I've been watching It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia since it started in 2005, and it rarely misses the mark. This week's episode centers around Dennis' method of seduction, and eventually brings in the other guys' methods. The D.E.N.N.I.S. System is only somewhat like the methodology of the 'official' Game gurus, big and small, in that he has also formulated some sequence of verbal and physical interactions in order to capture the prize (however you define the prize). D.E.N.N.I.S. stands for:

Demonstrate Value

Engage Physically

Nurture Dependence

Neglect Emotionally

Inspire Hope

Separate Entirely

In the parlance of 'Game', what Dennis does here is offer a more long-term "macro-Game" approach. None of the micro things like body posture, intonation, canned material, awareness of surroundings, etc. come into play. He says explicitly in the episode that he relies on his natural good-looks and charm, but he uses this sequence to more effectively "make women fall deeply in love" with him. It's a worthwhile episode for anyone interested in any systematic approach to "getting" chicks, and it's just funny all on its own.

Of note in the episode as well are the Gaming methods adopted by the other characters. Mac uses his M.A.C. system (Move in After Completion) to get seconds on Dennis' girls, and Frank (a.k.a. Danny Devito) plays the preying mantis who picks up the "scraps" after Dennis and Mac are done. Charlie is the resident Omega of the show who never gets laid, and when he attempts to use D.E.N.N.I.S. on his longtime crush, it of course goes nowhere.

An interesting side-story to this episode involves Dee (Dennis' fraternal twin sister) now coming to her senses that maybe the guy she is seeing is running some sort of Game on her. The guy, a straight-laced, former soldier, is not. He merely plays "the Beta" to a tee, waiting on her hand and foot, but she now sees in all of his actions some sort of manipulation, i.e. nurturing dependence. Along with the above clip, below are a couple links to the episode (the hulu episodes for this season are delayed):

http://www.hulu.com/watch/108722/its-always-sunny-in-philadelphia-dennis-system

http://eztv.it/ep/17626/its-always-sunny-in-philadelphia-s05e10-ws-pdtv-xvid-sys/

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/014806.html

Because of stories like this that he points to and the ensuing analysis...that's why he's better to read. Harp on all you want about feminism and how you can't get a decent chick, but in public you aren't likely to get beat down by little 5' women...for nothing.

I've learned my lesson too many times...I do not go out of my way to correct the behavior of any black individual, male or female. The indignation and entitlement is rife. For example, yesterday I was pulling into the post office and a black guy was trying to parallel park in front of another car, not doing too good a job of it either, and he hits the car with his back end. I saw it happen. Who knows if anyone else did. I check out the front end of the struck vehicle and there's a dent but nothing major. Then I notice a couple decals from a couple fairly decent universities on the brother's ride. I give him a glance but say nothing. He turns his head and walks on into the post office. I stand there and the last thing I expect for him to do is say anything to anybody. He doesn't. And he was well-spoken to the postal cashier. An alumnus of a couple decent state universities.

It isn't just the big stories you find on Auster or Breitbart or Drudge that really get to me. It's the things every day that go unreported and undone that add up to reveal a complete lack of polity. A complete lack of gratitude for anything. A complete lack of consideration.

But I'm not supposed to mention it or else I'm the bad guy.

Distilling the claims from Ob's loquacious liqueur provides me with the sweet chance to reaffirm what it is I, and most other HBD-bloggers, are doing here. Read on if you get the urge.

Here is the link to Obsidian's post, What is up with HBD?

Ob's Claims:

1] HBDers are mostly informed by evolutionary psychology.

I'm fine with that, though of course many other of the human sciences are cited.

2] HBDers promote an ancestral environment view of IQ differences. "The colder the smarter".

This may be the claim of many HBDers, but it is not definitive. The origins of the differences are not as important as the differences at present.

3] IQ is not the key to the universe. If it were, Asians would be dominating everyone else. Asians rarely, if ever, discover or invent anything.

The focus on IQ is a function of its salience across so many domains. Like it or not, it's a somewhat 'lazy' way to analyze. We all shortcut, 'stereotype' if you will, seek patterns. A two or three digit number that can do the trick will be used, over and over.

But even more importantly, the discussion of IQ differences by ethnic group or sex is currently verboten in academia, the press, etc. So inherently many young, smart white assholes are drawn to it.

As for East Asians, sure, they have a reputation for mimicry, but in the long view they have had a high form of civilization for millennia. A different kind of civilization from the European/West Asians, yes, but you cannot judge a whole race based solely on its current condition.

4] HBDers are fixated on NAM, i.e. non-Asian minority, dysfunction (based mostly on lower avg IQ), blaming NAMs for most, if not all, societal problems.

I wrote a post when I first started this blog called The Wormhole of NAM Dysfunction. First, it should have been called black hole instead of wormhole, but what I meant to say was that fixating on how some blacks and hispanics screw up their lives and our society is fruitless. You can see as much on the local news at 11. If anything, we should be pointing out how certain policies catalyze or fail to neutralize possible inherent weaknesses in those with negative character traits and very low IQs. I think most HBDers do the second thing and not the first.

5] Following [4], HBDers wish to institute policies which would decrease NAM fecundity, thereby decreasing NAM dysfunction. In other words, non-compulsory eugenics. The supposed good gained by this is a more ordered, efficient society.

I don't think I've read anywhere in the HBD-sphere that rules out whites for the same. HBDers are fairly consistent in their IQ fundamentalism here. I know I don't want any more crackers than we already have either.

It's funny how this particular view hangs onto the coattails of old Progressivism and is denounced by virtually all liberals and conservatives today.

The next set of claims are critiques based on the demographics of HBDers:

6] HBDers are (mostly) highly-educated white males, of limited social

intelligence, of limited capacity to breed, angry, very low on neuroticism.

I'm highly neurotic FWIW. I take criticisms of what I think and do to heart. I can't answer for the other guys, but I'm happy with my life now and will probably marry my current LTR.

7] Following [6]'s claim of low neuroticism, HBDers fail at self-critique, not acknowledging the trade-offs of high IQ. HBDers have narrowly assigned all other factors as negligible.

This is something I'd like to explore. The shortcomings of high IQ. Since I don't fall off too far at the right end, I'll be able to package a post that speaks to the common man:)

8] HBDers risk failing to breed based on their reported atheism.

I'm basically an atheist but my LTR wants to have at least 4 kids, so we'll see. Anyone interested in low fecundity and atheism should look up Inductivist, GNXP, and Audacious Epigone's work on the subject.

9] HBDers fail to acknowledge that high IQ white males (their dominant demographic) are the largest purchasers of pornography and 'escort' services.

So? I know I'm supposed to be conservative and therefore not into the prurient, but I say live and let live. It's a blind alley genetically and financially, sure, so that's why it's bad. It may be white males because we are the majority in the US, but I'm not so sure it's high IQ types. Somebody would have to point me to where Half Sigma got his info. Besides, all the other guys in the back room at Blockbuster look pretty dumb to me, oh wait.

10] HBDers are starved for female attention, seriously consider transhumanism and cryonics, and look down on proles, and so are therefore mean-spirited, weird losers.

I don't know much about the reaction to FeministX myself, but I think it might have to do with the surprise of most guys in encountering a female who is not an idealist. Anyone who doesn't think it would be cool to be frozen and then thawed out in the distant future has limitations of imagination that I would rather not acknowledge. AFAIK, Half Sigma is the only HBD blogger who posts constantly about his disdain for proles.

11] Re the HBDers purported lack of success with women, Game would help, that or religion. It would help HBDers pass on their 'superior' Levi's. And if they can't do that, then maybe HBDers should put themselves on ice (re cryonics).

Game would help. So would being a part of a religious group. To some of us who carry sci-fi proclivities, being put on ice as a possible future "Encino Man" is a thrilling idea. Same thing with going to the moon or Mars or the bottom of the sea. We're wired that way.

Compared to our great-great grandfathers we're all liberals.

So let's not kid ourselves that we're really going to stop progress. What we can hope to do is to attempt to steer this hulking ship in some fashion and some way that would be better than another (and according to the Advocatus Diaboli and Ferdinand Bardamu that's even futile). The Unabomber may have made some good insights about the psychology of over-socialized leftists, but I'm not in his camp wrt rolling back technological advance. Tech advance = human advance. And I think most of us want something better out of humanity. Ask Pro-Male Anti-Feminist Tech, I'm sure he'd agree.

One new blog I find myself clicking to over and over is Liberal Biorealism. Just a month or so ago, there was some discussion across the HBDosphere about whether or not HBD (HBD, being a euphemism for human biodiversity, which is a euphemism for human biological differences, which is a euphemism for race realism, which is better stated as biorealism, since the differences between and among human races is not the sole focus, though it is a major one, sex differences being the other) was inherently conservative, or if widespread knowledge and acceptance of it would hasten more liberal policy initiatives. Well, let's just say that the writer of Liberal Biorealism has taken up the real challenge, not of convincing rightists of further reason to be rightist (as is the case with many political HBD sites), but of mounting a defense of our Western Enlightenment ideals in light of 'new' biological knowledge.

And I wish him well on his quest. In fact, like I stated at the top, we're all basically liberals, it's just the degree to which we are 'liberated' may differ. We're all liberated from the farm and subsistence living. Many of us are liberated from religious doctrine, if not it's feeling. It just may happen that some people don't function as well in a liberal society/civilization, and for biological reasons. Of course I'm being a mite facetious when I say may, because I obviously believe that those in the bottom cellar of the cognitive ability curve (lower than ~85 IQ) are not tooled for life in the complex world of post-industrial, highly-anonymous society.

I say transparency of knowledge is the best way to go, which is Liberal by the way. Put it all on the table, what we know about human differences and similarities and the degrees to which these affect (softly determine) our behaviors. Most so-called 'liberals' are not Liberal in this regard. Many believe either one or more of the following,

A) Such interest or research into human differences is morally wrong (or it aligns with 'bad feelings' anterior to thought on the subject).

B) Such interest or research into human differences will eventuate justification for discrimination or for "right-wing" political use against affirmative action, EO, EEOC, etc. policies.

C) Such interest or research into human differences will cause mental/emotional harm to individuals who are members of low-performing groups.

There are more reasons, but I think I should start by answering these.

Regarding A, calling some action or thought into question as "morally wrong" necessitates a lengthy description as to why it is morally wrong. At that point, the liberal has two options, either explain further justifications for deeming the action morally wrong (as in calling on B or C or others), OR cite a 'bad feeling' connected with the idea of interest or research into human differences. I do not simply eschew the 'bad feeling' defense out of hand. Intuitions of 'wrongness' are as human as breathing. They are similar to the feelings of disgust we may feel when considering unsavory hypothetical situations. Again, this may be a situation where one person's intuition is at loggerheads with another, which could possibly be explained by HBD.

Regarding simply B (without notions of Kantian wrongness), it is mainly a 'slippery slope' type rationale: If we acknowledge human differences except the most superficial (RACE=skin color, SEX=differing genitalia), then we are simply making official common prejudices (common inferences), thereby causing further discrimination, a retrograde behavior that violates fairness, which we take to mean equal treatment. A counterargument to this might be that HBD knowledge would, rather, lend more (substantial) credence to the enactment of further affirmative action-type policies BECAUSE of inherent differences.

Regarding C, because of what is found in books like The Bell Curve or The Global Bell Curve or the vocabulary test on the GSS or from every grade school classroom across the entire nation, the officialization of such knowledge without complaint or the interdiction of plausible-sounding scenarios of withheld accomplishment WOULD create an atmosphere of defeat and bad feelings on the part of individuals who "happen to be" part of a disadvantaged group. And so the harm done to them individually and as a group tagged as inferior in some domain ought to be remedied. One counterargument to this would be that "life isn't fair", but I don't think that would go over.

One major component that is missing from my post here is that of value priority. In a utilitarian mode, what is it that is good about interest or research into human differences? Does that good ever trump the good of fairness as defined by liberals or the notion of equality? I hope to talk more about this later.

I DO GET what the liberals are saying. But how long do they think they can obfuscate the facts of inequality? Do they have the power and prestige of the Catholic Church of the Medieval Age? Yes. But for how long? What is their endgame? Order, Progress, or just simply feeling good inside?

Maybe we need a little more Liberalism and a little less liberalism.

"He said, precisely, that maybe the Muslims should stand up and fight against the aggressor."

http://www.breitbart.tv/co-worker-ft-hood-gunman-made-outlandish-comments-condemning-us-foreign-policy/

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/soldiers-killed-fort-hood-shooting/story?id=9007938

At this point (6:05pm EST) they've just released the name of one of the shooters at Fort Hood.

Malik Nadal Hasan.

I know it's too easy to make the 'wrong' inference, but before I heard what the name was I was hoping it wasn't a Muslim soldier. We'll see how it turns out.

FROM: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33678801/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/?GT1=43001

Muslim group condemns shootings
Noting the Arabic nature of the gunman’s name, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington interest group, condemned “this cowardly attack in the strongest terms possible and ask that the perpetrators be punished to the full extent of the law.”

”No political or religious ideology could ever justify or excuse such wanton and indiscriminate violence,” the council said in a statement. “The attack was particularly heinous in that it targeted the all-volunteer army that protects our nation. American Muslims stand with our fellow citizens in offering both prayers for the victims and sincere condolences to the families of those killed or injured.”

Humans generally spend a great deal of time and energy wondering whether other people have access to some information that is strategic from their own standpoint, wondering what inferences, intentions, plans, etc. these other people draw from that information, trying to control their access to such information and trying to monitor and influence their inferences on the basis of such information. All these complex calculations are based on the assumption that our own and other agents' access to strategic information is complex and generally imperfect. (p. 155)

The above is a quote from Religion Explained by Pascal Boyer, but you may wonder why it would be found in a book on religion. Or maybe why I would even bring it up here.

You see, much of what is done on the internet, when selling things and self-stimulation aren't the motivators, is an expense of time and energy in gathering and disseminating information. In between the two comes what happens within your cortex. What information would help me, or what is relevant? How or why should I disseminate certain bits of information? And going back to the first sentence of the quote, is there any key bit of knowledge that I need in order defend myself from another person or group?

I think that's why a lot of curious folks end up on blogs and websites. Instead of reading book after book trying to formulate some kind of sense out of all the information, you can save some time and get the gist of this or that field of inquiry from a webpage, what its possible shortcomings may be, and what it may offer other fields. I still read book after book, but I get access to much more information from taking advantage of others' work and analysis.

How does this relate to this blog and religion? Well, I'm going to put off religion talk until I finish Boyer's book because he might surprise me at the end, who knows, but so far as this blog goes, I am doing these things:

1) I am raising questions and making qualified claims based on both the information I have received (which is self-evidently limited) and on the sort of changes in the environment I would like to see.

2) Secondarily, I am attempting to persuade my readers, however indirectly, to a materialistic, bio-centric point of view.

3) The source of the information is considered, but it is not a deal-breaker to possible acceptance even if the source is 'disreputable' or of some 'opposing' faction, e.g. leftist, feminist, religious, etc.

4) Full disclosure is never prudent.

The granddad that I remember the best was a WWII veteran. He fought in Europe, was wounded, received a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart. He didn't like to talk about it though. My dad never even heard the specifics. After his tour of duty he worked and raised a family and complained about the liberals. Being of the South, he was a lifelong Democrat, of the Strom Thurmond variety, and when the winds of change were blowin' in the late fifties and sixties, he stood stridently against them. For him this did not mean joining a local political party or running for office, it meant joining another kind of brotherhood.

You probably get my drift. It might have been an overreaction, but it was what it was. Explicit Ethnocentrism wasn't the bogeyman for whites that it is now. Will it ever be acceptable again? Possibly. But neither you nor I have any say about that. We're just chuggin' along following the tide of history, and it's more likely the next time white ethnocentrism is 'acceptable' is when whites become yet another minority group, whether in Continental Europe or in the Anglosphere.

I don't have any grand ideas about whether this is a good or a bad thing. But it will happen if current trends remain. I lean towards saying it is a bad thing, but my pessimism suggests that I be indifferent.

I'm not even all that white anyways. So the 'white gene pool' probably won't miss me. I'm part English, French, Scottish, and Native American. Maybe I should just marry an East Asian so I can be that much more diverse. I probably should also raise my kids as tolerant, SWPLs too. It's the best adaptive measure I could take. A lot of other smart, educated guys are doing it. Is this such a bad idea? Are there any good arguments against joining the present zeitgeist?

-----

UPDATE: Here's a comment by Godless Capitalist that M Stein posted on Liberal Biorealism's blog recently that is salient to this post and its prognostications:

"I’ve basically come to the same conclusion. I went into blogging with hope that truth and science could turn the West around. I stopped when I realized that the West is well and truly screwed. The contradictions run too deep, the center cannot hold.

The taboos that govern the West will increasingly come head up against science — and the taboos will win, just as they have won in the Islamic world. Genetic engineering will happen, but not in the West. There will be no deus ex machina. The West will wane in importance as the East waxes. We have already seen it happening to outposts. Zimbabwe is gone, South Africa is on the way, the Southwest US is toast, and Muslims control entire cities in Europe. The cancer might be arrested, but it won’t be reversed.

In the second half of the 20th century, the taboo could uneasily coexist with engineering progress, which was primarily focused on computers and communications technology. Today, though, the taboo on frank discussions of human biology simply cannot coexist with progress in genomics. We are going to see a high profile cut in funding to “racist” science. Watson and Summers are only the beginning. If necessary there will be a purge; more likely, as the fraction of the economically dependent increases in the US to 40% and beyond from its current 35% level, we will see ever more agitation for wealth redistribution.

The result: funding cuts as demagogues ask why white (and Asian) scientists should get money when so many blacks and browns are poor.

I mean, there are too many people who make their livelihood from the promotion of holy lies to give up now. Just think about it — from the EEOC to Live Aid, from MTV to Harvard, every institution of importance has been irrevocably compromised. That was underlined when all those multinationals submitted briefs in *favor* of affirmative action in the 2003 Supreme Court case. The inmates — or in this case, the Chief Diversity Officers — have well and truly taken over the asylum.

The only possible out for the West is if someone who knew the score on h-bd — and knew its relevance to every issue from subprime mortgages to mass immigration — came to power and began using the powers of the state against the taboo manufacturers. That would mean not only an effective campaign of deportation of illegals, but overt and covert actions to reverse the trends in ethnic composition and socialism. The closest analogy would be Kemal Ataturk’s battle for secularism.

This would be an incredibly difficult fight to wage given the entrenchment of these fallacies at all levels of society. Such a Prez would basically have to have iSteve/GNXP levels of knowledge/fanaticism about the issue, yet manage to keep silent about everything up to the point that he had ultimate power. It would be even more difficult to wage such a battle without the nervous system — namely the media — inducing paralysis and taking out the Prez like they took out Nixon.

Anyway, that’s a highly unlikely scenario but the only thing I can think of at this late juncture. It would need to be someone highly placed, immensely powerful, and incredibly zealous, who had no qualms about using the state as a billy club in much the same way the left has used it against the people. ..

Bottom line is that the perpetrators of holy lies always do their utmost to cast dissidents as heretics — as *bad people* — and it is foolish to accept their labels or their frame on the world. It will get you ostracized and (in Europe) clapped in irons for “hate speech”. ..

As for the latter class, the media, are they decent people? The only way to maintain a holy lie is by persecuting the truth tellers. Such persecutors are not interested in the long term fate of Western Civilization, but only in short term stability. They are like people who “protect” a dying patient from the bitter medicine that will cause momentary discomfort but lasting remission…

But here’s the thing. You’ve seen hundreds or thousands of hours of footage of events in which rightist ideas of one stripe or another are causing harm to minorities. The Holocaust, My Lai, Bull Connor, the Japanese internment, Operation Wetback, Columbus, Guantanamo, etc. Literally trillions of dollars in capital investment has resulted in a reflexive, emotional association of rightist action by whites with mass murder in your mind. I know it has because I have the same association. ..

But bear with me for a second and imagine what would happen if the polarities had been reversed, if the footage on TV was of the people manning the White Sea Labor Camps, of the Killing Fields and the laogai, of South African crime and Saudi Arabian fanaticism, of Mexican illiteracy and pre-Columbian savagery.

In short, imagine if the Blank Slate Asymmetry were inverted — if the footage were intended to spur the immune system of Western Civilization to action (and overaction) rather than to disable it. No doubt such a world would be blinkered and biased in many aspects…but it would in major respects be closer to reality.

It’s a vertiginous thing to even contemplate, because it makes you realize the extent of the unreality you’ve internalized…

The whole point is that h-bd is the one determining aspect which is not publicly discussed. Of course marginal tax rates affect tax receipts. But so does IQ. Of course bilingual policy affects immigrant assimilation. But so does IQ. Of course the educational curriculum affects achievement. But so does IQ.

Yet IQ is the factor that cannot be publicly mooted, let alone debated. And as for the reason that it cannot be debated — that reason is even more doubleplusungood.

Anyway, by now it’s a moot point. These taboos are not going to change anytime soon. Civilizations *do* die. The West had a 500 year run in which it was characterized by being the most willing to jettison holy lies in favor of truth. ..

And like a man with a damaged nervous system, the West’s internal perceptions are out of sync with the external reality. Consider a hand on a hot stove. It does not matter if the lowly epithelial cells are burned by the million if the nerve cells refuse to communicate this truth to the seat of conscious action.

Similarly, the media is the nervous system of a civilization. The signals it chooses to amplify, dampen, or interpret control the response of the body. If paralyzed, it matters not if the body is hale and hearty and theoretically capable of action. A malfunctioning nervous system will leave an otherwise healthy body jerking around in response to phantasms of racism — or directing its efforts against its own cells…

Witness the reaction to Katrina: the fact that whites had to defend themselves against black looters somehow became an indictment of white racism. The obvious facts on the ground, the facts sensed by those lowly epithelial cells, were simply inverted by a compromised nervous system.

By selective signal amplification or damping one can make overlaps appear to be equalities. The signals exist — they need not be made up out of whole cloth. One need only turn up the volume on (say) poor migrant workers stranded in the desert and turn down the volume on (say) anchor babies to achieve the desired effect without obvious fingerprints.

…anyway, I’ve gone on long enough. The West’s time in the limelight is fast coming to an end; the West will be known for fractious infighting in the years to come, with the taboo looming above like a solar eclipse, with “decent people” tasked with blotting out truth for as far as the eye can see. Hate speech legislation will come to the US. Sensitivity demands it. ”

Here's the link to the original comment:
http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/2007/11/watson_populati.html