If there’s one thing a man learns about women when he literally beds hundreds of them in his own personal anthropological experiment trying to find out what makes females tick (as well as his own taste for hedonism—heh) it’s that there are no unicorns. Those with powers of keen observation and rational analysis notice women are naturally gifted with the innate behavior the philosopher Schopenhauer called dissimulation, that is the tendency to conceal their true thoughts and feelings.

When a man watches female behavior instead of listening to their words patterns begin to emerge. One of the most important patterns a man might notice is that the most powerful force in the universe is hypergamy, not compound interest as Einstein humorously stated. Hypergamy is of course the human female’s tendency to marry up (never down) in social status. Oxford-educated anthropologist Robert Briffault knew this in the 1930s, but of course Utopia-seeking Western social engineers completely ignored what made society stable in mad pursuit of magic theories that were going to fix everything.

Their egalitarian notions of some sort of sexual equality were doomed to failure, and the failure was baked right into the cake. Briffault wrote:

The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.

That simple sentence, followed to its logical conclusion could have stopped the impending sexual disenfranchisement and subsequent disengagement of Western men from their own nations.

Briffault knew if a woman can’t use a man for something—money, social status, power or all three—she wants nothing to do with said man no matter how attractive a man he might be or how altruistic he is. A perfectly equal society is a society in which women have ZERO attraction to men, because men in such a society would be bereft of the qualities that make them attractive to women in the first place. Feminism was destined to create chaos from its inception.

Eggs are rare, sperm is plentiful, therefore males are usually disposable in nature

Eggs are rare, sperm is plentiful, therefore males are usually disposable in nature

Women will do anything for the seed of a top dog. Just watch as they literally faint in old videos of The Beatles and turn into total whores whenever a dominant male enters the room, or orbit actors like DiCrapio. Guys like DiCrapio look and act like douches but have the key female-attracting intoxicants: money, status, and power. (If you want to see what it’s like to be an alpha male and see the power of hypergamy in full swing, go to a country in which you have high social capital and watch how differently you are treated than when you’re in America or Europe. But, bear in mind women’s interest in you as a human being is purely an illusion.)

Feminism fails to account for the fact that removing money, status, and power from men will ultimately unleash chaos on society.

Of course, the fact the world is melting down is based not only on Utopia-seeking sociological behavior that ignores fundamental principles of anthropology. Politicians and social engineers also ignore the primacy of a relatively new concept in science known as The Selfish Gene (which incidentally led George R. Price, one of its discoverers to suicide). They formulate hypotheses about a “perfect world” then try to simulate the real world using Game Theory (not the game theory of the manosphere) which reduces people to mathematical equations social engineers then plug into computer models. These models currently tell politicians the solution to all the world’s ills is to throw everything up in the air, destroy national identities and borders, and pretend ethnic and sexual differences don’t matter in fantastical sort of New World Order that is destined for catastrophe.

The Utopians most crucially missed the implications of The Selfish Gene on male/female relations.

The Selfish Gene

Women are innately solipsistic and selfish as any man who has had many dealing with them knows

Women are innately solipsistic and selfish as any man who has had many dealings with them knows

If it’s been said once, it’s been said a thousand times, nice guys finish last. But why is it that women choose dominance every time over niceness, dooming notions of sexual equality to dismal failure?

The Selfish Gene” theory could explain the tendency of women not only to marry up, but to completely disregard the bottom 4/5 of men as potential suitors as The Pareto Principle suggests and eyewitness evidence in any club in America will illustrate. Here’s a simple definition of The Selfish Gene:

A lineage is expected to evolve to maximize its inclusive fitness—the number of copies of its genes passed on globally (rather than by a particular individual).

This theory is bad news for men in a sexual market that has shifted to look more like a jungle than a civilization since the advent of “women’s liberation” a.k.a. feminism. The Realtalk translation of that very effete sounding definition of The Selfish Gene works out to: Women want to fuck the winners, and they will fuck over the losers.


Women have evolved to disregard and even harbor contempt for “inferior” DNA. In a cruel world in which survival of the fittest has been the rule from day one over 4 billion years ago when life began to form in the slime, being a nice boy doesn’t cut it. Women, more than men, are beholden to the influences of The Selfish Gene, and though we may lament its effects on our sexual and familial prospects as men there are sound biological reasons women have evolved to be ruthless when it comes to choosing sexual partners.

The Pareto Principle appears in many areas of life, including the mating game

The Pareto Principle appears in many areas of life, including the mating game

It all comes down to survival of the genes.

Even though the following information is regularly hidden in academia because it doesn’t fit the West’s cultural narratives, studies of sexual behavior have led to quite the stunning revelation that harems are quite a normal part of human history. And indeed, it seems this tendency of women to orbit dominant men while using weaker men for resources is becoming the norm once again in the 21st century world in which cultural mores designed to keep women’s sexuality from destroying society have blindly been discarded in a vain pursuit of making “a better world.”

As reported on my blog in June in The History of Harems: Women Orbit, Too, anthropological studies have found evidence that harems have been quite the norm throughout most of history:

Here are some other parts of the world in which women were in harems of a dominant man rather than the one and only of hapless Beta males, the exact type of male they show open contempt towards today:

  • Egypt: Pharaohs demanded to be in the constant company of numerous beautiful girls.
  • Sri Lanka: King Kashyapa had a harem that numbered 500.
  • Mexico: Montezuma had 4,000 concubines when he met Cortez.
  • China: One emperor had 2,800 concubines.
  • Africa: Junior wives and concubines orbited Chieftans.
  • Mongolia: Genghis Khan fathered so many children 1 in 200 men have his DNA today.

The University of Wisconsin showed the practice of maintaining harems is far from unusual in history. It surveyed 1,000 historical societies to find out how common polygyny has been, and the findings are astonishing: Just 18% of historical societies were monogamous. Half of rest of the 82% had occasional polygyny and the other half had it all the time. If nothing else, this historical fact helps show why women have such contempt for Beta males – they are not as valuable for providing material things as high status men.

So women (like men, but moreso) are driven by coding from selfish genes, women want dominant men and don’t care about the rest (incidentally this is the rule in other species as well), and they do not think about the consequences of their actions on the long term viability of the civilization they’re in. They’d rather be in a harem with a dominant man than the “one and only” of a nice boy. The West was unique in that it had evolved to offer males a seat at the table of the human family via culturally enforced monogamy. That offer has since been rescinded.

What Does It All Mean

Western social engineers fiddle with Utopian ideals while their countries burn

Western social engineers fiddle with Utopian ideals while their countries burn

The world we are heading into, rather than being an altruistic world envisioned by liberals and other clueless dupes is going to be an increasingly unstable world as men vie with each other in contests to be top dog for the sexual and reproductive advantages. Women benefit, and arguably the human genome benefits because the strongest genes survive, but civilization loses and it loses big as primitive sexual forces and survival instincts are unleashed on a soft, delusional society.

This, more than anything else explains why women are welcoming rapists into cucked nations in Europe and outbreeding in increasing numbers in the U.S. It’s a giant civilizational shit test courtesy of selfish genes, of which women are more controlled by than men, who have greater powers of logic and reasoning.

The West’s attempts at making a better world in pursuit of the ultimate fulfillment of its Spenglerean Prime Symbol of Infinity, in the modern sense a strange ideology that sees world socialism as the be all, end all to humanity’s problems will end in tragedy. This is especially true in that it is blindly meddling with the primal forces of nature. It seems our “wise” leaders have thrown the dice one too many times in a delusional dream to bring about a “better world” but have unwittingly unleashed primitive forces (like The Selfish Gene and concepts Freud also worried about) that will destroy it.

It all boils down to liberalism being a giant Utopian dream that failed, and instead of taking us all to heaven as it claimed it would, it is casting us all into hell.

Read More: The Difference Between A Woman’s Behavior And Her Intent


Send this to a friend