Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Culture’ Category

Five-star commenter chris marshals ¡SCIENCE! to support the theory that feminists are masculine women who use the ideology of feminism to rearrange normal society into a twisted slutscape that serves the interests of less attractive women who fail at extracting commitment from high value men. Quoting him in full:

******

Here’s a theory for you:

Feminists are a phenotypic morph.
Feminism is political-ideological weaponization by that phenotypic morph.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymorphism_(biology)

Polymorphism in biology occurs when two or more clearly different phenotypes exist in the same population of a species—in other words, the occurrence of more than one form or morph. In order to be classified as such, morphs must occupy the same habitat at the same time and belong to a panmictic population (one with random mating).

http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/11/2/20140977

“Stay or stray? Evidence for alternative mating strategy phenotypes in both men and women”

This study shows there are two distinct phenotypes within human populations. Promiscuous people and non-promiscuous people. Promiscuous = low digit ratio=higher testosterone=short-term mating strategy.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25250010

“Feminist activist women are masculinized in terms of digit-ratio and social dominance: a possible explanation for the feminist paradox.”

This study shows that feminists are masculinised in terms of digit ratios=low digit ratios=higher testosterone.

This explains why feminism is about changing society from long-term to short term mating. It explains why they defend women being sluts. It explains why they defend women cuckolding. It explains why they defend and agitate for women to pursue careers and achieve self-provisioning sufficiency. And it explains why they try to change the culture to support these values and necessarily oppose their anti/inverse values.

Thus, there is no right-wing war on women. There is a right wing war on the short-term mating or feminist or matriarchal morph.

Likewise there is a left-wing war on the long-term mating or anti-feminist or patriarchal morph.

And here’s the catch: most women are in the long-term mating / anti-feminist / patriarchal morph.

In other words. feminism is anti-(the majority of)-women.

******

A powerful shiv to the bloated gut of feminism is to remind normal, attractive women of the gross, ugly, and deranged feminist women (and their effete male lackeys) who purport to speak for all women. Women are nothing if not herd followers, and if it’s made clear to the Normal Majority of women that feminists are unbangable fugs no worthwhile man would touch with a manlet’s micropeen, then the herd will change course and leave the losers in its dust.

CH is doing its sadistically fun part of getting that message out to the masses.

Chris’s theory jibes closely with CH’s theory of feminism:

The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.

Masculinized feminism-congenial women want an unnatural order instituted that grants them the shame-free sexual freedom inherent to men while simultaneously restricting any expression of the natural sexual impulses of men themselves. Feminists want to be able to call all the sexual market shots, take no heat for misfires, and publicly excoriate anyone who fires back. This is the dictionary definition of insanity.

National Review, in a rare moment of ballsiness, also corroborates the chris/CH theory of feminism:

Feminism has become something very different from what it understands itself to be, and indeed from what its adversaries understand it to be. It is not a juggernaut of defiant liberationists successfully playing offense. It is instead a terribly deformed but profoundly felt protective reaction to the sexual revolution itself. In a world where fewer women can rely on men, some will themselves take on the protective coloration of exaggerated male characteristics — blustering, cursing, belligerence, defiance, and also, as needed, promiscuity.

Allow me to reword the conclusion of this NR statement for endarkening clarification:

“In a world where fewer ugly, unfeminine, financially self-sufficient women can or need to rely on provider beta males, some will themselves take on the protective coloration of exaggerated male characteristics — blustering, cursing, belligerence, defiance, and also, as needed, promiscuity that leaves them feeling gross and unloved the next morning after Jack has slipped out the back.”

The view is coming into focus now.

Loudmouthed feminists are more often than not:

ugly,
out of shape chunksters,
unfeminine androgynes,
older, Wall-victim spinsters,
spiteful, LSMV misfits…

who simultaneously loathe and envy the natural freedom and energy of male sexual desire. Because feminists are losers in the sexual marketplace, (and because they know it), they seek to tear down the organic, biomechanically-grounded social and sexual orders and replace them with bizarre androgynous dystopias that help them feel better about themselves. Their justified feelings of low self-worth cause them to lash out at men in the aggregate, (and particularly at lower value beta males), and at prettier, feminine women who by their mere existence daily remind feminists of their pitiful ranking in the hierarchy of female romantic worth.

When losers stop knowing their place, and begin insisting their betters are no such thing, and worse when the losers have acquired the power and means to punish their betters, you get what we have today: A failure to propagate; to propagate as a race and to propagate as a successful civilization.

Read Full Post »

A European man living in the US has a few thoughts to share about American women. He’s quoted in full.

******

So these are my thoughts from a West European man living in the US who had had multiple of women from all continents (my accent and looks cause a storm in the US)

I have read this quite excellent blog and it actually saddens me but does not disappoint me what is written here based on my own experiences.
Of course I speak in general terms, one of the stories above is about a German woman so exception do of course happen. Hence no comments about ‘ but I met a French lady and she blah blah blah’

Basically in short and across the board – American women are not worth shit. They are trash pure and simple and it’s only getting worse. I have had lots of success with them and the more I seduce, the more disappointed I am with them.
Hardly any white American women in their 20s know how to cook, very very few know how to flirt seductively, most of them are defensive tired manginas.
It is quite frightening how competitive white schoolgirls in the US are taught to be particularly in sports and they take this competitive nastiness into the workplace.
In short they are very undesirable and then we have the games. Oh the games – how any man can build a communication of basic trust with an American woman is beyond me.
From the very off if you interact with an American woman (even if you have zero interest) she will think – that you think she is amazing (they always pedestalize themselves) and automatically go on the defensive.
Then if she does like you – it’s play the games of not replying to your text, ignoring your text then replying. Hot/cold – again is she worth all this? Nope.
Certainly not future mother material if she cannot be trusted or show respect to respond to a text.

Also I find them very boring. One example only last week – in a bar met a very attractive Boston girl ( I find blondes from the East coast largely very boring) and she bored me for two hours.
The following night I met an attractive Latina and it was flirtatious, fun, lots of body contact and then dancing. A very enjoyable night.

Based on my experiences if you date girls from the Catholic countries in Europe – it is fun and an adventurous.
The girls are out to meet a future husband eventually for sure – but right now they want great, fun experiences – good food, travel, dancing, laughing.
I have met so many warm blooded amazing women who are fun, laid back, love children, fantastic cooks, great sensual lovers and definitely future mother material.

Similar enjoyment with Asians (not American born) – Vietnamese particularly pleasurable, Africans and Indians.

American girls leave university and it’s – find great job (check), find man (check) and the sterile life of consumerism and acquiring wealth and stuff begins. It’s tedious.

One of the problems is you American dudes in that you out up with this shit. The cheerleading thing still amazes me how this happens.
Kids start trying out to be a cheerleader as soon as they reach puberty and are out on a pedestal form that early age. Cheerleading (or slut training) needs to be stopped.
That will end the self -entitled narcissism of American females.

In short American females like to be treated rough as it taps into their puritanical guilt (spanking) feeling associated with sex but mainly because they like being treated like trash because they are trash.

******

This concept of female self-pedestalization needs more air time. It’s funny when an average-looking woman assumes a man who’s asking for her insurance info after she rams his car is hitting on her. That wee womanly hamster requires constant tending.

Look, American women aren’t as bad as this reader insists, but they are getting worse. I’ve heard similar surprised laments from European men mired in the American dating scene. Are all these guys irrationally spiteful? Presumably they have experience with European women, so they’re in a good position to compare and draw conclusions.

I’ve dated my share of European girls. Maybe my selection filter is sterling, but none of them were a horrible experience. I haven’t had that many bad experiences with American women, either, but then my threshold for what constitutes an irritatingly bad romantic experience is probably higher than what most men could tolerate or even enjoy. If you know women well, what makes them tick, you’re better prepared to brush off or redirect the eccentricities of their sex toward something mutually fulfilling. In fact, you come to enjoy their little games, because you deal with them as a mindfucker equal. As a man confident in his ability to swat away the natural female compulsions that so infuriate romantically naive men with less experience in the pooning fields.

Female courtship games are like “getting hotter/colder” signposts pointing you in the direction of pleasure, or away from it.

On the whole, I’d say the European women I loved were more feminine than their American counterparts, but I’d bet this reader is Spanish or Provencal French and has a distinct preference for the sunnier girls of South Europe, biasing him against white American women who are, mostly, Anglo-Germanic and thus by disposition colder and more careerist than the Southern Euro female norm.

That’s my hunch. I could be wrong. Certainly, there are Northern European men, especially the ones willing to live overseas, who like the exotic and are easily captivated by the raw, seductive vibe of women from milder, less crisply K, regions of the world. If this reader is one of them, then it’s not surprising he would be put off by American women who aren’t, underneath the hood, all that different than his native Northern Euro dating prospects.

In news that will prove to be relevant to this post once you think about it for a second, another American female teacher is accused of banging her high school students — six of them in total (she’s a busy gal). Female teacher pedofucking has got to be on the rise; there have been too many stories in the past few years like this one to count. Is it something in the water? Nah. I think what we are seeing is the leading edge of a culture speeding into full scale disintegration. As American men become more beta and androgynous, American women feel more intense cravings for psychologically dimorphic badboys. This slutty teacher phenomenon is an extreme manifestation of a general American woman romantic ennui caused by an enfeebling of the (adult, white) men available to them. Part of this male enfeeblement is itself caused by a legal and extralegal punitive bias against traditionally European expressions of masculinity.

American men are hamstrung, in other words. And it’s the result of a deliberate progressivist project as well as a self-imposed generational gelding.

Maybe the amplifying lust for jerks and the growing disgust for betas are hardening American women. Instead of coaxing women’s femininity to come out and shine, the badboys are having a grand noncommittal time exploiting a sexual market starved for their special brand of lovingkindness, and dispirited women are flailing to gain leverage against their own darkest, desirous urges. The Pillsbury Betaboys meanwhile are trying harder than ever, supplicating and prostrating themselves until all life is drained out of vaginas subject to their anhedonic pleadings.

The naive man dips his toe in the American dating scene and discovers the women are mannish, narcissistic killjoys, having surrendered their femininity on the altars of social media attention whoring, obesity, and careerism. The question hangs: Is it too late to fix American women? Or is the fate of the West shackled to the dead weight of all these androgynes?

Read Full Post »

Have you noticed the dearth of original ideas coming out of Hollywood? The problem is that a good idea needs a companion in the truth. And our culture has turned violently away from the truth. Consequently, novel ideas in all art forms are getting rarer.

Reader PA suggests a Crimson Pill movie idea that’s both fresh and honest.

I wonder if rape victims who experienced orgasms mid rape were capable of having vaginal orgasms in their normal lives.

You’re writing a screenplay for a drama/thriller involving a normal, happily married woman who was just brutally raped and came hard in the throes of the assault. Her husband is a normal blue-pill greater beta who suddenly finds her unable to have vaginal sex. The husband goes through tears and frustration, and self-defeating attempts at being “supportive” and then finds a crimson arts blog and makes a plan to transform himself into a Love-Heisenberg, to save the marriage.

Do you simply graft the script of “9 and 1/2 Weeks” from here on, or is there another approach?

Throw in a paint-by-numbers overcredentialed marriage counselor, a spiteful feminist BFF, and an undersexed white knight friend of the husband who secretly desires his wife, and you’ve got yourself boffo box office!

By the way, Fifty Shades of Grey, if you don’t already know, is a complete rip-off of the vastly superior Mickey Rourke-Kim Bassinger erotic movie Nine 1/2 Weeks. Ferkrissake, the male lead’s character name in Nine 1/2 is “John Gray”. I’m surprised critics have failed to note the similarities. It’s canny enough that the producers of Nine 1/2 (and the writer of the book on which the movie is based) have grounds to sue the fat pig who wrote Fifty Shades.

Bassinger’s character, Elizabeth, in Nine 1/2 also falls for a badboy with a sadistic streak. (Girls can’t help themselves.) There is a rape scene in which Elizabeth has a powerful orgasm. She is both bewildered and entranced by her body’s betrayal of her good sense. The movie has a sort of audience-stroking happy ending, when Elizabeth, deeply in love with John but emotionally broken by his intensifying manipulations (he has her watch a prostitute service him in a hotel room), leaves him, but in so doing turns her back on a piece of her womanhood. There’s a subtext that she will never joyously submit to that kind of fiery passion again.

(John should’ve balanced all that anxiety-inducement with some comfort. Game 101, man!)

Personally, I would take PA’s idea and make a feint toward a Nine 1/2 Weeks conclusion, except with a Walter White Breaking Badboy twist: The greater beta husband, upon elevating himself as the dominant force in his wife’s life and finally in a position to save their marriage (ironically via a route that mirrors his wife’s confusing rape experience), opts instead to succumb to the temptations of his reinvention. I’d also change the deus ex machina from a blog to a player buddy, or perhaps to a death row inmate with a pile of marriage proposals from adoring female fans. Internet-hemmed epiphanies don’t play well on screen.

Submission to a man worthy of it is engraved in a woman’s soul. She will deny it, the Hivemind will deny it, the pedestal-polishing plushboys will deny it as they politely discuss financial outlooks over the din of insistent pleat-imprisoned chubbies in sterile offices with gogrrl droids in pencil skirts, but when the blinds are closed and the darkness descends, every woman will arch her back to meet the lovely, exquisite pain of an icy caress.

Read Full Post »

An Atlantic leftoid* wrote a smug, insular column, “Waiting for the Conservative Jon Leibowitz”, rhetorically asking why there’s no conservative equivalent to The Daily Show or Colbert. The article reads like a gloat about how liberals “get it” and conservatives don’t get it, “it” being the nuanced (read: intellectual) forms of humor.

Over the years, Stewart and his cohort mastered the very difficult task of sorting through all the news quickly and turning it around into biting, relevant satire that worked both for television and the Internet.

Now, as Stewart prepares to leave the show, the brand of comedy he helped invent is stronger than ever. Stephen Colbert is getting ready to bring his deadpan smirk to The Late Show. Bill Maher is continuing to provoke pundits and politicians with his blunt punch lines. John Oliver’s Last Week Tonight is about to celebrate the end of a wildly popular first year. Stewart has yet to announce his post-Daily Show plans, but even if he retires, the genre seems more than capable of carrying on without him.

The insularity of the article is betrayed by the author’s assumption that liberal-dominated fake news shows represent the pinnacle of achievement in humor. The implicit belief is that conservative “failure” in this domain is indicative of an inherent conservative inability to appreciate or master the finer arts of funny, such as irony and satire.

Whenever I read masturbatory liberal articles like this one, I cross-check the article’s biases with my personal experience to see if there’s a match; if there is, I give the liberal the benefit of the doubt that it’s onto something. (It rarely is.) If not, I don’t immediately write off the liberal conclusion, but I don’t give it much merit either. In the real world, where all that matters is how much I laugh, I’ve been friends with quite a few liberal and conservative funnymen (and a smattering of funnywomen). But the funniest guys I’ve known were all far right of center rascally SOBs. Online, the situation is similar. I think the Christian sadists at MPC are funny as hell, and no one can accuse them of being Leibowitz lackeys.

Could it be that American political satire is biased toward liberals in the same way that American political talk radio is biased toward conservatives? Dannagal Young, an assistant professor of communications at the University of Delaware, was looking into the lack of conservative comedians when she noticed studies that found liberals and conservatives seemed to have different aesthetic tastes. Conservatives seemed to prefer stories with clear-cut endings. Liberals, on the other hand, had more tolerance for a story like public radio’s Serial, which ends with some uncertainty and ambiguity.

Yes, how those leftoids love ambiguity and nuance. You can see it in how they assiduously avoid unambiguously pigeonholing, for instance, rednecks.

Framing is one of the most interesting game concepts, and it’s because it has applicability well beyond the context of picking up girls. The supposed leftoid love for uncertainty and ambiguity is just as accurately expressed as a leftoid fear of judgment. Which, when you think about it, makes survival sense. An effete liberal manlet benefits from a society that refuses to judge it unworthy of inclusion.

Young began to wonder whether this might explain why liberals were attracted in greater numbers to TV shows that employ irony. Stephen Colbert, for example, may say that he’s looking forward to the sunny weather that global warming will bring, and the audience members know this isn’t what he really means. But they have to wonder: Is he making fun of the kind of conservative who would say something so egregious? Or is he making fun of arrogant liberals who think that conservatives hold such extreme views?

Liberal audiences love liberal showmen who vigorously pump their priors. I doubt there’s a single SWPL viewer who doesn’t know that Colbert is on its side.

As Young noticed, this is a kind of ambiguity that liberals tend to find more satisfying and culturally familiar than conservatives do. In fact, a study out of Ohio State University found that a surprising number of conservatives who were shown Colbert clips were oblivious to the fact that he was joking.

Good lord. How often are liberal SJWs oblivious to the humor in racially-tinted jokes? Maybe people just don’t find jokes funny when they’re targeted at firmly held beliefs.

In contrast, conservative talk radio humor tends to rely less on irony than straightforward indignation and hyperbole.

I haven’t heard a shortage of liberals engaging in indignation and hyperbole.

When Rush Limbaugh took down Georgetown student and birth-control activist Sandra Fluke in 2012, he called her a “slut” in order to drive home his point about state-mandated birth control. After the liberal blogosphere erupted with derision, Limbaugh responded with more jokes, asking that Fluke post videos of her sex online so taxpayers could see what they were paying for. (After a few days, he offered a public apology, insisting that he “did not mean a personal attack” on Fluke.)

Here we detect the primary driver of conservative retreat, if it exists, from political satire: Conservatives are constrained by the reigning leftoid Hivemind orthodoxies. Conservatives with audiences larger than three people have a limited ability to skewer liberal shibboleths without getting into serious career-ending trouble. Limbaugh’s backpedaling slut smear apology is Exhibit S. Has a leftoid on any of these fake news shows ever had to grovel before the inquisition for maliciously slandering a right-wing representative? No. They have license to smear their right-wing targets, something that non-leftoids cannot do to with the same gusto to sanctified liberal targets like Sandra Fluke.

Conservatives will never win at this game until they begin the process of chipping away at the bedrock of the Narrative. This means AGREEING & AMPLIFYING when the usual liberal accusations are cavalierly leveled. For example, once accused of slut shaming, Limbaugh should’ve had whole skit about Fluke mentally calculating the number of cocks she could raw dog on a $10 supply of pills. (zank you, i’ll be in all zee veek.)

If non-leftoids had the same freedom to parody cherished liberal icons — race, sex, eskimos, SWPLs, new atheists — with the same venom, I bet you’d see plenty of right-wing Daily Shows pop up. Right now, that freedom isn’t there, so mainstream righties have to stick with the liberal script, which in practice means essentially agreeing with the fundamentals of liberal progressivism while making feeble feints against the rapidity of that progress to which they have already tacitly acceded as inevitable.

Despite these societal biases against a conservative satirical uprising, I still think there could be an innate disposition in liberals that favors ambiguity and uncertainty. I think this because women also love ambiguity and uncertainty, particularly in the realm of romance, and we know women are more liberal than men. We also know liberal men are more womanly than conservative men (and this jibes with personal observation), so it’s not much of a logical leap to deduce that liberals in general are on the whole more womanly and thus more frightened of harsh moral dividing lines and of the judgment of peers.

*I invented the term of art “leftoid” because it captures the anti-human nature of the liberal vision, and the robotic incantations with which liberals autonomically resort to defending their faith when attacked by apostates.

PS Here’s a fantastically brutal judgment of Jon Leibowitz in the Post. Money shot:

Stewart is a journalist: an irresponsible and unprofessional one.

He is especially beloved by others in the journo game. (For every 100 viewers, he generated about 10 fawning profiles in the slicks, all of them saying the same thing: The jester tells the truth!)

Any standard liberal publication was as likely to contain an unflattering thought about Stewart as L’Osservatore Romano is to run a hit piece on the pope.

The hacks have a special love for Stewart because he’s their id. They don’t just think he’s funny, they thrill to his every sarcastic quip. They wish they could get away with being so one-sided, snarky and dismissive.

That’s it right there. Leibowitz and his ilk succeed because the entirety of the media industrial complex share the same targets of hate. That’s why he gets so much positive ink, and why he’s catapulted into icon status, however pinched and domed the arena in which he rules.

The leftoid machine is a hate machine, and but for the pretense of objectivity that constrains “journalists” they’d all be taking up pitchforks and driving their hated enemies — core white Americans — into the flames, cackling like maniacs the whole time.

Read Full Post »

First Things peers into the playroom of women’s minds and discovers that women really LOVE LOVE LOVE dominant alpha males and are BORED BORED BORED by beta males, when they aren’t HATE HATE HATING them. Has First Things been visiting the Chateau? Yes.

[W]hat are fans of the Fifty Shades series seeking?

One answer is that there’s a hunger that’s not being satisfied: Namely, for men who are unabashedly masculine, who aren’t afraid to take control, and to lead. That is, there’s a longing (even a lusting) for men who aren’t afraid of what’s classically been called “headship.” To this end, while Fifty Shades subverts Christian sexual morality, it subverts the modern crusade for “genderlessness” all the more.

For the past forty years, there’s been a concerted effort to minimize or eliminate the sexual differences between men and women. The sought-after utopia is the “truly equal world” envisioned by Lean In author Sheryl Sandberg, in which “women [run] half our countries and companies and men [run] half our homes.” According to this view (and contrary to the scientific data), the differences between the sexes are merely social constructs: the culture is to blame for women being feminine and men being masculine.

The funny thing about “Fifty Shades” is that I doubt the female author set out to subvert “genderlessness”. Rather, she set out to write a book with themes that she knew would be arousing for women to read, because those themes are arousing to her. It’s female hindbrains all the way down (to the vaj).

A reader responds with an optimistic take:

Chicks dig assholes, sure.

But women are aroused by male strength, even when the man is not an asshole.

If people want a moral regeneration of the USA then the key is to restore masculine strength as a virtue to be cultivated and admired.

Good luck with that. Every Western culture vector is pointing to more androgynes of either sex. Have you seen a manboobed new atheist or an iron-jawed feminist lately? They’re everywhere. Have you seen them get raked over the coals by the Hivemind, as a lesson for the others? I haven’t. Rehabilitating these sexless wonders will be like squeezing healthy sperm from a brony. Their anti-human abasement is enabled and encouraged by the megaphonies.

This is possible but will be difficult.  On the positive side, there is a pent up demand there that dares not speak its name.

Exalting masculine strength NECESSARILY means discrediting feminism and trannyism and all the other degenerate freak mafia -isms. The former cannot COEXIST with any of the latter.

(And the PLAYA, echoing St. Augustine, says, yes, ok, sure, some day, but not too soon, maybe in a decade or two, in time for me to retire in safety and comfort, but not yet, the women have to stay loose for a while  … .)

I believe women are aroused by assholes qua assholes because assholes are, above all, INTERESTING men. They aren’t like the mediocre masses of rapidly feminizing beta males. You want masculine, virtuous men of the West? The path to that nirvana is blazed by the swashbuckling assholes.

Read Full Post »

The 2015 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue (swolefeed) will feature a fatty fat as one of its “””models”””. (Granted, she’s only in an ad, which should tell you something about the difficulty of wedging fat chicks into what is essentially masturbation material for men.) This kowtowing to the fatty fat acceptance movement is a first for a major glossy that primarily serves the tastes of normal straight men.

Given the obvious fact that almost no normal straight men are interested in looking at the near-naked bodies of ugly or “big-boned” women, it’s a strange editorial choice by SI. Why would SI risk losing customers?

SI, like most contemporary media organs, is likely staffed floor to rafters with leftoids. The Hivemind Narrative — read: equalist, multikult, anti-normal white man — is so entrancing to leftoids that they’ll leave money on the table to proselytize it.

Homo economicus is dead, long live homo hamstericus! Now that the myth of a purely economically rational man is rapidly getting discredited by realtalkers, we can better analyze the seeming counterproductive behavior of megaphones like SI.

The patented CH Profit-Propaganda curve explains SI’s actions.

As you can see, at very low profit margin, most business will engage in no propaganda beyond that which is required to sell their product. Struggling entrepreneurs simply can’t risk a loss of revenue on a quixotic quest to ideologically reeducate their customers.

As we climb the P-P curve, we see that the worst propaganda is streamed with unmatched intensity and devotion by businesses with profit margins sufficiently robust to absorb losses of antagonized customers put off by its anti-human message. Here we find the media, government, and academia.

At the very highest profitability — finance, medicine, etc — we find the propaganda machine winding down. Once a business reaches the level of Fuck You money, its interest in abiding prevailing Hivmind norms wanes. But not totally. Although the very richest don’t spend a lot of the energy on *direct* propaganda, they do spend a lot on *indirect* Hivemind propaganda, such as contributing to charities and lobbying government on their No Non-White Boy Left Behind policy ideas.

The P-P curve is explained in part by the fact that leftoids congregate in fields that are naturally efficient at brainwashing, and most of these fields are — scratch that, have been — comfortably profitable.

Another reason for the shape of the curve is the mentality of people working for businesses that have come into non-struggle money; that is, they work for companies that have “made it”. Once a business has “made it”, the pent-up ideological energy of the apparatchiks working there is released in a bukkake of hope and change. Give a leftoid a little bit of stripper cash, and she can’t help but blow the wad on clothes and cocaine. A little bit of Hivemind-enabling money can be a dangerous thing.

At the extremes of profit are the captains of industry who are far more interested in turning a buck or a billion than in chipping away at their rotund bottom line with Party propaganda.

Finally, the obscenely rich are fairly well-insulated from the clownshirt SJW and race huckster shakedowns. And the striver businesses — the mom and pops — aren’t rich enough to catch the interest of Hivemind zealots. But middling profitable companies are ripe targets, with pockets just deep enough to justify paying the Danegelding instead of telling the diversity whores to fuck off and thereby assuming the risk of a public or, worse, legal lynching by a loudly one-sided megaphone.

Related: How to fight the propaganda machine.

Read Full Post »

Conventional wisdom has it that raw sluts aren’t the prettiest girls in school. The conventional wisdom is mostly right about sluts. CH has noted (archive hunt alert) that the sluttiest sluts tend to fall within the mediocre to cute range of female looks. Most sluts are 5s, 6s, and 7s. Proportionate to their demographic ratio, there are not as many slutty 8s, 9s or 10s. Likewise, but for a different reason, neither are there many slutty sub-5s.

(I’m using the term slut in its common parlance: A promiscuous girl. This doesn’t necessarily mean she has a lot of sex partners; it could mean she’s impulsive and will sleep with a man on a whim, or jump from boyfriend to boyfriend on flimsy pretexts.)

The disproportionate representation of moderately attractive girls among sluts is a function of being just cute enough to get banged out by alpha males* but not hot enough to get commitment from them. These cute-ish girls are in the gray zone between the uglies who can’t slut it up because desirable men don’t want to fuck them, and the hotties who won’t slut it up because men are willing to give them want they want.**

*Reminder: Sluts haven’t lost their powers of female hypergamous discrimination. They may be quicker to fall into bed, but they’re still not giving beta males the time of night.

**There is a class (a minority) of hot babes — eternal ingenues — who cash in on their looks by acquiring the seed and resources of multiple lovers. Their numbers are few, but their danger to unwary men is considerable.

Some sluts are discreet about their nighttime activities, although they seem to be decreasing of late to make way for what I call the Thirsty Slut, a Declining Empire breed of bed hopper who takes strange pleasure from proclaiming her sluttitude to the world.

As commenter shartiste (nice, bro) writes,

Surely the dark Lord has seen the “I fucked Edelman” photo by now. Further photos revealed her to be a gentleman’s 7. I’d bet it follows some Heartistian law that its always the less hot girls who trumpet to high heavens when they get an alpha dick inside them while the hot ones are more discreet?

Edelman is a Patriots football player. A hot babe who was accustomed to the company of high value men wouldn’t feel a compulsion to publicly announce her role as a passive sexual conquest of a footballer. She has nothing to prove, because her beauty is all the social proof she needs.

But the marginal gentleman’s 7 feels like she has a LOT to prove. Sexy alpha males aren’t a part of her daily life like they are for hotter women. When one of those alphas gravitates into her orbit (or, more typically, she lurches into his orbit) her hindbrain neurons fire a 21 hamster salute and her vagina pops off like a bottle of champagne sitting in the sun all day.

Who knows for certain what’s going through the thirsty slut’s head? Nevertheless, we have clues based on environmental inputs.

– Our attention whore enabling society emboldens her. The “slut” sting still penetrates, but now that the internet is filled with girls hoisting their pummeled pussies aloft like trophies after a big win, the individual slut doesn’t feel so alone and ostracized. Sluttery loves company.

– She thinks (mistakenly) that demonstrating the speediness of her labial parting for sports stars will bring all the other boys to her yard. (It won’t. Preselection doesn’t work for women. It only grosses out relationship-ready men subject to her pubic displays of coition.)

– Maybe she wants to lord it over her equally mediocre female friends in one of those esoteric femme status rituals that make no sense to men. If so, the temporary ego-stroked reward she earns from envious BFFs will be more than paid for by the permanent stain on her SMV record.

– Or it could be as banal a reason as inciting a beloved ex-boyfriend to jealousy. (Note to ladies: This never works on men with options.)

Like her male equivalent — the rejected try-hard beta who loudly insists he “never wanted the bitch” — the thirsty slut is a transparent cartoon of a woman, impressing no one but the mirror and her delusions of social acceptance.

No class, battered ass, take a pass.

As shartiste (two-fer) commented at Goodbye America, the thirsty slut is

…like a dude posting “just bought dinner for Emma Stone” and posting an $800 receipt.

Slut girl = beta guy

Doubleplusheh.

As any man who wasn’t a feeb male feminist or a stepnfetchit white knight would say to the oddly prideful thirsty slut, “Well, OK, that’s great. Now tell us again… what did you get out of it?”

“Edelman!”

Really?

“Sure! He’ll text me any minute.”

Not holding breath.

Why do I call the loud, proud, and indiscreet cock hound a “thirsty” slut? She is thirsty for SOCIAL STATUS. She is thirsty for VALIDATION of her worth as a woman to love. Most conspicuously, she is thirsty for LOVE itself.

This is all female nature 101, but I bring it up because the bigger picture interests me. It seems that in the past few years the frequency of thirsty sluts demeaning themselves in public for a dong hit of attention, and the bravado with which these sluts crow about the achievement of spreading their legs, have increased a hundredFOLD. Not coincidentally, the term of art “slut” has rocketed into the cultural consciousness of late.

Are there simply more sluts now as a percentage of the female population? The available evidence is inconclusive. The population share of sluts appears to be in a holding pattern.

So, again, why the sudden surge in thirsty sluts? I have a theory: It’s attention whore enabling technology plus the EFFECTIVE sex ratio influencing the dating lives of 15-30 year old women that’s provoking mass public sluttery.

Women are natural LOOKATME exhibitionists. It’s in their nature as the sex with the most to gain from displaying their bodies and faces for male judgment. So it’s no wonder high bandwidth social media provides an irresistible platform upon which women may strut and slut.

Now, combine this incredible environmental shock with another: The retreat from the sexual market by millions of men into video gaming and hardcore internet porn. This is what I mean by an effective sex ratio skew. On the one hand, you have obesities effectively shrinking the pool of attractive women available to men, and on the other you have the de facto disappearance of video gaming and wi-fi fapping men from the dating market.

These kinds of mass convulsions in the human courtship mechanism can cause untold downstream consequences that most people are either incapable of grasping or unwilling to contemplate. The inglorious rise of the Thirsty Slut can best be understood as a visceral ragepout by marginally attractive women to a painful contraction in the availability of the greater beta and alpha males with whom women most desire to form long-term relationships.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,172 other followers

%d bloggers like this: