Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Biomechanics is God’ Category

As reported by NPR (I’m sure with gritted teeth), a Pew Study finds

that the milliennial generation has a low level of social trust. There are several possible causes for this distrust, including a skewed social media culture and a faltering economy. [...]

One explanation for this, the study suggests, is growing racial diversity – 43 percent of millennial adults are non-white, making this the most diverse generation in America.

Holy macaroni! Is the SPWL stronghold of NPR about to grapple with the CH aphorism “diversity + proximity = war“?

She says, minority groups have long had low levels of social trust.

CAMILLE LEAK: I think that, ultimately, it stems from their history of having to deal with persecution and discrimination, whether in their personal lives or within the business setting. [...]

Leak suggests that the Internet itself is another reason millennials are so distrustful.

LEAK: I mean, there’s a reason why catfish is now a verb.

Ah, no. This being NPR, leftoid headquarters, the bleeding obvious escapes them. Social distrust can’t be up because diversity is making the full court press and severing ethnocentric communal bonds. No no, it has to be white privilege, persecution, or the internet. Hey guess what? I’ll add another theory to the mix that’s no less nebulous and unfalsifiable than the catch-all assertion of white privilege: Dissembling media leftoids are causing the rise in social distrust.

So who’s the one in five that says, yeah, people can be trusted? Sara Bakken’s one of them. She lives in South Dakota. She says, if she were to meet someone on the street, chances are, she could trust them.

South Dakota is 84% white, 21% higher than the national average.

Camille Leak says, low levels of social trust shouldn’t be mistaken for a pessimistic world view.

LEAK: It’s just being savvy and being realistic, and I think that’s what it is for a lot of millennials. It’s not about being optimistic or pessimistic. It’s about being realistic.

Do Millennials strike you as hard-headed realists? Maybe they are when they aren’t whining about microaggressions or the patriarchy or extolling the artistry of anime.

Despite this lack of trust, the study says, the millennial generation is the most upbeat about the future of the country.

“The basis of optimism is sheer terror.”
- Oscar Wilde

There was one other interesting tidbit to come out of the study:

Within the millennial generation in particular, multicultural consumers have a much higher level of influence on their non-Hispanic white counterparts. So we’re seeing that even outside of areas like trust, non-Hispanic white millennials have begun to adopt certain multicultural [sic] behaviors or characteristics.

Translation: A drop of wine into sewage makes sewage. A drop of sewage into wine makes sewage.

Diversity + proximity = war. Keep saying it leftoids, until your heads explode scanners-style.

Read Full Post »

It was a brief vignette shoehorned into the end of the day that nonetheless attested to a meaningful psychological and social difference between the sexes.

I was walking

dislodging a buttplug

down a busy sidewalk when I noticed a young-ish black (and possibly gay) guy asking for high fives from passersby. He had something like a clipboard in his hand, but I wasn’t interested enough to determine whether he was a snazzily dressed street bum performing for loose change or a campaigner for some idiotic cause.

In the time it took me to first notice him and walk past him, three (white) women and two (white) men were accosted by his street performance shenanigans. As each neared, he would spit his loudmouthed pitch and histrionically hoist his hand for a high five. All three women complied, reaching upward to meet his hand with sheepish grins and blushing faces. The two men sneered or frowned and swerved away from his entreaties.

(If you’re wondering what I did, I didn’t swerve. I walked right into his jabber zone and right out of it without an iota of acknowledgment.)

The scene was a reminder how emotionally manipulable women are, compared to men. I’ve seen similar scenes unfold hundreds, perhaps thousands of times, and the same sex disparity in call-and-response emerges: Women are more apt to obey the commands of an annoying (if friendly) stranger than are men. This instinct is likely a property of women’s greater predilection for group cohesion and agreeableness, probably mixed in with some latent desire to submit to a man who’s large and in charge.

One reason game works so well on women has to do with their greater degree of emotional manipulability. A man who understands that women are more impressionable creatures who will reflexively follow strong leadership is a man who gets laid. Indecisive betas earn women’s disgust and cruelty; decisive (some would call “douchey”) alphas earn women’s love and respect.

Some game concepts, like calculated scarcity, are universal and will work, more or less, on both sexes. But women are much more susceptible to these unisex game techniques because of the nature of their paper-thin emotional defenses against such manipulation. This is how you know that the occasional dumbfuck female contrarian who comes on here to shriekishly assert how game works just as well on men is full of shit. Yes, some of these game tactics can work on men… weak beta men with dispositions not unlike that of women. In contrast, game works on all women, and works best, ironically, on the best-looking women.

Read Full Post »

A reader passes along research which discovered that river pollution — specifically, endocrine disrupting chemicals (which are found in everyday products such as pesticides, contraceptive pills and detergents) — in Spanish estuaries is feminizing the male fish.

Welly well, CH has been in front decrying a perceptible increase in Western male manboobery aka feminization. We are awash in male feminists, our culture is getting regressively scalzified, and that can’t be entirely chalked up to genes. Something befouls the pool of innate masculinity, turning once-proud penises inward and sacks upward.

Can we infer negative impacts of pollution on human males from male fish? I think we can, but further research will help clear this up. If it turns out pollution is a major cause of beta orbiters, male feminists, and other self-flagellating pudding pops, then Western technological civilization can rightly be accused of waging a war against men, and the war is going global.

And it’s a good bet that whatever’s feminizing men is also masculinizing women. Manjaws and narrow boy hips are everywhere, in case you haven’t noticed. American women are counting notches on their bedposts while American men are penning sappy paeans to pedestaled sluts.

One interesting angle to this “pollution makes manlets” research is that we can expect to find manlier (i.e. psychologically healthier) men where water and air pollution is lower. Now where would that be… rural areas? Low population density areas? You see where this is heading.

Rural red state good ol’ boys 8====D~~~ urban blue state SWPLs.

Read Full Post »

1. Girls love selfish badboys.

2. Nonconsensual erotic rape fantasies are more common among women than previously thought.

3. Girls love dominant men who take what they want.

4. Girls hate men who do as they’re told.

5. Girls hate sensitive, emotionally available men.

6. Girls love men who take charge.

7. Girls love it when men touch them without asking.

8. Girls love men with “appetitive-aggressive” tendencies.

Read Full Post »

Robert Cialdini is an expert in psychological manipulation, i.e., goal-oriented communication. (Something we all do, more or less successfully, whether we are aware of our own machinations or not.) He wrote the seminal book Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. What you may not know is that Cialdini was, in many respects, a founding father of Game. He is cited by many well-regarded pickup artists, and his ideas, like “social proof”, percolate throughout the game literature. Game has had, from its inception. some pretty solid scientific, theoretical, and experiential backing.

Something else you probably don’t know: Cialdini was tapped, along with other renowned behavioral scientists, by the 2008 Obama campaign to help propel Obama to the highest office in the land.

Two weeks before Election Day, Barack Obama’s campaign was mobilizing millions of supporters; it was a bit late to start rewriting get-out-the-vote (GOTV) scripts. “BUT, BUT, BUT,” deputy field director Mike Moffo wrote to Obama’s GOTV operatives nationwide, “What if I told you a world-famous team of genius scientists, psychologists and economists wrote down the best techniques for GOTV scripting?!?! Would you be interested in at least taking a look? Of course you would!!”

Moffo then passed along guidelines and a sample script from the Consortium of Behavioral Scientists, a secret advisory group of 29 of the nation’s leading behaviorists. The key guideline was a simple message: “A Record Turnout Is Expected.” That’s because studies by psychologist Robert Cialdini and other group members had found that the most powerful motivator for hotel guests to reuse towels, national-park visitors to stay on marked trails and citizens to vote is the suggestion that everyone is doing it. “People want to do what they think others will do,” says Cialdini, author of the best seller Influence. “The Obama campaign really got that.”

The existence of this behavioral dream team — which also included best-selling authors Dan Ariely of MIT (Predictably Irrational) and Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein of the University of Chicago (Nudge) as well as Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman of Princeton — has never been publicly disclosed, even though its members gave Obama white papers on messaging, fundraising and rumor control as well as voter mobilization. All their proposals — among them the famous online fundraising lotteries that gave small donors a chance to win face time with Obama — came with footnotes to peer-reviewed academic research. “It was amazing to have these bullet points telling us what to do and the science behind it,” Moffo tells TIME. “These guys really know what makes people tick.”

Cialdini’s theories about the nature of human psychology and his influence on the American elite are evidence of the triumph of Game. Game has infused every facet of the body politic, not just the sexual organs. As CH has said many times already, if you can game a woman into bed you can game a boss into handing you a raise or a nation’s voters into electing you President.

That is the awesomely dark power of Game. And dark it is, because what is essentially remote control of another person’s executive brain function is the kind of power that irresistibly pulls one to malevolent ends.

President Obama is still relying on behavioral science. But now his Administration is using it to try to transform the country. Because when you know what makes people tick, it’s a lot easier to help them change.

You can thank Game for our first two-term halfling SWPL President and the nationalization of 1/7th of the economy. Now, if Game can do that, imagine what it can do on bored girls at bars yearning for a little excitement in their lives.

Some have said the 21st Century will be the age of biology. I think what we are entering is the age of Orwellian mastery over human psychology. Scarily, the two might be related. The power to shape people’s opinions and emotions through mere word and expression, and guide them to actions they may not have taken otherwise, is reaching an apotheosis that could be magnified a thousandfold coupled with the power to alter people’s genetic architecture.

If your eyes are open, you don’t have to look far to see foreboding signs of this new age of the human aquarium rising into view. Unaccountable secret government agencies using the internet to “manipulate, deceive and destroy reputations”. Your webcam commandeered by shadowy operatives. Cameras on every street corner. Cathedralsourced slanderswarms of crimethinkers.

Cialdini’s name has been found in NSA documents. I wouldn’t be surprised if the man himself is working for them.

Doubters can snark about “PUAs” to their hearts’ content, but the arc of recent history is proving that PUAs were at the leading edge all along. Will people listen only when it’s too late?

Read Full Post »

Commenter “H” passes along a quote from J. D. Unwin,

CH have you heard of J. D. Unwin? From wikipedia page: In Sex and Culture (1934), Unwin studied 80 primitive tribes and 6 known civilizations through 5,000 years of history and found a positive correlation between the cultural achievement of a people and the sexual restraint they observe….According to Unwin, after a nation becomes prosperous it becomes increasingly liberal with regard to sexual morality and as a result loses it cohesion, its impetus and its purpose. The process, says the author, is irreversible:
“The whole of human history does not contain a single instance of a group becoming civilized unless it has been absolutely monogamous, nor is there any example of a group retaining its culture after it has adopted less rigorous customs.”

Unleashed female sexuality is great fun… while poolside lasts. But then a price must be paid, and that price is nothing less than civilization. Why are women primarily to blame? Because as the sexual gatekeepers, their lack of restraint is more destabilizing to societal prosperity. The female sex is, despite cultural pabulum to the contrary, the wilder sex.

Tragically (and this is one instance when the word tragic correctly applies), it would seem shining civilizations are doomed to eat and screw themselves to oblivion. Restraint — i.e., devotion to the gods of the copybook headings — leads to prosperity. Prosperity leads to liberality. Liberality leads to disintegration.

One can as successfully stop this civilizational cycle as one can stop the cycle of tides. So, you may as well clink a glass and enjoy the time you’ve got here.

Read Full Post »

Recall the CH extended definition of Game:

Applied charisma, i.e. psychological mastery over human perception.

This broader definition is important, because it clarifies to the lay reader the applicability to game to human interactions and pursuits other than those involving romantic gratification. For instance, notice the commonality between Poon Commandment V

V. Adhere to the golden ratio

Give your woman 2/3 of everything she gives you. For every three calls or texts, give her two back. Three declarations of love earn two in return. Three gifts; two nights out. Give her two displays of affection and stop until she has answered with three more. When she speaks, you reply with fewer words. When she emotes, you emote less. The idea behind the golden ratio is twofold — it establishes your greater value by making her chase you, and it demonstrates that you have the self-restraint to avoid getting swept up in her personal dramas. Refraining from reciprocating everything she does for you in equal measure instills in her the proper attitude of belief in your higher status. In her deepest loins it is what she truly wants.

…and the advice in this article to emulate the email habits of successful businessmen:

Want to get ahead? Emulate the super-successful and never send a long email. [...]

“For various reasons, short emails are more associated with people at the top of the food chain. If you also send short emails it puts you in the company of the decision-makers,” said Will Schwalbe, co-author with David Shipley of Send: Why People Email So Badly and How to Do It Better. Short emails, he said, are “much more respectful of everyone’s time.” [...]

Writing short emails shows confidence in what you have to say.

It also shows high status. As in matters of the female heart, the person who invests less is admired/loved more. Replying with a shorter email than the one you receive will influence the perception of the person with whom you are communicating to presume your status as relatively higher than his or her own. This is because people instinctively infer, justifiably or not, that the lower investment party is less interested in seeking approval, and indifference to the approval of others is one signal of high value, particularly for men whose fitness — reproductive or otherwise — is determined in large measure by non-physical attributes.

Perception control is the energy source of game. It’s why overconfident men succeed with women just as they do in the world of business.

High status businessmen, like players who seem to have a supernatural pull over women, don’t get mired in long-winded transactions and deliberations with their customers/clients/love interests. They command respect and awe, and inspire curiosity, by holding back when others have an expectation or a desire for more, and by maintaining an emotional and social circumspection that entices estimation and affection.

Read Full Post »

What men are becoming:

What women are becoming:

something strange’s afoul in the land
when men are women and women men
a cataclysm in mind and soul
harbinger of deathly toll
these omens abound in plain sight
yet blind are we to our odd blight
our daughters’ wombs drying up
our sons’ spirits in a rut
our race teeters on the brink
of long decay and future bleak

Read Full Post »

When feminists aren’t happily asserting that women cheat just as much as men do, they’re raging that cheating men are insecure chauvinist pigs who are afraid of strong, independent women. As per usual with the human emojis known as feminists, trying to square their internal contradictions is an exercise in infinitely recursive futility.

Which is why it’s so much fun just to stick the hot shiv in their flabby hides and watch them squeal in pain. Courtesy of ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥science♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥, a study found that men cheat more not because they have weaker self-control than women, but because men have stronger sex drives that compel them to cheat.

A recently published study strongly suggests men succumb to sexual temptations more than women—for example, cheating on a partner—because they experience strong sexual impulses, not because they have weak self-control.

Previous research has shown that men are more likely than women to pursue romantic partners that are “off limits.” However, until now, the explanation for this sex difference was largely unexplored.

One possible explanation for this effect is that men experience stronger sexual impulses than women do. A second possibility is that women have better  than men. The current study’s results support the former explanation and provide new insight into humans’ .

Let’s tally up the scorecard and see how many losses feminists and their equalist paymasters suffered from this one single study:

1. Men have stronger sex drives than women.

Reality: 1, Feminists: 0.

2. Women don’t have more sexual self-control than men; they just have relatively weaker sex drives that reduce their compulsion to cheat.

Reality: 2, Feminists: 0.

3. Men have evolved different sexual strategies than women, and a higher male sex drive is one manifestation of that evolved sex difference.

Reality: 3, Feminists: 0.

4. Any sexual temptation is harder for men to deny than it is for women to deny, because men have more innately powerful sex drives that they must suppress.

Reality: 4, Feminists: 0.

5. Feminists are stoopid. It’s self-evident.

Reality: 5, Feminists: 0.

There’s a dearly held belief by feminists and their beta male suck-ups that women are the more “moral” sex. But virtue is empty braggadocio if it isn’t tested by vice. The fact that men need to expend greater efforts of self-control than are required of women to refuse the temptation of sexual infidelity is proof that, at least along this spectrum of virtuous behavior, men are the more moral sex.

Read Full Post »

The Lost Ark of the human sciences, intelligence genes, has been found and opened, and the faces of Universalist Equalists are melting into a bloody pulp. Researchers have pinpointed a single gene which, in its high-functioning variant, directly contributes to higher intelligence.

Researchers have found that teenagers who had a highly functioning NPTN gene performed better in intelligence tests.

It is thought the NPTN gene indirectly affects how the brain cells communicate and may control the formation of the cerebral cortex, the outermost layer of the human brain, also known as ‘grey matter.’ [...]

Teens with an underperforming NPTN gene did less well in intelligence tests. [...]

They found that, on average, teenagers carrying a particular gene variant had a thinner cortex in the left cerebral hemisphere, particularly in the frontal and temporal lobes, and performed less well on tests for intellectual ability.

The walls are closing in on the lords of lies and their feels army of emotabots. Soon, very soon, they will have nowhere to hide nor any shadowed mental crevice left to dissemble. They will be faced with a stark choice: Capitulate, or self-deliver on the altar of their monstrous, deformed egos.

I foresee an end to the current Leftoid Regime playing out as one of two scenarios: Whole-hearted (and back-rationalized) embrace of eugenics and anti-dysgenic policies, or further retreat into smaller and smaller technologically and economically gated safe spaces where their hedonism can carry them gently to the eternal darkness, as a fetid tide of decivilization rises.

Will it be Gattaca or Attica? Is there a third way, less tyrannical but still wise and sensible? More importantly, is it too late to make these choices?

Addendum:
In Houellebecq’s novel The Elementary Particles, the protagonist, Michel, discovers a molecular process that launches the age of genetic engineering. Michel is loveless and sad, a numberless victim of a ruthless modern sexual market, and in the end… [SPOILER]… he walks into the ocean and disappears. He lived his personal Gattaca, and it was no savior to him. Was his death a warning of what he unleashed, or a fitting tribute to the end of humanity as we know it?

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,842 other followers

%d bloggers like this: