Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘The Id Monster’ Category

Two girls fighting over one man. This delightful menage a twat won’t be the theme of any mainstream rom-com any time soon, because the alpha male these two babycakes are fighting over is, allegedly, Arron (sic) Lewis, mystery meat marekiller currently suspected of murdering Arkansas real estate agent Beverly Carter.

“Well I guess you made up your mind cuz you are still texting him.”

Chicks dig jerks. Chicks dig taken jerks. Chicks, at least as far as we can tell by their actions, dig taken jerks who lie to them. Bonus digging points if said jerk has a rap sheet.

Indignant white knights nursing an excessively protective instinct toward women which helps themselves feel useful in the world will doubtless wail, “But he lied to her! She didn’t know he was a jerk!” This sort of thinking betrays a lack of exposure to the jungle dating market. I don’t see either of these cute-ish girls giving their sex to honest, law-abiding beta males. I see them fucking a lying, murdering sack of filth. And getting into girlfights over who will be his number one. The alpha male soft harem in action.

If you have any sort of experience with cute girls, you know that when they hook up, and stay hooked up, with lying assholes they know on some level with a quickness that these guys are lying assholes. Now of course their spinning hamsters will rationalize away their gnawing suspicions and oddly exciting discomfort, because these sexxxy bastards are just so intriguingly sexxxy and arousingly bastardly. It’s similar to how a smitten beta male, unable to think straight because his brain is awash in nutritious fresh squeezed pussy juice, will spin or ignore or sugarcoat evidence that his hot girlfriend is drifting out of love with him.

Hm, she hasn’t texted me since yesterday. Probably forgot to charge her phone.

The pricked self-preservation senses of the jerk-loving girl and the girlfriend-loving beta male tell them one thing, while their captured hearts tell them another. As love is the second most powerful emotion in the universe after jealousy, and tied with hate, the heart usually wins these contests of wills. And never really stops winning, even when it is finally denied the satisfaction of fulfillment.

***

A confused commenter avers,

The women we’re talking to each other about LEAVING him not about how much he makes their vags tingle from the power.

This is exactly the kind of misreading that one would expect from a Pollyanna pedestal polisher. Women don’t argue with each other in novella format over a man they don’t love anymore and truly wish to leave. A woman who has fallen out of love and wants to leave a man won’t turn over her decision a thousand times, nor argue about it with the man’s other lover. She’ll just leave, and her reasoning, if her spurned boyfriend demands it, will be uncharacteristically — for her sex — perfunctory. “I just don’t feel it anymore. I wish you the best.”

Only experience with women will enable a man to understand their different reactions to men they no longer love, versus men who have hurt them but whom they still love. Let’s put it this way: If two girls are fighting exhaustively over how to leave you, you’re in the gina seat.

Ya gotta read between the id-storm of lines, brethren. Or should I say sistren. *eyebrow raise*

Read Full Post »

It’s time to do the same with obesity.

Read Full Post »

A balnog belched from the foulest pits of hell was arrested in connection with the disappearance, (and presumed murder), of a cute white college girl this month — and now also with the death of another cute white college girl from 2009.

The feral predator:

The timeline of the crime is chilling, in more than one way.

The man is 32-year old Jesse “LJ” Matthew, who was arrested September 25 in Galveston, Texas on a charge of Abduction With Intent to Defile in the case involving the still-unexplained disappearance of second-year University of Virginia student Hannah Graham.

Hannah was last seen by an eye witness walking with LJ Matthew in the early morning hours of Saturday, September 13. She appeared heavily intoxicated, the witness told me, slouched against him, not quite able to walk on her own. They were seen together outside Tempo, the same restaurant where just about an hour before, another woman had told him to get his hands off of her. I ask that young woman what one thing she remembered most about that night. She thinks for a moment and says with a steady stare, “That he creeped me the fuck out.”

I believe we will discover in the coming decades that some races are, on average, less disposed to empathic feelings for fellow humans. At the extreme left tail of this population-varying average moral sense you will find the demonic dumb beasts like the specimen above, who are “less human than human”. But despite the garish horrors of their crimes, their minds are uninteresting, bleak, dull, like the flat tundra under a starless night. They move on instinct; reason and thoughtfulness are as foreign to them as algebra. Like with any rabid animal lunging for your throat, the only life-affirming answer is a bullet to its head. Histrionic postmortems about the meaning of the animal’s life are as repugnant as they are ponderous and futile.

One individual told me LJ [Matthew] always seemed like “a gentle giant.” [ed: he was 270 pounds]

Meme-ification Protocol initiated. Activate “gentle giant” ridicule sequence.

More interesting than the mind of the gentle giant is the mind of the all-too-human victim, and the minds of those around her who swaddle her memory in a rootless victimology that excuses reality from any role in the drama. Hannah Graham was walking alone, late at night, drunk, when a large black man approached her. At the time she met the gentle grotesque, alcohol may have blurred her awareness of her surroundings, or she may have been lucid enough to agree to accompany him to a bar, out of appeasing fear or, more darkly, curiosity.

What Camille Paglia calls naivete, I call delusion. What was this white woman thinking? What were her immediate family, her friends, her larger family, and the culture that ensconced her thinking? That it was perfectly safe to stumble around at 1AM alone, in a drunken haze and a short skirt while the nighttime streets filled with remorseless, hungry prowlers? That “don’t blame the victim” means “don’t take any responsibility for your own well-being”? That adult women are to be handled like crying, soiling infants, coddled and pampered and indulged… and sacrificed by the dorm-load to demon butchers who didn’t get the Take Back the Night memo? That the “real danger” is the happy-go-lucky white frat bro who likes to make crude jokes? That accountability, reason, and personal responsibility are outdated virtues of a backward patriarchal past?

This is what following the Lords of Lies gets you… Death. What she needed to hear was “don’t drink until you can’t see straight”, “don’t go out alone”, “don’t pretend like the world can’t be dangerous to you”, “if you don’t want to be taken advantage of, don’t make yourself an easy target”, “don’t dress like a slut or men will treat you like a slut”, and most importantly, “if a large black man walks toward you in the middle of the night and puts his arm around you in fake friendliness, run and scream for help”.

This goes for the white college men who must have been in the area to see this American Horror Story unfold. Are you so brainwashed by equalist cant that the sight of a huge black guy confronting a drunk white girl in the dead of night doesn’t twitch your risk-assessment reflexes? I’m not saying you had to go mano-a-mandingo with the beast, but you could’ve gathered compatriots and moved in threateningly, which likely would’ve spooked the predator.

Yet even this target group’s great shame is tinged with tragicomedy. Decades of feminist filth poisons the mind, but decades of unleashed female sexual behavior, all traditional constraints on it vilified and tossed aside, hardens the heart. When generations of men witness their women degrade themselves and hook up, with cavalier disregard for any self-debasing consequences, with degenerates and monsters, the instinct to protectiveness grows numbly useless.

Feminists, equalists, and anti-reality delusionists, you have killed Hannah Graham as assuredly as LT “gentle giant” Matthew did. Your lies were his choking grip. Her blood is on your cowardly hands.

Read Full Post »

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 »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,028 other followers

%d bloggers like this: