in mind that since the rise of feminism in our culture, most males have been relentlessly propagandized to believe that Zeta characteristics are the proper ones. After 40 some years of this, as well as a healthy heaping of totalitarian styled laws removing all sorts of powers from the average male, indeed, if most males are “Beta” males (ie. average people), then it is true that this indoctrination has indeed encouraged and tricked the average man into taking on many characteristics of the weak-willed Zeta. In this sense it is understandable to confuse the modern Beta with the traditional Zeta.

However, it is entirely false to confuse the Alpha with Omega traits. One must keep in mind that human beings naturally exhibit pair-bonding and Alphas still pair bond while Omegas do not. Most high partner count people I know, such as my two friends I mentioned above, are Omegas, not Alphas. They are sexual deviants with numerous sexual partners but their social ranking is low and that is why they need to continually game more than one woman at a time. They can only fool a woman into believing they are Alpha for a short amount of time and they have little ability to actually keep a woman of high mating value. Another reason they continually need to have more than one chick on the go is to protect their own emotional vulnerability. Of course, this behaviour also provides the Omega male with social proofing, which helps them get more chicks, but this is a different kind of social proofing than that which the Alpha male gets.

The “true” Alpha – the high-school football star who’s screwing the prom queen - doesn’t need to be sexually promiscuous in order to be social proofed. He is social proofed already by dating the best chick. All the other girls “know” who the best chick is, and they hate her with an envy that would turn Kermit the Frog three shades greener than he already is. Also, every girl would like to replace the prom queen herself, because they all know that the prom queen’s boyfriend is the highest value male and whoever can displace the prom queen will become the new female atop of their female ranking. In other words, the “real Alpha” doesn’t need to screw dozens of chicks to have social proofing. He’s already got it by banging the hottest chick, which every other girl wishes she could be. Should he and the prom queen split, there will be a plethora of women from the lowest sexual rank to the highest trying to achieve status by being the prom queen’s replacement. He will be snapped up again very, very fast by another very high value female, and he will again ignore all the women below that level.

Another factor that has enabled Omega behavior to be successful is urban anonymity. It is easy to be a “sexual sniper” in the big city where the Omega can easily disappear into the background before the valuable Beta class finds him out and ruins his life. You cannot rise in socio-sexual ranking when you are constantly cuckolding all those around you, whose co-operation you would need in order to gain social power in society. Keep in mind that urban growth is a relatively recent phenomenon in human history. For most of history humans lived in relatively small, rural communities and they needed the co-operation and respect of those around them, especially other males, in order to survive.

An apt example of these forces and their results is found within economics. In Keynesian Economics, we see all kinds of market distortions. Low/negative real interest rates discourage savings in favor of spending – and anyone with half a brain knows that you can’t spend yourself to prosperity. However, when faced with falsely imposed negative interest rates, spending money suddenly does make more sense than saving money which will have less value in the future. In Keynesian Economics, low interest rates also lead to excessive speculation, when anyone with a quarter of a brain knows that sound investing is more profitable in the long run than risky speculation.

In the same way, what we really have going on in society is almost a “Keynesian Sexual Marketplace.” In other words, a false economy based on Government Totalitarianism, enabled by Urban Anonymity, and fortified by relentless propaganda encouraging the “average Beta” to assume the traits of the weak-willed Zeta – with some further false sexually economic factors in the form of the pill and abortion – all combining to skew the “free sexual market.” The whole thing is as false as fiat money is to gold, and should these factors be removed, humans would likely revert back to a more traditional sexual marketplace – the kind often ballyhooed about in foreign cultures where things are not as far along in their screwed-upness as ours.

If it were not for things like government totalitarianism, women who mate with the scum class would find survival very difficult for themselves and their spawn. Many would likely die – and rightfully too, according to nature - for choosing an anti-survival strategy of mating with powerless Omegas who are unable to properly pair-bond. “True Alpha” males – those with high social and sexual value – would survive the best, as they have the best ability to provide, and all the lower ranking males and females (the Beta class), would again quickly pair off simply for survival’s sake. No animal, with the exception of perhaps lemmings, chooses anti-survival methods of living.

As for the Omega class, were it not for urban anonymity where they can disappear before being forced to deal with the consequences of their actions, they too would likely disappear quickly – most likely at the hands of the socially valuable Alphas and Betas. If you lived in a rural community and decided to try and screw 100 of the local women, you can almost be guaranteed to make at least 100 very motivated lifelong enemies. Keep in mind that women are like monkeys and don’t let go of one branch until they’ve gotten hold of another. Each time an Omega “scores” another man gets screwed over. Except for virgins, pretty much all women are romantically involved with someone at the time they decide to discard the old for the new. This is not conducive behavior for gaining social power amongst the other males surrounding the Omega male, and in fact will soon leave him completely powerless and struggling for survival. If an Omega were the town blacksmith and he screwed 100 of the local women, he would soon find a large portion of the town shunning him and taking their business to the next town, if someone didn’t outright kill him first for his cuckolding behavior. There is very, very little survival value for a woman and child to be attached to an Omega male. Without government welfare picking up the slack and creating a “Keynesian Sexual Marketplace,” the natural market would soon see both the Omegas and their lovers removed from the race.

And herein lies the quandary with “game” as it is put forth in the Manosphere today. We have the Omega class (low value males – lower than Beta) posing as Alphas (high value males), and since Omegas are the scum class rather than socially powerful Alphas who have other males’ cooperation (along with high female attraction), the Omegas are flourishing while Beta males are floundering after being relentlessly propagandized to emulate the weak-willed traits of the Zetas. And, in many ways, Omegas are scum for how they treat other males. There are many who believe that when out pussy-hunting, it is their right to screw other men’s wives and then get a chuckle at their cuckolding of other men. This is deviant behavior, and certainly not “Alpha.”

I have seen it pointed out before in Game circles that “Alphas” like to consider all women “theirs” and will try to undermine the “Betas” to protect his harem. This is, I believe, incorrect. It is deviant Omega behavior that does this. The Alpha has lots of social co-operation in society because he has only one chick – the hottest one – and he stays with her, thereby not screwing over multitudes of other men whose cooperation he needs in order to accomplish things. It is the Omegas that choose to screw multitudes of people over in order to achieve their sexual goals.

The Omega male will also support feminism in many regards, as it makes women sexually loose and into bonafide sluts. The Omega gamesman wants women to be sluts with a screwed up, anti-survival sense of mating, and the Omega wants his sexual competitors to be denigrated, taking on Zeta male traits to the point of them being sexually unattractive to the females in his line of vision.

Most faux-Alpha Omegas are also actively trying to dominate other men (AMOG'ing) in order to raise their sexual ranking and are quite pleased when they succeed in doing so. This is deviancy and is not conducive to social climbing but rather, it produces the opposite. Both of my high-partner count friends I ended up ejecting from my life because the troubles they brought about to themselves, and by extension to me, was enormous. They also had no qualms of sleeping with their friends' girlfriends if they could get away with it. "Bro's before ho's" had no meaning to both of my high partner count friends and there was constantly a shit-storm following them around because of it. The one - the guy who has slept with around 200 women - was relentless in trying to cock-block his friends in regard to women, unless he had banged the woman first. As long as he had screwed the chick first, he was OK with one of his buddies dating her after. I also discovered over time that he had slept with almost all of his friends' wives behind their backs at one time or another - usually during times of marital difficulty - and he even had it down to a science. When you start hearing about "nailing your friend's wife game," you know you are getting into the deviancy quadrant.

Think of the guy in the pub who always tries to comb everyone else down with his superior IQ, his superior vehicle, his superior house, his superior fighting (bragging) skills, his superior blah blah blah, compared to your stupidity, your piece of crap car and house, your wimpy attitude… yeah, that is usually the guy that ends up sitting alone in the corner all alone because nobody likes him and nobody wants to co-operate with him. Now think of that same guy but he is trying to dominate you by sexually stealing your woman, and everyone else’s woman too! Not only is it homo-erotic to try and dominate other men by proxy through women, but it also might convince some of those men to get up out of their chair and deal with the situation in a very primal way. This is not the behavior of an Alpha who has high social standing, but is deviant behavior typical of the scum/criminal class, creating damage wherever they go.

On the other hand, I know two "true alphas."

They are both assertive and dominant with their women. The one guy is one of my best friends. My jaw just dropped when I seen him walk in with his new girlfriend - the absolute hottest girl in town.

You know what? He refused to have sex with her for the first two months they dated... said he didn't want to until he knew they had real feelings for each other (ie. qualifying). He also told her she was not allowed to work as a waitress at a pub or anything like that - he just would not stand for it, having all kinds of men at the pub always hitting on her.

She conformed herself around him and they have been together now for around 16 years. When you went to their house, you rang the door bell and knew you had to wait for five minutes because they had to get dressed - after 8 or 9 years, they still had sex four times a day. The last time I was there (I don't live in the same town anymore), he was in the shower while she called and left a dirty message for him on the answering machine... I was in the living room having a beer with his dad and he was in such a hurry to get out of the shower so we wouldn't hear that he fell, ripped the curtain off the shower, and ran out naked to stop the recording. His dad and I laughed at him repeatedly all night. But good for him it is like that after all those years.

The other "alpha" I knew was a guy who married a chick fifteen years younger. He was 40 and she was 25 when they met. They had been married for a little over ten years when I knew them. He had been through the divorce wringer before and told her they were going to follow traditional gender roles, and that was that.

They would have me over for dinner, and afterwards, I would try to help cleaning up and doing the dishes.

"No no no, Rob," he would say to me. "We follow gender roles in this house. You came here to help me put siding up on the house for a weekend and she didn't help because that was man's work. Now it is time for her to do her work. Let's go into the living room and watch NASCAR."

You know, it was one of the best working marriages I've ever seen. She was very happy.

Both of these men were very popular and had lots of friends as well as respect in the community. There is definitely a difference between these men and the two high-partner-count friends I had, who got into fist fights almost as regularly as they got laid. The two "true alphas" had enormous social respect and co-operation while the two high-number friends had a vast number of enemies and were always looking over their shoulder.

Does this mean that Game in the conventional sense that we have come to know doesn’t work? Absolutely not. It works very well – especially in our false sexual marketplace coupled with the ability to disappear into a large urban environment where getting along with others socially is not nearly as important as it was only 150 years ago, and throughout most of human history before that. Also, knowing that Beta males are being socially conditioned to adopt Zeta behavior is enormously useful to regular men/Betas. Hopefully it will help the average man reverse the damage which the Zeta-promoting feminist propaganda has brainwashed him with.

But Omega is not Alpha, because Omegas make too many enemies to be socially successful with other men, and when other men don’t want to co-operate with you, you may find yourself truly screwed in society, which in turn makes Omegas of extremely low mating (survival) value. If/when our governments go broke, as well as everyone else along with them, and the failures of society can no longer count on being “bailed out,” the false sexual marketplace will disappear. Without this government interference, women who choose low-value, high mate-count Omegas will again be forced to pay, and pay dearly, for their anti-survival mating strategies and the true Alpha & Beta paradigm will again reappear, simply because of survival strategy.

These are the times we live in. With Keynesian Economics and the false influences it causes, one would have been a complete fool to have sat in gold bullion from 1980 to 2000 while passing on the rising real-estate market because of “false Keynesian influences.” You still have to live in the times you are presented with until natural forces once again over-rule synthetic ones. In the mean time you have to survive and see that your needs are still met. And so it is in the sexual marketplace of today, where men have to adjust their behaviour to ensure their needs are met, and thus certain aspects of game are indeed advisable to utilize. Perhaps the term Ethical Omegas ought to be created. It is unadvisable to pair-bond in our current political climate and yet men's need for sex is very real and cannot be denied, thus men ought to make sure that their needs are met while protecting themselves as much as possible - therefore it is indeed wise to emulate certain Omega traits such as avoiding "one-itis." But, in the back of one’s mind, it would probably be wise to remember that we are living in the times of a false sexual economy and eventually natural forces will overwhelm the synthetic ones. Natural forces have a habit of doing that.

Sunday, May 24, 2015

Living Well is the Best Revenge

It's true; it really is the best revenge.

I've been reading some articles recently how to deal with feminists (who again are leftists and motivated by envy and therefore the desire to destroy men). Some advise you to be indifferent to them. That's not enough, because they'll still attack you.

Living well will drive them insane with envy and they'll still attack. So it has to be a combination of living well, being indifferent to them - and yet still attacking them ("the best defense is a good offence").

Old cliches wouldn't exist unless there was much truth to them...such as the unhappy don't want anyone to be happy.

"How To Screen For Female Receptiveness And Why"

The Manosphere really gets things confused with "the social-sexual hierarchy," the Greek alphabet soup, pick 'n' choose evo-psych, "the Dark Triad," "shit tests," made-up words like "hypergamy" get my drift.

When I was 17 I had a man tell me the masculine was the dominant (most guys don't have a clue what they really means - it means getting people to willingly listen to you and follow you), the active, the rational. The feminine was the emotional, the passive, the receptive. I've written before that Yang (the masculine) protects Yin (the feminine) and Yin supports Yang.

Turns out he was right, and he got that from history.

This article is from Franco Seduction and he makes a lot of sense, because he is using the facts, unlike the worst of the Manosphere with its belief that women are loveless "hypergamous" whores seeking "alpha" sperm and then seeking "betas" for "provisioning."

(By the way, I will get people saying, "Shit tests do exist" because the author mentions "tests." To which I respond: Since the Lost Boys of the Manosphere don't even know what the difference is between the masculine and feminine, they certainly know don't what these tests really are about.)

When you are looking for a relationship with a woman, you should screen for female receptiveness.

How you can seduce women effectively I have described in the Manual of Seduction.

Having the ability to pass the tests of virtually any woman, and have sex with her; is a good skill to have.

However, it can cause you to make wrong choices, even short-term wrong choices…not just the long-term ones.

There are female tests that are better to not pass, so you have more time to dedicate yourself to other, better women.

Female receptiveness is defined as the skill a feminine woman has of acting as a soft, receptive container to your masculine activity.

It is a psychological skill that has a physical component to it.

It is the power of the Yin.

The power of the Yin is not a passive act. Female receptiveness is an active act.

The female vagina is not only a physical entity, it is also a symbol.

The symbol is the skill of psychologically and physically “sucking in” the masculine. A real female has the skill of acting as a “black hole”, which lovingly takes the masculine inside.

Thus receptiveness has to be distinguished from passivity. A woman who is passive is not actually participating in the interaction; she is castrating the male, not favoring his actions.

Passivity from a woman can be one of the many ways a man can be emasculated in a relationship with an unreceptive woman.

Without feminine receptiveness, a weaker man will be very quickly emasculated by the woman, especially if he is not in touch with what is going on.

Stronger men will not be emasculated because of the protection offered by their instinct; they will sense what is happening, and they will become aggressive, bitter, and angry.

They will face constant pain and frustration in a relationship with a woman like this.

The rare men who are in touch with the meaning of feminine receptiveness will sense and understand what is going on, and simply will not enter into a relationship with a woman if she is not receptive.

Rarely will men have this skill, as feminine receptiveness does not have a place in heterosexual masculine culture. After all, if you were to be in touch with this skill, you would probably not be a man.

Understanding female receptiveness is a strength, not a weakness! It is only a different strength from the masculine ones you are used to.

The majority of the men will be blind to this huge power the Yin has over them.

Having sex with a woman who is not sexually receptive will be always a negative, bitter experience for a psychologically normal man.

Only a man who is a psychopath will be able to have sex with a woman who is not sexually and emotionally receptive and still enjoy it.

All the other men will face pain and frustration when faced with a woman who is not receptive and will very soon become unable to function.

With a female who is not sexually and emotionally receptive, the average man will either be forced into a spiral of repressed anger – which will in turn damage his health – or he will increasingly lose interest in sex with her.

Practical Advice For The Modern Man

That was the theory. Here is the practice.

When you are out dating women – regardless of what your goal might be: short-term, long-term, getting married, or maybe just adventure – always, always screen for female receptiveness.

You need to screen for female receptiveness from the very beginning, while at the same time running your dating game.

Passing the tests of a woman will in many cases surely get you a new sexual experience.

That is a good thing, but if you simply have sex as the only screening criteria, you had better be prepared to face some unpleasant surprises.

The pleasure you will get from that experience will be very limited, and it will soon turn into pain if the woman you met is unable to be sexually and emotionally receptive to you.

This is very important for the modern man to know: the social circles, the streets, and the workplaces of the industrialized world are full of women who are not able to be sexually receptive.

They either are not able, or do not want, to be that soft container a masculine man needs to be sexually active with a woman.

How do you detect quickly enough if is she a sexually receptive female?

I will be happy to share with you here the numerous signs you can learn to detect her receptive qualities.

General steps to follow

Passing her tests: timing and various strategies.

The seduction of a woman will always include on her behalf testing your strength as a man. In the Manual Of Seduction I have described how to recognize a female tests and pass them.

All women do this.

If a woman does not do this, it usually means that she is not attracted to you.

You can begin to screen her for female receptiveness even before you begin to pass her tests by detecting the deepest motives of how and why she tests you.

Begin by observing the nature of her tests. Not all the female tests are similar.

The way she tests you will tell you a lot about her degree of feminine receptiveness.

Generally speaking, one female test is her creation of a “fake danger.” This is to quickly detect how strong you are as a man.

For her, the meaning is the same as an investor or a marketer: testing the investment or the market quickly in order to immediately know what to do.

One of the fastest ways of knowing in advance if she is receptive as a female is to quickly detect the nature of her tests before you even decide if you want to pass them or not.


If her tests have the theme of a fight for a “one-upmanship”, you can be dead sure that she is not able to be receptive to you.

The proper approach with this kind of woman is the opposite of what the modern man seduction community predicates: it is better for you to not pass this kind of tests, and move on to the next woman.

If you want to practice, or you are a sadistic man and enjoy putting people down, just go ahead and then come back to tell me how you found out that this woman was in reality sexually frigid and unable to be loyal to you.

Alternatively, if her tests are meant to detect if you are able to lead her by the means of communication, then you probably have a feminine woman in your hands who is able to make you happy by being receptive to your masculine sexual desire.

The true feminine woman will not be passive. This is the most difficult thing to discern. The truly feminine woman will actively withdraw by being a container for your masculine activity.

Aggression and destructiveness in her tests

Are her tests meant to induce an aggressive, destructive reaction in you, or are her tests meant to detect the strength of your Ego and your ability to be a leader and protect other people?

If she tries to detect if you are a real man by inducing an aggressive reaction in you – which could possibly be destructive for her or your peers – you can be dead sure that she will be unable to be a receptive woman in a relationship with you.

So, if she tests you by putting you up to compete with her boyfriend, the possible outcome could be destructive in one sense or another.

Even if you get what you want, you will ultimately get a non-receptive woman for yourself, and that will make your relationship with her a nightmare afterward.

This would be a Pyrrhic victory for you.

The right approach is to not pass this kind of test. The right approach is to move quickly to the next woman.

Even if she is a champion of Kung Fu and you still managed to have her on the tatami with your strength, without female receptiveness the pleasure you will get will be about the same as dominating a gay male in a situation where you are stronger than him, though deeply heterosexual.

It is a little bit like eating ice cream that tastes like a stone. You will only get a very poor quality of pleasure and plenty of dangerous implications.

What some guys in the modern man seduction community teach is that “The more she tests you, the more dominant you need to be”. This is a double-edged sword that can turn against you in a longer interaction with her – or even in a short-term interaction.

If her tests are directed to detect your positive leadership qualities, your skill of withstanding long-term pressure, and her testing is directed to get power over your heart without any destructive implications for her… then you can go for it.

If you sense that “sweet and active withdrawing” when you pass her feminine tests for leadership, and her goal is power over your heart, then you have a receptive woman in your hands.

Two types of sexually frigid women: the masculine type and the passive type.

We might define the non-receptive woman as “sexually frigid”, and we might be right.

However, that is too simple a way of seeing it: there are no frigid women, only scared women or women who are out for power and have a reason for controlling their sexual desire.

Desire for power or fear is the main reason for a woman’s lack of female receptiveness towards a man.

So if you meet a woman who is not able to be receptive as a female, there can be two main reasons: she is controlling it because she has an agenda, or she is unable to express it because of fear.

Don´t think even for a second of becoming a “rescuer” to this woman; many men get into trouble for this reason!

You would need a lifetime to change her, and it would still not be enough.

In regard to an inability to express female receptiveness, there are mainly two types of women:

The ones who control female receptiveness by means of a battle for one-upmanship. These are much easier to recognize than the ones who control female receptiveness by shutting off it by means of total passivity.

The ones who hide the inability of being sexually receptive by means of extreme passivity.

You can recognize the females of the second group by the simple fact that they behave like a dance partner who needs to be “carried” during the dance like a stone.

The truly feminine woman who is receptive will test your leadership qualities and then dance with you by withdrawing just enough to be a container to your masculinity. Not more. Not less.

The second type of woman is even more dangerous as you can easily mix her up with a truly feminine woman.

The woman who hides her inability to be sexually receptive to a man by means of the “one-upmanship” confrontation is usually the woman I have described in other writings of mine as LSE HD (Low self-esteem high sexual drive), and the passive type is instead very often the one I have described as LSE LD (Low self-esteem low sexual drive)

Important to notice that the LSE HD can be very, very sexual but still be unable to be that feminine receptive container a truly masculine man needs to be happy.

With this type, you will surely get laid but… will lose the “political battle” for your role as a man in the relationship, because by getting you into her game of the “one-upmanship” she will manage to demonstrate that you effectively rape her, instead of truly getting her.

Cultural and non verbal signs

We live in a society with many subcultures all together in the same place. Officially, all of them are right as our society is pluralistic.

Many years ago I was superficial, and I believed that “fashion is only fashion”. Now I know better.

The way a person dresses is an extremely good predictor of what a person is.

If in her way of dressing and behaving there are “tough signs” telling of aggression, confrontation, and destructiveness, you can be dead sure that she will not be able to be receptive as a female.

If in her way of dressing and behaving there are signs of poor love for herself, lack of style, poor care of herself, or signs of “childish” attitudes, you can be dead sure that this woman is the non-feminine woman of the passive type, and not able to be receptive to you.

Why it is important to choose a woman who is able to be receptive to a man

You as a man can truly express your sexual desire when you have a woman involved on this mental level in the sex and the relationship.

If she resists that in one way or another, she will demonstrate afterwards that you are a man who rapes women and ultimately will castrate you psychologically by either getting you into a destructive, aggressive mindset or by having you slowly lose your sexual interest in her.

Focus on passing her tests, and focus on detecting if she is receptive as a female from the beginning of your dating!

You will never regret it!

Saturday, May 23, 2015

"Whom she will become depends on whom she meets"

"Yang protects Yin, Yin nurtures Yang"

"Women get unhealthy when they are not good at being receptive, because they are not utilizing their primary energetic trait, which is receptivity. Men become unhealthy when they do not utilize their gifts of contribution and creativity, which are their primary energetic traits." - Felice Dunas

Felice is taking about yang (masculine) and yin (feminine). There is more to it than that, but the definition written will do for now.

Years I heard a feminist say, somewhat bitterly, that women will always do what they're do. Their nature, ultimately, is passive and receptive - for good or bad. These days, women don't know this and even vehemently deny it.

The following article is from Julian O'Dea.

Dusk in Autumn asked:

“…if you’re a socially conservative guy who hates bars and nightclubs, would you rather date the Audrey Rouget character from Metropolitan or who she will tend to become at age 30?”

As I wrote here, it looks to me, from her cameo appearance in The Last Days of Disco, as if Audrey Rouget was still dating and dancing in her thirties. If she had married Tom, her life would have been very different, obviously, and so would she.

I am sure my wife is a vastly different woman than she would have been if she had married somebody else, or not married at all. I rather suspect men underestimate the profound effect they have on the life and ultimate character of women. Here is a post by Silas Reinagel which touches on this point, and mentions a post by the female blogger Alte, which is unfortunately no longer available, on women as “empty vessels”.

As Silas wrote:

“Not only do women generally absorb opinions, interests and mannerisms from their boyfriends/husbands, but their knowledgeability and competence regarding such hobbies, interests and stances are directly correlated with the knowledgeability and competence of their men. This lends even more support to the idea that men are naturally hard-wired to be dominant leaders and that women are hard-wired to follow, learn from, and support their men.”


Will S found the original post by Alte using the Wayback Machine, which includes many comments by her readers. There is an interesting discussion about WHY women tend to change to accomodate their “main man”.

It is terribly important who is a woman’s first. There is a deep truth to the recent, otherwise creepy, pro-Obama advertisement targeting young women, which is parodied here.

To return to the film Metropolitan, a lot of the dramatic point of the movie is whether Audrey’s “first time” will be with the evil Rick or maybe the more decent and enduring Tom. The thoughtful Charlie character actually frets that Audrey will be “ruined” by Rick, in the same way as he has “ruined” other girls.


I thought this comment from a woman was worth adding:

“This was the danger of giving women the vote … the voting bloc of single women … who lack the guidance of a man in the form of a husband or intellectual mentor.”

I don’t think Australian women have made too much of a hash of voting. But the hysterical reaction from our local feminists as our first female Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, continues to perform poorly has made me reconsider.

"The Problem With Having Your Life All Mapped Out"

Again, she is blaming (not all, but most) of her problems) on men. And apparently, to her, men are also responsible for women's feelings. Does she show any awareness of what she is doing? Nope.

This is from The Blog and was written by Kristin Armstrong.

I never imagined that I would be 43 and single.

After all, I had my life all mapped out. I was voted Most Likely to Succeed and Best Hair in my small Minnesota High School; I was going places. I was going to graduate from college with honors, naturally, and get a high-powered, high-paying job, buy a house, meet an exceptional guy by the time I was 25 and get married soon after and have a couple of kids before I turned 30 and started to get old.

Things started out according to plan. I did have good hair. I did graduate from college with honors. did have a decent career run going. I bought my first house at age 24. I did meet an exceptional guy and married him at age 26. I had my son when I was 28, twin girls at 30. But just as I was pulling out of newborn twin haze and getting ready to ease into the-rest-of-my-fabulous-life, the wheels came off (my husband was a cyclist). My marriage imploded, my life fell apart and I was suddenly a single mom at age 32 who hadn't worked since I got married. I had turned into the woman I made fun of when I was young, single, unencumbered and knew everything.

And while that was not very funny to me at the time, I can see a lot of humor in it now. I have grown up in a million ways and can't imagine my evolution happening on any other path. It's amazing what some time (OK, fine, a decade) and a little perspective (and therapy) can do.

I joke with my friends that it's not freaking funny to be dating, perhaps seen naked for the first time, precisely when the body is starting to shift and melt. When you shift and melt with your longtime love, they knew you back in the day, so they see you through a filter of loving timelessness. Or maybe their eyesight is fading too? They know that your soft tummy and breasts were caused by the stretch of growing their beautiful babies, or the lines by your eyes are the product of shared laughs, vacation sun or squinting together into the future. To be middle-aged and single can be rather awkward, especially if you can't laugh about it. We want to date men our own age, but they often go for a second round start up, only to wind up in the exact same place a few years later. If we go younger we're cougars, and if we go older we're trophies. Everyone judges everyone as hastily as the swipe of a Tinder finger. Book, Cover. I think I already read you. Sometimes married women don't think about this when they feel restless and unappreciated, curious about the other side.

I call this the Greener Grass phenomenon.

It's basically the same thing women have done throughout history. Curly-haired girls want straight hair, while straight-locked girls use curlers. Tall girls slouch and short girls wear heels; brunettes bleach their hair and blondes go Goth; flat girls get implants and big ta-tas get reductions; young girls dress too old and middle-aged mamas dress too young; fair-skinned maidens bake in the sun and leather ladies get dermabrasion; smart girls play dumb and dumb girls act smart. We wait and wonder about puberty and later wax everything off and get our tubes tied.

We are in a constant, futile cycle of thinking the grass is always greener.

Some married women complain that their husbands are controlling; they want sex all the time or else they are boring in bed; they don't help around the house or with the kids; they are married to their jobs or to their cell phones. Married gals get sick of cooking dinner, attending or hosting functions, taking the kids to church alone, being weekend widows to golfers, hunters or workout fanatics or asking a hundred times for something to be done or fixed and finally paying somebody else to do it. They are tired of having to run everything past someone else, as if they were an employee and unable to make plans or find solutions without an approval process.

They wonder what it would be like to feel like "that" again. The rush of emotion, nervousness and excitement that comes with the first blush of love (or lust, really, I mean, c'mon). They miss the way their heart skips a beat when he calls and the miraculous five-pound weight loss from lack of appetite (best diet ever). I contend that it isn't so much the way a woman feels about a man that creates this much flurry, but more the way a man can make a woman feel about herself. Married women miss this. They often feel unseen.

I think marriage has taken a major hit from technology. Think about it. Years ago, if a man wanted to perv out with porn, he had to drive at night to some godforsaken place near the airport with a neon sign and boarded up windows and creep in there like a cretin. Today, he can just peek over his shoulder to make sure she's got the kids in the tub and surf the web for any kind of sleaze. It's totally accessible and seemingly without consequence. The same goes for bored or lonely wives with the advent of Facebook. The last thing a neglected wife needs is to reconnect with her high school flame. Are you kidding me? That is the relational equivalent of throwing a grenade at a gas station. We can send emails, Facebook messages, tweets and texts from the perceived safety of our screen, peeking coyly behind it like a Googling geisha. It seems innocent enough at the time, but whether it's instant porn or instant messaging, it's all immediate gratification and it all escalates until it's not so innocent anymore.

So in classic greener grass mentality, married women miss the rush and single women miss the blah. I miss sleeping like spoons with someone whose arm fits over my waist as comfortably as my blanket. Someone whose sleeping sounds are as familiar to me as the songs on an overplayed CD from my college years. I miss Sunday afternoons and evenings when doing nothing together constitutes a very fine plan. I miss rummaging around for dinner fixings and deciding at the last minute to order takeout instead. I miss the banter over coffee, the crossing paths with a fly by kiss, the bed head hair, the bickering, the person reading over my shoulder, the safe, soft place to lean on the airplane, the dreams and plans. I miss somebody worrying if I'm late. I miss the smell of shaving cream and tiny flecks of hair in the sink. I miss getting bored and trying to spice things up. I miss being a family.

See, dating is nothing like this. Dating is more like frosting with no cupcake.

I can admit that it's nice sometimes to have cereal for dinner or shave my legs when I feel like it, or discipline or love my children consistently -- my way. I can decide how I spend my money, my vacations and my free time. I have a lot of freedom. But I think it's possible to have that kind of freedom within the confines of relationship, when it's the right relationship. I used to watch my babysitter plop on the sofa with my kids while they ate pizza and watched Animal Planet as I was about to leave on a date and I'd wish that I could pay my sitter to go on my date instead. I wanted to snuggle and watch TV with my kids while she determined if the guy was a chump or worth missing a night with my peeps. I wonder if there are rates for that sort of thing? Let's face it, the guy for me would likely rather stay home and eat pizza and watch Animal Planet, too.

It's ironic that a married woman might sit on her sofa, eating pizza and watching cable with her family and seethe or pine to be doing something else, someplace else, with someone else.

The whole greener grass mentality is loaded and somewhat dangerous. We peek across the fence into each other's yards and we wonder. We see lush green grass and we are too far away to notice the weeds, or the water bill. Sometimes greener grass is just rye grass; green for a season, then gone.

It's good to remember that our own gardens are worth tending.

"Roosh Is The Ideal Adversary"

I have a degree in Mass Communications and warn people to never appear on popular TV. They will set you up and massacre you every time. I've seen it and even set up people when I was a newspaper editor. You have to have the show to get your message across.

This article is from The Black Pill.

Mitchel asked the question, why does the media give Roosh a platform? This is an important question to ask. If your enemies are giving you a platform, it’s because they’re planning on kicking it out from under you at the right moment. That is pretty much what happened when Roosh went on the Dr. Oz show.

This point was made by Uncle Malky on Barbarossaaa’s blog.

Roosh is the ideal adversary. Here is a guy who writes multiple books on the topic of seduction (how to be a PUA) and has next door to 0 PR skills. He has to e-beg to keep his sorry-ass website going fer Chrissakes! All his big talk about how “Betas need to learn game.” HA HA HA! The average store manager at Trader Joe’s has more “game” than this clown.

Roosh gets a media platform because he is the perfect adversary for them. He walks into traps that would be obvious for just about anyone else. Plus, Roosh fails to make use of opportunities even while in those traps. For example, he could have asked the women on Dr. Oz who were attacking him about his fat shaming views if they would be attracted a homeless guy on the street. Roosh couldn’t even do that. Braininavat pointed out that the media gives Roosh a platform because they understand him. Part of that is because he won’t ask the hard questions given the opportunity.

To summarize, the media treats Roosh as a court jester, and Roosh is too stupid to realize it.

Friday, May 22, 2015

"The Education Disruption : 2015"

I despised public schools. I wasn't a good fit. I didn't so much despise high school, because I daydreamed it away and partied on the weekends. As for college I had about six classes I enjoyed.

Most college degrees aren't even necessary anymore. Occasionally I check to see what jobs are in demand and what is required for them, since I wonder why there is such a shortage for so many jobs. One is called a Data Analyst. One online educational site called Coursera (which is mentioned in the article) offers nine classes for $470 and the starting salary is about $35,000 a year. (I almost know enough to quality for such a job - and I taught myself most of it.)

I know a woman who has a M.S. in Geography and is $70,000 in debt. She's not employed in her field and never will be. She now works part-time. It's all she can find. (She went to a third-rate college, which even today is unbelievably expensive.)

It's got to the point the vast majority of college is worthless. Not just worthless but dangerous. And the cost is astronomical. It's supposed to be about the transmission of knowledge and culture but is utterly failing in its job.

The sooner it blows up the better it is for everyone.

This article is from the Futurist.

I was not going to write an article, except that this disruption is so imminent that if I wait any longer, this article would no longer be a prediction. Long-time readers may recall how I have often said that the more overdue a disruption is, the more sudden it is when it finally occurs, and the more off-guard the incumbents are caught. We are about to see a disruption in one of the most anti-productivity, self-important, and corrupt industries of them all, and not a moment too soon. High-quality education is about to become more accessible to more people than ever before.

The Natural Progression of Educational Efficiency : The great Emperor Charlemagne lived in a time when even most monarchs (let alone peasants) were illiterate. Charlemagne had a great interest in attaining literacy for himself and fostering literacy on others. But the methods of education in the early 9th century were primitive and books were handwritten, and hence scarce. Despite all of his efforts, Charlemagne only managed to learn to read after the age of 50, and never quite learned how to write. This indicates how hard it was to attain modern standards of basic literacy at the time.

Over time, as the invention of the printing press enabled the mass production of books, literacy became less exclusive over the subsequent centuries, and methods of teaching that could teach the vast majority of six-year-old children how to read became commonplace, delivered en masse via institutions that came to be known as 'schools'. Since most of us grew up within a mass-delivered classroom model with minimal customization, we consider this method of delivery to be normal, and almost every parent can safely assume that if their child has an IQ above 80 or so, that they will be able to read competently at the right age.

But consider what the Internet age has made available for those who care to take it. I can say with great certainty that the most valuable things I have learned have all been derived from the Internet, free of cost. Whether it was the knowledge that led to new incomes streams, new social capital, or any other useful skills, it was available over the Internet, and that too in just the last decade. Almost every challenge in life has an answer than can be found online. This brings up the question of whether formal schooling, and the immense pricetag associated with it, is still the primary source from which a person can attain the most marketable skills.

Why Education Became an Industry Prone to Attracting Inefficiency : To begin, we first have to address some of the adverse conditioning that most people receive, about what education is, what it should cost, and where it can be obtained. Through centuries of marketing that preys on human insecurity at being left behind, and the tendency to conflate correlation with causation, an immense bubble has inflated over a multi-decade period, and is at its very peak.

Education, which in the bottom 99.9% of classroom settings is really just the transmission of highly commoditized information, has usually correlated to greater economic prospects, especially since, until recently, very few people were likely to overtake the threshold beyond which further education would no longer have a tight correlation to greater earnings. This is why many parents are willing to spare no expense on the education of their children, even to the extent of having fewer children than they might otherwise have had, when estimating the cost of educating them. Exploiting the emotions of parents, the education industry manages to charge ever more money for a product that is often declining in quality, with surprisingly little questioning from their customers. We are so accustomed to this unrelenting rise in costs at all levels of education that few people realize how highly perverse it is.

Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit, with his books 'The Higher Education Bubble' and 'The K-12 Implosion', has been the earliest and most vocal observer of a bubble in the education industry. The vast corruption and sexual misconduct by faculty in K-12 public schools is described in the latter of those two books, but over here, we will focus mostly on higher education.

Among the dynamics he has described are how government subsidization of universities directly as well as of student loans enables universities to increase fees at a rate that greatly outstrips inflation, which in turn allows universities to hire legions of non-academic staff, many of whom exist only to politicize the university experience and further the goals of politicians and government bureaucrats.

As a result, university degrees have gotten more expensive, while the salaries commanded by graduates have remained flat or even fallen. The financial return of many university degrees no longer justifies their cost, and this is true not just of Bachelor's Degrees, but even of many MBA and JD degrees from any school ranked outside the Top 10 or even Top 5.

Graduates often have as much as $200,000 in debt, yet have difficulty finding jobs that pay more than $50,000 a year. Student loan debt has tripled in a decade, even while many universities now see no problem in departing from their primary mission of education, and have drifted into a priority of ideological brainwashing. Combine all these factors, and you have a generation of young people who may have student debt larger than the mortgage on a median American house (meaning they will not be the first-time home purchasers that the housing market depends on to survive), while having their head filled with indoctrination that carries zero or even negative value in the private sector workforce.

When you combine this erosion of value with the fact that it now takes just minutes to research a topic, from home and at any hour, that previously would have involved half a day at the public library, why should the same sort of efficiency gain not be true for more formal types of education that are actually becoming scarcer within universities?

Primed For Creative Destruction : Employers want skills, rather than credentials. There may have been a time when a credential had a tight correlation with a skillset that an employer sought in a new hire, but that has weakened over time, given the dynamic nature of most jobs, and the dilution of rigor in attaining the credential that most degrees have become. Furthermore, technology makes many skillsets obsolete, while creating openings for new ones. With the exception of those with highly specialized advanced degrees, very few people over the age of 30 today, can say that the demands of their current job have much relevance to what they learned in college, or even what computing, productivity, and research tools they may have used in college. Furthermore, anyone who has worked at a corporation for a decade or more is almost certainly doing a very different job than the one they were doing when they were first hired.

Hence, the superstar of the modern age is not the person with the best degree, but rather the person who acquires the most new skills with the greatest alacrity, and the person with the most adaptable skillset. A traditional degree has an ever-shortening half-life of relevance as a person's career progresses, and even fields like Medicine and Law, where one cannot practice without the requisite degree, will not be exempt from this loosening correlation between pedigree and long-term career performance. Agility and adaptability will supercede all other skillsets in the workforce.

Google, always leading the way, no longer mandates college degrees as a requirement, and has recently disclosed that about 14% of its employees do not have them. If a few other technology companies follow suit, then the workforce will soon have a pool of people working at very desirable employers, who managed to attain their position without the time and expense of college. If employers in less dynamic sectors still have resistance to this concept, they will find it harder to ignore the growing number of resumes from people who happen to be alumni of Google, despite not having the required degree. As change happens on the margins, it will only take a small percentage of the workforce to be hired by prestigious employers.

The Disruption Begins at the Top : Since this disruption is technological and almost entirely about software, perhaps the disruption has to originate where the people most directly responsible for the disruption exist. The program that has the potential to slash the costs of entry into a major career category is an online Master of Science in Computer Science (MSCS) degree through a collaboration between the Georgia Institute of Technology, Udacity, and AT&T. For an estimated cost of just $6700, this program can enroll 10,000 geographically dispersed students at once (as opposed to the mere 300 MSCS degrees per year that Georgia Tech was awarding previously). This is a tremendous revolution in terms of both cost and capacity. A degree that can make a graduate eligible for high-paying jobs in a fast-growing field, is now accessible to anyone with the ability to succeed in the program. The implications of this are immense.

For one thing, this profession, which happens to be one with possibly the fastest-growing demand, has itself found a way to greatly increase the influx of new contributors to the field. By removing both cost and geographical location, the program competes not just with brick and mortar MSCS programs, but with other degrees as well. Students who may have otherwise not considered Computer Science as a career at all, may now choose it simply due to the vastly lower cost of preparation relative to similarly high-paying careers like other forms of engineering, law, or medicine. Career changers can jump the chasm at lower risk than before, for the same reasons.

As fields similarly suitable to remote learning (say, systems engineering, mathematics, or certain types of electrical engineering) see MOOC degree programs created for them, more avenues open up. Fields where education can be more easily transmitted to this model will see an inherent advantage over fields that cannot be learned this way, in terms of attracting talent. These fields in turn grow in size, becoming a larger portion of the economy, and creating even more demand for new entrants above a certain competence threshold.

But these fields are still not the 'top' echelon of professional excellence. The profession that is the most widespread, most dynamic, most durable, and has created the greatest wealth, is one that universities almost never do a good job of teaching or even discussing : that of entrepreneurship. I have stated before that the ever-increasing variety of technological disruption means that the foremost career of the modern era is that of the serial entrepreneur. If universities are not the place where the foremost career can be learned, then how important are formal degrees from these universities? Since each entrepreneurial venture is different, the individual will have to synthesize a custom solution from available components.

Multi-Faceted Disruption : As The Economist has noted, MOOCs have not yet unleashed a 'gale of Schumpeterian creative destruction' onto universities. But this is still a conflation of the degree and the knowledge, particularly when the demands of the economy may shift many times during a person's career. Udacity, Coursera, MITx, Khan Academy, and Udemy are just a few of the entities enabling low-cost education at all levels. Some are for-profit, some are non-profit. Some address higher education, and some address K-12 education. Some count as credit towards degrees, and some are not intended for degree-granting, but rather for remedial learning. But among all these websites, an innovative pupil can learn a variety of seemingly unrelated subjects and craft an interlocking, holistic education that is specific to his or her goals.

When the sizes and shapes of education available online has so much variety, many assumptions about who has what skills will be challenged. There will be too many counterexamples against the belief that a certain degree qualifies a person for a certain job. Furthermore, the standardization of resumes and qualifications that the paradigm of degrees creates has gone largely unchallenged. People who are qualified in two or more fields will be able to cast a wider net in their careers, and entrepreneurs seeking to enter a new market can get up to speed swiftly.

Scale to the Topmost Educators : There was a time when music and video could not be recorded. Hundreds of orchestras across a nation might be playing the same song, or the same play might be performed by hundreds of thespians at the same time. Recording technologies enabled the most marketable musicians and actors to reach millions of customers at once, benefiting them and the consumer, while eliminating the bottom 99% of workers in these professions. Consumers and the best producers benefited, while the lesser producers could no longer justify their presence in the marketplace and had to adapt.

The same will happen to teachers. It is not efficient for the same 6th-grade math or 8th grade biology to be taught by hundreds of thousands of teachers across the English-speaking world each year. Instead, technology will enable scale and efficiency. The best few lectures will be seen by all students, and it is quite possible that the best teacher, as determined by market demand, earns far more than one currently thinks a teacher can earn. The rise of the 'celebrity teacher' is entirely possible, when one considers the disintermediation and concentration that has already happened with music and theatrical production. This sort of competition will increase quality that students receive, and ensure remuneration is more closely tied to teacher caliber.

Conclusion : It is not often that we see something experience a dramatic worsening in cost/benefit ratio while competitive alternatives simultaneously become available at far lower costs than just a few years prior. When a status quo has existed for the entire adult lifetime of almost every American alive today, people fail to contemplate the peculiarity of spending as much as the cost of a house on a product of highly variable quality, very uncertain payoff, and very little independent auditing. The degree of outdatedness in the assumption that paying a huge price for a certain credential will lead to a certain career with a certain level of earnings means the edifice will topple far more quickly than many people are prepared for.

2015 is a year that will see the key components of this transformation fall into place. Some people will be enter the same career while spending $50,000 less on the requisite education, than they may have expected. Many colleges will shrink their enrollments or close their doors altogether. The light of accountability will be shone on the vast corruption and ideological extremism present in some of the most expensive institutions (Moody's has already downgraded the outlook of the entire U.S. higher education industry). But most importantly, the most valuable knowledge will become increasingly self-taught from content available to all, and the entire economy will begin the process of adjusting to this new reality.

My Heroes Are Not Athletes and Actors and Singers

Those are entertainers and they have their place. But who cares about pictures of Kim Kardashian's greasy ass? Some people apparently care, and care very much.

One of the reasons I disliked public school so much is that is was boring and I never learned a damn thing past first grade.

In college I took a class in statistics and remember thinking, "Who the hell figured out the standard deviation is the square of the variance?" I could have never done it myself. It took me forever to get through that class. But then, I'm not a polymath. I'm not even gifted in math. I just slogged my way through.

What happened to polymaths, anyway?

This is from Wikipedia.

Sir Francis Galton, FRS was an English Victorian progressive, polymath, sociologist, psychologist, anthropologist, eugenicist, tropical explorer, geographer, inventor, meteorologist, proto-geneticist, psychometrician, and statistician. He was knighted in 1909.

Galton produced over 340 papers and books. He also created the statistical concept of correlation and widely promoted regression toward the mean. He was the first to apply statistical methods to the study of human differences and inheritance of intelligence, and introduced the use of questionnaires and surveys for collecting data on human communities, which he needed for genealogical and biographical works and for his anthropometric studies.

He was a pioneer in eugenics, coining the term itself and the phrase "nature versus nurture". His book Hereditary Genius (1869) was the first social scientific attempt to study genius and greatness. As an investigator of the human mind, he founded psychometrics (the science of measuring mental faculties) and differential psychology and the lexical hypothesis of personality. He devised a method for classifying fingerprints that proved useful in forensic science. He also conducted research on the power of prayer, concluding it had none by its null effects on the longevity of those prayed for.

As the initiator of scientific meteorology, he devised the first weather map, proposed a theory of anticyclones, and was the first to establish a complete record of short-term climatic phenomena on a European scale. He also invented the Galton Whistle for testing differential hearing ability.He was cousin of Douglas Strutt Galton and half-cousin of Charles Darwin.

Galton was born at "The Larches", a large house in the Sparkbrook area of Birmingham, England, built on the site of "Fair Hill", the former home of Joseph Priestley, which the botanist William Withering had renamed. He was Charles Darwin's half-cousin, sharing the common grandparent Erasmus Darwin. His father was Samuel Tertius Galton, son of Samuel "John" Galton. The Galtons were famous and highly successful Quaker gun-manufacturers and bankers, while the Darwins were distinguished in medicine and science.

Both families boasted Fellows of the Royal Society and members who loved to invent in their spare time. Both Erasmus Darwin and Samuel Galton were founding members of the famous Lunar Society of Birmingham, whose members included Boulton, Watt, Wedgwood, Priestley, Edgeworth, and other distinguished scientists and industrialists. Likewise, both families were known for their literary talent: Erasmus Darwin composed lengthy technical treatises in verse; Galton's aunt Mary Anne Galton wrote on aesthetics and religion, and her notable autobiography detailed the unique environment of her childhood populated by Lunar Society members.

Galton was by many accounts a child prodigy – he was reading by the age of two; at age five he knew some Greek, Latin and long division, and by the age of six he had moved on to adult books, including Shakespeare for pleasure, and poetry, which he quoted at length. Later in life, Galton would propose a connection between genius and insanity based on his own experience. He stated, "Men who leave their mark on the world are very often those who, being gifted and full of nervous power, are at the same time haunted and driven by a dominant idea, and are therefore within a measurable distance of insanity"

Galton attended King Edward's School, Birmingham, but chafed at the narrow classical curriculum and left at 16. His parents pressed him to enter the medical profession, and he studied for two years at Birmingham General Hospital and King's College London Medical School. He followed this up with mathematical studies at Trinity College, University of Cambridge, from 1840 to early 1844.

According to the records of the United Grand Lodge of England, it was in February 1844 that Galton became a freemason at the so-called Scientific lodge, held at the Red Lion Inn in Cambridge, progressing through the three masonic degrees as follows: Apprentice, 5 February 1844; Fellow Craft, 11 March 1844; Master Mason, 13 May 1844. A curious note in the record states: "Francis Galton Trinity College student, gained his certificate 13 March 1845". One of Galton's masonic certificates from Scientific lodge can be found among his papers at University College, London.

A severe nervous breakdown altered Galton's original intention to try for honours. He elected instead to take a "poll" (pass) B.A. degree, like his half-cousin Charles Darwin. (Following the Cambridge custom, he was awarded an M.A. without further study, in 1847.) He then briefly resumed his medical studies. The death of his father in 1844 had left him financially independent but emotionally destitute, and he terminated his medical studies entirely, turning to foreign travel, sport and technical invention.

In his early years Galton was an enthusiastic traveller, and made a notable solo trip through Eastern Europe to Constantinople, before going up to Cambridge. In 1845 and 1846 he went to Egypt and travelled down the Nile to Khartoum in the Sudan, and from there to Beirut, Damascus and down the Jordan.

In 1850 he joined the Royal Geographical Society, and over the next two years mounted a long and difficult expedition into then little-known South West Africa (now Namibia). He wrote a successful book on his experience, "Narrative of an Explorer in Tropical South Africa". He was awarded the Royal Geographical Society's gold medal in 1853 and the Silver Medal of the French Geographical Society for his pioneering cartographic survey of the region This established his reputation as a geographer and explorer. He proceeded to write the best-selling The Art of Travel, a handbook of practical advice for the Victorian on the move, which went through many editions and is still in print.

In January 1853 Galton met Louisa Jane Butler (1822–1897) at his neighbour's home and they were married on 1 August 1853. The union of 43 years proved childless.

Galton was a polymath who made important contributions in many fields of science, including meteorology (the anti-cyclone and the first popular weather maps), statistics (regression and correlation), psychology (synaesthesia), biology (the nature and mechanism of heredity), and criminology (fingerprints). Much of this was influenced by his penchant for counting or measuring. Galton prepared the first weather map published in The Times (1 April 1875, showing the weather from the previous day, 31 March), now a standard feature in newspapers worldwide.

He became very active in the British Association for the Advancement of Science, presenting many papers on a wide variety of topics at its meetings from 1858 to 1899. He was the general secretary from 1863 to 1867, president of the Geographical section in 1867 and 1872, and president of the Anthropological Section in 1877 and 1885. He was active on the council of the Royal Geographical Society for over forty years, in various committees of the Royal Society, and on the Meteorological Council.

James McKeen Cattell, a student of Wilhelm Wundt who had been reading Galton's articles, decided he wanted to study under him. He eventually built a professional relationship with Galton, measuring subjects and working together on research.

In 1888, Galton established a lab in the science galleries of the South Kensington Museum. In Galton's lab, participants could be measured to gain knowledge of their strengths and weaknesses. Galton also used these data for his own research. He would typically charge people a small fee for his services.

During this time, Galton wrote a controversial letter to the Times titled 'Africa for the Chinese', where he argued that the Chinese, as a race capable of high civilisation and (in his opinion) only temporarily stunted by the recent failures of Chinese dynasties, should be encouraged to immigrate to Africa and displace the supposedly inferior aboriginal blacks.

The publication by his cousin Charles Darwin of The Origin of Species in 1859 was an event that changed Galton's life. He came to be gripped by the work, especially the first chapter on "Variation under Domestication," concerning the breeding of domestic animals.

Galton devoted much of the rest of his life to exploring variation in human populations and its implications, at which Darwin had only hinted. In so doing, he established a research program which embraced multiple aspects of human variation, from mental characteristics to height; from facial images to fingerprint patterns. This required inventing novel measures of traits, devising large-scale collection of data using those measures, and in the end, the discovery of new statistical techniques for describing and understanding the data.

Galton was interested at first in the question of whether human ability was hereditary, and proposed to count the number of the relatives of various degrees of eminent men. If the qualities were hereditary, he reasoned, there should be more eminent men among the relatives than among the general population. To test this, he invented the methods of historiometry. Galton obtained extensive data from a broad range of biographical sources which he tabulated and compared in various ways. This pioneering work was described in detail in his book Hereditary Genius in 1869. Here he showed, among other things, that the numbers of eminent relatives dropped off when going from the first degree to the second degree relatives, and from the second degree to the third. He took this as evidence of the inheritance of abilities.

Galton recognised the limitations of his methods in these two works, and believed the question could be better studied by comparisons of twins. His method envisaged testing to see if twins who were similar at birth diverged in dissimilar environments, and whether twins dissimilar at birth converged when reared in similar environments. He again used the method of questionnaires to gather various sorts of data, which were tabulated and described in a paper "The history of twins" in 1875. In so doing he anticipated the modern field of behaviour genetics, which relies heavily on twin studies. He concluded that the evidence favoured nature rather than nurture. He also proposed adoption studies, including trans-racial adoption studies, to separate the effects of heredity and environment.

Galton recognised that cultural circumstances influenced the capability of a civilisation's citizens, and their reproductive success. In Hereditary Genius, he envisaged a situation conducive to resilient and enduring civilisation as follows:

The best form of civilization in respect to the improvement of the race, would be one in which society was not costly; where incomes were chiefly derived from professional sources, and not much through inheritance; where every lad had a chance of showing his abilities, and, if highly gifted, was enabled to achieve a first-class education and entrance into professional life, by the liberal help of the exhibitions and scholarships which he had gained in his early youth; where marriage was held in as high honour as in ancient Jewish times; where the pride of race was encouraged (of course I do not refer to the nonsensical sentiment of the present day, that goes under that name); where the weak could find a welcome and a refuge in celibate monasteries or sisterhoods, and lastly, where the better sort of emigrants and refugees from other lands were invited and welcomed, and their descendants naturalised.

Galton invented the term "eugenics" in 1883 and set down many of his observations and conclusions in a book, Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development He believed that a scheme of 'marks' for family merit should be defined, and early marriage between families of high rank be encouraged by provision of monetary incentives. He pointed out some of the tendencies in British society, such as the late marriages of eminent people, and the paucity of their children, which he thought were dysgenic. He advocated encouraging eugenic marriages by supplying able couples with incentives to have children. On 29 October 1901, Galton chose to address eugenic issues when he delivered the second Huxley lecture at the Royal Anthropological Institute The Eugenics Review, the journal of the Eugenics Education Society, commenced publication in 1909. Galton, the Honorary President of the society, wrote the foreword for the first volume. The First International Congress of Eugenics was held in July 1912. Winston Churchill and Carls Elliot were among the attendees.

Galton conducted wide-ranging inquiries into heredity which led him to challenge Charles Darwin's hypothetical theory of pangenesis. Darwin had proposed as part of this hypothesis that certain particles, which he called "gemmules" moved throughout the body and were also responsible for the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Galton, in consultation with Darwin, set out to see if they were transported in the blood. In a long series of experiments in 1869 to 1871, he transfused the blood between dissimilar breeds of rabbits, and examined the features of their offspring. He found no evidence of characters transmitted in the transfused blood.

Darwin challenged the validity of Galton's experiment, giving his reasons in an article published in "Nature" where he wrote:

Now, in the chapter on Pangenesis in my Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication I have not said one word about the blood, or about any fluid proper to any circulating system. It is, indeed, obvious that the presence of gemmules in the blood can form no necessary part of my hypothesis; for I refer in illustration of it to the lowest animals, such as the Protozoa, which do not possess blood or any vessels; and I refer to plants in which the fluid, when present in the vessels, cannot be considered as true blood." He goes on to admit: "Nevertheless, when I first heard of Mr. Galton's experiments, I did not sufficiently reflect on the subject, and saw not the difficulty of believing in the presence of gemmules in the blood.

Galton explicitly rejected the idea of the inheritance of acquired characteristics (Lamarckism), and was an early proponent of "hard heredity" through selection alone. He came close to rediscovering Mendel's particulate theory of inheritance, but was prevented from making the final breakthrough in this regard because of his focus on continuous, rather than discrete, traits (now known as polygenic traits). He went on to found the biometric approach to the study of heredity, distinguished by its use of statistical techniques to study continuous traits and population-scale aspects of heredity.

This approach was later taken up enthusiastically by Karl Pearson and W.F.R. Weldon; together, they founded the highly influential journal Biometrika in 1901. (R.A. Fisher would later show how the biometrical approach could be reconciled with the Mendelian approach. The statistical techniques that Galton invented (correlation, regression) and phenomena he established (regression to the mean) formed the basis of the biometric approach and are now essential tools in all the social sciences.

The method used in Hereditary Genius has been described as the first example of historiometry. To bolster these results, and to attempt to make a distinction between 'nature' and 'nurture' (he was the first to apply this phrase to the topic), he devised a questionnaire that he sent out to 190 Fellows of the Royal Society. He tabulated characteristics of their families, such as birth order and the occupation and race of their parents. He attempted to discover whether their interest in science was 'innate' or due to the encouragements of others. The studies were published as a book, English men of science: their nature and nurture, in 1874. In the end, it promoted the nature versus nurture question, though it did not settle it, and provided some fascinating data on the sociology of scientists of the time.

Sir Francis was the first scientist to recognise what is now known as the Lexical hypothesis. This is the idea that the most salient and socially relevant personality differences in people's lives will eventually become encoded into language. The hypothesis further suggests that by sampling language, it is possible to derive a comprehensive taxonomy of human personality traits.

Galton's inquiries into the mind involved detailed recording of people's subjective accounts of whether and how their minds dealt with phenomena such as mental imagery. To better elicit this information, he pioneered the use of the questionnaire. In one study, he asked his fellow members of the Royal Society of London to describe mental images that they experienced. In another, he collected in-depth surveys from eminent scientists for a work examining the effects of nature and nurture on the propensity toward scientific thinking.

Core to any statistical analysis is the concept that measurements vary: they have both a central tendency, or mean, and a spread around this central value, or variance. In the late 1860s, Galton conceived of a measure to quantify normal variation: the standard deviation.

Galton was a keen observer. In 1906, visiting a livestock fair, he stumbled upon an intriguing contest. An ox was on display, and the villagers were invited to guess the animal's weight after it was slaughtered and dressed. Nearly 800 participated, but not one person hit the exact mark: 1,198 pounds. Galton stated that "the middlemost estimate expresses the vox populi, every other estimate being condemned as too low or too high by a majority of the voters", and calculated this value (in modern terminology, the median) as 1,207 pounds. To his surprise, this was within 0.8% of the weight measured by the judges. Soon afterwards, he acknowledged that the mean of the guesses, at 1,197 pounds, was even more accurate.

The same year, Galton suggested in a letter to the journal Nature a better method of cutting a round cake by avoiding making radial incisions.

Studying variation, Galton invented the quincunx, a pachinko-like device, also known as the bean machine, as a tool for demonstrating the law of error and the normal distribution.

He also discovered the properties of the bivariate normal distribution and its relationship to regression analysis.

In 1846, the French physicist Auguste Bravais (1811–1863) first developed what would become the correlation coefficient. After examining forearm and height measurements, Galton independently rediscovered the concept of correlation in 1888 and demonstrated its application in the study of heredity, anthropology, and psychology. Galton's later statistical study of the probability of extinction of surnames led to the concept of Galton–Watson stochastic processes. This is now a core of modern statistics and regression.

Galton invented the use of the regression line and was the first to describe and explain the common phenomenon of regression toward the mean, which he first observed in his experiments on the size of the seeds of successive generations of sweet peas. He is responsible for the choice of r (for reversion or regression) to represent the correlation coefficient. In the 1870s and 1880s he was a pioneer in the use of normal distribution to fit histograms of actual tabulated data.

Galton went beyond measurement and summary to attempt to explain the phenomena he observed. Among such developments, he proposed an early theory of ranges of sound and hearing, and collected large quantities of anthropometric data from the public through his popular and long-running Anthropometric Laboratory, which he established in 1884, and where he studied over 9,000 people. It was not until 1985 that these data were analysed in their entirety.

Galton's study of human abilities ultimately led to the foundation of differential psychology and the formulation of the first mental tests. He was interested in measuring humans in every way possible. This included measuring their ability to make sensory discrimination which he assumed was linked to intellectual prowess. Galton suggested that individual differences in general ability are reflected in performance on relatively simple sensory capacities and in speed of reaction to a stimulus, variables that could be objectively measured by tests of sensory discrimination and reaction time. He also measured how quickly people reacted which he later linked to internal wiring which ultimately limited intelligence ability. Throughout his research Galton assumed that people who reacted faster were more intelligent than others.

Galton also devised a technique called "composite portraiture" (produced by superimposing multiple photographic portraits of individuals' faces registered on their eyes) to create an average face. In the 1990s, a hundred years after his discovery, much psychological research has examined the attractiveness of these faces, an aspect that Galton had remarked on in his original lecture. Others, including Sigmund Freud in his work on dreams, picked up Galton's suggestion that these composites might represent a useful metaphor for an Ideal type or a concept of a "natural kind" such as Jewish men, criminals, patients with tuberculosis, etc.—onto the same photographic plate, thereby yielding a blended whole, or "composite", that he hoped could generalise the facial appearance of his subject into an "average" or "central type".

This work began in the 1880s while the Jewish scholar Joseph Jacobs studied anthropology and statistics with Francis Galton. Jacobs asked Galton to create a composite photograph of a Jewish type. One of Jacobs' first publications that used Galton's composite imagery was "The Jewish Type, and Galton's Composite Photographs," Photographic News.

Galton hoped his technique would aid medical diagnosis, and even criminology through the identification of typical criminal faces. However, his technique did not prove useful and fell into disuse, although after much work on it including by photographers Lewis Hine and John L. Lovell and Arthur Batut.

In a Royal Institution paper in 1888 and three books, Galton estimated the probability of two persons having the same fingerprint and studied the heritability and racial differences in fingerprints. He wrote about the technique (inadvertently sparking a controversy between Herschel and Faulds that was to last until 1917), identifying common pattern in fingerprints and devising a classification system that survives to this day.

The method of identifying criminals by their fingerprints had been introduced in the 1860s by Sir William James Herschel in India, and their potential use in forensic work was first proposed by Dr Henry Faulds in 1880, but Galton was the first to place the study on a scientific footing, which assisted its acceptance by the courts. Galton pointed out that there were specific types of fingerprint patterns. He described and classified them into eight broad categories: 1: plain arch, 2: tented arch, 3: simple loop, 4: central pocket loop, 5: double loop, 6: lateral pocket loop, 7: plain whorl, and 8: accidental.

In an effort to reach a wider audience, Galton worked on a novel entitled Kantsaywhere from May until December 1910. The novel described a utopia organised by a eugenic religion, designed to breed fitter and smarter humans. His unpublished notebooks show that this was an expansion of material he had been composing since at least 1901. He offered it to Methuen for publication, but they showed little enthusiasm. Galton wrote to his niece that it should be either "smothered or superseded". His niece appears to have burnt most of the novel, offended by the love scenes, but large fragments survived.