[2Wycked]

Bill Clinton: The Alpha of Alphas


Bill Clinton was the 42nd President of the United States of America, serving from 1993 to 2001. Monica Lewinsky, at the time of the affair, was 22 years old and working in the White House Office of Legislative Affairs.

Let’s step through both of their backgrounds. Clinton was born in Hope, Arkansas with the name William Blythe. His biological father was killed in a car accident some months before his birth, so he was born to a single mother. Shortly after his birth, his mother left to study nursing in New Orleans, so his early years he lived with his grandparents. His mother did return. When moved to Hot Springs in 1950 was when his mother married Roger Clinton, who ran a car dealership. He was a notorious alcoholic and regularly beat Clinton’s mom and his brother. Do note that alcoholism is a form of narcissism and often times, their children grow up to be narcissists. Bill Clinton is clearly a narcissist. Going forward, he assumed the Clinton surname in his teens. He once met famously with John Kennedy, Jr when he was a kid.

How many Presidents met a sitting President as a youth?


Clinton attended Georgetown, was a Rhodes Scholar for a brief period of time, and eventually enrolled in Yale Law. Before he enrolled at Yale, which is considered as either the best or second best law school in the nation, he interned for Senator William Fullbright of Arkansas. During this time, he burned his Vietnam draft card and participated in Vietnam war protests in Chicago. He smoothly manipulated the draft board by claiming interest in ROTC thus delaying his enrollment in the military; which never happened. At Yale Law, he was a hit. At the school, he made a note card for every person in the school, with their name, their interests and his personal interactions with them. He graduated with no distinctions, as he knew his way up the ladder was predicated on his quickly increasing charisma and social acumen. He met Hilary at Yale, and they were wed shortly after graduating. With his codependent in tow, he became a rising star in the Democratic party. He was law professor right after graduation, was attorney general for Arkansas for a time, then was governor of Arkansas for 12 years.

During this time, he refined his political touch. He gave the Democratic response for Reagan’s 1985 State of the Union and it was too long and meandering. Eventually, he ran for President in 1992 and was immediately dogged with having an affair with Gennifer Flowers right after finishing a distant third after the preliminary Iowa primary. He regrouped and won the nomination. George H. W. Bush was seen as unbeatable, as Bush’s approval ratings were over 80% during the 1990-1991 Gulf War. However, a weakened economy at the outset of the 1990’s, coupled with Republican divisions that emerged after the demise of the Soviet Union created a situation that Clinton exploited. His advisor, the Ragin' Cajun James Carville, coined the phrase “It’s the economy, stupid;” Clinton’s campaign was centered around the economy. Do note that Ross Perot was a candidate that garnered 18% of the vote, which furthered Republican divisions because Perot had some positions that appealed to Republicans – but it wasn’t so stark because he was protectionist and pro-choice. Obviously, Clinton won and the sexual affair fiasco didn’t blow up until his second term.




Monica Lewinksy was born to wealthy Jewish parents in San Francisco, who fled Nazi Germany for obvious reasons. She grew up in general privilege until her parents had a nasty divorce. She went to community college and then Lewis & Clark in Oregon, graduating with an eminently marketable degree in psychology. Due to a family connection, she scored an unpaid internship at the White House that translated into a full-time paid position. At his paid position, she met alpha male Bill Clinton.

Let’s go through what alleged happened between the two. Sometime in the early winter season she met Clinton and had their first sexual encounter. Over the course of two years they had nine encounters that, allegedly, never amounted to sexual intercourse. Further, it was alleged she blew Clinton in the Oval Office, with some of his semen staining her very famous blue dress. In 1996, she was moved from her post at the White House because it was perceived they were too close. Clinton actually managed to blame Republicans for his hooking up with her. The Republicans won the House and Senate in a mind-blowing landslide in 1994 - after not having held a majority in the House since the 1950’s! He claimed that and the Whitewater scandal affected his mental state so much he hooked up with her. Nice dodge Mr. President, but to me, he should use that explanation for explain away his hookup with a chubby woman.



Let’s go through the breaking of the story and his eventual impeachment trial. Linda Tripp, a coworker of Lewinsky’s, began to record her conversations with her in which Lewinsky recounted the sex acts and her relationship with the President. Eventually, these tapes were turned over to Kenneth Starr, an independent prosecutor. While independent prosecutors are a needlessly complicated issue from an administrative law perspective (from what I remember), just understand he has the ability to investigate misconduct issues for employees and members of the Executive Branch (my memory is a little hazy). Anyway, understand Clinton was sued by Paula Jones for sexual harassment. The suit was settled in late 1998, with a key element of that trial being his deposition in which he denied a sexual relationship with Lewinsky. While the allegations of sexual trysts between Clinton and Lewinsky didn’t surface until January 1998, it did not reach the media status it did until Kenneth Starr dropped the Starr report in early fall 1998, making strong, controversial allegations of the sexual relationship. Clinton famously remarked in January, when the allegations surfaced, he famously remarked, in his Southern drawl, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”

Clinton was served with articles of impeachment by the Republican House on December 19, 1998, with two counts – one of perjury (in the Paula Jones lawsuit) and one of obstruction of justice (same deposition, the allegation his testimony amounted to altering the course of justice because of his lies). It was a quick and highly political process. Democrats were minorities in both Houses, especially in the House. The House was crucial in this process, from a Constitutional perspective, as the allegations have to voted on by a majority of the members to move to the Senate, where impeachment accusations have to be voted for by 2/3 of the Senate. From a political perspective, anti-Clinton animus was strong in the House, as even a few Democrats voted for impeachment. However, the Senate could not meet the 2/3 threshold, as I believe every Democrat voted against impeachment, while a good number of Republicans did vote against it, as well. Understand that at the Senate level, it is treated as an actual trial. The Chief Supreme Court Justice presides over the proceedings, and House members preside as prosecutors. The accused have access to counsel, and the Senate as a whole serves as the jury, as they vote for or against the charges. After a private deliberation – because public deliberation is an option – the House prosecutors failed to garner the necessary 67 votes, which would lead to Clinton’s impeachment and forcible removal from office.

In the aftermath, Clinton gained public approval because of the perception was that the reason Republicans were doing this because of political animus. After the trial ended, Clinton finished out his term, albeit ranking very poorly in polling relating to personal integrity and honesty. Gore ran for the Presidency in 2000 and failed to utilize Clinton’s considerable political powers and charisma as he refused any help from Clinton – one more reason he lost. George W. Bush emphasized character issues and stressed his integrity and morals – as a contrast to the slick Clinton. Pretty funny from a life-long alcoholic who cashed in his family pedigree to run for the Texas governorship; I will give Bush props for being an adroit politician and very much an alpha male, despite his significant policy failings.

Let’s talk about the feminist reaction. Understand that Clinton knew he had to kiss feminist ass in his administration, the 1990’s had a strong feminist vibe to them. He appointed Janet Reno as Attorney General to placate feminist thirst. Also, consider his marrying of Hilary. That was a calculated move to placate feminists – unattractive female with impressive credentials marrying an alpha male. Even in the past election, I heard women praising Clinton for marrying Hilary – “proving intelligent and capable women can find love through who they are, not what they look like.” How quickly does the hamster forget? Clinton fucked Hilary’s best friend, her hairdresser, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky – who else? There has to be more.

In general, the feminist response was supportive. To be sure, it was muddle for some, but in order to support Clinton, they hamster focused on Lewinsky. They complained loudly about the media depiction of her – her looks and weight were discussed and she was treated as dumb and entitled. Even one feminist proclaimed that when Starr released his report, it was unsure whether the literary relationship between Starr and Lewinsky was consensual. They were upset Lewinsky was threatened with imprisonment for her actions and allegations. This was the sticking point – they were upset that a woman made a choice to sleep with a man and the choice was blowing up in their face. We see this rhetoric with abortion. When allegations that a fetus is a human, the stereotypical response is “a woman made a choice – who are you to criticize that?” Female decisions are prioritized over everything else. Which brings me to an article penned at Ms. Magazine that highlights the feminist response and the feminist relationship with alpha, hypergamy and their sexuality.



Susie Bright wrote a fantastically hamsterific screed at Ms. Magazine. Let’s step through her hamster analysis. First off, she refers to Lewinsky as a “sexual superstar” for seducing the most powerful man in America. Notice the implicit admission of hypergamy – Bright never even considers her assumption powerful men are attractive. Second, his her assumption that Lewinsky seduced Clinton, like she is some sort of latter-day Cleopatra. There were pictures of Lewinsky staring adoringly at Clinton – yeah, a clinical narcissist falls for somebody? Ha, not happening. The evidence doesn’t even back the seduction up – Lewinsky was in photos clearly being the swooning person. She then treats Lewinsky as a sexual blueprint to snag powerful men – if you want to bag powerful men, you must start packing on pounds. She even comments that if women start gaining weight, men will cry a sigh of relief, as they have always craved fat women – they just used thinness a weapon to oppress women. Not touching that radioactive hamster discharge. Finally, she discusses Lewinsky’s supposed brain. She claims Lewinsky is a genius and should have been groomed for great things – like being President. First off – and I have heard this before – intelligence is the most important trait for a leader. Well, install me as President tomorrow on that note. In fact, install Althone, Roosh or Tuthmosis as President tomorrow – as intelligence is the most critical trait for being a successful President. It is very relevant, but isn’t controlling – however, it feeds into my next point.

When women sleep with a man, they pretend to have the traits he has. Lewinsky sleeps with a charismatic genius; she must be a charismatic genius as well. Women like to pretend they sleep with equals, they know on some level they sleep with betters. They are repulsed by inferiors and turned off by equals. However, in our society, women like to pretend they are equals to the men they fuck. Part of this is the impetus to feminism – I can sleep with and marry lawyers, why can’t I be a lawyer? I must be smart enough, because he has sex with me. He isn’t attracted to my looks; he is attracted to my brain. We must be equals then.

Bright concludes Lewinsky’s problem source from two reasons: her father’s decision to only pay for community college before university and patriarchy. The community college problem is bizarre and reeks of typical feminist privilege. I went to community college and eventually ended up at a first-tier law school – as usual, what separated me was hard work and marketing to get into law school. Community college isn’t bad at all – in fact, if you are looking to avoid deleterious levels of student loan debt, community college IS the choice. As for her second point, she claims Lewinsky had to seduce Clinton in order to climb the political ladder – she treats it as some sort of second-class citizenship situation where women have to sleep up the ladder to get there. She ignores the fact that men respect people who work hard and but their nose to the grindstone – she is implicitly admits that women are more concerned with likeability than competency when promoting people (reminds me of Capt. Capitalism’s advice on dealing with HR ditzes). Second, she keeps pushing the point that Lewinsky seduced Clinton, but not just for lust but because she had to in order to climb the sexist patriarchy. I am done talking about Bright’s bullshit, but recognize she sees Lewinsky as sex icon, talking about how beautiful she is and how the nation will be reeling from Lewinsky’s beauty for decades.

Once again, we are presented with a situation in which a woman vastly outperforms her SMV. What to make of it? The hamster itself is a powerful creature with incredible powers of deception and misdirection. The feminist hamster – imagine being that zookeeper.



Let’s step through some evolutionary psychology before I chop up some game on simple feminist psychology. Matt Ridley penned the “The Red Queen” in 1993, at the height of feminist power in America. Let’s take a moment to commend a brother who dropped some red-pill knowledge in the thicket of feminist power. Back on point, in his book (which I have a review drawn up) he talks about how men and women are different because of different biological commands based on what are considered “gender roles.” He talks of women suited for gathering food and tending to children while men hunted for meat and worked up or down a male hierarchy – the farther up they went, the increased access to women they got. Standard red-pill stuff, but he (and I am drawing on my memory of book) implicitly argues women have a biological conflict with the men they sexually desire. At the first level – lust – they desire alpha males; however, they have desires of a second and third order related to companionship. In essence, they lust after alphas and then want beta male attention. Notice how when women are pregnant or rearing very young children they are very receptive to beta male advances. That is evolutionary – they are weak and need protection and provisioning. It squares perfectly with reality.



However, let’s now have a discussion about the feminist psychology with respects to alpha males – i.e. the men they are sexually attracted to. First, America is a society on puritanical values. Have you seen the movie “Cabin in the Woods?” They pick “Redneck Torture Zombies” as their killers and that is so American – self-infliction of wounds for biological impulses. However, this is reflected in feminist reaction to their sexuality. American society is not supportive of a positive sexuality for either sex. The psychological process for a young feminist is this: I am afraid of my sexuality. My parents/society/(patriarchy?) do not approve of it. I don’t want to lose their approval. Therefore, I cannot date/fuck anybody. Let’s consider another process: I am afraid of my sexuality. I have violent fantasies that involve rape, violence and all manner of degrading behavior. Women aren’t supposed to have these thoughts - women are pure creatures (either women are domestic goddesses or simply better than men). A woman has these thoughts? Blame patriarchy or ignore them. Men have these thoughts? A feminist can either project her fantasies onto a male – many radical feminists have some crazy thoughts about what men think about sex and women – far too specific to be anything more than psychological projection. Otherwise she can blame the patriarchy for inculcating bad thoughts in a male – usually centered around expressions of sexuality outside of what they consider the norm. I have fucked feminist women and Bible-thumping women – they are almost two sides of the same coin. “Turn off the lights and only missionary.” Yawn.

However, let’s penetrate deeper in the feminist psyche around alpha males. Here is a quote from a previous article I wrote for this forum:

Quote:

As usual, the guys would abuse women will do so with impunity – they often have anti-social tendencies so they don’t care about what the social mores are. For guys that wouldn’t beat their girlfriends or wives all it does it create unnecessary fear on their part. It is beyond predictable that women target their psychological equal – the insecure beta male. Unable to control the men they desire – they could be alphas – they double down on asserting supreme control over beta males. It is never satisfying for them.

Women are torn – they seek to dominate. They do so in their social hierarchies – I remember in high school when the highest status female stepped to the local basketball star. Note – she is skinny but ugly. He rejected her and began fucking a low status, but hot as hell girl. One of my first red-pill moments was when the upper-class women began targeted that girl personally. Shit, I could write a post on my high school, because we had clear class divisions in a class of around fifty! Really, over 15 were rich as hell, over 15 were on foodstamps - 2Wycked was the middle somewhere. In any event, their competition for status in their hierarchies bleeds over to their competition in two ways. First, they falsely assume the need to demonstrate social superiority in their approach. Sure, some men prefer higher-status women – that is true. Second, is the assumption men want women want.

We already saw feminists assume men and women want the same thing – but I want to talk about that plus feminist unease with male attraction. Men and women don’t want the same sexually. Women, once again, desire to dominate. With men, once they do, they are no longer attracted to said man – that is why you see former players (now simps) with hot women; she figured him out and brought him to bear. Yes, it is usually a typical narcissist/codependent relationship – although not always.

However, let’s finish with discussion with feminist unease with male attraction. Like many American women, feminists are uncomfortable with their sexual relationship with men. Anti-fat shaming and belief that beauty standards are socially constructed feed into this. They seek to deny male sexuality while simultaneously encouraging male approval.

Lets’ step through this. Feminists are not comfortable with their sexuality. When feminists gushed and oozed over Lewinsky sucking off Clinton, part of it was the sheer improbability of it happening. A chubby girl sucking the alpha male of America – no. However, like 50 Shades of Grey, part of the appeal is the fact it isn’t played out in reality. Women, and feminists, don’t want there to be a realistic fantasy – they want some over-the-top fantasy so they can keep pretending they will get a male like that in their head. Remember – Americans are narcissists.

Further, is the issue of equality. The female and feminist hamster has, generally, concluded that if a woman is attracted to a male, she must be his equal – this mindset helped fuel feminism. In order to balance their approach to equality, hamsters must make judgments about the men approaching them. This is why equality issues will never leave the consciousness of feminists – most men will be beneath their analysis, therefore reinforcing the idea that society is inequal. This feeds into my last point about his tired-out hamster.

It is narcissism. Seriously, I doubt there will be a big post from me that doesn’t mention narcissism, but it is relevant here. Remember Susie Bright? Her hamster groomed Lewinsky as a seducer of Clinton. She repackaged his alphaness as her seduction of him. Not only is that a female fantasy – yeah, I seduced an alpha male today; but it also highlights my quote from earlier. They want to be the best – Bright considered Lewinsky as Presidential material. However, women are attracted to the best – money, power and influence. This is where narcissism really comes in. They substitute actual greatness – Clinton’s life – with brushing against that greatness. You may see this somebody who has met with somebody great – I had a male friend gush incessantly after meeting Obama about the experience. Back on point, women assume that once dicked by power, they are power. They get to live out their fantasies of power and influence by coming into contact with it. They really don’t want power, just want the illusion of it; they don’t want their fantasies comprised by reality.



In reality, Clinton moved on and, recently, gave a rousing speech at the 2012 DNC. As for Lewinsky, she still is deeply in love with Clinton. She is now over 40, no kids and very much overweight. Like Roissy once said, five minutes of alpha is worth more than five years of beta. This case proves it. She allegedly only sucked him off nine times, but that was more than enough for lifelong love. Bill Clinton is a very suave man, he knew he couldn’t have hot women sucking him off – at least not hotter than Hilary – so he hooked up with a Jewish fatty. So this where it ends. She will spend the rest of her days recounting her days with Slick Willy and Clinton will go on to mesmerize crowds of people. Like that one woman who released a book on her days with JFK – just days – remember that alpha males will always win. Women will always defend the alpha – look at feminists here. They may have decided to defend Lewinsky, but they were implicitly defending Clinton. Never, ever, doubt the power of game. Seriously.

[aphelion]

How is it that a poster named 2Wycked is dropping some high level analysis like this. Very good writeup.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

Nice write-up and on the mark when it comes to the ridiculous ways feminists "analyzed" the Clinton scandal (I put that word in quotes because what they did is hardly analysis). But I have to disagree about Hillary -- which is spelled with the letter "l" twice, by the way.

She might be an unbearable old bat now, but she was reasonably hot when she was younger -- see this link). Put that together with her alleged bisexuality (more common today than it was then) and it's little wonder Bill Clinton went for her. Who know what they hell they got into personally before they entered politics?

But she didn't age well. And the steeliness that can seem sexy in a college girl is pretty repulsive in the thirtysomething woman. So my guess is that when he started noticing that is when he started looking elsewhere. An autobiography by Hillary is due out in a year or so, and it's being reported there will be an admission of her bisexuality to stave off the inevitable surprises that will surface if she runs for president.

[Teedub]

Your analysis of the feminist hamster was sublime. And educational. Much of the stuff we post about on this site is often just repeating others, whereas in all your mini-essays you deliver some brilliant stuff.

[gamepadawan]

If Bill's quality was better I would consider him Alpha.

[2Wycked]

(05-21-2013 05:13 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

Nice write-up and on the mark when it comes to the ridiculous ways feminists "analyzed" the Clinton scandal (I put that word in quotes because what they did is hardly analysis). But I have to disagree about Hillary -- which is spelled with the letter "l" twice, by the way.

She might be an unbearable old bat now, but she was reasonably hot when she was younger -- see this link). Put that together with her alleged bisexuality (more common today than it was then) and it's little wonder Bill Clinton went for her. Who know what they hell they got into personally before they entered politics?

But she didn't age well. And the steeliness that can seem sexy in a college girl is pretty repulsive in the thirtysomething woman. So my guess is that when he started noticing that is when he started looking elsewhere. An autobiography by Hillary is due out in a year or so, and it's being reported there will be an admission of her bisexuality to stave off the inevitable surprises that will surface if she runs for president.

You are right about my misspelling of Hillary's name, good catch. As for that pic, she didn't look bad, that long hair helps. I think part of why I came down hard on her is she is a classic codependent - given my psychological history, I may be harder than I should on them.

As for the bisexuality claims, that's news to me and I very much await her refuting the claims in her upcoming biography.

[JimNortonFan]

It's alleged that Hillary and Anthony Weiner's wife were more than political associates.

I don't know if that's true. Possibly just two women whose men cheated on them got lumped together by the smear brigade.

Anthony Weiner's wife is hot and high powered and all that a woman is supposed to be, then her husband sends cock pics to constituents. Enjoy your alpha sweetie!

[Exactaking]

(05-21-2013 06:09 PM)JimNortonFan Wrote:  

It's alleged that Hillary and Anthony Weiner's wife were more than political associates.

I don't know if that's true. Possibly just two women whose men cheated on them got lumped together by the smear brigade.

Anthony Weiner's wife is hot and high powered and all that a woman is supposed to be, then her husband sends cock pics to constituents. Enjoy your alpha sweetie!

That whole mess would've made a great movie, a fictionalized story, obviously. Make Hilary more milfy, have the Ashwara Rai chick play Weiner's wife (although it would cause an uproar having an Indian playing a Paki). Who could play Weiner, I mean Congressman Andrew Reiner?

[cardguy]

(05-21-2013 10:12 AM)gamepadawan Wrote:  

If Bill's quality was better I would consider him Alpha.

I agree with this. Why isn't Bill pulling hotter tail?

[Kabal]

Quote:

Clinton actually managed to blame Republicans for his hooking up with her.

Is this Clinton's sly way of saying that Republicans are excellent wingmen?

[cardguy]

To follow up from my previous point. I think women were soft on Bill Clinton precisely because he risked his presidency over an average looking chick.

If Bill had being fucking supermodel level chicks in the White House he wouldn't have gotten the same level of sympathy from women.

[2Wycked]

(05-22-2013 12:21 AM)cardguy Wrote:  

To follow up from my previous point. I think women were soft on Bill Clinton precisely because he risked his presidency over an average looking chick.

If Bill had being fucking supermodel level chicks in the White House he wouldn't have gotten the same level of sympathy from women.

I think Clinton knew that.

Gennifer Flowers:


Paula Jones:


Remember, these are pre-Presidency bangs. He knew that he couldn't get away with having sex with hot women as President. Women would revolt against him if he got caught - you are right they would not support him as much.

[cardguy]

Yeah - I guess my second post answered the question I asked in my first post.

[eradicator]

2wycked, seriously, you would do well to create a blog of these(maybe you have already?). These are just too strong to share only with this small corner of the internet.

[RaulValdez739]

Bill fucked like busy men do when he was president. whoever was closest to him in he vicinity.

[Timoteo]

The thing is, Gennifer Flowers had NO reason to come after him. She benefited from fucking him. She got a government job, which she kept for years I believe. Then when there's a buck in it, she comes after him? And Paula Jones never fucked Bill if I recall. He made an advance, and she rebuffed. He had his people bring her upstairs. I believe he asked her to "kiss it." She said no, he said cool, and she went about her business. He didn't harass her, and didn't get her fired. I believe Penthouse did a piece on her, and her ex-boyfriends contributed stories. She was a flat-out skank. He didn't even have enough respect for herself to demand a guy at least get a room to fuck her. She'd give up the pussy in a car parked behind the local high school. But again, there was a buck in it, so his enemies got her to go after him too.

[HeyPete]

Damn that Chapelle bit was funny!!!

And we have this ...[/php]

[Stun]

(05-21-2013 03:39 AM)2Wycked Wrote:  

However, let’s now have a discussion about the feminist psychology with respects to alpha males – i.e. the men they are sexually attracted to. First, America is a society on puritanical values. Have you seen the movie “Cabin in the Woods?” They pick “Redneck Torture Zombies” as their killers and that is so American – self-infliction of wounds for biological impulses. However, this is reflected in feminist reaction to their sexuality. American society is not supportive of a positive sexuality for either sex. The psychological process for a young feminist is this: I am afraid of my sexuality. My parents/society/(patriarchy?) do not approve of it. I don’t want to lose their approval. Therefore, I cannot date/fuck anybody. Let’s consider another process: I am afraid of my sexuality. I have violent fantasies that involve rape, violence and all manner of degrading behavior. Women aren’t supposed to have these thoughts - women are pure creatures (either women are domestic goddesses or simply better than men). A woman has these thoughts? Blame patriarchy or ignore them. Men have these thoughts? A feminist can either project her fantasies onto a male – many radical feminists have some crazy thoughts about what men think about sex and women – far too specific to be anything more than psychological projection. Otherwise she can blame the patriarchy for inculcating bad thoughts in a male – usually centered around expressions of sexuality outside of what they consider the norm. I have fucked feminist women and Bible-thumping women – they are almost two sides of the same coin. “Turn off the lights and only missionary.” Yawn.

However, let’s penetrate deeper in the feminist psyche around alpha males. Here is a quote from a previous article I wrote for this forum:

Quote:

As usual, the guys would abuse women will do so with impunity – they often have anti-social tendencies so they don’t care about what the social mores are. For guys that wouldn’t beat their girlfriends or wives all it does it create unnecessary fear on their part. It is beyond predictable that women target their psychological equal – the insecure beta male. Unable to control the men they desire – they could be alphas – they double down on asserting supreme control over beta males. It is never satisfying for them.

Women are torn – they seek to dominate. They do so in their social hierarchies – I remember in high school when the highest status female stepped to the local basketball star. Note – she is skinny but ugly. He rejected her and began fucking a low status, but hot as hell girl. One of my first red-pill moments was when the upper-class women began targeted that girl personally. Shit, I could write a post on my high school, because we had clear class divisions in a class of around fifty! Really, over 15 were rich as hell, over 15 were on foodstamps - 2Wycked was the middle somewhere. In any event, their competition for status in their hierarchies bleeds over to their competition in two ways. First, they falsely assume the need to demonstrate social superiority in their approach. Sure, some men prefer higher-status women – that is true. Second, is the assumption men want women want.

Interesting analysis - I've always thought that feminists (and betas) hated alpha males. You're saying the feminists don't hate, but are rather jealous of alphas - because they can't control them? And this is why they're drawn to betas?

(05-21-2013 03:39 AM)2Wycked Wrote:  

Bill Clinton is a very suave man, he knew he couldn’t have hot women sucking him off – at least not hotter than Hilary – so he hooked up with a Jewish fatty.

This I call BS on. I don't believe Clinton was that in control of his sexual desire. There are hotties out there somewhere that he nailed while president. He may have been more careful about them, but I can't believe he 'chose the Jewish fatty' as a means to an end.

[AlbertoDelMuerto]

Hillary is quite ugly, Monica is way better than her.

[kosko]

(05-21-2013 10:12 AM)gamepadawan Wrote:  

If Bill's quality was better I would consider him Alpha.

This is the delusion of the Male-Hamster. True booed Alphas are slightly self-destructing and not as stable as the Beta. Alphas can end up presidents and CEOs, but also janitors and broke bartenders. The stable beta never sees either extremes.

Alpha male purely craves and goes after sex/the nut, and will crack open whatever is around.

My cousin whom I have talked about on this form is the 'most alpha man on earth' and has fucked girls whom would be perceived as 10s, basically fashion models and such - while also sticking his meat in the ugliest bitches that I would never touch if drunk a d drugged, hell sometimes in the same day. To him - also a narcissist - he viewed himself as entilited to his nut and when he wanted to get it off, any women in that oppurtunity moment must submit. It did not matter the quality of that woman, only the purpose she would serve. He would get offended if any woman did not submit to his advances of her submitting to please him. But he always succeeded. He claims to me he has never jerked off because he has always found a woman to please him when he was horny, and is crazy as his stories can be I believe him because I've seen him run his game.

Remember the purpose it's because that was he was after. They quality did not mean shit, as a beta would fantasize more about a females looks then a Alpha would, as the Alpha simply chased the purpose then the actual female.

That is where us whom strive to be alphas get it twisted. It's that shrewed narcissism that gives alphas the ablility to approach and fuck any hot girl in thier frame -- but they will also fuck uglies too as they don't give a fuck.

Clinton was a blue blood alpha and a rare one whom in recent years has assumed the job of the Oval Office. The POUTUS like any other power position is beta. Because in those cases the formalities and rigid system handcuff a person into a subversent role. Monarchs for example are beta/omega schlubs because the system of regal hierarchy put in place to preserve thier phony powers is emasculating.

Clinton battled with this at times with many instances behind the scenes clashing with his advisors on certian issues. A few times even going public on the record on the opposite stance then what was crafted internally by advisors and spin doctors. The self-destructing Alpha male becomes restless and hostile in these situations. Clinton almost burned himself alive politically by just being a Alpha chasing his nut. No shame. But in that public role you have to be more stable and calculated. Somebody like Regan (and Obama now to an extent, but will be judged after the fact) embraced the handcuffs and projected a heavily scripted and calculated role while in office. He conned Americans into thinking this granola sunshine kid from California was a staunch conservative when his whole political carrer debunked it. Clinton if more of a schlub would of been more politically safe like Regan but it did not matter. Americans love the underdog and the Alpha and Clinton still enjoys great appreciation for his term.

More instances of conflict:Clinton in his later years/final months grew more paranoid as the impeachment fiasco burnt him out and he began getting paranoid about spies in the white house and Monica possibly being a Jewish honey trap set up via Tel Aviv (there are accoounts of him telling Monica to use another phone due to his main-line being "tapped by Tel Aviv"). It all sounds foolish but think whom holds your nuts as a male POTUS, especially in the 90's. The large Jewish lobby, and be femenist lobby -- and Monica was both lol.

The GOP successfully used impeachment to get major consessions from Clinton. A big one was him selling out the minority base and poor white base but completly bleeding and destroying welfare. Not much is left of the classic program, and it was the GOP push that made it happen and IMO completly disenfranchised many poor rural whites whom mostly supported Clinton in the 90's.

You see the same things creeping up now with Obama. GOP may use the same trick for Obama to errorde his base and leave the GOP in better standing 3 years down the road from now.

Clinton's term provides a hyper view of the shifts and changes in America. The ground work laid out via the vision of a Post-Soviet world, while the massive complex of Goverment outside a war and rival was exposed and laid open to identity groups to creep in and gain power en-masse (Feminist lobby, Jewish lobby, War lobby, Corproate lobby). All of these groups compelty fractured and broke the American system in the 2000's, all closely tied into the blunder of policies America went all in on. Americans in the 90's on the high of bubble growth and paper wealth looked the other way, if the 90's faced the same issues as today many of the interest groups would of been critically called out and hopefully some of them nurtured and downsized.

As far as Hillary goes she WAS pretty much a lock for 2016. Not anymore though as she is damaged goods. She tried to swing a dick at The State Department and over extended her policy goals and reach, which ultimately lead to the Benghazi fiasco. Her State Dept post aged her 10 years, she was in over her head in that post IMO and it may turn out to kill her chances at the Oval Office. So good for that as she is a witch!

[Stun]

Damn Kosko, you are an educated mug. Reputation point coming right up. Tell it.

But your reply about your cousin reminded me also that every guy I know who is really good with women - I mean really good - does not have beauty standards. They fuck anyone from low to high. The whole team.

[cardguy]

The 5 minutes of Alpha idea is interesting. Can't remember where I first saw it (Roissy - I guess?)

Imagine you married Monica Lewinsky. Is there any doubt in your mind that she would be forever dissatisfied with you - no matter what you did. Since you would never live up to the brief liasion she had with the most powerful man in the world.

[GameTheory]

(05-23-2013 04:32 PM)Sugar Wrote:  

[...] I don't believe Clinton was that in control of his sexual desire. There are hotties out there somewhere that he nailed while president.[see pic below--GT] He may have been more careful about them, but I can't believe he 'chose the Jewish fatty' as a means to an end.

(05-24-2013 03:22 AM)kosko Wrote:  

(05-21-2013 10:12 AM)gamepadawan Wrote:  

If Bill's quality was better I would consider him Alpha.

This is the delusion of the Male-Hamster. True booed Alphas are slightly self-destructing and not as stable as the Beta. Alphas can end up presidents and CEOs, but also janitors and broke bartenders. The stable beta never sees either extremes.

Alpha male purely craves and goes after sex/the nut, and will crack open whatever is around. [...]

Remember the purpose it's because that was he was after. They quality did not mean shit, as a beta would fantasize more about a females looks then a Alpha would, as the Alpha simply chased the purpose then the actual female.

That is where us whom strive to be alphas get it twisted. It's that shrewed narcissism that gives alphas the ablility to approach and fuck any hot girl in thier frame -- but they will also fuck uglies too as they don't give a fuck. [...]

Pres. Clinton was banging the now-departed Eleanor Mondale while he was getting BJ's from Monica on the side...


i know this is a lousy pic of her but she was pretty damn hot in the late 1990's

to whit: Clinton was a sociopathic nut-buster, it didn't matter to him if he was giving facials to Monica or Eleanor.