Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Watch this: (via)

Did you feel a sudden yearning for a better, bygone America? That was intentional. Trump knows what he’s doing, and he knows the sides in this battle for the soul of America. His promos, visuals, and speeches are an extended play love letter to Heritage America. To White America, before it became a Dirt World Depot. If you doubt Trump’s loyalty to the cause, dispel your doubt. His heart is in it. He fights for you.

COTW winner Jack Ragnar does a 180 on cuckventional wisdom and as a result grazes a deep and abiding truth about the sexes.

I had a conversation about flirting with my sister. This came up. Women at their core want to find out who the better man is. They would by default go with the winner of “you and him fight”. However men are not all on board with this idea. Such games are anti-civilization, and the costs are high. If men refuse, and choose to work out their differences in a more civilized and subtle way, women have to gain the information about men in a more covert fashion. So we get shit-tests, status seeking, etc.

Women are literally anti-civilizational. Their instincts if left unchecked (ala modern women), will bring out the most violent aspects of men. Men despite their capability for violence and destruction are not on average destructive. Women, if left to their devices would have us living in grass huts.

The white kight/cuck aphorism they love to cling to is that women are the civilizers of men, by dint of being the gatekeepers to sex and therefore having the leverage to demand men behave themselves.

But what if the civilizing force runs the other way? Any man who has experience with women has seen that the fair sex can entertain malice and destructiveness the equal of any man, but without the sensationalist physical violence that grabs headlines and puts the spotlight on male wickedness. There’s a better case to make that men are the sex with the drive to civilize, and that women, constrained as their sex is by the hypergamous need to identify the strongest man in the tribe, exert de-civilizing forces on the sexual market that if left unregulated can and do lead to cultural collapse.

Jack is onto something yuge, and we here at CH have toyed with the same idea of unrestricted female sexuality as a herald of national decline. The entire story may be more nuanced than this, but it’s a necessary and useful widening of the discourse to at least begin to cast suspicion on the shibboleth that women civilize men and not the other way around. When all is said and done, CH will have pushed open the Ovaton Window so wide the sunlight will scorch dying feminist wombs from Berkeley to Bonn.

In 1998, a Usenet proto-realtalker speculated on the topic of national decline, and why it seemed the frequency and amplitude of glorious achievement of mid-20th Century America had slowed to a flatline. (via)

From: sbharris@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,sci.astro,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Solution to Fermi Paradox right here!
Date: 30 Dec 1998 06:29:33 GMT

In <76bfl2$9b7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> justin_s@my-dejanews.com writes:

>Pick your favorite sci-fi, (say, something written 50 years ago making
>predictions about life near the year 2000), and it’s probably wildly
>optimistic.
>
> JS

COMMENT

Yeah, but that’s only because as a society we’ve become effete and lost the will to try new things just for the hell of it. In the 60’s they were trying things like nuclear propulsion, and they were walking on the moon. Then, something horrible happened in the early 70’s. I grew up then, and I could FEEL it. I’m still trying to figure out exactly what it was, but I think what it was, was a generation of kids who grew up with television instead of playing with gizmos, and who got into power and then just turned our society into a big mess of paperwork and lawyering, because paperwork was all they’d ever learned to do. When I look at the physiology research done in the 60’s, it takes my breath away. The creativity of it! The things they did! I find my “new” ideas all the time in papers done in the 1960’s, but they never went anywhere (perfusion of organs with fluorocarbones to cool them, for example). One guy (the same guy in fact), before heart lung machines, repaired the hearts of babies by surgically cross-connecting them to the circulation of adult humans, who volunteered in order to save a life. Where has that kind of courage gone? Where are the Yeagers and the Goddards and the Microbe Hunters? How come the heros of our movies are no longer Micky Rooney or Spencer Tracy playing Thomas Edison, or Paul Muni playing Erlich or Pasteur, instead Val Kilmer playing Jim Morrison and Woody Harrelson playing Larry Flint? And movies whose heros are lawyers. Arggh. I don’t care if it is Tom Cruise or John Travolta. And the rest of the movies seem to be re-creations of 60’s TV shows.

Paperwork and lawyering. Fixing and improving and advancing society by talk-talk, not building. A lawyer president and his lawyer wife. [ed: bubba and thecunt] Crises of power that don’t involve spy planes and sputniks, but incredibly complicated and deceptive word definitions and complicated tax frauds. You think we’re not preparing to go to Mars because SF is too optimistic? Sure. But it was optimistic about whether or not the can-do engineering of the 40’s and 50’s, done by the kids who’d grown up playing with radios and mechanics in the 20’s, was going to continue. Needless to say, it didn’t. I’ve seen a late 1950’s book of science fair projects for teenagers that include things like building your own X-ray machine and cyclotron (no, I’m not kidding– it can be done). There are rockets in there, and cloud chambers, and all kinds of wonderful electronics stuff. But we didn’t go that way. Instead, we turned our children into little Clintons, and our society into a bunch of people sitting at PCs, entering data about social engineering, not mechanical engineering. So instead of going to Mars, we went instead to beaurocratic Hell. Enjoy, everybody. It really could have been different. Nature didn’t stop us– WE stopped us.

Steve Harris

(God, look at me. I’m well on the way to being Uncle Al)

I haven’t read a more prescient synopsis of American culture trends than what I’ve written myself here at this blog. “Bureaucratic [sic] hell” = Burnham’s mass SCALE dystopia come to life.

Something horribly invidious happened to America around the late 1960s and early 1970s that abruptly turned the country from greatness to a path of decline, navel-gazing solipsism, and now finally to racial self-annihilation. Soy and sugar in the food supply? The explosion of a twisted ideology into everyday life? The Pill? TeeVee?

I’ll tell you something, the hallmark of national decline is the rise of the gynarchy and the diminution of male talents and preferences.

Gizmos = male
Paperwork and Lawyering = female

You want American history in a pithy aphorism? How about this:

Male became Female. Then came the End.

Or maybe you like your pithy aphorisms with more focus and bite:

Christian European became….

you catch my drift.

Boys used to be encouraged to tinker with material objects. Now they’re encouraged to explore their emotional landscape and inner femininity (while girls are pushed to become second-rate boys). Both White boys and White girls are brainwashed on a daily basis by every institutional power to hate their race, heritage, and ancestors’ accomplishments. An accident of decadence, or the rotten fruits of a deliberately perpetrated evil?

We can turn this sinking ship around and steer it to safe harbor, but that will mean returning to the wrong side of history where we laud boys for their distinctiveness and encourage them to tinker, not shame them for preferring stoicism over social justice blubbering. On the flip side, it will mean stopping the inhuman agenda of praising girls for acting boy-like and pushing girls to think their natural female talents are signs of weakness. Less “leaning in”, more “leaving alone” to pursue the lives their sex-based dispositions organically push them toward.

The Paperwork and Lawyering crowd needs to back off and allow the Gizmo crowd to rule again. If the P&Lers won’t (they won’t), then our culture will die, or the Gizmos will fashion new machines to loosen power from the soy-weakened grips of the P&Ls.

The Flirt Fatale

If you see a girl you find attractive flirting with another man, don’t assume she’s out of your reach. Not all female flirting is the same. I’ve noticed that women will flirt to satisfy three emotional compulsions:

  1. To directly signal sexual availability to a man she really likes. This is authentic flirting, and it’s easy to discern because the girl won’t break eye contact with the object of her flirtation. An aroused girl who is happy to be swept up by a man’s attention will flirt hardcore with him, because she won’t want him to miss her interest and have him decide to break away under the false assumption she’s not open to her seduction by him. Authentic flirtation is, in this scenario, used by women to increase sexual tension, and help drive the courtship toward a culminating bang, but only if the man is capable/alpha/experienced enough to deduce her intention and successfully parry her flirting.
  2. To release sexual tension. This is different from Flirting case #1, even if it sounds superficially similar. A girl who’s all wound up with sexual tension will seek a man (or men) into whom she can dissipate her stored sexual energy if her preferred mate choice isn’t available. This urge to release sexual tension will manifest as flirting when it isn’t resolved through actual sex or making out. Despite sensational press releases to the contrary, most women have an instinct to protect their precious eggs and guard against indulging wanton sexual escape. For a woman, flirting serves this purpose as both tension reliever and firewall against cumming down with Sudden Meaty Intrusion Syndrome. The man who is the recipient of this kind of female flirting doesn’t necessarily have to be on the girl’s radar as a potential lover; extraverted BPD girls are particularly prone to flirting with men for whom they have no sexual desire. Any earport in a tingle storm will do. NB: Beta males should be wary of this kind of flirty girl, because they are often exploited as earports and likely to misconstrue the girl’s harmless flirting as real sexual intention.
  3. To coax a third party man to bust a move. In this instance, the one under consideration here and practiced by the girls to whom I refer as Flirt Fatales, the flirting is a means to an entirely unexpected end: inviting a different man than the one with whom she is flirting to come over and meet her. The Flirt Fatale’s objective is to incite jealousy in the man she truly desires, and she does this by openly (and often sloppily) flirting with another man in the hopes that it will trigger the “hurry up and conquer” instinct in the man who is her primary interest. You can easily identify the Flirt Fatale by how she’ll frequently break eye contact with the pawn she’s flirting with to cast darting, sidelong glances at the rest of the room, or directly at you. NB: A man who suspects he is the true target of a girl’s flirtation with a beta prop should be ready to pounce after the girl is finished cockteasing her sounding board. I like to go in and open with the line, “Looks like your flirting didn’t work on that guy.” This is both a disqualification of her as a primary target of your affection and a cheeky challenge to her feminine allure.

In sum, if you see a girl flirting with another man, and she’s in your vicinity, check for darting eyes that betray her real purpose. If her eyes are locked on the flirtee, don’t bother. If her eyes sweep the veldt for your predatory gaze, prepare to approach once she’s detached from her pawn.

The neophyte to the world of women may ask, “why won’t the Flirt Fatale just go up to the man she really wants and flirt with him instead of going through this convoluted proxy beta?”

Sure, women do that. But not always. Not even very often. The reason Flirt Fatales like to play this game is because they want to maintain the illusion of their feminine allure, and that illusion creaks under the strain of any active moves she makes to capture the attention of a man she wants. Directly flirting with a man, to these women, is like giving too much of their game away. She relinquishes power with every aggressive move that betrays the essence of her feminine soul; an essence which is vulnerability and submission to a powerful man who takes what he wants. So she plays these flirty games with the unwitting aid of third party beta dupes to preserve her self-perception of passive sexual power which overwhelms desirable men to throw caution to the wind and risk her rejection on a direct approach that hasn’t been green-lighted by any overt flirtatious invitation she could easily send their way.

***

It almost goes without saying, but another psychological need of the Flirt Fatale is to satisfy her urge to play the “let’s you and him fight” game of male social dominance that helps her identify which men are strong enough to enjoy her chute fruit. Inciting jealousy through manipulative flirting with a proxy beta pawn gives her the giddy high of watching a second man enter the field of battle to oust the first man for her romantic favor.

Ejected from the valences of the elementary particles, a new social science survey (re)discovers that city life breeds loneliness.

Are there aspects of city life that can heighten one’s feelings of loneliness? The charity network Acevo, which set up The Loneliness Project last year to tackle social isolation among young people in London, today publishes a report which suggests young Londoners are twice as likely to be lonely as their counterparts elsewhere in the country.

Young people surveyed for the report cited high housing costs, long working hours and the growth of social media as factors contributing to loneliness in the city.

Part of the reason for this increased loneliness of Londonistan Shrillennials is sample bias. Maybe the kind of people who abscond for the big city life are prone to solitude, or to feeling lonely. But my bet is the two big reasons for the increased urban loneliness are the negative effects of Diversity™, which has been proven to lower social trust and fray social bonds, and the severing of connections to family, neighbors and friends in the home towns from where the fresh London recruits hail.

Loneliness is a combination of distrust of your neighbors and density of strangers in your proximity, intensified in those with introvert personalities. The modren deracinated Western megalopolis deepens feelings of distrust and sharpens the division between the soulful social connectedness the new resident left behind and the stew of mystery meat animus he bears and the self-protective ennui he adopts when he moves to the city to become a “stranger in a strange land”.

The report recommends, among other things, the establishment of a mayor’s Fund for Young People’s Resilience and Inclusion, worth £3.2m, to help ensure that young people build the necessary strong social connections to battle isolation.

Instead of blowing money on another fruity lib welfare project doomed to fail, how about enacting long-term plans to reorient Western societies so that there’s a backing-off from the rush to stuff everyone into these market bazaar soulless anthill megacities, and a concomitant revival of small cities geographically distributed across the nation into which smaller, more cohesive groups of people can sort themselves?

Of course, this won’t happen under the globalists’ watch, because it would mean stronger local community bonds, less concentrated Diversity™, and more affordable housing, all social goods which undermine the political and cultural power of insular coastal elites.

Having tried both rural and city life, I’ve come to the conclusion that although you can experience loneliness in both, it feels more pressing in a city environment. I’ve just moved to a big city and I’m reminded again of how alienating it can be. When you’re approaching 50 and trying to ‘start again’ in a new place, it can be really hard. In a city it can feel like the whole world is out having fun, which makes you feel like a bit of loser. (Polly, Edinburgh resident)

Big cities are intimidating. The more people around you, the easier it is to get lost among them, to lose track of your own self. In big cities one can be completely busy doing so much and be left with little to no time to nurture any particular relationship or interest. Therefore, you’re living surrounded by people, but connected to no one. (Gustavo, Chicago resident)

Growing up in a city that had little to offer but decrepit playgrounds, underfunded schools and a sorry park, I spent most of my precious childhood at home staring at screens. Later, I was compelled to move out of the city and into a more suburban, almost rural place. After a rough phase of adaptation, I was overwhelmed with the cordiality that surged up on me. Within a year, I made dozens of friends, met the girl I now live with and developed a much more positive attitude. (Donald Saunter, ex-Saarbrücken resident)

I personally feel that NYC has become a more transient place rather than a community-building place. There’s no real sense of community left. The city has also become an investment haven for absentee foreign owners. It has also become a homogenised ‘Disneyland’ of sorts – imitating itself like the New York New York hotel/casino in Las Vegas. Another life-long New Yorker I know once referred to the city as a ‘five-star jail’ which I found to be pretty accurate. What can be more lonely than a jail? (David, New York City resident)

I have a thing for major cities, but they can be intimidating. While anonymity isn’t necessarily always bad, big cities do leave you somewhat unprotected and exposed. But part of that loneliness means cities are the ideal environment to discover yourself in your own light, without feeling like you are being watched or frowned upon, and really thrive. (Juliana, Buenos Aires resident)

Juliana is the kind of girl I prey on in the biggest cities. Girls who need to “discover themselves” free of judgmental family or friends who would “frown upon” their sexual adventures. (Let’s cut out the bullshit…in femmespeak, “thrive” means “lotsa cockas”.) This lifestyle does come with its downsides, though. Ironically, urban atomization and its discontents offers a chance at romantic redemption for loveless beta and omega males by giving them the closest facsimile to an “SMV blank slate” they can hope to have.

I once wrote that the anonymity afforded by dense city living was a godsend for aspiring cads, (and a threat to aspiring dads), as the urban milieu does a good job sheltering men from angry ex-boyfriends, bored gossips, and disapproving parents. Similarly, the anonymizing urban jungle encourages permissiveness among girls who don’t have to worry so much about their reputations and walks of shame circulating far and wide among watchful family and friends. They can let their slut flag fly.

The loneliness of city living isn’t its sole enervating aspect, but it will contribute, along with the sexually primal, non-inclusive secret society that hums just underneath the city’s androgynous veneer, to a vast interwoven malaise that saps souls of meaning and wombs of nurslings.

The open borders project forced by a 0.1%er elite on an unwilling citizenry can be viewed in the context of this post as a poisoned ameliorative for the negatives of big city life, specifically the fertility depression and the spiritual depression brought on by social atomization. It’s no wonder elections are more and more shaping up into existential battles between the working and middle classes in the countryside and the dregs and upper classes in the cities. Rome fell under similar strains. Barring a Trumpian reversal, we will too.

A gem of a neg turned up in this Twatter exchange. So good, it deserved showcasing at the Chateau.

To which a sly dog replied:

A well-placed and finely-tuned neg like this one can slake beta male thirst. Nothing arouses a ho’s curiosity more than a man who betrays her expectations. And noticing a girl’s big feet in a vanity shot she had taken of her ass in the bent-over position, prepared for copulation, is a YUGE expectation-buster.

Maybe you think this neg is too rough; more an insult than a neg. I say no, it’s difficult to be too much of an asshole with slutty airheads like the one in this pic. But there are safer ways to neg if you’re a wilting flower sort of man. For example,

“Big feet on a girl are sexy. 💯 💯”

This is the classic formulation of the neg as a backhanded compliment. Buried in the compliment (she’s “sexy”) is the observation that she has big feet, which no woman would consider an attractive part of her body.

There’s a pandemic of beta male thirst in America, perhaps in all of the White West, and tried-and-true Game techniques, including the neg, can help betas get past their thirst and to stop sounding like desperate, needy tools who have a sordid sexual history with their hands and waifu pillows. Will the beta males listen? Or will they continue their self-defeating goal of making themselves as unsexy as possible to women?

More here. That Neil DeGrasse Tyson, he is a wise black man!

Credit to Pax Dickinson (@pax on Gab) for creating these. I only wish he had done more of them.

%d bloggers like this: