Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘The Id Monster’ Category

If all you had to go on was a couple’s photo together, could you predict the man’s romantic future? Exhibit Gay:

Men made aware of the sexual market undercurrent propelling each person through superficially detached life events woven into a unified whole by the prime directive could glance at this photo and know in an instant, based on nothing but body language cues, the fate of this happy couple.

There is, of course, the obvious. Mixed-race couples tend to fair poorer than same-race couples. And he looks forty years older than her.

But beyond those black and white monochromatic signatures, there are almost equally telling giveaways in his and her body postures that predict their marital fortune. He grasps her with fearful possessiveness. He leans into her like a human Pisa tower. Her smile is all show, no glow. Her dead eyes reveal her emotional distance. Worse, and most humorously, her head has craned away from his head at an angle that precisely mirrors his neck crick. She checked out of this lovely scene long before the camera flashed.

Can you predict his romantic future from this photo? Take a guess before reading further.

.

.

.

.

She willingly stayed married to him for 20 minutes after her green card cleared.

Beta males need to learn game and to hear non-nonsense talk about the differing nature of the sexes so that they can spot the clues early in a relationship or even during a first date that a woman isn’t as enamored of them as they are of her. This bracing acceptance of reality would save them time, energy, money, and heartache, and most crucially save them the accumulating bitterness that is inevitably projected onto future women who may be good for them.

Read Full Post »

Equalist leftoids are feeling the heat from rebel samizdat. You can sense it in the op-eds littering Hivemind propaganda outlets. Headlines are increasingly defensive, sounding more like rallying cries for one last stand in the name of the Narrative.

Examples abound. Here’s one from the front page of CNN.

Spanking is bad – especially for blacks.

It’s largely an opinion piece against parental corporal punishment — especially for blacks — with a link to two associational studies that don’t really tell us if spanking — especially for blacks — is itself a cause, rather than a symptomatic property, of the vibrant black behavioral profile.

The smarter equalists, like the writer of the above op-ed, can feel which way the subversive winds are blowing (does the Chateau infect hearts and minds? the thought titillates!), and will attempt to co-opt Narrative destroyers with preemptive blanket assertions to the contrary before white electorate opinion hardens into thoughtcrime. The insidious Hiveminders will even armor their defensive bunkers with the trappings of anti-Narrative themes.

So, for instance, in the above article, the field operative Hiveminder, who fears that the wrong sort of people will draw the wrong sorts of ugly conclusions about possible racial differences in effective child rearing, couches his contrary assertion in language that is more congenial to anti-Narrative foes, and in so doing rob his rebellious antagonists of spirited resolve. What you get, then, is “spanking is bad for black kids because {proof by assertion} black kids are no different than white or asian kids who are spanked less, and {soothing but substance-free pabulum for good-hearted but naive whites} the black communitaaah needs to be the one to condemn their own culture of spanking.”

It’s all very enlightening from a sociological perspective, and heartening for agents of change too, because what’s happening now is that the first cracks in the Hivemind honeycomb are appearing, and scaring the buzzfeeding bees into a frenzy. Soul-deformed leftoids are using every psychological tool they have at their wicked disposal to protect the Equalist Anti-White* Narrative from guerrilla attack by no-fucks-given Realstinger wasps. They are denying, lying, and disingenuously mollifying, and when they aren’t doing those things they are smearing, slandering, and nuking comment sections.

The walls are closing in around the Hive. The Chateau marquises prefer the iron maiden for maximum pain amplification.

Well, Clarice… have the bees stopped buzzing?

I predict in the coming years we’ll see more and more transparently desperate and laughable attempts by the media, entertainment, bureaucratic and tenured academic complexes to assert the dominance and relevancy of their dog-eared Anti-White Male Testament in the face of mounting countervailing evidence and a growing army of shiv wielders all too happy to draw blood from the Myth King Xerxes.

*It may seem that Equalism and Anti-White Spite are contradictory, but in fact the former is just cover for the latter, which is the true animating philosophy of the Lords of Lies. Adherents to Equalism exploit the cheat code of religious faith in universal equality to proselytize against White heathens, the only enemy capable of ending their reign of madness.

Read Full Post »

Eric Barker, a guy CH has linked to several times over the years because of his outstanding work compiling data-rich studies into the workings of the sexual market, has a new article in The Week titled ‘The Science of Sex: 4 Harsh Truths About Dating and Mating’.

The four harsh truths he lists and thoroughly corroborates with links to scientific studies will be very familiar to regular CH readers, as they all vindicate a number of Heartistian field observations of the flesh and blood dating world where men and women collide in hopeful union.

1) Those things we say we hate actually make us more attracted to people.

When someone plays hot-cold, keeps you guessing, makes you constantly uncertain?

Yeah, that makes you even more attracted:

Participants in the uncertain condition were most attracted to the men — even more attracted than were participants who were told that the men liked them a lot. Uncertain participants reported thinking about the men the most, and this increased their attraction toward the men.

Never listen to what a woman says; watch what she does. You ever wonder why women complain about equivocal men, when you yourself and every man you know are niceguys who never lead women on or play head games with women? Wonder no more. Women complain about these kinds of men because these are the men women choose to date and screw. They’re like children who complain about the sugar rush from eating lots of candy.

2) Yes, guys are pretty shallow.

The stereotypes are true: men want sex more than women and, yeah, guys are more likely to hit on girls with big boobs.

Men dig beauty.
Chicks dig power.
The rest is hamster nibbles.

3) Women can be quite dastardly too.

The science of sex tells us that the romantic comedies lie. Sex is an area where nice guys do finish last:

In one survey of men, Trapnell and Meston (1996) found that nice guys who were modest, agreeable, and unselfish were disadvantaged in sexual relationships. Men who were manipulative, arrogant, calculating, and sly were more sexually active and had a greater variety of sexual experiences and a greater number of sex partners. [Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy]

Women are very often attracted to bad boys like James Bond. In fact, research shows young women sometimes prefer out-and-out jerks:

In the end, young women may continue to claim that they find certain qualities in a “good guy” nice guy as highly desirable and that they want to be in a committed relationship with one man as their ultimate goal, but, at the same time, they seem content to spend “the meantime and in-between-time” going out with fun/sexy guys who may or may not turn into “jerks.”

For every Ray Rice who knocks a loving wife out, there’s a loving wife who chose to be with a Ray Rice. It takes two to tango. Someone tell that to Rod Dreher and Ross Douthat.

4) Little of the above will be changing anytime soon.

This is the science of sex, not the culture of it. Most, if not all, of these things are true around the world.

In a study of over 1000 participants in three dozen cultures it was consistently found that men are focused on looks and women on status:

Several standard sex differences replicated across cultures, including women’s greater valuation of social status and men’s greater valuation of physical attractiveness. [Personality and Individual Differences]

But we grow out of it, right? Nope.

Our tastes do not mature as we get older:

Findings suggest that although emerging adults believe that their peers’ mating desires change systematically over time, emerging adults’ self-reported mating desires vary little with age.

Unlike most other human attributes, the sexual preferences of men and women are remarkably uniform across the earth. Which makes sense. The sexual market is the one market to rule them all.

And we pretty much want the same thing throughout our lives, which must cause an amazing amount of pain for aging feminist beauties who are no longer able to cash in their prize assets for their hearts’ desire.

To recap:

Women say one thing but do another.

Male ambiguity, coyness, overconfidence and entitlement are sexy.

Men value female looks far above all other considerations.

Women value male social status above male looks.

Niceguys finish last.

Sexual desire is immutable.

Read Full Post »

Pulled from the briskly invigorating comments to this insightful Mangan post on the paradox of nationalism. The discussion had moved into explanations for the apparently self-immolating pathologically altruistic universalism that characterizes people of NW European descent. A commenter digs up a Darwin quote that suggests the wise man understood the dynamics of outbreeding and reinforcing cultural feedbacks (feelbacks?) to create a universalistic morality among the populace.

in other words, there’s been something of a runaway universalism

Just as Darwin predicted in his ‘Descent of Man’.

“As man advances in civilisation, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all the members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races. If, indeed, such men are separated from him by great differences in appearance or habits, experience unfortunately shews us how long it is, before we look at them as our fellow-creatures.

Sympathy beyond the confines of man, that is, humanity to the lower animals, seems to be one of the latest moral acquisitions. It is apparently unfelt by savages, except towards their pets. How little the old Romans knew of it is shewn by their abhorrent gladiatorial exhibitions. The very idea of humanity, as far as I could observe, was new to most of the Gauchos of the Pampas. This virtue, one of the noblest with which man is endowed, seems to arise incidentally from our sympathies becoming more tender and more widely diffused, until they are extended to all sentient beings. As soon as this virtue is honoured and practised by some few men, it spreads through instruction and example to the young, and eventually becomes incorporated in public opinion.”

More memetic than genetic.

More? Could be both equally. I do think proponents of out- and inbreeding genetic theories of universalism tend to give short shrift to the role that culture-gene feedback loops play in amplifying nascent changes in a people’s character and moral sense. Cf, the recent surge in obesity.

Darwin considered the evolution of wide-ranging and unprejudiced empathy toward others the “noblest” of human virtues. But, he also understood that there were races of man, past and present, who would not or could not return the favor. In reconciling this inherent contradiction bedeviling those who wished to believe in a one-world humanity of equal moral disposition, Darwin glimpsed the outline of a tyrannical self-monitoring masochism and the development of cultural institutions to codify that tyranny of the mind.

More of the perceptive man’s thoughts:

Darwin goes on to touch upon what today is called political correctness…

“The highest possible stage in moral culture is when we recognise that we ought to control our thoughts, and “not even in inmost thought to think again the sins that made the past so pleasant to us.”* Whatever makes any bad action familiar to the mind, renders its performance by so much the easier. As Marcus Aurelius long ago said, “Such as are thy habitual thoughts, such also will be the character of thy mind; for the soul is dyed by the thoughts.”*(2)

* Tennyson, Idylls of the King, p. 244.
*(2) Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Bk. V, sect. 16.”

Darwin, as well as great minds from long before his time, foresaw our modern PC, anti-white male witch burning death culture. The point of anti-white propaganda and ritualistic shaming of those who dare to question the reigning equalist narrative is humiliation of wrongthinkers. Humiliate those who entertain even wispy tendrils of wrongthought and you spare the universalist religion and its glassy-eyed Hivemind followers from suffering stains of dispiriting truth upon its soul.

Read Full Post »

The number one killer of your game is a function of time, but it’s not time. Time — a merciless decay directive that commissions the end of everyone — is too crude and imprecise an agent of character change to rely on for guidance. We need to measure a new reality closer to the heart.

Around age 11 or 12, preteens experience a significant reorganization of their brains. New neural connections are made while gray matter is “pruned”. This process continues throughout adolescence, and doesn’t fully end until the mid-20s, when the brain reaches its final resting phase. The adult you is, in a mental sense, forever 25.

The biggest brain change in the early teen years is the shift away from prefrontal development and the shift toward emphasis on the amygdala, the brain’s emotional center. We become limbic creatures, more feral and impulsive, once we hit our teenage stride, because our decision-making ability, especially under conditions of stress, is then relegated to the control of the amygdala.

There is a sound evolutionary reason for this brain change. If teenagers were overly risk-averse and worried about the consequences of their actions, they would never take those first vital steps to establish their identity by trying new things. Instinctive bravery, or stupidity, is what pushes baby birds out of the nest to fly. Without that neural window of risk-attachment encouraging teens to bust out of their comfort zones, they would never leave home, rightly calculating that life is perfect under the auspices of their hearth managers.

After those heady teenage years, there’s a slow loss in the mental capacity for satiating curiosity and for risk-attachment. This, too, likely has evolutionary origins. Adults who remain wild and thrill-seeking like teenagers do their own children no good, because what those little shits need more than anything is a stable family environment. We are as hard-wired to step into the comfort zone as adults as we are to step out of it as preteens.

There’s another word for the risk-attachment that defines the teenage/early 20s experience: Passion.

Game is all about taking social risks and withstanding blows to the ego. It’s about reckless experimentation. It’s about an inner energy that drives a man to seek new or better lovers and romantic experiences. It’s about denying the soothing siren song of comfort zones with a force ten tenacity. Game is, in its essence, the exalting of passion over passiveness.

Unfortunately, game has a mortal enemy, and it is the brain itself. The loss of risk-attachment — the pure energy of passion — for the gain of risk-aversion — the serene submission to contentment — will kill a man’s game more completely and with greater finality than physical shortcomings, than financial ruin, than even marriage and its punitive bindings.

The number one killer of your game is the same inexorable biomechanical algorithm that killed your passion and replaced it with placidity: Your changing brain.

If you are a man of keen mind, you may even feel this loss of passion. You’ll sense the changes partly in your day to day behavior and partly by way of the nostalgia fuel your living memory provides. Ironically, although the tragedy when viewed from an unbiased distance is immense, you won’t feel the pain of passion loss as much as you should because you won’t have the passion left to mourn it. Kind of like how I imagine a very old man gazes wistfully at a young beautiful woman while his cock remains undisturbed by the commotion.

Regrettably, there’s nothing on offer that could guarantee you avoid this date with dispassionate destiny. But there are weapons that may help you beat back the gathering storm of brain-reconfigured apathy and keep you seducing women in top form for decades to come.

1. Willpower.

If you can sense it, you can slow it. The first step begins with self-awareness. Instead of bleakly shuffling into that fading light like a gelded automaton, turn your mental howitzers against inevitability and embrace the fight. Go into battle knowing full well your defeat is assured but that you’ll have a blast blowing holes in as many passion-killing droids as you can center in your crosshairs.

2. Understand that experience can make up for some loss of passion.

You will get better with women as you get older. This is a natural result of mastering the dating market learning curve and accepting the psychosexual foreignness of the female mind. Improvements in your knowledge and self-control will mitigate some decline in your baseline passion level. To put it more succinctly, you won’t need as much animating passion to seduce new women at 30 as you did at 15.

3. Weightlifting/Testosterone replacement therapy.

Testosterone is the fark matter of the pooniverse. It’s soul juice. It’s the git ‘er done drug. It’s the molecular chakra that unites man’s head, heart and hogzilla. Weightlifting has been proven to raise T levels both temporarily and permanently, and this is true for most men who follow the Law of Iron. So does eschewing the modern high-sugar, high-carb fattyfest. Refusing to allow your T to sink into oblivion is a clarion call for more intrinsically summoned passion. (Recent evidence finds that estrogen inhibitors may work better than testosterone boosters. I leave it to the reader to research the issue.)

4. Spermatogenesis.

WARNING: Experimental territory. Enter at your own risk.

Read this comment. It’s anecdotal, but the associations he draws have some founding in the scientific literature, not to mention similarities with the conventional wisdom. Boost your sperm production and that wonderful I’M ALIVE blue ball feeling through the interventions of no-fap, HCG, and something called LJ100. Scrotum pressure is a pathway to scoundrel passion.

5. Set an expiration date on all your long-term relationships.

If you make it a principle to escape LTRs before the two year mark, you’ll evade comfort zone entrapment and artificially reignite that dreamy teen passion for new experiences and thrills, and screw the consequences. Your brain will rewire itself to accommodate the new stresses you put on it. Call it, whoremesis. Of course, as great as this is for your love life, it’s as bad for the continuation of the species and a prosperous society. Maybe you’ll figure you can contribute in a godly way to society later in life, after you’ve had your fill of the best kind of pleasures and passions, in which case you’ll want to save some of that archaic energy for your sequels.

A killer is coming for you. Heed the immortal yearning of Roy Batty — I want more life, fucker — and follow him into that rain to die kneeling as you were meant to… but not before proving to yourself and the world you’ll damn your destiny on your feet.

Read Full Post »

In your travels across the landscape of women, you will encounter a few ice queens who play the soulkill game as well as any sociopathic man. The first exquisite experience with such a woman leaves one breathless with awe; the second experience invites reciprocal devilry.

I’m not saying e-eeevil women will carve you up with as much dramatic poise as Nicole Kidman does in this scene from Eyes Wide Shut, but I am saying these kinds of women exist and the flair they possess for digging deep to the male id and serrating it (usually after fellating it) is a power that would reduce most beta males (and some alpha males) to whimpering self-doubt or reckless vengeful rage.

Pop quiz for those aspiring to Amused Mastery Level of Alpha Maleness:

Given a similar situation, how would you respond to a lover pulling the “Check out my merciless female hypergamy” shiv on you? I know what I’d do. Let her finish her monologue, wait a beat for the moment to grow flush with threatening potential, grin, sit back in bed, and say “Cool story babe”. Better yet, if I were drunk and hadn’t the mental storage space for cutting quips, I’d get up midway through her speech and leave unceremoniously, as if the noise of her voice was giving me a headache.

To respond with fury or hurt would be perceived as her victory; calm dismissal is a tried and true shiv parry that enervates even the most sadistically charged thrusts.

UPDATE

Via reader PA. This scene from Witches of Eastwick is a case study in how an alpha male steals the frame and totally deflates a bitchy woman’s stream of emasculating insults. Be Jack’s amused mastery, and then, when your antagonistic lover has had the wind knocked out of her shivvy sails, go on the offense until her former snarling attack posture is reduced to a quivering crouch of passivity.

Read Full Post »

eofahapi asks,

are you going to write about the Rotherham thing? It needs a voice that is not delusional like the “Not all Muslims are like that” blah blah blah.

There are two camps of thinking. One says Rotherham is the logical outcome of extreme white ethnomasochism, which is itself a manifestation of pathological altruism, a reflexive mental condition that evolved over millennia of outbreeding. In this take, self-loathing, holier-than-thou whites in positions of power (and less powerful whites refusing to demand accountability from their leaders) are so wedded to their equalist ideology that they will allow the rapes of 1,400 white women and girls by brown skinned goatherders to continue ad infinitum until they are called to the carpet by the preponderance of evidence (and by samizdat rebels releasing uncomfortable facts). This theory presupposes that the ethnomasochist ego is so tender and fragile it cannot withstand confrontation with ugly truths about the reality of race and diversity, so the ego acts to preserve itself with PC social rules that create a bubble of self-soothing pabulum which permits them to go on confident that their worldview isn’t discredited. Since ethnomasochists thrive on external validation from other ethnomasochists, what happens is that their status signaling apparatuses get warped into self-abnegating paeans to the lie that whites are the root of all evil.

The second theory is that the anti-white elite whites aren’t at all ethnomasochists, but are instead a burgeoning new (or orthogonally ancient) race of whites — and here I use the term race in its figurative as well as genetic senses — who don’t perceive themselves at all as part of a broader white identity that must be preserved against barbarian attack. If this theory is correct, the sacrifice of 1,400 white women to brown predations will hardly move them emotionally. They won’t feel sympathy because they don’t feel any kinship, and so for them to sweep the evil of non-whites committed against non-elite whites under the rug is practically a procedural formality with little consequence. If anything, they would welcome such third world predators as allies in their own psychological war against “less enlightened” whites.

Which theory is true, or more true, is debatable. What isn’t is that these traitors need to swing from the gallows soon, before their sickness infects us all and dooms us to extinction.

***

eofahapi also wonders about the nature of feminists,

Because we know that there are differences in male and female brains, if a woman had hyper testosterone, would she really be feminist? I am skeptical, because feminists tend to be not the most logic people. Feminism is a very emotion based movement, and if you try to challenge one with logic it usually becomes heated ad hominens.

Feminists appear to be burdened with the worst of each sex: The aggressive posturing of men combined with the emotional irrationality of women. Not unlike misbehaving children. And what do you do with misbehaving children? You set boundaries and punish them when they act up.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,007 other followers

%d bloggers like this: