4 Types of Men

For several decades already internet keeps talking about so called alpha and beta men. This theory has lots of flaws as gets a lot of things wrong. However there are a few things it actually get right, that is why it is not dismissed as a complete nonsense. I think its long overdue to have an in depth look on actual types of men present a new or fixed system.

To begin with alpha and beta most likely originated from fiction. In Disney and other cartoons there is often one leading male big and strong marriage material character surrounded by weaker, smaller and sillier sidekicks who support him. That is probably where this theory has originated and why a lot about it is pure fiction. 

Despite that however, not all men are the same and the above-mentioned theory, however flawed it is, managed to shed light on this simple fact and even get some of the traits right.

So here I will present you with my own realistic theory.

To begin with there are not 2 but 4 types of men. Men differ by two criteria. First is whether or not they are able to understand women and instinctively do things that appeal to women. Second is whether they love women or not. By love I mean willingness to get out of their way to please women and/or sacrifice for the sake of a woman or women. All possible combination of the above criteria can give us four distinct types. I called them Playa, Simp, Indifferent and Selective. I will cover them one by one in this order.

Playa

Playa is the type that both understands women and loves them. Combination of this factors fundamentally leads to a type that goes from one woman to another, never settling for one and even if settling still having affairs on the side. Permanent cheater or Playa as some call a man who dates a lot.

The above-mentioned traits lead towards this kind of behavior. Since Playa understand what women want, he knows how to appeal to them. Instinctively of with knowledge he always acts in a way that attract women to him. That means women want him, all of them want this type. Some might call him alpha, but there are differences between alphas in theory and Playas in real life, I will cover these differences below. 

Since Playa loves women, he is not the type to say no to a woman, any woman. That is how he ends up being a Playa. Some of them are intentionally hypergamous, deliberately trying to score with as many women as possible. Others are pulled by women around them due to how appealing they always are to the opposite gender. 

Either way they end up with rich sexual life full of partners, affairs and the like. Some Playas might promise to commit, even marry a girl sometimes, but they will never stop cheating and having affairs. That is just their nature. 

Since other men tend to envy Playa's sexual appeal and provenness, this type rarely has a lot of male friends. That also complicated Playa's opportunities of career or social advancement. Other men would not want to hire or promote him. Sometimes Playas have their own money, but most of the time they have to rely on women or some shady stuff to get by. If Playa is not a scion of some ultrawealthy parents, it's almost guaranteed that he lives off women. 

Playa's unpopularity with men, combined with his strong appeal to women only further compels this type towards hypergamy.

Some might equate this type with Alpha, however there are certain important differences between two. Unlike most definition of Alpha, Playa is not monogamous and will not commit to a alpha female or something like that, life is not a Disney cartoon. Another important difference is rather limited clot, Playa has among men. Far from being a leader and admiration of fellow men, Playa is mostly shunned by other men. Many envy his appeal to women but it makes them hate this type rather than even admire, much less respect him. Occasionally men of Simp type hang out with Playa but only to learn from his appeal to women in order to improve their own appeal. Gay men may also end up hanging out with Playa either due to mistaking him for being gay or just because he appeals to them as well. Finally unlike Alpha Playa is not the strong type who can protect from anything.

Fundamentally Playa's modus operandi is to hook up and sleep with as many girls as possible. If a girl is picky and capricious and would not yield without promises of commitment or such, he might just play along. However it will always be a lie. Of course if marriage is financially beneficial he might just stay but will have liaisons on the side anyway.

That said Playa knows what to say and do to make a girl happy. Emotions wise this type is possibly the most satisfying of all types. If a girl has her own money and does not expect commitment, responsibility or anything aside from sweet lies and awesome sex, this is the type to go for.

Simp

Simp is the type that does not understands women, but loves them. Combination of these factors leads towards an unrequited love friendzone type guy who keeps chasing after some girl, hoping she will one day realise that he is so much better than all these Playas she is dating.

When I say Simp does not understand women. I literary mean that. Simp has no idea why women prefer Playas over him. In his own eyes he is much better, more stable, willing to commit and sacrifice, can provide for her and more. He genuinely incapable of understanding why women does not find him appealing. 

Its this type that depicts love as a cupid shooting a magic arrow into the heart. They think love is some sort of magic where for some irrational reasons women just fall for complete jerk against all logic and reason. Also they themselves fall for a pretty girl pretty much the moment the see her and then chase (simp) after her despite all logic and reason would suggest they should give up.

This type does not give up however. They live by Linkin Park lyrics and think she is all they got, even if she is only seeing him as a friend. Their love for women in general and for her in particular prevents them from just walking out.

Through trial and error some of them sometimes manage to learn a few things about women. A few of them might even hang out with Playas in hopes of learning secrets of their appeal. Fundamentally however, no matter how hard they try, they are incapable of reaching Playa's level of appeal. They forever remain a Simp.

Simp is a truly tragic type. Forever cursed to chase for a woman but having no means of actually winning her over.

Due to his problems with women, Simp does solicit certain sympathy among men, but fundamentally toxicity of this type does not leave him with too many friends. Simps envy Playas and because of that feel hostility towards anyone with more sexual appeal than they are. That would repeal not only Playas but also Selective type and even some Indifferent ones as well. Simps typically have a circle of friends who are all or mostly Simps, with some Indifferent ones in the mix. All of them bond on their equally low appeal to women. Such a circle of friends can be Simp's source of power, the team is actually willing to help each other with various things. This allows Simp to actually prosper in life and among men, much unlike Playa who often lives on sidelines of society.

Simp can be equated with Beta, but there are clear differences between two. Simps are far from being benign sidekick who is happy to support a women and content to just be supportive. They hate everything about world that gave them desire for women without ability to actually win them. They hate being forever cursed to be an unappealing type who will never be loved back despite their commitment and sacrifices.

Some Simps grow to hate women, especially as they suffer more and more rejection and cheating. Almost all of them hate Playa and Selective types for stealing all the women. They see most other men as threat. This type is clear misandrist and will not help a man outside their circle of friends. People who talk about protecting women are all Simps who want to remove or at least reduce access to women for all other types of men. When people want to remove immigrants or black people, most of the time its Simps who feel threatened in their dating prospect by said groups. Simps hate men enough to think that genocide of more appealing types is legitimate solution to their dating problems. They are threat to men all over the world.

Fundamentally Simp's cursed mentality that leads towards unrequited love, can also lead towards tragedy. Particularly if she cheats on him or rejects him in a excessively scornful way. All these bottled-up emotions can just blow up with lethal consequences. Simps are no friends for mankind either, both in their stable and unstable form. 

On the other hand Simp is willing to sacrifice anything and everything for a girl. They make committed husbands, who zealously protect their families from other men in particular. So a woman who wants financial security, stable family, devoted husband and especially children, should consider this type as other types simply will not prove her with all of this.

Indifferent

Indifferent is the type that neither understands women, nor loves them. Combination of these traits often, but not always, make this type stay away from women and stick with fellow men.

To put it simply, the Indifferent type simply not interested in women. Indifferent types do not understand what is even so appealing about these foids. Schopenhauer and his view on women is a rather famous representation of these views, shared by many other men. They are most typical authors of various slurs about women. It is them who describe women as irrational, unstable and such, many are misogynists in that they prefer to stay away from women.

Just like Simp, the Indifferent does not understand women or what appeals to them. That allows Indifferents to form occasional friendships with the Simp type, that is normally dislikes men in general. In contrast to Simp however, Indifferent is broadly supportive of men in general, in fact so supportive they often go far in the world of men.

Since Indifferents do not chase women at all, they fully live in the world of men. That allows them to go far in things like career and social standing among peers. This type is often the most liked and celebrated among men. Men like virginity and celibacy in men just as they like it in women.

When it comes to relationship, Indifferents are a few paths. Some a gay, others are asexual or just not interested, finally there are Christians who marry women and have children with them, but do not love them as they love Jesus instead and do it for him. 

If an Indifferent ever marries a woman, then its only to have children. Thus in a relationship they prioritise children to any other aspect of relationship.

Women appreciate Indifferents more than the other way around. Indifferents share women own negative view of their own gender and often believe all the same things about females in general. Some Indifferents, particularly gay ones, may even become friends with women. Such friendship will be not like that of Simp, but more of a friendship between women, where they discuss men and such. 

Indifferents typically understand more about women than Simps but not as much as Playa. Just like Simps they could not be a Playa but unlike Simps they do not lament this fact.

In the Alpha/Beta system Indifferent is somewhere between Beta and Sigma but really is far from either of these. 

Overall relationship with Indifferent is closest to that of Simp, but Indifferent is much more stable emotionally and unlikely to react violently towards cheating and other female flaws, unless children are involved. On the other hand, Indifferents are not willing to spoil women with money, help and gifts, like a Simp would. They stay cold and insist that women fulfills her duties, particularly towards children.

Relationship with an Indifferent will most benefit a woman who prioritises children as much as they are. Such a woman will be able to form a business like dry but functional and stable family with an indifferent. 

Golddiggers might be interested in money and status an Indifferent has. However marrying an Indifferent for money is not the smartest of moves as they do not feel any emotions that would compel them to spend on a woman. Even in a divorce they might be able to walk away with some or even all money.

Fundamentally if an Indifferent enters a relationship with a woman, its for the purpose of procreation only. They are stingy with money, unless its about children and would completely ignore wife and her needs when children are born.

On the other hand an Indifferent is a stable provider and will make sure family is run stable and smooth. A woman mostly concerned with children would find Indifferent to be the best type for a relationship.

Selective

Finally, we have a Selective. Selective is someone who understands women but does not love them. He combines sex appeal of a Playa with Indifferent's lack of particular interest in women. Instead of chasing women like Playa, lamenting that women do not like him like Simp, Selective sits there in front of a computer and writes this blog, making all women frustrated why he is not going for them instead. The less we love a woman, the more we appeal to her is written about this type of men. In a way he is also an anti-Simp as his traits are completely opposite of Simp.

Since he can be as appealing to women as Playa is, but most of them do not fuck around like Playa is, a Selective type a sort of mystical Prince Charming, the ultimate dating prize a woman could get. Women want this type as much as they want a Playa, however, much to their charging, a Selective is not willing to make a move on them. Willingly or not, he takes revenge for all the Simps, who are languishing and dying in a friendzone, by doing the same thing to women.

Combination of traits that make a Selective type, give him a strategic freedom of choice, hence the name. He knows all there is to know about women and has no illusions about them. At the same time he is not as helpless as Indiffirent type, that could not sway a girl, a Selective can sway if he wants to. He can get a girl if he wants, but he is not compelled to chase every girl, like a Playa is. He can choose his girls and choosing he does.

Selective is very picky, every small thing can disqualify a woman in his eyes. Selective type is the reason, why make up, lingerie, sex toys and the entire beauty industry even exists. Women will go to great length trying to interest one of these guys in themselves. All three other types will really for any woman, but Selective is picky and thus women will never stop trying new tricks interest one of them in themselves.

Selective's lack of emotional compulsion to chase the skirt, makes him very rational and calculating when it comes to choosing his women. Since reality of dating scene, culture and social attitude towards relationships and women change, so does Selective's criteria for dating. Selective understands that not every woman around him would be a net benefit, so he blocks out those who look like a loss or trouble.

Some of them might go for a rich woman in order to get her money, but most will not. Even probability of such move heavily depends on laws, culture and family of the woman in question, because if laws does not transfer money and power to the Selective, they will not go for a rich girl.

Culture and society aside, more often than not, a Selective goes for a Cinderella type of girl, naive, gullible and explicitly trusting him. Female psychology makes such a girl the only option for a fulfilling relationship in male's eyes.

Its a reverse psychology thing. Women themselves, due to how their psychology is wired always go for the best and most valuable man available. The whole alpha man theory even begun because women tried to put into words this simple fact. Alpha man as a type of man does not exist. However women always looking for the best man so a man that currently fits these criteria becomes alpha in their eyes. He may lose this alpha status if someone better suddenly appears and displaces him.

Neither of 4 types of men, with partial exception of Simp type, is compelled by their psychology to seek the top most female the same way women are compelled to seek top man. However the fact that women do seek the best man they can have, a smart man can play around this trait of female psychology and deliberately select a girl from the bottom, a Cinderella if you like.

The most important here is the distance in perceived appeal and attraction. The more she thinks she is very lucky to be with someone like you, the better it is for you. That way she will work hard to keep this relationship and will do anything you will ever wish just so that you will not dump her for someone else. A woman who perceives herself as not too shabby herself will not put as much effort and might occasionally think if there are someone better available, not something a Selective want to deal with.

What matters here is not how pretty she is in your eyes but how pretty she thinks she is compare to others. I once wrote that men and women different beauty standards and every 5/10 in their own eyes is typically 0/10 in the opposite gender eyes, just as every 0/10 in their own eyes is likely a 5/10 in opposite gender eyes. A smart relationship move will be to go for someone who is 5/10 in your eyes and 0/10 in their own.

Of course the Cinderella in question has to have plenty of good in male eyes traits to actually quality for Selective type affection. Selective will not be called this way if they were not picky. Anything they do not like can immediately disqualify any woman in their eyes. Not even being a celebrity or Miss Universe can sway them. Their criteria are their own and if they do not like something, then its over.

Selective's criteria are mostly negative in nature. There are no traits that give automatic approval no matter what, but plenty of traits that automatically disqualify. 

In Alpha/Beta theory selective is most defiantly a Sigma or Alpha Sigma hybrid. A Selective shares Sigma's ability to just chill and mind their own business, stay single forever and more. Sigma was developed as an addition to the Alpha/Beta model at much later time, so this type is better written than two others.

Relationship with Selective type are demanding and taxing on woman. Selectives have their high standards and expect their gf or wife to fulfil them to the letter if she wants to stay with them. They make demands, not meet them. Such relationship will not suit most women.

One type of girl who can be happy with Selective type is an incurable romantic who loses herself in love and willing to do anything to serve and impress someone she loves. One cannot have a man of her dreams without sacrificing for him. The rest might find this type to be too selfish and harsh.

Conclusion

This concludes the 4 types. This system is far more realistic than Alpha/Beta one, it really reflects how men are without sugarcoating and misconceptions. I hope more people will read and understand it, because it has chance to make relationships better for everyone.

Real Man / Unreal Angelic Woman - Expanded Article

 

I wrote several articles on how men and women have very different, polar opposite even, preferences when it comes to the opposite genders. This goes even to the level of etymology; women prefer to describe their ideal or preferred type of man with a phrase 'real man'. In contrast men often use phrases that etymologically opposite of 'real' such as 'good woman as hard to find as a unicorn' or 'my little angel'. Both angels are unicorns are not real. 

So why do men and women use etymologically opposite terms to describe essentially equivalent concepts? The answers lie in traits that each gender finds attractive. These traits make both genders ended up summing up their preferences with polarly opposite words etymologically.

To begin with, 'real man'. Yes, fundamentally 'real man' is not real. That is such a man does not exist, like Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy do not exist. Real man is but a product of female imagination, something they wish to be real and traits they wish to find in the opposite gender. Yet women consistently call this imaginary concept that only exist in their imagination a 'real man'. That raises the question why?

To answer that you need to think of traits one can associate with a word 'real'. That way you can trace back the train of thoughts that led women towards this 4-letter word they use describe their preferred type of man. Real is something tangible, something you can touch and feel, something that has presence, character, something that make people feel their existence, impacts world around them, leaves behind traces of their existence and being. 

If you think about it, the type of men women tend to like do exhibit some or all of these traits. That is particularly true of type of men, other men dislike. When you see men talk something like "what does she even likes about this oaf/brute/gorilla/asshole/bastard/some other insult?" then it is likely that despite all the flaws that person has, they still has this 'real' quality about them. As much as another man will dislike an asshole for being an asshole, he does makes his presence felt, a be it in negative way, thus fulfilling the 'real' requirement that women crave.

The opposite is true as well. No matter how virtuous a man is, if he lacks these above mentioned 'real' qualities, the woman just cannot like him. If he is too smooth, invisible or intangible, she just cannot love him because she cannot feel that 'real' quality in him. When women break up with someone who seem to have everything going for them, ticks all the boxes and have no flaws, this lack of 'real' quality is always the case. The proverbial: "it's not you, it's me" always means this lack of 'real'.

Now lets look at male preferences instead. Nowadays a phrase "a good woman is as hard to find as a unicorn" is very popular among men. We can all agree that unicorns are not real. So does it mean that men have realistic outlook on life and accept women for who they are? A few actually do. Or does it mean that they completely gave up on the opposite gender and now indulge themselves in fiction like Pygmalion? A lot of them do. Anime figurines and porn proves that well enough.

So does it mean that all is lost for women and they are dying alone in this age of anime and modernity? Considering how dumb most women are, one will be forgiven to think this way. However the answer is the same as with women obsession with calling their preferred man 'real'. The deliberately 'unreal' concepts men use to describe their preferred women reveal their actual preferences just as much as word 'real' reveals what women actually like in men.

So now I will analyse word 'unreal' just as I did to word 'real' several paragraphs above. In many ways these traits are the opposite of what women like. Unreal is something intangible, idealised, polished, perfected even. Something that is pruned of all the flaws, kinks, rough edges, impurities and any imperfections, then polished to perfection and now completely flawless. Angels believed to be flawless, unicorns are also depicted with perfectly white hide and either white of rainbow coloured mane or tail, in short flawless.

If you think about, men consistently work to make everything as flawless as possible. Flawlessly smooth glass, marble, plastic anything really. That does apply to art as well: marble statues often depict people at their most flawless, artists worked hard to make their paintings as flawless as possible, even videogames work to make their graphics as flawless as possible.

That also applies to the kind of women men prefer in their lives. Anime depicts girls a lot more perfected and flawless then they are in real life and that is why men love and watch anime, not for green impractical hair or unreasonably large eyes or some weird antics some shows like to depict. Statues and art depict women in perfected idealised way; most movie actresses are pretty. Lingerie and make up aim to hide imperfections of the body and face and make women more desirable. Victoria Secret gives their models wear angel's wings and calls them angels precisely because it appeals to men. Angelic idealised women. Women themselves dislike using word 'ideal' when describing their preferred man, the opposite is true of men. The more idealised the woman is, the more man likes her.

At the same time, the opposite of flawless is what men dislike. Every flaw a woman has counts against her appeal and eligibility. If a woman is too 'real', has too many flaws, makes her presence too visible or tangible, it repels men. Men want to escape reality, not deal with it. Even cat or bunny ears are popular with men precisely because they make women less real and more idealised. No one picks waifus from Jo Jo's Bizarre Adventure, because women there are not idealised and flawless but 'real' instead, with too many facial features and various kinks and imperfections. So, a woman with too many flaws, too 'real' if you like, can never interest a man in herself. That is why men say, 'a good woman is as hard to find as a unicorn', women around them have too many flaws for them to be even remotely interested in them.

Flawless applies not only to appearance but to character and personality as well. If a woman is too shrewd and selfish it will repeal men just as much as flaws in her body. On the other hand, caring and supportive girl will certainly attract men with her personality. Thus, the more positive personality traits a woman has, the more she will appeal to men around her.

One might argue that these 'weak' traits are self-defeating. That people will just walk all over you if you are like that. That might be so, but men still prefer these 'weak' traits in women.

Reason for that is that in a traditional distribution of gender roles men are warriors and women are cares. Because of that men need to exhibit warrior traits to appeal to women. At the same time women do need to exhibit carer's traits to appear to men. She cannot be a warrior just like a man is. It will repeal men, or worse. Men might start seeing her as danger and do what they do to other forms of danger, eliminate it, with lethal consequences for a stupid woman. 

Aside from that there is a simple self-preservation instinct. A weak creature is harmless and can be kept as pet, but not a strong one. One does not keep a pet lion or leopard in their home, and no one will keep a wild girl, thus leopard prints and wild behavior is as self-defeating for a girl as it gets. On the other hand, a cat or a bunny does make for a good pet. 

Finally, a weak girl can never challenge man or his authority, something most men find really important. In my articles about dictators, I mentioned how dictators cripple their country to prevent anyone from rising up and attempt to overthrow them. When it comes to relationship, men are not that different. They will not go for a girl they perceive as threat; they will want a weak girl who can never be a threat to them.

Fundamentally a women should exhibit traits that will make her a good carer for potential future children. Regardless of whether a man wants to have kids or not, he is instinctively attracted to women who make for a good carer. 

A truly desirable and flawless woman should exhibit flawless 'angelic' traits not only in her appearance but also in her behavior, character and personality. These are just as important if not more important than appearance.

That is all to it really. Phrases like 'real man' or 'my little angel/unicorn/pony' does not make any sense until you delve deeper to actually understand what they mean. Women like their men as 'real' as possible while men want them as 'unreal' as possible. Read paragraphs above to understand what either of that really mean.

Neither gender can actually love what the other one finds attractive. Women will never love those featureless "bug eyed" anime girls as much as men do. Neither will men ever like anything woman calls 'real'. 

However, one can still understand with their mind what members of the opposite gender like and dislike and use this knowledge to attract them. This article will help anyone to understand what opposite gender really is looking for in their preferred partner.

Asymmetric Chess Show

I was thinking the other day, how to make chess entertaining for public. Actual games between Grandmasters are often protracted positional wars where both move pawns to control space and take on average 5 minutes to think on every move. Few have patience to watch that. Unless you are professional or semi-professional yourself, that is hardly entertaining. Which is a shame as chess is an interesting game. 

So here is an interesting way to spice the game up: make professional play against the amateur but with a handicap. 

To give both a fighting chance, a pro has to give up a few of their pieces as handicap, an amateur will play with the full set. The more pieces pro is willing to give up, the bigger the prize pool will be, thus they have insensitive to play with as few pieces as possible. However, if they underestimate their opponent and give up far too many pieces, they might just lose. A pro will have a few minutes to chat with their opponent to determine their skill level and then decide how many pieces they will sacrifice for the prize pool in a game against them. Finally, there will be blitz or ultrablitz rules to speed up the game and there will be no tied games unless referee agrees that neither can win.

A game like this can produce some very interesting and diverse games. An amateur can be of different levels, from someone who barely even knows how to play to someone who plays with friends regularly and watches pro games in free time. So, we may see games where pro tries to win with a king and three pawns or something similar to maximize the prize. At the same time some games will be more complex and instead become a church-fest where both sides will struggle to come up with moves in limited time.

Compare to regular chess it will be fast paced with lots of pieces taken at any given time. That will get ordinary people who normally do not like chess interested in this version of the game. It might as well be profitable as a TV game show.

Most importantly is to pick right pros for the game. They have to be risk takers who can think outside of the box and enjoy tricks. Perhaps one can judge this by their interest in chess puzzles and unusual games, or trick checkmates.

What Really Ruined Women

In my blog I frequently criticize feminism and "modern women" it created. Feminism ruined dating, family and destroyed all appeal that women once had. 

Most of the time I blamed feminism on women. It's indeed true that there is a certain type of selfish shrewd con woman that exploits feminism to the max and in that gives bad name to all women out there. After one man is ripped off by such a con woman, near all of his friends and acquittances will think twice before dating someone. 

However such women alone could not have created feminism on their own. They had an ally. And the name of this ally is a concerned fathers of daughters. The type that occasionally post online stuff about protecting women and children from "sexual predators" and such. Buy "sexual predators" they mean men who want to have sex with their daughter.

In Russia there are many jokes about mothers in law. Mothers in law are portrayed as bane of husbands' existence and a worst thing in a relationship. You wife might love you for who you are and genuinely work to make the relationship work. Her mother however will not tire at pointing out how earning less than Elon Musk makes you unworthy of her daughter and enquire when you will finally make that much. Mothers in law are so toxic, that their death is celebrated bigger than one's birthday, for that means a relief from constant pressure, guilt trips and never-ending toxic behavior.

In the Western world this role actually falls on future wife's father. Unlike with mothers in law that first let you marry their daughter and only then begin to bug you about your "flaws", fathers employ a different strategy and instead weed out undesirable husbands before they get to marry their daughters, preferably even before they they get to date her. Unlike Russia there is no shortages of man in the west so they could afford to be picky.

To understand what makes both in-laws such a bane, one needs to understand their thinking and interests. Unlike the girl who can fall for you unconditionally and will do anything to be with you. The in-laws do not have any feelings for you (at least not positive feelings), they have interests. What they want is someone who will support their daughter and her children (their grandchildren) financially. They do not care if husbands likes it, enjoys it or whatever. They want someone who will provide even if it kills him. If he dies its no big deal but if he does not pay then hell will be set loose. Needless to say that someone like this is not a best friend of any future husband of his daughters.

When it comes to his daughters, he certainly cares more than about her husband, but not completely so. Sure, parents may talk about wishing only the best for her, but reality is that their interests are different from their daughter either. For example, parents do not care if future husband is useless in bad and their daughter with go without romance or single orgasm in a decade. For them that is irrelevant. What matters is only if he provides financially and does unpaid chores for the family. 

Their daughter can go insane without a spec of romance in her life. Their son in law (her husband) would be bewielded by how frustrating and irrational his wife is. Both will be equally unhappy. Wife will blame husband, husband will brame wife. Both will think its just how other gender is and there is nothing they can do about it. Both will fail to notice the real villain, her father who will smile quietly because he has them where he wants them. They are rusing his grandchildren and that all that matters. The fact that they both are so unhappy that they want to kill themselves does not bother him in the slightest. That is how cruel real world is.

Its fathers of daughters like this who, if not created feminism, are currently sponsoring and cultivating it. Technically it's not just feminism, but the whole package of nonsense about "modern women" as well as stereotypes about what men and women want. They hide behind the obnoxious women who sprout insane nonsense as women's rights, to avoid taking the blame for it. However, it's their money and influence that keeps this clown show going. 

A typical father of young adult daughter is in his 50s, probably has well paid and influential job that will allow him to splurge on backing social causes that can benefit him. With that kind of money they can promote feminist causes women's rights, pay off various female magazines to push lies about what men or women like in a relationship, pay TV celebrities and more. Together all that creates a network of lies that misleads younger generations. 

None of what magazines or celebrities say are true. All of it are lies. 

Men do not like modern feminist woman or a girl boss or anything like that. That is future husband would not want his wife to be a feminist girl boss. However, an average father will want his daughters to grow up to be feminist girl bosses, because that way she will be able to squeeze more money from her future husband. 

From her father's perspective, there are no drawbacks to his daughter being a feminist girl boss. Because bossiness will repel from her all men who are not complete beta cuck sissies. That is something her father will find a very desirable as his ideal son in law is precisely a beta cuck sissy.They do not want anyone with even a modicum of backbone to be married to his daughter. Someone like that will be able to say no to both her and his bullshit, not something the father wants. They want a powerless slave to pull the yoke of family obligations, not a man.

Daughters tend to respect their parents and love their fathers. So, they will listen what their father tells them without critically analysing it. They will do as they were told, see no man but complete sissies, sticking around. Some will feel frustrated and ask their parents why no real men want her and only these sissies propose. Her parents will lie to her than these sissies are secretly the "real men" and "real men" she sees as real actually weak and gay and whatever. In the end they will likely listen to their parents and marry one of the sissies. Of course, these other guys were the real men she actually wanted, but real men do not date feminist women and were repulsed by her feminist girl boss antics and moved on. It's her loss, but her parents will mislead her into thinking it was her win.

For a girl who is reading this I can give you but a simple advice. Do not trust your parents, they lie to you. Use your critical thinking and trust your instincts. Think not of what media says but what kind of porn men watch and prostitutes they buy. If moe anime and figurines are actually selling and more assertive women do not, then it shows that men like moe not girl boss. It's not just Japanese men are like that; all other men are also like that. All men want timid, shy, insecure little angel type of girl.

For a guy it's a lot harder as pretty much everything here is stacked against you. Even if you have seen through the bullshit and knows that women are not naturally feminist girl bosses but rather conditioned to be this way by society and their parents, it does not mean you can just find any girl and explain to her that you like her to be a trad wife. Sooner or later, you will have to deal with her parents who will not be happy to find out that you undid their brainwashing. They may talk their daughter into breaking up with you or worse, falsely accuse you of rape. Even if that will not work, they may create all sort of difficulties for you, including legal ones. Law isn't 100% on their side, but they have more experience and money and likely be able to hire better lawyers as you are. Do not forget that there are also women who actually use feminist laws to defraud men by lying in court. It's a misuse of justice but not every judge will stop them for that.

Thus, an immigrant girl whose parents are either away or are from the country where they have different ideas about raising girls are by far the most working solution. That is why so many Western men choose Asian women. Asian women with more conservative subservient to men upbringing solves the problem that arrogant and selfish western parents have created. That is also why Alt-Right exists. It's not a Nazi ideology. It is only labelled this way because fathers of daughters hate it. Because Alt-right and Asian immigrant women allow Western men to escape yoke of slavish servitude to a feminist girl boss and her evil selfish parents. Her selfish parents call it Nazi just out of spite.

This is by far the most comprehensive article about current state of relationship between genders that I have written. I hope it finally clarifies the problems with modern gender relationships as well as exposes all the lies that plagues our society. I hope more people will read it and learn so that one day we can overthrow the feminist regime for good. In the meanwhile, date cute moe Asian girls.

Possible Truth About Me and My Real Dad

I am starting to think that my real dad has defected to UK back when Putin took power. However, my mother did not want to defect with him for some reason. Likely she contacted Russian KGB to sneak back into Russia from UK and also took me and my brother with her. I was not told anything at all, she just decided on her own for all of us, that evil cunt. Russian KGB or other spy agencies likely help her flee UK. 

Me and my brother were kept completely in the dark, at the very least I was kept in the dark. I was not given any choice, and she did not even explain what happened, she lied and pretended this was just another of our regular foreign trips.

After visiting various museums in London, just like we often did on foreign trips, we just came back to Russia. I do not remember going back though, I just woke up in my Moscow apartment bed. Mom told me I was too tired from all the museums, so I slept the whole trip back and they carried me all the way to the plane and then back home. Looking back at it now, she probably lied and I was sedated instead. Back in the days I was barely a teen to think of such complex plots.

After our arrival, mom told us dad will return later after he finishes his work in London. That took time, we went back to school and other daily routine. A number of weeks or maybe months have passed. Eventually dad came back ... but was that dad a real one or a fake?

Back in the days I could not think he was fake, I was too young to think about such complex conspiracies. Mom acknowledged him as real, so are some of the family friends who still maintain contact by that time. Other broke all contacts. KGB could have drugged or brainwashed me and my brother to make sure we will not notice the difference.

That time distance before we last time saw our real dad and the time the fake one first appeared likely made that transition smoother. The fake dad might have occasionally appeared in our lives even before that, KGB probably had us in their sights for a long time and wanted to test how their double will work.

For a long time, I thought this person was my dad. I even choose to live with him, when he and mom divorced. That was not because he was such a nice person, but because my mom was such an awful person. Gradually I stopped getting along with this new fake dad and started to live on my own.

Nowadays I think he was fake. To begin with he was far too patriotic compared to my real dad or our family friends. That showed not overtly but rather in unusual incidents where he expressed usual for Russian patriots' disdain and desire to hurt those who 'hate Russia'.

Second, unlike my real dad, who bought me a lot of things and generally supported me well, a KGB fake instead gradually took most of it away. Instead of buying and giving me things he criticized my "selfishness" and gave me less and less. 

Looking back, it was rather clear that he was not real as real parents support their children, not squeeze them dry. This KGB fake pretended to be real in hope of squeezing some value out of me, what exactly I was not told. He always told me as little as possible.

All that reminds me of Prince of Persia 2 intro, a game I used to play back in 90s.

If what I described above was indeed what actually happened, then I cannot forgive my mother for depriving me of my life I enjoyed during 90s and turning me into a guinea pig for KGB agenda and experiments. That is not how a real mother behaves.

Neither can I forgive KGB (Russian secret police and intelligence structures). I do hope one day they are completely eradicated down to every single man. These bastards deserve gas chambers. Nuke Lubyanka.

I do wonder what happened to my real dad, or network of friends we had during 90s. I am not sure if it's still possible to re-connect on emotional level after all this time. 

At the very least I hope to get the money and my 90s lifestyle I was deprived off by KGB. We were rich and I do not want to endure poverty KGB and Upper Volta with nukes they serve subjected me to. 

The Past is Gone

Recently I was using Google Maps to check out various locations I lived or visited in the past. I was wondering what have changed or not since the last time I have been there. If few things, I actually liked or remembered there back then are still around? For the most part I could not find anything that could give me any sense of nostalgia. Not because I could not find the locations, but because these places feel different now, too different to feel like I have lived there in the past. Buildings still stand, most of them, but they give off different feel and vibe. Instead of nostalgia like "oh, I remember I used to walk or play here" it for the most part "it's all gone now". Different stores, different trains, different stations. Only some infrastructure pieces remain, like that tunnel and that other bridge is still there, but it's too little to matter.

Russia is particularly badly affected. Current KGB rat (Putin) regime hates 90s and probably tries to erase all that might remind anyone of these times. Together with 90s they also essentially erased everything that ever connected me to that country. I am a child of 90s and like to remember these times fondly, no matter what henchmen of KGB rat say. Real bandits are not "bandits of the 90s" whom Kremlin reviles but KGB who stole and renamed what businessmen of 90s build. 

All stores are new and different, all what was there before is gone. Average store vibe is like they were planned and designed by people who hate retail and consumerism and wanted to make it as small and cheap as possible to spend less money on it. In theory they wanted to upgrade trains and stations, but new ones somehow feel even more depressing than old ones. They did not improve them, just changed the signs to make it look more modern. Everything looks even less spacious and more built up than it was before. All streamlined amalgamated and homogenised. All to make it as cheap as possible and squeeze even more people into the same space. Designed by people who do does not care for anything but birthrates. It's despicably ugly to watch.

Even before I never liked Russia or feel at home there, but now there is not even a single thing I care about left to connect me to the country. It's now completely different and foreign to me. One cannot enter the same river twice and one cannot return Yeltsin's Russia back into existence. Only memories of what is once was, remain. But the country changed too much, and I no longer recognise it as a place I once lived in. Its not a motherland.

Karlovy Vary, Cesenatico, Heraklion and Antalya feel better, but they too could not escape trends of the times. Hotels and entertainment feel less cozy and hospitable and more of a weird and outlandish. Ever since 2010s there was this ugly trend to make everything either retro ugly or some grinch level weird. 

I guess escaping current fashion trends in nostalgia was not the most prudent decision. People who like things I do not and hate things I like running the show everywhere across the globe. It's truly sad to see them destroy or change a lot of what I liked.

The excesses are what makes life worth living, without them it's just miserable existence.

I can only hope that we will take power from austerity clowns, who have turned life into circus and are currently running it, sooner rather than later and redirect the money from excessive breeding towards making life cozier and sunnier than it currently is. 

Golden sand, cyan water, golden rays of setting sun, warm nights, pleasant smell of flowers and the sea, glass, brass and lights, tasty food in abundance, boats, many, many boats and planes, and carpets and comfy large armchairs and sofas, art the cozy, not shocking type. That is what we need, I need in my life.

Self-Interest vs Emotion: How Different Worldviews Divide and Multiply Human Societies

 

Using X (twitter) for a long time made me see again and again countless people making countless argument for one or another cause. Most of the time such arguments fail to reach to their intended audience and convince them of anything. They were completely futile. After thinking of a reason why that is the case, I concluded that that is because of fundamental difference between how different people make their decisions. Some trust their thoughts and other their feelings instead.

This is not about things like education or IQ levels, but rather about fundamental decision-making process. There can be people who make their decisions based on emotions but able to think of complex strategies to achieve their emotional goals. At the same time there can be people who base their decision on calculated self-interest but fail to see bigger picture and end up being taken for a ride.

Take for example socialists (modern 21st century Bookchin socialists rather than original 19th century ideology). No matter how much conservatives and liberals point out that socialism failed and their ideology is but a path for misery and pain, socialists are not swayed. That is because they do not make their decisions with their logic and reason but with their feelings instead. Most such socialists probably like Avatar movie and dream of a similar society that is aligned with nature, and fights technology. No matter how much you tell them it's impossible, they will not listen.

Socialists like to tout their education and think they are smarter than MAGA crowd, but no matter how complex and smart arguments they make for their causes, these causes are fundamentally emotional. There is nothing for average American to gain from feeding Africans, helping refugees and migrants. Cold facts of self-interests are simply against this. The only reason socialists care is because their emotions compel them to care, because they feel pity for these people and wish to help them. Other people do not feel any pity for them, so no matter what socialists, say the right will not be swayed. They just can't feel any pity for these people.

The same goes to the opposite side of the divide. No matter how much right cites the problems, refugees and migrants cause, the left is not swayed. That is because lefts sympathize with refugees. So, no matter how much problem, they cause, left is willing to forgive them. Left will go to the end of their wits in rationalizing and justifying their views in order to disguise emotional decisions as rational ones. They are like women who no matter how much she gets burned from going for the wrong man, will still keep repeating the same mistake over and over again. Because they cannot control who they love.

It would be a mistake to call this left emotionalism a compassion. Compassion on an emotional whim rather than on principle is not a compassion but a favoritism. While there are examples like a founder of Anabaptism who helped out even his enemies in times of need, they are few in between. Average leftist is not like that. They think yelling Black Lives Matter means they care, but they immediately turn hostile when someone says White Lives Matter. Even neutral Everyone's Lives Matter will provoke lefty emotional irrational ire. In their world, black people deserve help and others simply do not. No matter how much a Confederate Flag waving Redneck needs and deserves help a lot more than a criminal migrant, a lefty will not help them. Their emotions make them hate Rednecks so no help for them. One can only lament unfairness of the world, irrational emotions of the left favor those who do not deserve it over those who actually do.

Fundamentally however, leftist concern for black people or the needy is not altruism or compassion but mere selfishness. It's their selfish emotional whims that decide who gets help and who does not. They try to justify it by saying the guys they help suffer more and thus deserve more help, but all this is merely hiding their true emotional intentions behind fancy and sophisticated sophistic arguments. What really drives them is an emotion that make them feel like helping one but not another. 

If they wished to eliminate all poverty and suffering, they would have given everyone in need, but they do not. What they really want is to create more misery and suffering, because struggling and suffering characters are more compelling and entertaining than those who are somewhat OK. That is why they give free food to starving overbreeding Africans that will use this food to breed more and there will be even more misery. 

If instead these money were spent on American poor, then a lot of trailer trash people as well as homeless could have been lifted out of their misery and given dignified life. African population would have declined to sustainable levels and those who are left would have lived with more free space and dignity too. The very fact that left refuses to support that shows they do not want people to live in dignity but rather suffer. For locals to suffer from poverty and homelessness and for Africans to suffer from overpopulation and fight for food handouts.

Rational self-interest rightists have their own problems, that ironically sometimes make them act against their best interests. Many rightists are too narrowminded to see a bigger picture. For example, when in chess a pawn attacks bishop, you instinctually want to use bishop to take a pawn. It gives you the advantage, pawn attacked first and it's only fair to fight back. So far so good. However sometimes when you look at the bigger picture, you can notice a queen or a rook at the far end of the board, protecting the pawn. With this information in hand the rational changes, now if bishop takes pawn, the queen will take bishop next turn, making it a loss rather than gain. However, queen is on the far end of the board, and many do not notice her until it's too late. Of course, taking a pawn and then get bishop taken by a queen is still better than let pawn take the bishop because you are impressed with pawn's bravery like a leftie would, but a smart move here is to move bishop away, no matter how much you want to take that pawn.

A real-life example of such a proverbial pawn, that always takes right for a ride is taxes that pay for welfare of the lazy. As much as it seems that welfare only helps lefties, that is far from the truth. Meet your local unfriendly neighbourhood Redneck, the one that drives a huge Chevy truck, lives in a trailer, and has confederate flags and KKK symbols all over the place. He looks like the last person to vote democrat, but that is misleading. Reality is that such people are the biggest welfare beneficiaries and if a right-wing candidate says something about taking these benefits away, these guys will not hesitate to vote Dems. When Romney lost to Obama, that was due to that simple fact. That is also why Donald Trump never says anything about taking any welfare benefits away.

Reason why otherwise right-wing redneck will vote for Dems is the same simple self-interest that drives the tax whiners, but in reverse. Just as much as they do not like to lose their hard-earned money in favor of someone who does not work, the redneck too does not want to lose his unearned money, no matter how immoral or unethical it is to live off others. Both making their decisions based on self-interest, difference is that from a different point of view what is this self-interest is changes. Like 6 can look like 9 if you look at it from the opposite side. For a taxpayer self-interest cutting taxes, for welfare recipient its increasing taxes and increasing their welfare benefits. All talk about ethics and moral will sway neither one, not the other. As much as taxpayer was not swayed by arguments that welfare helps those in need, the welfare recipient will not be swayed by arguments like they did not earn these money.

Fundamentally however, both rightist ethics and morals, as well as leftist compassion is not the bona fide good qualities, but mere disguise behind which right hides their self-interest and left hides their favoritism and emotions. Both are selfish in their own specific way; they just hide it under layers of some more benign substance to fool people around them into thinking they are better than what they claim to be.

However, back to original topic. Different methods of thinking. After all, why so many people can all agree on the same thing and band in groups to pursue their vision they all agree on? That is because they all think in fundamentally the same way. That is why they all arrived at the same conclusions and then united in pursuit of these aspirations.

However, why then there are rival groups who disagree with the first group and oppose them. That is because rival groups are formed by people with fundamentally different way of thinking. People who incapable of feeling or thinking the same way as the first group does, so from perspective of the second group, the first one is senseless, and both their arguments, premises and objectives are fundamentally wrong so should be opposed.

These fundamentally different ways of thinking, ability or inability to feel is what divides people into different groups. That is why we have different political parties, different hobbies, different music tastes, different everything. These differences are the reason why you either can talk people to your point of view or not. If their methods of thinking are the same as yours, they can be talked over to your point of view within 5 minutes or so. If not, then no matter what they say, it will all be for naught, for they will never agree to any of your arguments as you come from completely different assumptions and methods of thinking. That is why right talks taxes and such ad infinite and left similarly prats about hunger in Africa and discrimination.

There are many things that all prove that different people do have fundamentally different ways of thinking. Astrology has 12 signs, subdivided into 4 elements and 3 modalities. Psychology similarly has 16 personalities (Myer-Briggs), also subdivided into 4 core groups. Understanding within same element or same group is possible. Earth type can get another earth type; analyst can get another analyst. However, between different elements and groups understanding is difficult and you can more or less expect them to disagree with everything you personally consider a basic human character that all people share.

It works with countries too. People say Russia, Ukraine and Belarus are similar and came from same East Slavic branch. Yet despite, or perhaps because of that, Russia and Ukraine do not see eye to an eye so much, that it led to completely senseless war. The war continuously shows people of both countries that they disagree on everything and can never be one country, yet both siders persist in their futile attempts to convince the other side they are right. If you analyse Russian demands, they are not about territory or anything of substance, they are a purely moral argument over who is morally right and who is morally wrong.

It's the same in other parts of the world, the three East Asian countries of China, Japan and Korea are exactly the same way. China and Japan hate each other over few sensitive cultural issues that provoke fierce national fervor in both countries.

You can even say that is a basic human nature to divide itself into different entities based on such disagreement. It's similar how human cells occasionally divide themselves into two different cells. Just as out cells do, we too divide ourselves based on our values and worldview. This is a natural thing, and we should encourage such divisions, not oppose them like Russia does.

Implications of this fact are clear. Instead of trying to constantly argue with each other over everything we should just accept reality that people are fundamentally different and will never be on the same page. From there on we should just divide society into groups and get out of each other's way. Otherwise, we will argue forever and will never reach any agreement.

As someone who wasted countless hours arguing with my parents and never managing to convince them of anything, no matter how reasonable and blatantly obvious it was in my own eyes, I know this better than most. Arguments with wrong kind of people are futile, you should just avoid them as they will never be on the same page as you are

We are too different from each other to get along; we should not interact with each other. One should stick with people who think alike.