Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Comment Winners’ Category

Dirtnapninja earned this week’s COTW award with a pithy take on the rift opening between White men and White women.

Of all the crimes the foe has inflicted on us, turning white females into our class enemies was the most unforgivable.

Unforgivable, because it was an engineered betrayal that struck at the strongest bond of a society: the bond between man, woman, and child. To corrupt everything else, the sexual market first had to be corrupted. And then the dominoes fell easily.

Theodora follows up with the COTW runner-up medal, likening the betrayal of our White women to an ancient tale,

They found the weakest link, like in the story of Adam and Eve. The serpent whispered: “Come with me and turn against your man, nation, tradition and ancestors, and you will have a seat at the table with our privileged minorities. Affirmative action, preferential hiring, gibsmedat as much as you want, the victimhood aura, the right to be irresponsible and to be believed no matter what you say, like them. Just betray everything you are supposed to stand for.” She listened and she obeyed.

She obeyed so well that she now serves as guardian and gatekeeper for Globohomo.

Finally, cynthia rounds out this week’s COTW with the consolation prize (a set of shivs):

Men do seem to have a better grasp of cause and effect, or at least, they are more willing to examine the causes of failure and readjust course when necessary. There are a lot of things that feed into this, but the biggest one I think is that female mistakes are usually irreversible. Men can (theoretically) recover if they spend their youth screwing around rather than starting a family. We can’t. We age out of our good looks and fertility and cannot go back.

I think we’ve evolved a sort of logic valve in the brain to deal with this. If you don’t see your mistakes, they won’t tear you apart. I don’t know if it’s a cultural adaptation or something that exists at the lizard hindbrain level, but it is definitely there. Most women can never truly confront the enormity of their bad decisions. There’s just no reward for it.

The term for this is “rationalization hamster”, and the little critter’s job is exactly as cynthia described: to conceal from women the “enormity of their bad decisions” and spare their egos a thrashing which will do them no good in the Darwinian sense of passing along her bloodline to future generations. Women don’t lose much by hiding from the ugly truths; men otoh stand to lose a lot from avoiding the truth because men are the sex which has to bust a move to make sure their genes carry forward, and they won’t be busting many moves (or nuts) if they live by lies and deny the nature of women.

***

Adding to that last thought about men getting rewarded for confronting hard truths while women gain nothing from doing the same, there is a moment in a woman’s life when she would be well-served with a hard truth: when she’s young and thinks she has all the time in the world to snag a quality man. That’s the time in her life when she will be rewarded for recognizing poor decisions and correcting her course before she’s on the wilting side of her peak nubility.

The general point remains, though. When a woman fucks up, as long as she’s still got youthnbeauty to barter she’ll recover. When a man fucks up, he has to know what he did wrong, or he’ll keep fucking up.

When older, a woman near Wall impact really doesn’t gain much from admitting to bad decisions. Sexual worthlessness is coming, whether or not she achieves a level of sentient self-awareness. All the knowing does is weigh her down with existential regret. Men, in contrast, can recover from bad decisions committed over a longer duration of their lives, and will gain from knowing when and how they screwed the pooch. The Wall for a man is not a death sentence; it’s a stumbling block.

***

I may as well give Theodora another also-ran COTW award for this gem about the Bezos Boner,

Bezos fell hard for that trannyface menopausal Sanchez because, probably for the first and last time in his life, the wimp felt sexually desirable. He felt exhilarated to finally see how it is to sext and send dick pics on demand like a Chad, somehow like that species of ugly cactus which can bloom only once. It’s the story of Charles and Camilla once again.

Bezos = Corpse flower.

Read Full Post »

tbone earns a richly deserved COTW award with this gem,

An orc taking the red pill would just realize that he is an orc.

And it wouldn’t change a thing about the orc’s behavior.

Read Full Post »

A woman asks,

This week’s freelance COTW winner Trevor Goodchild, responds,

Women are infinitely more disgusted by incels than they are by actual rapists

100% stone cold truth.

A woman’s prime directive is to secure the blessings of alpha male seed for her womb, and to prevent corruption of her womb with the weak, tepid seed of omega male vegetable lasagnas.

This is why the disgust threshold of women is exquisitely sensitive to the threat of intrusion by dreg seed, and why women cannot summon an ounce of sympathy for the sexual and romantic isolation of low value men.

Under the hindbrain rules established by Darwinian imperatives which guide women’s feelings, incel sexual isolation is a feature, not a bug.

Incel misery is proof that a woman’s womb remains unpolluted.

Read Full Post »

COTW is awarded to Hawk, for this bit of insight to the undercurrents of emotion that guide and form a woman’s interactions with a beta male.

She treated the beta male lion like PREY.

Burn this lesson into your soul: a beta to a female is PREY.

Plan B beta? PREY
Orbiter beta? PREY
Wife-up dat THOT Churchian? PREY
Save dat Carousel Rider at 30 beta? PREY

To be BETA is to be PREY.

Alpha or Death is your only choice in this world.

Beta males -> prey
Alpha males -> predator
Omega males -> sun-bleached bones

Read Full Post »

This is the second great comment from Deter Naturalist this week, earning him (probably not a “her”) the coveted COTW award.

We’ve had it “too good to be true” for my entire life (I’m AARP eligible.)
During that time the incentive structure caused people to embrace behaviors (including political policies) that eroded the system by which our good times were produced.

*Nothing sets up failure like success.*

How many people, having hit some home runs in the markets (or getting a big payoff in a casino, same thing) pull back to safety? Very few. Most double-down until the wipe-out. It’s human nature to attribute to personal competence that which was simply right-place/right-time.

While I discovered it does not work for forecasting (because timing is always unknown), I still embrace the basic premise of something called “socionomics.” It’s foundation is that as social animals, we humans exhibit herding behavior in areas of uncertainty. We tend to adopt the viewpoints of those who surround us. This is an attribute with a spectrum; some herd a little, some herd a lot, but everyone herds. Herding is exhibited in fashions, in pop culture and above all in finance and politics and economics. All of this results from the actual way our brains are structured and the way our cognitive pathways actually work (which have little in common with how people think they do.)

It is the engine for “Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds,” but also the width of men’s ties this season, the performance of horror movies vs Disney Princesses at the Box Office, and the price trends of stocks, bonds and commodities. It is not entirely unpredictable, but since timing matters above all, it makes prediction to the level of profitability too subjective to use. What it basically says is, trends occur, they reach apogee and change. That insight and a dollar gets you a coffee at McDonalds.

Herding is guided by a kind of unconscious set-point. When people wax optimistic, they visit coffee shops, attend concerts, bid up the prices of stocks, trust the veracity of “the news,” trust the promises of IOU’s, wear colorful clothes, and basically engage in “frisky” behavior. Waxing pessimistic does the opposite.

Because social mood is, like most investment assets, intangible, it has no limits. “How high is up?” is a question without an answer. Is a widespread (but hardly universal) belief that a man can be a woman by announcing it an illustration of giddy belief in the unreal? I’d say so. Are widespread rationalizations for the “equality” of homosexuality to heterosexuality, for the rejection of biological bases for group differences in intelligence, thrift, ingenuity, etc., for the naturalness of AAPL’s market cap being a $1 trillion or the “what, me worry?” attitude toward the unsustainable, compound-growth build-out of black-hole industries like Medical Services, welfare administration or the military-industry-cartel signs of maniacally high optimism?

I’d say so. Are those who embrace open borders and replacement of the very people who created (and still sustain) Americans’ standard of living in thrall to an unconscious belief that resources are unlimited and that we’ve reached a New Plateau of Nirvana where John Lennon’s lyrics from “Imagine” are now a reality?

I’d say so.

The Great Depression came after a decade of unsustainable ramp-up in optimism-fueled asset prices, debt, etc. It was lengthened and made far worse by the widespread embrace of central planning by “scientific management.”

We’ve had 40-60 years of ramp-up, including imposition of immigration policies that increased the population of the USA by 50%, a build-up of IOU’s (debt) without historical precedent, and an entire economy (read “jobs”) grown entirely under artificial heat and light (debt growth.) As in 1930, people have no idea from where prosperity arises, but today’s embrace of “scientific management” is far more entrenched, and people’s dependence on centralized systems far greater than almost 90 years ago.

Feminism. Homophilia. Central planning/”scientific management.” Rejection of biological laws. Industrial-scale rationalizations for it all. All of the items about which we complain are instances of a collective insanity that produces self-harm on a collective scale. It’s all a fad, a fashion emanating from the longest, most manic period of social mood optimism in recorded history. It will and must by natural law be “corrected” at the same scale. Natural laws exist. On a collective level such things are determined and inescapable.

Deter(minist).
Naturalist.

PS: Utopia is not an option. There is and can’t be an “end point” where struggle ceases within any living system. What lies ahead is a passage through a valley of difficulty. So what? Rich or poor, married or single, old or young, tall or short, each of us will have to work with what we’ve got and make the best of it. At least most people who read this (and similar) blogs, seeking the ego-reinforcement of confirmation bias (I do, too) are already predisposed to expect a change in trend. Those inclined to double-down on the dying trend will have short life expectancies. We always live in Plan A (the world as it is), but at least we know that having a Plan B (and even a Plan C) might be useful in the event that inevitable change has arrived.

A lot of the substance of DN’s comment dovetails with themes discussed on a number of other samizdat blogs besides this one. A consilience is emerging among dissident bloggers, which includes agreement that we are at irrationally unreal Peak Optimism (indistinguishable from Peak Lunacy), and the next phase is Pessimism, Inwardness, Reflection, Regrouping, Localism, and Tribalism. Or, a return to sanity.

The pendulum will swing back, carving a path wide and deep through Clown World, leaving the fuggernauts dead and scattered, and the strong on the other side gathered for the Great Renewal.

Read Full Post »

PA earns another COTW with a Theory of Eurasian Oneitis,

Oneitis is a symptom of frustrated pair bonding instincts in the higher humans, who are wired to marry their first girl at 14 – 17 and bond for life.

Game is a way for men to get over oneitis, but at a cost of a piece of their romantic souls. Once you lose your oneitis, you have lost a dizzyingly euphoric innocence that you’ll never regain. But most men are willing to sacrifice that for an end to their involuntary celibacy.

Alternately, young men could avoid oneitis by, as PA said, locking down their first true love. (Alternately, these alternatives only exist in an alternate universe that isn’t lashed by intergalactic clouds of poz matter.)

Interestingly, another commenter noted that women respond to their thwarted pair bonding instinct by becoming LESS able to bond, (beta men go the opposite direction and become supplicating and desperate for an authentic monogamous bond).

The thwarted pair bond coarsens both sexes. In men who overcome oneitis, a clear mind and heart exposes them to the interchangeability of women and erodes their protector and provider instinct, coaxing them to repudiate their natural male role as a “bridge over troubled water”. These men accumulate a lot of notches, and may even fall in love with a few of them, but they will rarely if ever be captivated by their own yearnings. Their passions are compartmentalized and controllable and thus, earthly.

In men who are overcome by oneitis, their scrote-shaped anima is venesected and their urge to stand firm in the face of female drama is weakened. They are worse off than men who have defeated oneitis, because the former have no command of their love lives. They are buffeted by female whims, and this creates a negative inward spiral of anhedonic navel-gazing betatude. They only experience one-way love, and that’s akin to being tortured by one’s desire.

There is no such thing as a woman overcome by oneitis. We call a woman like that, a “woman in love“. Men will treasure her.

The woman who has overcome her oneitis is a force of darkness. She spreads filth, disease, malice, dysfunction, hysteria, and vice wherever her pain finds a victim to possess. The woman who is denied her deepest desire for a lovestruck pair bond is a future catlady, pussyhatter, careerist shrike, feticidaire, STD factory, recyclable mistress, and barren womb. She is She-vaj, Destroyer of Nations.

Why do women and men diverge in how they respond to thwarted pair bonding? Part of the reason is simple biomechanics. Women can more easily access empty sex to distract from their distress, to give their egos a shallow and fleeting boost, and so that’s what they do. And women who fuck around a lot are ruined for love.

Men don’t have that avenue of easy sexual access, so their denied pair bonding urge manifests as cloying neediness (picture a drug addict seated and strapped in, just out of reach of a gram of happiness). These men aren’t ruined for love if they can’t get any love to ruin. If these men could get a woman, they would bond instantly, strongly. Too strongly. Hold on tightly, until she lets you go.

Another reason is the inherently deeper well of romanticism that both blesses and curses men. When a man’s romantic yearning is continually denied, he either gives in to cynical solitude or recommits himself to his frisson quest, in which his frantic paddling for the slore pushes him farther out to sea.

Oppositely, when a man who has overcome his blue-balling oneitis is dispirited by flings with broken unloveable women, he gives in to ennui and inconsideration. These men haven’t lost the ability to pair bond so much as they can’t find a reason to do so. Their romanticism is only partly fulfilled by sex and the aping of frenetic love with chronically un-bonded women. The magic is gone; every sleight of hand and hidden trap door is beheld by increasingly jaded eyes. He goes to the show to amuse himself, but the wonder is left behind to stalk his dreamy nostalgia. Still, if a rare woman were to present herself, he would remember that old feeling, and it would come storming back.

Women have a stunted version of male romanticism. As the more practical sex (see: women spreading their legs for invaders to save their hides and genetic legacy), women whose pair bond window has closed or shattered don’t react as do men stricken by oneitis; the romantically underdeveloped woman is an all-business bitch-in-waiting. When her brief moment of romantic abandon is denied (her teenage to early 20s years), she will swap her bonding instinct for a predatory sexuality and rationalized self-centeredness. When the Wall hits, there will be no safe passage to the other side for her.

Finally, women react to a deprived pair bond the same way they react to any desire of theirs that is deprived: Sour Grapes. They spite that which they cannot immediately possess, consume, and control. Their spite provokes self-defeating behavior, for example pushing away good men, staying with bad men, and denigrating the True and Beautiful for the solipsistic gruel of gogrrlism. It’s the “if I can’t have it, I’ll curse it” egoistic howl.

This is why women denied an early-in-life pair bond are, unlike men, less able to bond later in life: what is cynicism in men is destructiveness in women. The cynic can be uplifted; the vandal only restrained.

Multiple flings genuinely reward men with higher self-esteem despite germinating cynicism. In contrast, multiple cockas scar female self-esteem, and the longer the cocka line, the lower her self-esteem — which is attuned to different rewards that include love and commitment and family — until her self-hate is propelled outwards at men and society. This is why the woman denied a pair bond is driven to remake society in her misery, and why it is in the interest of a nation to prevent the growth of a large, enfranchised group of bitter single childless women.

***

COTW runner-up is R.G. Camara, with his HAGiography of Jessica Valenti,

One favorite story about Valenti, when she wrote her “autobiography”, she revealed she was a massive, drug-addicted slut back in her NYC high school. At one point, she got sick of the skinny-armed NYC guys and hooked up with a bodybuilder whose body she loved to get banged by because his body “felt like a real man should”—who was apparently in his mid-20s while she was in high school. Then he dumped her.

Then she partied her way out of college, and only got her groove back when she became a professional man-hater.

Why human failures like this are listened to and given a platform is a combination of human stupidity and deliberate propaganda by those in power.

Again, fuck this gay world.

Women denied their fleeting moment of youthful pair bonding with an alpha male become forces of feminist destruction for the rest of their lives. Beta hubbies hardest hit.

Read Full Post »

greginaurora wins this weeks COTW with a two-fer:

How to choose.
Invaders
Weaklings
Traitors
Guests turned Traitor
Women

All of the groups are behaving exactly how you would expect them to act, excepting the traitors. Traitors always act with deception and lies. The Guests are the biggest problem, as they’re speaking pretty words of guests-good normal-bad.

The real problem is that Normals have chosen to believe the Guests, despite Millenia of evidence that the Guests are liars.

***

Our special Guests love the Constitution. They love rules. So long as the rules are written down, they know they’ll figure out how to go around them, doing what they want without breaking the rules.

We do our best to follow the spirit of the law. They follow the letter of the law. If the letter of the law isn’t violated, no matter how badly the spirit of the law is violated, then they’ll stand tall and claim they did no wrong.

That’s the difference between racial guilt and racial shame. Our people are motivated internally to do what’s right. Their people are motivated externally to avoid doing wrong. The results are strikingly different.

If they put that much effort into working around the spirit of the Ten Commandments, do you really think they’re going to try and obey the spirit of the Constitution? Even God gave up on them. Why do we still treat them like our equals?

I believe that NW European White Gentiles are nearly alone in the world for having inherited a genetic racial predisposition to a guilt-based, rather than shame-based, moral sense. And all the shame-based races take advantage of that White Gentile character trait when they are within subverting distance.

***

COTW runner-up is PA with a briskly arresting truth about blacks and their relationship to Whites and Fellow Whites.

Whites have the tendency to idealize blacks as beloved pets such as faithful dogs. Jews have a proclivity for idealizing blacks as their reciprocal. “Everything that they are not” vigor-wise. They also feel a kinship with them as fellow Resources Extraction Algorithm.

The biggest slavering sportscucks I know are Fellow Whites. It almost carries an undertone of vicarious sexuality. I think a part of it too is that FWs can say, “Look at all this previously untapped greatness you racist Gentile goyium stupidly discriminated against”, while conveniently ignoring the unleashed dystopian nightmares that past discriminations had helped to put a lid on.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: