Categories
alpha males bad boys beta males block that metaphor domestic violence heartiste men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny PUA

Heartiste: Chris Brown is a great role model for wannabe alpha males

Chris Brown, who’s convinced that he’s apologized enough for what he calls his “mishap.”

Over on his little chateau, otherwise known as a blog, the pick-up Heartiste Formerly Known as Roissy suggests a rather unusual role model for young and not-so-young men hoping to impress women with their alphaness: Chris Brown. Not for being a charismatic singer, but for that time he nearly beat Rihanna to death.

Oh, you don’t have to literally beat up women to be an alpha. Just work on making them uncomfortable and insecure.

Maxim #19: Making a woman feel a little emotional pain will reward you a thousandfold in returned physical pleasure.

You don’t have to be fists-of-fury Chris Brown to pick up a Rihanna and make her fall in deep, profound love with you, but don’t let the lesson of their relationship be lost on you. If you are a beta male — and odds are you are — you can superglue your relationship bond by instilling in your woman a calculated level of discomfort and insecurity. You won’t feel bad about this, because you will know that the discomfort you create is subconsciously DESIRED by your girl. Despite her outward appearance of frustration and timorous appeasement, you will know that inside, she is lit up like a vagina tree, with a squirting orgasm shooting out of the star on top.

In addition to everything else that is horribly wrong with this quote, let me just say that “lit up like a vagina tree” is not a phrase that I hope works its way into the vernacular.

So far, so good.

 

353 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
aworldanonymous
9 years ago

Very idealistic. But what’s to stop some group – internal or external- from simply seizing power, in this vacuum?

Easy, the people still have the ability to ignore any group attempt to seize power, power is merely a symbol we ascribe to certain people. Remove power from the equation, and you remove the ability for people to seize it.

Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby III
Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby III
9 years ago

@ BlackBloc “As for ‘great men’, history is littered with their cadavers. ”

“`My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!’
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away”.

Steele
Steele
9 years ago

If human beings are inclined to selfishness, the last thing you want is a concentrated power structure organized in a hierarchical manner, aka the state. Better for the criminal to be my equal than to be my boss, or mayor, or president.

Ridiculous. As John Locke notes, it is in our own self-interest to create a fair, just and working government; in this Social Contract, we give up some basic freedoms in return for protection, community and a vastly increased quality of life.

Of course corruption can and does occur within the body politik; however, the rest of us are motivated to root it out because it is in our own interest to do so; therefore, a powerful government with minimal corruption is a hallmark of a prosperous people.

Steele
Steele
9 years ago

Easy, the people still have the ability to ignore any group attempt to seize power, power is merely a symbol we ascribe to certain people. Remove power from the equation, and you remove the ability for people to seize it.

Can you explain to me how people can ignore firearms pointed at their heads?

aworldanonymous
9 years ago

Steele, you can’t use Locke, Locke argued in favour of the tabula rasa, which means that “natural inclinations” don’t exist according to him.

aworldanonymous
9 years ago

If a group wants to seize power, sure, it’ll certainly be easy to point guns at the heads of seven billion people.

Steele
Steele
9 years ago

Oh, and you can all thank Objectivist Online, a Randian think tank, for these talking points. As said, the Marxists and anti-Objectivists’ tired criticisms are well-known amongst serious Randians.

often_partisan
often_partisan
9 years ago

Why should I bother to root out corruption? I’m lazy. Leave someone else to put in all the effort to do that…

ozymandias42
9 years ago

I think that we can reasonably believe that humans are naturally inclined to both selfishness AND altruism, depending on their particular personality and circumstances. I mean, we evolved that way. Also, the much bigger problem is that humans are naturally inclined to be *stupid*. 😛

I don’t really have a political philosophy, though, beyond “do whatever seems to be working.” All you people and your complicated thoughts. XD

Shadow
Shadow
9 years ago

Of course corruption can and does occur within the body politik; however, the rest of us are motivated to root it out because it is in our own interest to do so; therefore, a powerful government with minimal corruption is a hallmark of a prosperous people

The state should exist to provide a framework for great men to rise to prominence and a medium through which others may acknowledge his greatness; it is only in the economic sector that Objectivism calls for minimal government intervention

Huh? You want a system in which capital confers power. You want a system in which the government does not interfere in the sector in which this power is attained. AND, you want a powerful government, that would not be corrupted or beholden to those with powe,. even though humans are apparently selfish and will always look out for themselves first? How the fuck does all this come together, oh mighty acolyte?

aworldanonymous
9 years ago

Steele, you can thank my own ability to shoot down your arguments without having to resort to Kropotkin or Bakunin, for my talking points.

often_partisan
often_partisan
9 years ago

Sorry, what I meant by that is that if I’m selfish, why shouldn’t I just leave the effort of rooting out corruption to someone else? Like those “why should one join a union? Just wait for other to do it and reap the benefits” rational choice arguments.

Sharculese
9 years ago

Oh, and you can all thank Objectivist Online, a Randian think tank, for these talking points. As said, the Marxists and anti-Objectivists’ tired criticisms are well-known amongst serious Randians.

omigod lol.

we knew you were just parroting talking points from a website, dude. nobody expects you to come up with your own ideas.

what’s less clear is why you’re bragging about it.

Steele
Steele
9 years ago

If a group wants to seize power, sure, it’ll certainly be easy to point guns at the heads of seven billion people.

As Ayn herself once said, not in so many words – maybe not one group – maybe many, independently and across the globe. Varying in scale from a tyrant to some guy demanding tribute from his neighbor – after all, what’s to stop him? If you think that wouldn’t happen, you’re ignoring world history.

cloudiah
9 years ago

omigod lol.

we knew you were just parroting talking points from a website, dude. nobody expects you to come up with your own ideas.

what’s less clear is why you’re bragging about it.

Seriously the funniest thing he’s said so far.

Sharculese
9 years ago

‘hey guys just in case you were wondering, no i can’t think for myself. i’m sure you’re all duly impressed.’

Steele
Steele
9 years ago

Why should I bother to root out corruption? I’m lazy. Leave someone else to put in all the effort to do that…

Certainly and excuse me, but most people do. That is why we have a government. Why do government officials do it? Well, it’s an extension of their job, and the better they perform their job, the more recognition and accolades they will receive.

Shadow
Shadow
9 years ago

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! How did I miss that?!!

Steele
Steele
9 years ago

we knew you were just parroting talking points from a website, dude. nobody expects you to come up with your own ideas.

I am myself a contributor to the Objectivist Online Forums; I am, in a sense, quoting myself.

Sharculese
9 years ago

Certainly and excuse me, but most people do. That is why we have a government. Why do government officials do it? Well, it’s an extension of their job, and the better they perform their job, the more recognition and accolades they will receive.

remind me again why robot boy here is lecturing us on human behavior?

ozymandias42
9 years ago

Steele: Uh, I’m pretty sure that the Social Contract is not actually an accurate view of how the government formed. I think it was more like “give me some food and then I won’t hit you with a stick.” All the other stuff came later when the people with big sticks realized that protection, community, and increased quality of life mean (a) more food production and (b) less chance that all the people they’re hitting with sticks will team up and kill them.

[/Ozy’s accurate summary of how governments form.]

Bodsworth: YAY! My name! :3

Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby III
Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby III
9 years ago

@ Steelepole – “Oh, and you can all thank Objectivist Online, a Randian think tank, for these talking points. As said, the Marxists and anti-Objectivists’ tired criticisms are well-known amongst serious Randians.”

Yes, Steele, we know that if you ever had an original thought it died of loneliness. And I suspect that most of us here have been in arguments with enough online Objectivists to know that when you say ‘individualist’ you really mean ‘part of the Randroid hive-mind’

BlackBloc (@XBlackBlocX)

As John Locke notes, it is in our own self-interest to create a fair, just and working government;

Reminds me of an old engineering joke: we have three types of service: Cheap, Good and Fast. Pick two.

We have three types of government: Fair, Just and Working. Pick two.

in this Social Contract, we give up some basic freedoms in return for protection, community and a vastly increased quality of life.

This is utter bullshit. There never was a Social Contract, that’s one of those mental wankery things that political philosophers like to come up with because they work in Idealistic manners instead of from materialistic/historic context. Or in less insulting terms, ‘an abstraction’ which has no foundations in any actually existing sociohistorical process. The state rose as a series of wars of conquests. Our governments were not things we agreed to, but things that were imposed from above, in service to capital and the interests first of the nobility and next the bourgeoisie. Nobody ever seriously sat down and weighted the pros and cons of sacrificing some liberties for some security. The security was first imposed (by armed warlords… a nice little protection racket) and the liberties taken. Some of us are able to rationalize it as a choice because they tend to have few liberties taken and a lot of security received (white rich male privilege in all its splendor).

Of course corruption can and does occur within the body politik; however, the rest of us are motivated to root it out because it is in our own interest to do so; therefore, a powerful government with minimal corruption is a hallmark of a prosperous people.

An all powerful and good King is also well and good. Too bad we live in the real world, not in a fairy tale. Powerful governments are corrupt by necessity. It is power that corrupts it.

“Any man who puts his hand upon me to govern me is a usurper and a tyrant
I declare him my enemy.”
– Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

Sharculese
9 years ago

I am myself a contributor to the Objectivist Online Forums; I am, in a sense, quoting myself.

so ‘think tank’ actually just means blog where you and a bunch of other lazy thinkers high five each other for waving away complex problems with pithy appeals to authority. well that is just so much less pathetic.

cloudiah
9 years ago

I am myself a contributor to the Objectivist Online Forums; I am, in a sense, quoting myself.

I am a regular contributor here; if Sharculese says something really clever and I later repeat it while pretending I said it, I am, in a sense, quoting myself.

1 4 5 6 7 8 15
%d bloggers like this: