Feeds:
Posts
Comments

A White prankster (who’s doing more good for the cucked world than he can possibly know), bix noody-trapped his bike with a taser, and then left the bike unattended and unlocked in his neighborhood, recorded by a hidden camera. Hilarity and uncomfortable pattern recognition ensued.

See if you can spot the common denoginator.

Reader quixotic adds context:

This is freaking hilarious

So reddit is freaking out because fans of Trump have turned the site from a liberal safe space into a painful (read: honest and realistic) forum.

The video was posted to a thread and people familiar with reality noticed that hey all these thieves have something in common…

That did not go over well with the censorship loving lefties who dont like that
reality doesn’t match up with their oasis of equality. Now the thread is nearly scrubbed of comments that discuss the fact that the thieves are all dindus. Every day we get closer to 1984.

Also thanks for your help fellas i picked up my first AR this weekend people were in a frenzy for a m m o and finding lowers

White “asserted virtue on the cheap” shitlibs will just have to come to terms with the lovefact that White morality doesn’t port smoothly to other races. Assuming nonWhites share the same moral and ethical impulses as Whites is a mission-critical error of judgment.

Projecting White morality onto other races was always going to end in tears. And caustic laughter.

***

The same prankster did something similar with an empty, unlocked car and a fake bomb in the backseat. The usual suspects turn out for their shot at YouTube fame.

Porn for women is an overlooked phenomenon, partly because the type of porn that stimulates women isn’t as visually arresting as the porn that consumes men. The pink and moist pyrotechnics we associate with the online porn that readily captures male attention does little for women (though recent data suggest more women are turning to online porn for sexual relief, the numbers are still low, under 20%).

Female porn utilizes a different medium of arousal delivery, but the effect on the female libido and ability to form healthy relationships is just as profound as that of online porn’s effect on men.

So what is female porn? It’s pulp romance — in the form of books, movies and TV — that caresses lady limbic lobes to sprout slick clit dick. In a word: words.

More wokely, a lot of that female porn is rape fantasy porn.

The premise: women are different than men, in the most fundamental ways imaginable. Evolution as old as time has resulted in a sexually reproducing species that has inherited sexual, mental and psychological traits differentiating the sexes.

If you can’t accept this premise (self-delusion is a widespread affliction in post-America), then you won’t understand how it is words can have the same power over women’s horny levels that graphic crotch-slapping close-ups have on men’s horny levels. Nevertheless, it’s true. Women are turned on when they read salacious stories that allow their hindminds to fill in the sticky details.

There are hundreds of thousands of self-published ebook authors, but according to Amazon, only 40 of these have managed to make a profit by selling over 1 million copies of their ebooks over the last five years. Ms. Wild happens to be one of them. What is her secret? […]

So let’s look at what Ms. Wild writes about in her novels. Her first novel, Hardwired, is about a young woman’s encounters with “an array of sexual kinks.” Her subsequent novels are along the same vein. At the end of the article, a writer for Ms. Wild’s new publishing house says she is happy to “focus on writing sex scenes” because: “I just want to write wicked hot books.”

And here the light begins to flicker onto the truth. Under the euphemism of “romance,” Ms. Wild peddles erotica, the literary equivalent of pornography. While her books are not filled with nude photographs or graphic video, they contain the same drug reconstituted into another form: words that translate into pornographic images which burn into the minds of their readers (to see for yourself, excerpts of her novels are available on her website).

Ms. Wild, it turns out, is the female equivalent of Hugh Hefner. She is a verbal drug pusher, shoving words as potent as cocaine at her own gender.

And droves of women are clearly addicted. In an industry that is insanely competitive, where most authors earn below the poverty line, Ms. Wild’s first novel, published in 2014, was making $500,000 in royalties per month soon after its release. Ms. Wild sold a total of 1.4 million copies of this book and agreed to a $6.25 million advance for five books. She also started a new publishing house, which has already sold more than a million copies and hit the New York Times Bestseller list with one of its first titles, Calendar Girl.

The bottom line on the numbers of female porn consumers:

But according to Laurie Kahn, producer of the documentary film Love Between the Covers: “More than 70 million people in the USA alone read at least one romance novel per year, and most of them read many more.”

The US Census for 2015 shows there are 100 million women between 18 and 64 years old living in the United States. If Kahn’s number is correct, and assuming that the majority of those “70 million people” are women, then up to 70 percent of American women are covertly consuming literary pornography.

Pleasureman wept.

Does any of this matter? Parents want to shield their kids from visual porn, but they don’t feel nearly the same protective affront when a woman is reading a pulp romance novel in public.

You are sitting on a bus during your morning commute. In the seat next to you, there is a male passenger reading Penthouse. Chances are you may feel upset, perhaps disgusted. You might even demand that he stop.

On the other side, there is a female passenger holding a book with a very plain cover, entitled Into the Fire. With a mysterious title like that, this book could be about anything. If you ask, the passenger will tell you that it is a “romance” novel by Meredith Wild. The passenger has always loved these kinds of books, she tells you, ever since she read Jane Austen as a teenager. Innocent fairy tale, you conclude.

Both passengers are consuming pornography. But the woman is doing it so discreetly that almost no one recognizes it—often, not even the statistics.

Here’s the thing: the woman reading Into the Fire on the bus is popping a public lady boner just as assuredly as a man scouring Pornclearinghouse on his iPhag is jutting impudently into the public space. From five feet away, typeset is harder to discern than a streaming PIV video; that’s the only difference between the porn-consuming man and woman and the social norms they are violating.

Among those who admit that romance literature is pornography, there is a tendency to consider it “soft-core” (some also downplay it as “mommy porn“). This implies that it is less potent and less dangerous than the “hard” visual stuff that fries the brains of men.

When viewed from a male perspective, it makes sense to classify “pornmance” as “soft” pornography. Men are more visual than women, so they respond more strongly to photographs and video. To men, images are like crack cocaine, and literary pornography is mere marijuana.

But for women, the opposite is true. Women are less visual, and so less attracted to the internet pornography that is irresistible to men. For women, visual pornography should be considered a light beer while the emotionally charged “pornmance” novel is 70-proof liquor, hard-core pornography.

100% truefact. This is something that tradcons don’t get.

And there are many “romance alcoholics.” Women get addicted to romance books in the same way that men get addicted to photographs and videos. In 2011, one psychologist reported that she was “seeing more and more women who are clinically addicted to romantic books.”

Time for a NO DIDDLE movement.

Like other addictions, “pornmance” novels mess with women’s brains and wreak havoc in their lives. According to therapists, these books can cause women to become dissatisfied with their marriages, to become “dangerously unbalanced,” and according to a pornography addiction counselor, to have affairs.

A smarmy white knight would never finger a cause for the high divorce rate that didn’t apportion blame entirely on men. In the pussy pedestaler’s worldview, only drunk, abusive, layabout men end marriages. To them, women aren’t capable of crass sexual escapism driven by primal insatiable lusts.

Is it mere coincidence that nearly 70 percent of divorces in the United States are initiated by women?

The authoress of this article, Lea Singh, must be a CH reader. Little spoon?

If online porn is a problem for society, then so is word porn. If you argue that online porn is causing men to “drop out” and deep-six their marriages and relationships, then you have to also argue that word porn is causing women to do the same.

I’ve said it before to obstinate tradcons and their ironic bedfellows, the man-hating feminist cunts:

It takes two to tango. Especially if that tango two-steps to the metagrave.

Ugly Dude Game

This chick gets to the heart of what it takes for an ugly dude to succeed in the dating market.

uglydudegame

I couldn’t have said it better. Most chicks forget about ugly dudes before they’ve even approached to solicit sexyuglytime. But this girl remembered her ugly dude who treated her like she was the leper begging for scraps of his twisted staff.

This is Game 101, optimized for the ugly dude.

  • Flip the script. Reorient the mate evaluation frame so that she is chasing you, rather than you acceding to following the preconfigured path of “man chase woman”.
  • Assume the sale. Most ugly men give up before they’ve tried. If you’re an ugly dude, you’ve gotta get in the game, and that means willfully, some would say irrationally, shelving your self-doubt and diving in balls-first under the working assumption that you’ve got what girls want….ejaculytes!
  • DISQUALIFY. This one is a biggie. CREAM MAGIC. Ugly dudes (and most normal looking men) find reasons, real or not, to disqualify THEMSELVES. Instead, disqualify the girl. Be the ugly dude who acts like the girl is, succinctly, the ugly one in the courtship dynamic. This will confuse and torment her (in an arousing way), and she’ll respond with exorbitant efforts to reaffirm her self-perception and win the ugly dude’s approval. As an ugly dude, he should never give it. (Once he gives it, it’s game over. He should instead forever hint that one day, maybe real soon now, he’ll crack and cherish her for the angel she is.)

You can classify the above rules as psychological ju jizzsu which exploits a vulnerability in the female mate assessment algorithm: their desire for a man who has lots of romantic options. Women don’t have teleportation or time machines that can zoom them into a prospective lover’s bedroom for a complete examination of his sexual history. So instead women have to rely on male SMV cues, some subtle some not, which indicate to her hindbrain’s satisfaction that the man making his move on her has no problem jettisoning her early on for less intransigent pussy. The ugly man who mimics those male SMV-boosting cues can actually wield MORE power over a woman’s imagination than can a decent-looking man, because she’ll be curious about what must certainly be the ugly dude’s awesome super magnetic charisma with apparently limitless power to overcome his rough mug.

Now, it’d be silly to claim that, all else equal, handsomeness isn’t preferable to ugliness. But it’d be just as silly to assert that ugly dudes are shit outta luck. Not so. Unlike ugly women who suffer massive and deal-killing romantic penalties in the hunt for an acceptable mate, ugly dudes aren’t locked out of the romance market if they have that je ne sais cocky that women love.

Ugly Dude Game: treat women like ugly dudes. It won’t work every time, nor most of the time, maybe not even a fraction of the time. But it’ll work far more often than Ugly Dude No-Game, which is putting the pussy on a pedestal without having compensatory handsomeness as a safeguard to get laid by slutty 6s and 7s.

Once again, SCIENCE! affirms Chateau Heartiste maxims and squats lumply on feminist mythology while unloading a phallus-shaped deuce. A deep state study finds that there’s a neuroanatomical basis for the observed sex-based difference in emotion regulation.

As expected, males significantly scored higher in emotion regulation ability than females did. More importantly, we found the sex differences in the neuroanatomical basis of emotion regulation ability. Males showed a stronger positive relation between emotion regulation ability and regional gray matter volume (rGMV) in the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. In contrast, females demonstrated a stronger positive relation between emotion regulation ability and rGMV in an anatomical cluster that extends from the left brainstem to the left hippocampus, the left amygdala and the insular cortex. The present study provides the first empirical evidence regarding the sex-linked neuroanatomical correlates of emotion regulation ability. These findings may help understand why there is a higher prevalence of affective disorders in females and maladaptive behaviors in males.

SCIENCE! and CH: dancing the duet of fated lovers. This study literally discovers neurological proof for the truefact stereotype that women are more hysterical than are men. State control…it’s a man thing. You women just wouldn’t understand.

I gotta wonder how self-deluded feminist are gonna spin this latest out-take from the HARDASFUCK sciences?

RANDOM MANJAW: “well, you see, that’s just the patriarchal culture influencing female fetuses and changing their brain wiring.”

THE SHIV OF PRIVILEGE: “is the patriarchal culture also influencing female fetuses to become raving lunatic feminists?”

PS The last line in that study abstract is lethal thoughtcrime (literally). Mood (affective) disorders largely afflict women because their brain structure provides a more fertile (heh) environment for hysteria and related emotional malfunctions to flourish. Men, in contrast, have a sex-specific brain architecture that predisposes them to the opposite: emotion-less disorders that characterize ailments like autism, psychopathy, and anti-social behavior.

PPS The Game relevance should be evident. Tap into a women’s roller coaster emotions and you can guide her to expressing herself in the way that matters most to *your* emotional needs.

Fat Guy, Skinny Girl

A reader provides a field pic of a fat man with a skinny girl, adding,

Photo taken at the grocery store (heh).

Didn’t get her face but a 7.5. Slim little thing  Well dressed. Boyfriend was a slob. Perfect proof confidence matters.

fatguyskinnygirl

Yes, confidence matters for men. (Not so much for women. A confident fat girl will still be a romantic loser.) A confident fat man — whether his confidence is an irrational act of willpower or a rational self-appraisal based on his compensating sexy attributes like charisma, money, humor, or outcome independent ZFG jerkboy attitude — will have little trouble scoring a cute lithesome thing.

Coal Burners Vs Oil Drillers

PA drops a pithy insight into the differing societal dynamics of coal burning versus oil drilling.

From the standpoint of aggregate eugenics, White male mixing with others is more pernicious than the other way. A typical WF mudshark’s children drift black and they have no paternal investment to push them in status among Whites. Conversely, White fathers of mulatto children can be the most fanatical anti-racists.

Anyone who’s spent a few minutes perusing Twatter’s mudlover’s row of White male media and politician cucks who have adopted one (or four) kid choculas will quickly confirm PA’s observation: race-mixing or African-adopting White males are the cuckiest of cucks, full-on propagandists for the race creationism anti-White equalist narrative.

Mudshark mystery meatballs invariably “drift back” to the depraved black culture, or in some cases become rabid mulatto mouthpieces for blaming black dysfunction on Whites (see: the Gay Mulatto himself). The mixed children of oil drilling White men (or the adopted African children of Evangelicuck/Mormon universalism virtue signalers) tend to drift upward into White culture, where it can be argued they do more, by there mere presence, to promulgate the Anti-White Narrative Hate Machine.

White devil’s advocate: Because women are the reproduction bottleneck in the sexual market (and thus in the civilization market), one can argue the opposite of PA by hypothesizing that every White woman womb removed from circulation imposes a much larger cost on the broader family of Whites (aka the pre-Diversity nation-state) than would White man sperm, which is nearly inexhaustible in supply and capable of impregnating multiple White women despite a brief plunge into the tar sands.

***

Mudsharkery doesn’t just pollute a White’s genetic lineage, it also subverts the extended White family’s psychological health. The effluvium of the mudshark presents an endless hurdle to the family to betray their pride-of-heritage and desire for aesthetic continuity. If the technicolor toddlers of coal burners eventually drift out of the extended White family’s community, then the psychological stress of the family is reduced and their clarity of mind improved. If it’s a White father who brings a mixed-race kid into the family, it’s likely (as PA has alluded) that kid will remain within the family’s fold, forever putting the metaphorical ball-gag on the unfiltered thoughts of the rest of the White family.

Trump recently delivered an “apology” that stands out as a pristine demonstration of an alpha male using vulnerability game without giving away too much testicular credibility.

Sometimes in the heat of the moment you don’t choose the right words. I’ve done that and, believe it or not, I regret it.

This is a classic alpha male apology. So much reframing goodness.

“heat of the moment” = “I’m a passionate untamed man”

“don’t choose the right words” = “the substance of what I said is essentially correct”

“I regret it” = “I’m not apologizing to you; I’m apologizing to myself”

All of it delivered with a cheeky, insouciant self-knowing smirkitude that yields no ground to his enemies, and ends with a sincere, reassuring, intimacy-building promise.

Trump just did the equivalent of blowing through a girl’s player-wary anti-slut defense and making himself attainable.

Trump is a master of improvisation. He connects with the people. His Game is tight. He will win in November and, I’m going on record here, it won’t be close.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,597 other followers

%d bloggers like this: