Women’s Tears Win in the Marketplace of Ideas

Unfortunately, Dan Bilzerian also succumbed to the adolescent temptation to impress Kim Iversen by boasting about the nine women he allegedly slept with in a single night. This makes him, mentally and emotionally speaking, a pseudo-man—even if he believes he has proven his “masculinity” precisely by doing so.

As long as “men” feel the need to convince women of their oh-so-masculine qualities and try to impress them, they have outsourced the yardstick by which they measure themselves to women’s mouths. To believe that women do not sense and notice this external control is as naive as it is mentally immature. Women are, in fact, vastly superior to them when it comes to assessing their own “personality” (which they themselves apparently do not know).

It also does no good to play the tough guy or the badass, because you cannot convincingly portray and/or feign something you are not out of inner conviction, as long as that conviction has not become completely and utterly second nature to you—that is, until it has become a fixed, deeply rooted part of your personality, character, and essence.

They don’t lead; they are led—paraded around like a dancing bear in a circus ring. They have aligned their inner compass—indeed, their entire existence—with women as their sole and most important point of reference. They want to please and impress women, to win their favor and approval; thus, they have ultimately remained children, in need of praise from the unweaned mother figure.

I believe men should embark en masse on an “inner and outer migration” and deny women any attention, practically starving and parching them to the point that they will cry out desperately for them, in the consciousness finally reawakened to how dependent they actually are on men.

What women truly fear in men—like the devil fears holy water—and what simultaneously draws them irresistibly to men like an aphrodisiac, are not remote-controlled, physically mature boys, but thoughtful men who see through their little games and can explain and prove this with lightning-quick wit and irrefutable logic.

We’re all familiar with the famous and widely circulated meme featuring a young man looking intently after a girl while his partner pulls a face of indignation. But what “complex,” unanalyzed, and—to this day—more or less unaddressed messages (not without reason, as they reveal social power dynamics) are hidden in this image?

The main problem for the man when “flirting” is that it consists of two contradictory elements: the assertive “masculine” taking of the initiative, but at the same time the needy, that is, “feminine,” begging for a reaction, a response, affection, and attention from the “object of desire.”

The man is thus demanding something very concrete here—a specific behavior from the woman, not the other way around—and is dependent on her cooperation and consent, which forces him into the position of a supplicant. It is no different with the infamous “marriage proposal.” Ultimately, women unquestioningly expect men to be willing to pay this price of self-sacrifice.

As soon as the actual, underlying motivation for his actions—namely, the urge for sexual contact—becomes all too obvious, the fascination with his unattainability and aloofness is already lost for the man, and he has thus fallen into a trap of his own making, has already lost the cat-and-mouse game, and consequently loses his dignity, appeal, and self-respect.

Can these schizophrenic elements be neatly decoupled and separated from one another, or at least mitigated and defused to some extent? At best, through equally contradictory, schizophrenic, paradoxical actions. The man must therefore be able to apply feminine techniques here in order to achieve his masculine goal.

The only thing men want from women is, after all, perfectly clear, because if porn websites were replaced overnight by sites with titles like “Free non-sexual communication with women here!”, no one would visit them anymore (except perhaps a few castrated beta males who see themselves as comforters, understanding souls, caregivers, and white knights).

However, these websites will never exist, because, first of all, women are generally uninterested in mere communication with men (just as men are with women) unless it constantly revolves around themselves and their “needs”; and second, women always prefer “communication” (or whatever they mean by that) with other women over communication with men.

Perhaps that is why the opposite approach would be logical: to force women to hunt their own prey themselves, rather than simply casting out the fishing hook by dressing in a way that emphasizes their bodies until the guys “bite.” They should thus be put in a position where they have to do without this, so they realize that without it, they cannot survive in the “war of the sexes” at all!

“Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the prettiest of them all?” A famous man once observed that a woman is made entirely of vanity. And her “trump card” lies between her thighs. Everything else is pure “decoration,” or rather: “distraction.” And that’s despite the fact that every other woman possesses the same trump card! It’s simply utterly ridiculous.

So what advice should I give to young men who intend to assert themselves in the battle for reproductive rights in the marketplace of sexual vanity—a veritable minefield of “Me Too,” “invasion of privacy,” “sexual objectification,” “consensual sex,” and so on—while constantly facing suspicion of sexual harassment?

We must use pure, cold, rational, unempathetic male logic to push them out of their “princess” status. Women are world champions at manipulation through feigned “emotions” (such as crying over trivial matters). Men, by contrast, are world champions at falling for it. So-called “catcalling,” for example, is such a clumsy, unimaginative, helpless display of empty-headedness that no man of honor would practice it.

It’s about understanding the principles. That your happiness lies not in the outside world, but solely within. Should you recognize this, women will also be found who wish to partake in (or rather, parasitize) this charisma, this “laugh behind the eyes”—that is a law of nature. This requires no money, no showing off, but only a genuine, authentic, unaffected, natural, and self-assured personality.

Here, audacity and highly creative tactics must go hand in hand, forming a fruitful symbiosis. If a woman in the supermarket catches your eye but snubbs you with a haughty look, then you casually position yourself near her with your back turned to her and say something like this out loud—as if thinking aloud—but loud enough for her to hear: “I’d never even gaze back at someone like you.”

Then you walk away, and now you begin your game with her. Because you’ll notice that from now on she won’t take her eyes off you, since she’s thinking: “No guy has ever said anything so cheeky to me before!” Her insatiable vanity now compels her to “get to the bottom of this disturbingly interesting incident.” But for now, you ignore her as if she were thin air and doesn’t even exist. As if your head were full of other things.

Wherever you go now, she’ll follow you “by chance,” bump into you, run into your arms, or show up completely out of the blue—because you’ve deeply shaken her pampered, self-obsessed vanity and superficial “self-confidence,” and that won’t tolerate any insult of this kind! She wants to make sure you could have seriously meant her, even though she’s already received ten compliments today and spent half an hour in front of the makeup mirror.

In the line at the register, she stands behind you and makes herself noticeable (e.g., through touches that seem accidental or unintentional and physical intrusiveness that seems downright grotesque). Her eyes seek yours; you are now “inexplicably interesting” to her. She tucks her hair behind her ear with her hand, which carries an unconscious message: “I am desirable and have silky hair!” Now you smile back hesitantly for the first time, thereby rewarding her effort.