Sex places different pressures on males and females. Eggs take more energy to produce than sperm, and females alone have to bear a pregnancy. And in over 90% of mammalian species, females provide substantial parental care while males provide none whatsoever. Thus females make a much larger parental investment in each offspring than do males. Parental investment increases the reproductive success of the offspring receiving it, while simultaneously decreasing the parent’s future reproductive success by consuming resources that could be spent on additional offspring.

Differences in behavior between the sexes came about as a result of these differing demands. A female’s potential reproductive success is relatively small, and is limited more by the number of eggs she can produce (or pregnancies she can carry) than by the number of males she can convince to mate with her. In contrast, a male’s potential reproductive success is relatively large, and is limited more by the number of females he can convince to mate with him than by the number of sperm he can produce. This difference in potential reproductive success allows us to predict that males will compete with each other for access to mates, while females will be selective about with whom they mate. Sexually, males are adventurers and risk-takers, while females are risk-avoiders.

These differences in reproductive strategies manifest themselves in behavioral and physical differences that go beyond sex. The competitiveness of males drives them to take risks more frequently, not just when appealing to females, but also in day-to-day decision-making. Car insurance rates are higher for teenage boys than for girls for precisely this reason. Risk-taking “raises the stakes” of many decisions, increasing the potential rewards but also increasing the consequences of failure.

This risk-taking makes evolutionary sense, because males are far more expendable than females. If all women were killed except one, the race would take many generations to return to its original size, if ever. Yet if all the men were killed except one, the remaining man would have his work cut out for him, but the race could theoretically repopulate within a generation. Since males are not as necessary for the maintenance of population size, males tend to take more risks, be more aggressive, and tend to work towards establishing themselves higher in social hierarchies than do women.

But if women are inherently conservative, then why are they generally more supportive of left-wing causes than men? First of all, in spite of the leftist rhetoric about progress and radical change, the leftist emphasis on social welfare, social planning, and anti-competitive egalitarianism has an obvious appeal to risk-averse females. Furthermore, in spite of the leftist posture of always being outsiders, the left now controls most of the authoritative institutions of society: the educational system, the news and entertainment media, the churches, etc. Leftist opinion is the “status quo.” Women are brainwashed to accept it and loath to criticize it, for fear of the risks to their social standing, their employment, and especially to the well-being of their children.

But more women support the White racialist movement now than in the past. I know this from personal experience. I have been reading racialist-oriented USENET newsgroups (and web-based bulletin boards, once the technology was developed), ever since I first went “online” back in 1994 or 1995. I posted a personals ad on Stormfront years ago, shortly after the personals section was created. I didn’t receive any responses. I did the same thing just several months ago, and was contacted by a number of women.

Part of the reason may be that women are more comfortable expressing politically incorrect ideas anonymously on the internet, a far less risky prospect than espousing the same views openly.

But surely that is not the main reason. For the same reason that women have been slow to take up the White nationalist cause, women may eventually become its strongest and most uncompromising supporters: their maternal instincts. More women are joining the White nationalist cause as it becomes increasingly evident that the health and welfare of future generations of Whites is at stake.

Aside from the love and protection my own mother gave me (which continues to this day), my first encounter with female maternal instinct came when I was seven or eight years old. At a lake near my old school, I observed a mallard duck leading her ducklings. Curious boy that I was, I ran over to the ducklings and picked one up. Although most adult ducks at the lake were apprehensive about approaching humans even when they were sharing food, the mother turned, came right up to me, and started quacking loudly. When I knelt down, she proceeded to flog my arm with her wing until I released the duckling. I was shocked at the length this mother would go to protect her baby. She went from risk aversion to quite possibly risking her life, but the underlying biological imperative was the same.

I have the feeling that more White mothers will begin behaving like that mother duck, once they can no longer ignore the fact that the world their children will inherit will be worse than the one into which they were born. In the meantime, more individuals need to stick their necks out, especially young men. Future generations of our race are counting on us.

Occidental Dissent, April 12, 2010

If validation of this theory were needed one would only need to attend, say, a meeting of International Socialists, and then visit a meeting of anti-immigration enthusiasts and compare the results. At the Nuremberg-like, mother of all get-togethers of over-enthusiastic anti-immigration enthusiasts at a certain beach-side locality several years ago, only a sprinkling of pink petals bobbed in a swirling sea of testosterone.

“Why is it so?” as an eccentric, televised scientist used to ask as the experiment gave the repeatable result yet again. A quick search of the internet reveals a depressing lack of research into this phenomenon. This perhaps could be ground-breaking investigation.

A premise this exploration will assume, much to the chagrin of feminists who constitute many of pink sprinkles on the left (so it doesn’t matter) is that there are fundamental differences between the sexes apart from the obvious physical ones. The physical differences being so pronounced, it should not surprise that men and women also inhabit different mental worlds. Biology is destiny (this is fingernails scraping on a blackboard to Feminists).

Why would it be that the Left is attractive to females?

For starters, that is where Feminism is situated on the political spectrum. It should be borne in mind that we are discussing here the New Left — not the musty old Left that died with history’s failure to conform to the prediction of capitalism’s collapse, not to mention the collapse of its home in the Soviet Union. What we are indeed concerned with here is the New Left.

Along with Feminism as its star recruit, the New Left is concerned with every shade and hue of “social justice,” with perhaps the sole exception of the injustices still suffered by white, working class men. They evidently ended up in the dust and rubble with the Old Left. High ranking union officials like to pretend that that isn’t the case, but to paraphrase the once lovely Mandy Rice Davies, they would, wouldn’t they — given their pampered, jet-setting life styles.

Within the Left there is a curious twist. Notwithstanding its thorny, knotty nature, it was resolved with silk-like smoothness. How it was done must remain one of nature’s impenetrable secrets. The conundrum was the towering contradiction posed by Feminism’s strident defence of “women’s rights” confronted by the Left’s general championing of multiculturalism which, by definition, had to include the brutal trampling of women’s rights that is the hallmark of our growing Islamic sub-culture.

Without discussion, without riotous, blood-spilling committee meetings, this issue seemed to be resolved the way a flock of birds suddenly, without communication, decides to change direction. This pocket of resistance was quietly surrendered to the enemy. Multiculturalism trumped Feminism. Like the pedophile uncle, this matter is never discussed.

With its perennial and “selfless” concern for society’s victims, it is perhaps only natural for the Left to be a lure to women who after all are the carers and nurturers of the race. This should not be a controversial statement but in a world sadly turned upside down, it is. How though could they not be carers and nurturers by nature given the role they play in the incubation and care of the race’s new arrivals?

Unfortunately this natural bent has been exploited many times over for commercial and political gain. The historically low wages and poor conditions of nurses is an obvious example. Using women to inspire men go to war is another. If woman, who is a gentle pacifist by nature, is urging men to go to war, that war must be an entirely just and unavoidable enterprise.

There are of course exceptions to the rule. Our self-styled antipodean Joan of Arc, Pauline Hanson, personified that exception. It could possibly be argued though that it was precisely because of her rarity as a woman on the wrong side of the political tracks that she became such star — a created star at that — created by the media which once they had discovered that the creation was a monster, did their level best to kill it.

While Pauline’s trajectory was arcing through the firmament, a parallel career was almost flat-lining below it. This was the challenge extended to the political establishment by Graham Campbell, a rogue Labor Party politician and former minister who continued to hold the federal seat of Kalgoorlie as an Independent. Campbell was immensely experienced and was loaded with the concomitant political savvy. He was saying most of the same things as Hanson, only much more intelligently, but because of his being ignored by the media and “starved of oxygen,” be died a slow, political death.

Scientific fact: whereas men think predominantly with the brain’s left hemisphere — the home of cold hard logic — a woman’s thinking is shared evenly between the left and the right hemisphere which is where we are thinking when we are said to be thinking with the heart.

To present a hypothesis, which admittedly would be extremely difficult to test, we need a lifeboat packed with passengers who’ve just escaped a sinking ship. In the water surrounding the boat other survivors are struggling, screaming for help and trying to get into the boat.

If those already in the boat were all female, the struggling unfortunates would be helped into the boat. If those in the boat were all male, it would be quickly realised that if any more were allowed to board the boat it would sink and no-one would have any chance of survival. Accordingly, steps would be taken to prevent that eventuality even if it meant smashing heads with oars. The left side of the brain would be whirring with rationalisations about the greater good. The monster of a moral dilemma is neatly resolved. The ladies’ boat is headed for the bottom.

In modern times though, it must be admitted, women have toughened up, but largely in the wrong direction through having been led up the garden path by Feminism. Most women, at least to some degree, have been affected by what has been called “an ideology of pure selfishness.” While initially addressing long standing injustices, once the injustices had been for all intents and purposes remedied, feminism veered off to where all causes based on victim-hood end up: in a perpetual war against a largely non-existent enemy.The non-existent enemy in this case was of course men — all men.

The energy this struggle sapped from women left little to be used in the fight against real enemies. The all-pervading “awareness” of “patriarchy” and men in general as the oppressors left little room on the mental screen for projecting the image of a tyrannical, global elite hell-bent on usurping the natural rights of men and women everywhere, and busting nations in an insane pursuit of transforming the world into one great serfdom.

To be sure, that this could be happening, at first sight, seems so breathtakingly incredible that it is not difficult to see why it is dismissed by so many as paranoid delusion. That this perception could be easily swept aside by means of even the most rudimentary research — needing of course motivation in the first place — goes without saying. But perhaps a more important aid in lifting the curtain on what is coming is a capacity for abstract thinking — the ability to see what isn’t.

Judging by the huge male preponderance in the fields of philosophy and invention, it may not be too outrageous to claim that men may be just a little more gifted than women in this department. (Before the high-heeled shoes begin being thrown, the much fabled women’s intuition is duly noted.) To be able to see what isn’t, one needs to be able to extrapolate from what is, as well as current trends (especially when those trends show no sign of ever stopping or changing course) to see what will be.

Agreeing in advance to the obvious poor value of anecdotal evidence, strong motivation urges the inclusion of just one small sliver. When a young, intelligent woman was told that Australia’s current immigration policies would eventually lead to Australians becoming a minority in their own country, she was scornful. “Do you really think that could ever possibly happen?” she wanted to know.

Because Australia since its settlement has been an essentially white country, she was assuming, notwithstanding rolling breakers of third world immigration, that it would always be so. To someone extrapolating from current trends it was obvious that it wouldn’t.

The same woman apologizes profusely whenever expressing anything that could even remotely be construed as a “racist” sentiment. Whenever this happens, one cannot escape the feeling that this reaction is identical to that of a religious person on letting slip a heresy.

This leads to another possible reason why women are essentially uninterested in nationalism. To anyone with experience of raising or teaching girls it would be readily apparent that they are different to boys — in terms of their being better behaved — girls good, boys bad. When girls turn into women they retain their predilection for being good and being perceived as good. It’s not for nothing that they have been termed “God’s police.”

When, for example, Western society was still strongly influenced by moral values, the demarcation line between “good” girls and “bad” girls was as clearly defined as the 38th parallel on the Korean peninsular. Many’s the man who married the girl of his dreams simply because it was the only way to fulfill that dream in the carnal sense.

Times sure have changed, but not women’s persistent desire to be good in whatever way society deems “good.” With media, the education system, the churches, governments and bureaucracies lecturing us to the point of hypnotism on the evils of nationalism, and even worse, being concerned about your race, is it any wonder women may be tempted to avoid this yawning den of iniquity? To some women, being seen leaving one of these nests of nationalist malcontents would probably be worse than being seen leaving a house of ill repute.

On the other hand, there is evidently a sizable proportion of the male population who don’t mind being seen as “bad boys,” in fact even reveling in it. This is perhaps where most of society’s rebels have come from. This might be where we should be looking for nationalists — provided they have the additional attributes of a capacity for independent thinking and a store of moral courage.

So now at least we might have some idea of why the girls are missing from the party. However, as Mr Marx (not Groucho) so succinctly put it: ‘The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways. The point however, is to change it.” How do we get the girls to the party?

Angelic, gentle, pure, and sweet is how man has seen woman since even when she was covered in primeval mud. But she also has another side, hidden most of the time but nevertheless only quietly dozing. It is terrible and frightening. But how to awaken it? What does she care about more than anything else in the world — even the one who thinks he is number one? It is of course her children.

It is for these she will fight like a tigress, and if necessary, gladly die. It must somehow be communicated to the women of this country that the future is extremely uncertain at best, and as perilous as a battlefield at worse. A dark future, perhaps difficult to see now, is nevertheless heading toward us with gathering speed.

As individuals more concerned with shopping, celebrity antics and soap operas than with the survival of our race we are lost. Atomised, the way those who think they own us want us, as we are invaded by those who think and act as collectively as bees in a hive, we have no chance. Our children have no chance. As they come to adulthood in a country that should have been theirs but find instead the ruins of a collapsed tower of Babel where they are the objects of scorn of a hundred different tribes they will scream their rage and pain into the wind: “Why were we betrayed so? Why such a miserable inheritance?”

By a strange twist of synchronicity, as this essay was nearing completion, the perfect ending was stumbled upon. Provided by F. Roger Devlin in “The ‘Reafricanization’ of the West,” American Renaissance, June 2008, it cannot be improved upon.

Many racially conscious whites worry about the absence of women in our ranks, but I believe they have it backwards. We do not need women on our side to succeed politically; we need to succeed politically to have women on our side. As soon as we start winning, the ladies will find our arguments plausible, our faces handsome, and our jokes witty. Direct political action by women is not part of the European tradition; respect for the vital female role in the family is. When we have done our work, they will gladly do theirs: bear our race’s children. (http://www.amren.com/ar/2008/06/index.html)

White Australia, January 25, 2010

The thrust of the essay is that White Nationalists should exploit common sense (look her dead in the eye, be confident, be funny, don’t be a nice guy, etc.) to secure mates and racialize young females. The long term goal advocated is reproductive success (sex tied to reproduction), not sexual intercourse for its own sake. Michael could have stated this more clearly and used less provocative language to get his point across.

But nowhere in his article does Michael idolize dissolute males. He does not say that men should psychologically manipulate females to “score” as many one night stands as possible. His object seems to be to coax the more cerebral White Nationalists (he cites me as an example) out of their misogyny and into the “sexual marketplace.” I don’t agree with this characterization, as I am neither celibate or a misogynist, but that’s not the issue here.

I’ve elaborated my view of the Roissysphere before. There is a lot of truth in what they have to say, so I won’t criticize their science of the pick up artist, but I think the degeneration of sexual mores that followed in the wake of feminism is one of the strongest arguments against modern liberal society. It is something the White Nationalist movement should aim to reverse. At the same time, I have also said that retreating into monastic celibacy like Lawrence Auster is hopelessly impractical.

For the most part, I agree with Michael Bell. White Nationalists have to navigate the choppy waters of gender relations in a degenerate liberal age. In pursuit of the reproductive goal, I see nothing morally objectionable about making intelligent use of basic insights into female psychology. There probably isn’t a man in the world who doesn’t do this on some level. The only real point of difference between us is the stress he puts upon game.

White Nationalists are still a tiny minority of White Americans. There are still plenty of decent, respectable young women out there in a shrinking pool of potential mates. In fact, we’re outnumbered by them. If you are willing to look hard enough, you can find a mate of this sort. You also have a better chance of forming a lasting relationship with such a woman than using game to convert the common run of brainwashed female to racialism.

Unlike some people here, I am not going to condemn the emerging men’s issues movement, as it is clear there is some common ground between us. If you think about it, White men are being dispossessed in several ways: as a race, as a religion, and as men. The men’s issues movement is another angle on the dispossession story. It involves many of the same actors. “Game” is one emergent response to this. White Nationalism and Christian Nationalism are two others.

I don’t think anyone has looked at all three movements with the same critical perspective. We should mine this subject further.

This realism comes from an unlikely source: recent online discourse about “game,” i.e., techniques for picking up women. Some white nationalists will reject all talk of “game” because of its Negro gutter slang and Jewish promoters. But in spite of its origins, I wish to argue that game is merely the reassertion of nature and Traditional wisdom about sexuality in a form adopted to the present Dark Age (Kali Yuga), and that white nationalist men need to master it if their genes and values are to survive into the next Golden Age.

In traditional societies, men rule over and take care of women. As girls, they are ruled by their fathers. As wives, they are ruled by their husbands. As widows, they are looked after by their sons. Even a woman who enjoyed some choice in the matter of mates still received her male suitors under the lawful supervision and watchful eyes of her father, who hoped to find a man of the requisite caste, ability, wealth, and physical prowess, for these factors would ensure her continuance of the family bloodline and the protection of her and her offspring.

As the West underwent decline thanks largely to the revolutionary upheavals of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, women were kept in their traditional place more by social expectations than the legal rule of their male superiors. This persisted, more or less, until around the 1960s, when the Free Love counter-culture fully liberated women to do whatever they pleased. Today, all constraints have been cast to the four winds, and women roam the world acting on their own proclivities.

I am no misogynist; I am merely an observer with a knack for characterization. One thing I have noticed about women is that their minds are chaotic places, rife with insecurities, second-guessing, emotionalism, sensationalism, caprice, naivete, worries, self-contradiction, and an unhealthy preoccupation with immediate concerns.

Add to this the slew of other uniquely female maladies: premenstrual syndrome, Munchausen Biproxy, and post-partum depression, among others.

Now, throw women into a society that is the epitome of chaos, where men are effeminate, family life is turbulent (and daddy issues are nine times out of ten the cause of female self-ruination), drugs of every sort are easily accessible, and all positive values are inverted. Thus you have the potential for raw, unadulterated lunacy. These are the times we live in, and being wired as they are biologically, we almost cannot blame women for their often senseless behavior.

The senseless behavior that concerns us here is that of choosing male mates who would come across to most of us as either ugly, stupid, or downright degenerate. There are many beautiful, bright, and successful women out there who have their arms around sloppy, slack-jawed, grotesque morons of every race. We have all seen it, and we have all been equally confused, outraged, and discouraged by it, I’m sure. “How can that be possible?!” we would say to ourselves or the friend next to us. Many of us would then think “I’m good looking, successful, and can carry an intelligent conversation. Why don’t I get girls like that?”

The truth is that these evolutionary throwbacks have an advantage over the cerebral types in courting the hot chicks—an advantage that generally proves to be most decisive. Among today’s young crowd, it’s called “having game.” As the phrase is undoubtedly of urban slang origin, allow me to consult the Urban Dictionary website:

“The ability to seduce anybody of the opposite sex . . . or same sex for that matter.

10 minutes after he met her (he) was hittin’ dat ass, dat dude got mad game.”

What exactly does “the ability to seduce anybody” entail? Nowadays it requires a series of mental games that someone with street smarts is capable of playing, and playing well. The woman’s mind, again, is a complicated place. It is like a rotating sphere with a number of different buttons, each of which can be pressed only within a limited time span. If you miss a button, it loses its overall effectiveness by its next rotation.

Most importantly, one needs to determine the proper sequence in which to press these buttons, as the wrong one could result in total, perpetual rejection. Another could land one in the ever-dreaded “friend zone,” wherein a woman sees a man purely as a platonic friend and will never consider him in a romantic fashion as long as they both shall live.

The game starts the second a man speaks to a woman, and may continue indefinitely depending upon what the man is seeking; the goal nowadays is usually to get the girl in bed. The pressing of the right buttons at the right time produces an electrical shockwave in the woman’s head that tells her “This man is sexy and I want to get to know him,” even if he is not physically attractive, and even if he is, in every other regard, an asshole.

Allow me to repeat: good looks, intelligence, social stature, education, and wealth are not sufficient for scoring with women anymore. Women have such an unlimited array of choices nowadays due to their liberation that the only way to truly snag one is to get into her head and steer her in your direction. That is what having game is all about, and that is an ability that we white nationalists need to develop if our race is to have a shot at survival.

I absolutely loathe playing mind games; whenever I stoop to the level of borderline childlike idiocy that is often necessary when “spitting game,” I feel almost like a shell of my true self. But this is the Kali Yuga, and game, like most forms of dishonesty and manipulation, is necessary for us at this point in time. Think of it as behaving like an agent provocateur with a crucial objective.

Most white nationalists are extremely cerebral people, and many more still are well-kempt, handsome, masculine fellows. I have met some of the most brilliant and most noble-looking men among this crowd. But the highly intelligent mind, with its preoccupation with lofty ideas and the like, is so foreign to the mentality one needs to pick up women that many of our kind simply have trouble finding mates.

We expect that the epitome of graceful white womanhood is out there for our taking, and that the rightness of our Cause and nobility of our spirits is all we need to get her. Unfortunately, this is far from the case. As such, a streak of self-defeating misogyny has arisen among our ranks, as well as among intelligent whites who don’t subscribe to our ideals.

Here is an example from Occidental Dissent (October 25, 2009):

Young women these days have been stripped of all culture, taste, and refinement. The last traces of respectability are quickly vanishing. It is harder and harder to find a mate who is intelligent, somewhat interesting, and isn’t a whore. Increasingly, I find myself entertaining the dark thought that women are only good for one thing, which is sex. Most of my friends have already arrived at this conclusion.

Hence, this post. Young women are suckers for cads. They deliberately seek out exactly the guys who are most likely to use them, treat them like shit, and dispose of them. They all entertain the same fantasy of being able to control males of this sort; often times in full knowledge of what they are getting into.

He’s right about one thing. Women have lost culture and refinement, but it’s only because the type of  civilization that once predominated has been supplanted by the Kali Yuga (the age of chaos), which itself is the fault of past generations of men. Without the order bestowed on all Life that is only possible by the agency of Higher Man—the culture bearer—one cannot expect a naturally chaotic creature to maintain her respectability on her own.

The author is wrong when he says women “deliberately seek out exactly the guys who are most likely to use them, treat them like shit, and dispose of them. They all entertain the same fantasy of being able to control males of this sort.” You see, it is not a love of being abused that drives women into the arms of “cads,” but rather, the skillful “game” that cads employ to get them. They mistreat women later on simply because they can. Say what you will about them, but they know how to control a woman’s mind.

What makes a race truly great is its ability to evolve and adapt to continually arising problems. The state of women today is one such problem, and rather than giving into despair and bemoaning how “whorish” and “uncultured” they are—both of which only lead to sexless “blue balls”—we ought to be surmounting this dilemma.

We are smarter, nobler, and better looking than the average cad, and if you add those traits to a little bit of “game,” the odds would be overwhelmingly in our favor. Again, these traits are not enough in themselves, but they do lend support at certain points. Think of game as the battering ram needed to breach an enemy castle, and a man’s positive personality traits as the ram’s covering arrow fire.

If you refuse to develop your own game and would rather sit and complain about how low women have sunk, then our race will not have the future generation of leaders it needs to carry the torch of civilization. It requires much trial and error, but the perks of success far outweigh the cons of how silly one might feel while “gaming.”

A successful game results in sexual intercourse—which should be reinforcement enough—and, later on, loving companionship. With the latter comes the possibility of converting the woman to our Cause—“culturing” her. I can attest to this from personal experience; once a woman loves you, or at least cares for you enough, she is much more willing to embrace thoughts and ideas that were hitherto completely absent from her mind. Most women can be brought into the fold only in this way.

There is also a non-sexual incentive for mastering the art of seduction. One who knows how to manipulate women has the potential to manipulate the masses, for they are essentially passive and feminine. From getting women’s numbers, one of our own can gradually ascend to getting people’s votes in a local election or something similar. Just look at David Duke.

The Practical Side of Game

We shall now move to an examination of how game is carried out; the popular phraseology is “spitting game.” Fortunately, the Internet offers an endless array of blogs and tip-giving websites for our use. Some of these, no doubt, were written by urban Negroes and other hoodlums, but the utility of their ideas is far more important than their origins.

Firstly, one must understand that there is no single method of success. Different situations call for different approaches, be they at a bar, in a library, or at work. Game is only the first principle—the will-to-romance, if you will—and tactics are different manifestations of it.

For example, a man should never single-handedly approach a group of more than two girls for the sake of meeting one of them. For one, female gaggles tend to think that if all of them aren’t getting attention, then none of them ought to. Secondly, the man in question will simply appear strange to them. “Why is he all alone? Doesn’t he have any friends? Can’t he see that it’s a girl’s night out?” are the thoughts that will be running through their minds.

The film Big Daddy hits it right on the head when Sonny teaches Julian that “initiating the conversation is half the battle.” Such is why this is the most difficult part of gaming. The possibilities in this regard are absolutely coterminous with the context, which means that one cannot give a solid answer as to “how.” I can, however, give a few examples of situation manipulation.

I was once at a restaurant that had a bar right next to my table. Sitting there was a tall, slender blonde with blue eyes whom I resolved to meet. As it just so happened, this place was a microbrewery with its own unique assortment of beers, one of which was titled “The Blonde Bombshell.” I strategically walked up to the bar in a spot next to the woman and placed my order with enough volume for her to hear it. Surely enough, like clockwork, she responded.

“A fan of the blondes, eh?” she inquired with a come-hither look in her eye. “Guilty,” I responded with a smirk while slowly shaking my head. A longer conversation then spilled out naturally, I got her number, and the rest was fait accompli.

It’s really just about sizing up the situation in a Sun-Tzu fashion. If a girl looks like she’s in a pissy mood, don’t waste your time. If she appears to be totally absorbed in her cell phone, she’s likely talking to one or more other guys already (and she’s also probably high-maintenance). If several men have been approaching a woman that night, you will just appear to be a dorky cliché to her if you follow suit. Sometimes you will even get lucky and a girl will approach you, making the game outlandishly easy.

After initial communication occurs, the button-pressing begins. Below are some core methods to stick to provided by becomeaplayer.com, with my additional commentary.

SMILE. Remember to smile constantly; while you’re talking, while you’re listening, while you’re doing just about anything. I can not stress this rule enough, smiling is the most powerful weapon in any player’s arsenal. It let’s the women know that your probably a fun guy to be around and someone they would like to know or be involved with.  This single rule alone can improve your success with women by over 100%, use it wisely . . .

Subliminally, smiling communicates self-confidence and superiority, for we only smile and laugh at things to which we feel superior. Make sure you look her dead in the eye as well. Looking away suggests insecurity, which will destroy your chances immediately.

Never talk too much or bring up subjects that will be boring to her; let her initiate the topics of discussion and do most of the talking while you simply relate yourself to her statements by saying things like “me too.”

The second one is extremely important. Do not discuss politics or give any inkling as to your racial views. Keep the conversation simple and try to keep her talking about herself. The indoctrination process can begin several months later, after you’ve already had sex with her and she’s eating out of your hand.

Tell her a joke, because jokes stick in your head.

By this, the author is not talking about going up to a girl and saying “So, did you hear the one about the bear and the rabbit?” Instead, be sarcastic in your speech. Make fun of her playfully if she slips up with a word, says something that doesn’t make sense (which they are prone to do), or does something else unusual. They are insecure beings, and if a man demonstrates that he is above them, they eat it right up.

My sardonic ways of conversing have almost always been my means to success. I recall one date I had with a beautiful, busty woman who had a funny voice, recited odd inside jokes that I could not possibly understand, and had a bit of snot in one of her nostrils. I tore her apart playfully for each quirk, making her extremely self-conscious but nonetheless enamored. If she were a male friend there would have been a brawl, but women love being picked on for some reason. One year later we concluded a long, passionate, rewarding relationship that I’ll never forget; I even made her racially conscious.

Another tip, which is somewhat intertwined with the above, reads:

Always compliment women, and they will always feel good about you, but don’t overdue [sic] it or they will think your [sic] just trying to score points (which you are, but you don’t want them to know that). Try to sound sincere and give her a unique compliment that most people will overlook. Once you’ve gotten comfortable with complimenting women in general, the next step is to begin giving them negative compliments (negs) in order to disqualify yourself as someone that is trying to pick them up. By doing this, you will have a non-threatening presence from then on and will be able to game her from a much more powerful position. The basic form of a neg is a positive followed by a negative, for example “I like the color of your shirt, but it fits a little funny on you . . . is it too small?”

There is an important dynamic to compliment-giving that the writer overlooks a bit. Firstly, never be too direct in your compliments during the first conversation with a girl. If you say, for example, “You are damn beautiful tonight,” she is likely going to think that you are odd, or even creepy. Save those remarks for a third or fourth date. Even the Baron Julius Evola offers some advice in this regard:

“. . . she is like a flame feeding itself . . . she loves even more as the object of her love does not commit himself, does not open himself up, and even creates some distance. . .”

In other words, she does not need endless compliments. The man who keeps dishing them out appears too eager—almost feminine in his own right. Offer a compliment only if she brings up a target, such as: “Yea my hair is a rat’s nest today,” upon which you say “You’re crazy. It looks fine.” Or better yet, leave a “neg.”: “Yea it is, in fact, I see some things crawling around in there.” After such a neg, smile and let her know you’re messing around. If she’s sitting or standing next to you, you might also give her a light shove with your elbow while reassuring her. If she playfully slaps you, touches your leg, or says “Screw you!” while giggling (do I really need to provide a translation here?), you are in like Flynn.

Finally, when the conversation is all said and done, do not ask for her number—demand it. Instead of “So, can I have your number?” it ought to be “I’m thinking you should give me your number so we can hang out some time.” This evokes your masculine auctoritas, your lordliness.

Nine times out of ten, you will not sleep with the girl that night. The game must therefore go on for a few more weeks. Evola offers more advice:

“. . . the feminine principle, whose force is centrifugal, does not turn to fleeting objects but rather to a ‘virile’ stability in which she finds a limit to her ‘restlessness.’”

In other words, you must be as a sun to her planet. Calling or texting the next day is a sure-fire way to kill your chances, as this suggests over-eagerness. Most of the time the girl will call or text you anyhow. If this does not happen, wait two whole days before initiating contact. After hanging out becomes a routine, never come across as “needing” to see her. The idea is to appear as a Stoic, unmoved mover that could not care any less about her; they see it as an enticing challenge, and it works every time.

My worst failures occurred when I was calling almost every other day, always being the one to request a hangout. I was being a “nice guy”—the worst mistake any man can make. The Hollywood image of the reserved, shy, apologetic, nice pipsqueak, usually played by some Jewish actor, does NOT get the girl. Don’t be Jon Cusack or Jason Biggs, but Jason Statham or Colin Farrell (but don’t smoke like the latter!).

Some words regarding text messaging: Women love to do it, and although I absolutely loathe it, it’s yet another arena in which we must be masters. Texts should never be very long, and one should never send two in a row. Let the women keep hammering you with the questions. Respond with simple, basic answers that prompt more questions, and always give about five to ten minutes before responding. If she does not respond, be patient even if it means waiting three hours. In his novel Mister, Alex Kurtagic offers similar guidelines in the scene describing how the main character met his wife.

* * *

The “button-pressing” ideas given above should be considered a basic framework for spitting game, not an absolute equation. Each situation and each woman may call for something different. A girl with daddy issues is more likely to respond to crudely humorous remarks, while a girl from a healthy household might demand more intelligent manners of expression. A woman who’s had a few at the bar might have a better sense of humor than a woman in a bookstore who is sober.

On the other hand, a guy who is physically attractive will have better chances (covering fire) and could probably get away with a few slipups (incorrect button sequences), while a chubby guy will need to have his game down to a T to succeed. It’s all variable, but one becomes more capable in sizing up situations with practice and a little advice.

I have a friend who has slept with well over forty women. He is not particularly handsome, standing 5’7” with a beer-gut, tiny balloon-like hands, and a goat-like beard; to bust his chops, I call him “The Hobbit.” Nevertheless, he has one of the most flawless games I have ever witnessed and has landed countless gorgeous ladies as a result.

Not only does he know what to say and when to say it, but he also has an uncanny ability to determine what types of women he’s dealing with. If a girl comes across as having a high level of self-respect and intelligence, he generally avoids her. If a girl appears to be less-than-bright with insecurities and daddy issues, he pounces like a lion upon a gazelle—“Easy targets,” he calls them. His current woman was initially won over when he wrote her a note that said “I want to *** you like it’s the last supper.” He read her signals, knew what she would respond to, and dished it out with surgeon-like precision.

One important thing to note is that some women will not respond to you no matter how well your game is. A small minority of women have specific types of men that they prefer, i.e., guidos, gangstahs, blondes, brunettes with blue eyes, bodybuilders, etc., and will never deviate from these preferences. Often times women will only date members of a certain race, be it their own or another (the latter is unfortunate). I’ve gleaned from my experiences that the greater majority will respond to men who appear to be of their own race or something akin to it, and who have good game, regardless of sub-categorical types. As white men, that means we have a big pool to fish in.

Instead of dismissing game as something plebeian or that only works on dumb “whores,” we need to be open-minded and give it a shot. Intelligent white men, especially those of our creed, need to master the art of seduction. It is a Dionysian impulse that must be cultivated if we are to keep up with the nonwhite hordes that multiply indiscriminately every day, sometimes out of unions with our own men and women.

To those men who think me a braggart, I suggest you go to a bar or other public venue and give gaming a shot. If you already have a girlfriend or wife then you only substantiate my argument because it took a good game on your part to snag her! If you refuse to try it and would rather sit around in a misogynistic despair, then there is no hope for you or the generations of white posterity that you could have sired.

To those women who deem me a sexist, I suggest you search your souls a bit more deeply; look back on your ex-boyfriends and past one-night stands and reassess exactly what you were attracted to about them. If you find yourself saying “he appeared very confident” or “he was really funny,” then you only prove my argument—you’re talking about his good gaming skills.

Women have become merely another battlefield on which we white men must prove victorious if we are to save the race. Rise to the challenge that is the busty, smooth-skinned, broad-hipped, doe-eyed, sleek-figured white vixen!

We are better in every way than the meatheads, whiggers, metrosexuals, gangstahs, Asian sensations, guidos, potheads, and other goofballs out there who land beautiful women; those women could easily be ours.

We cannot allow ourselves to be outdone by slack-jawed, lazy-grinned, physically disproportionate, genetically-debased material simply because they have the courage to “hollah’ at” girls while we keep to ourselves and bewail the dating pool.

Yes, girls are wired crazily, and they often times act stupidly, but it is our job to be their source of mountain-like centrality. We must conquer them, bring them into our orbits, and turn them into the proud mothers of our future through our irresistible auctoritas.

Their whoreishness, erratic behavior, uncertainty, irrationality, insecurity, and the like ought to be seen as exploitable weaknesses, not impregnable fortifications.

Get out there and spit some game, white man! It will take many tries if you’re new to it, but that’s how one learns. Don’t feel self-conscious, and don’t get discouraged; heed the words of Nietzsche: “Be of good cheer! What matter! Learn to laugh at yourselves!”

And for God’s sake, get laid.