Healthy culture: Alpha men, deferential women
Unhealthy culture: Entitled men, entitled women
Dying culture: Deferential men, entitled women
America is a dying culture. Trump is the last chance to meme more life back into America.
Healthy culture: Alpha men, deferential women
Unhealthy culture: Entitled men, entitled women
Dying culture: Deferential men, entitled women
America is a dying culture. Trump is the last chance to meme more life back into America.
The Daily Mail wonders if we Westerners are living through a time period when the numbers of aggressive, unfeminine, caustic, ball-busting battle-bitches are on the rise.
I think we are. And I’ll tell you why it’s happening. First…
So seemingly serene is the 51-year-old that she even soothes others in the course of her career as a reiki therapist. [ed: wtf?] But, like an increasing number of respectable women, Jo has become so consumed by rage that even a simple trip to buy the weekly groceries can lead to frighteningly aggressive outbursts. Recently, she completely ‘lost it’ when another driver tried to take the space she wanted in a Tesco car park.
Jo’s response was instant, and utterly disproportionate. ‘I was there first. So I got out of my car as he approached and shouted: ‘F*** you, a*******, I’m staying here until I get this space.’
‘The driver was a man much bigger than me, but I wasn’t intimidated. I told him we’d be stuck there all day if he didn’t move — which eventually he did.’
There’s the problem right there. If the Gynocratic State didn’t leash men, women wouldn’t be testing men’s patience like this cunt did.
Worryingly, it would seem this is a dangerous trend, seen by many as yet another dark side of equality.
Equalism is a false prophet heralding decay, misery, and eventual capitulation to nonbelievers.
Stories of professional women drinking themselves into ill health, trying to keep up with male colleagues are well documented.
Nothing good comes from reversing the sexual polarities.
But they are now matching men on the aggression front, too, putting themselves in physical danger — risking their good name, career prospects and relationships. In 1957, men were responsible for 11 violent offences for every one perpetrated by a woman — today, that is four to one.
Some of this shift towards more female violence (if accurate) is owed to the race replacement pogrom in Western countries. White women are fairly pacifist by world woman standards.
Add to the mix long hours, pressure juggling work and family life, plus fluctuating hormones caused by the menopause, PMS or childbirth and it’s no wonder so many women are exploding with rage.
I would’ve said “childlessness”. Failing at their most important life job has got to make careerist tankgrrls feel a little peeved.
Indeed, earlier this month it was reported that Oxford-educated Jocelyn Robson, a company director, 40, etched the word ‘c***’ in capital letters on two of her former boyfriends’ cars after they broke up.
“Oxford-educated”. “company director”. I guess it would be redundant to add “Maestro of Manjaws”.
And last month BBC presenter Jeremy Vine released footage of a woman — smartly dressed and driving a top-of-the-range car down one of London’s most expensive streets — who swore at him to ‘get the f*** off the road’ and allegedly kicked his bicycle.
These are the kind of women that men pump and remorselessly dump. And then these masculinized women have the gall to wonder why they have trouble finding a husband.
Research has also found that women are significantly more likely to be verbally and physically aggressive to men than vice versa — something physicians are seeing more of in their clinics.
Correction: BETA men. Since it’s obvious to anyone who has trawled a social media account that the ranks of weepy supplicating beta males in the West is at an all-time high, it’s no wonder women are lashing out at them. Weak men are like fat women: each defies the opposite sex’s romantic needs.
‘We are treating more women than ever who are struggling to regulate their emotions and express themselves appropriately,’
Sounds like the typical problem of men. This is what it looks like when the modren woman’s estrogen level are as low as the modren nümale’s testosterone level: bitterness, spite, aggression, acting out from an uneasy feeling that the world ain’t right.
And why is this anger afflicting so many upstanding women, the sort you might hope would be immune to, or too ashamed of, having outbursts?
“Upstanding” translated from the equalist leftoid mewlspeak means “over-credentialed careerist shrew”.
Some experts suggest women believe that such outward displays of aggression allow them to seize the initiative from traditionally dominant men.
NOPE. That’s not it. The usual feminist answer to these sorts of social changes is never the right one.
The right answer is that power abhors a vacuum. And nobody abhors the loss of male power more than a woman, who will rush in to fill it with nagging, passive-aggressive bitching, and closed legs.
Whether it’s in the workplace or around the dining table, shouting, swearing or throwing things are increasingly viewed as valid methods for women to assert themselves.
Aggrocunts aren’t interested in asserting themselves. What they’re doing is crying out for a chance to be a feminine woman again who doesn’t have to assert herself.
Such outbursts can also become addictive, a form of almost animalistic release.
Women who are regularly dicked by a self-entitled ZFG jerkboy feel no need for further animalistic release.
But as well as this rush, Jo also admits to feeling under constant pressure to provide for her family.
Economically self-sufficient gogrrls betray the essence of their sex.
Thankfully Steven who works with disabled children,
has learned how to cope with her outbursts. As mild-mannered as Jo is volatile, he’s found that the best thing to do is to walk away and let the tantrum burn itself out.
Right answer: SHUT THE FUCK UP JO *readies pimp hand*
Her stepchildren, too, have learned to walk away from her outbursts.
Mix-and-match broken family. Cunt stepmom. Shit writes itself.
‘Our relationship is still strained, which is a shame, but I feel convinced she is as much to blame as me.’
Pathologically narcissistic BPD supercunt spotted.
And when, last year, she decided a driver was too close behind her as she kept to a 30mph speed limit, she braked suddenly and got out of the car. ‘I asked the driver, a young man, what the hell he thought he was doing driving up to my bumper,’ she says. ‘My heart was pounding as he called me a bitch and drove off.’
A young shitlord, to be precise.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, she has upset family and friends with her behaviour. In restaurants, she has embarrassed loved ones by high-handedly sending back food she considers isn’t good enough.
By the way, if a woman ever does this on a first date, you have complete license to exit through the kitchen and leave her with the bill.
DIVERSITY + FEMINISM = UNLOVABLE CUNTS
The sexual market is the one market to rule them all.
That’s a classic Chateau maxim. But reader Daffyduck thinks there may be evidence of a Current Year contradiction of the maxim.
My question to the proprietors is this: if the sexual market is the primary market, why do so many women (the vast majority of women where I live in the UK), do everything they can to lower their SMV? Tattoos, obesity, single mummery – all so ubiquitous now it’s close to impossible to find a woman that doesn’t have some dire self induced SMV cratering characteristic. Thank you.
On the face of it, this does strike one as a refutation of the primacy of the sexual market. But digging a little deeper into the mechanics of mate acquisition in postmodern Western societies, we find that the maxim holds as true as ever.
It’s a fact that obesity lowers every single fat chick’s SMV, often dramatically. 99.9% of men would choose a slender babe over a fat chick if they had the option to do so. (78.4% of black men)
Tattoos generally ding female SMV, although this self-induced body modification has mixed results depending on the woman sporting them. On hot babes, tattoos that don’t occupy much skinscape have a neutral to occasionally positive effect on their SMV. And don’t neglect the handicap principle, which postulates that prime nubility girls get tattoos as a way to advertise they have excess SMV to spare (The “Look at me, I’m so hot I can afford to defile my body and you’ll still love me” whore’s brag.)
Single mommery lowers female marital market value (similarly, their long-term relationship worth). As with tattoos on hot babes, single mommery won’t detract much from a woman’s SMV, but it will severely penalize a woman’s value as a long-term partner.
So as we can see, of the three SMV-altering inputs, only obesity reliably craters a woman’s SMV. Tattoos and single mommery are best avoided, but if a woman has a super tight bang-able body, most men won’t let a butterfly tat or a screaming sprog stop them (at least for the night. heh).
Here’s where we get to the grist explaining the source of Daffyduck’s confusion: Sexual markets are vulnerable to changes in the incentives for paternal investment. (Paternal investment itself is a crucial aspect of the sexual market.) As women become more economically self-sufficient and sexually liberated their mate acquisition algorithm begins to emphasize the targeting of men for sexual and romantic validation and to undervalue men who would make dependable resource providers.
Likewise, men who are less interested in commitment and family formation would seek out women primarily for sexual thrills rather than their maternal instinct or faithfulness.
If this is the operative sexual market, then tattoos and single mommery would not only have little effect on women’s SMVs, they may very well raise their SMVs by advertising a greater willingness to go all the way right away, (and to not make much of a fuss when she’s dumped post-chaste).
Now ask yourself, where do you see women with lots of garish tattoos and bastard spawn? The lower classes. And where do you see less dependable fly-by-night men? The lower classes. In the upper classes single mommery is still rare and tattoos, though more common than they once were, are tastefully inconspicuous. Obesity, too, is rarer among upper class women.
So it’s in the lower classes (now gradually expanding into the working and middle classes) where the sexual market has responded to the changing incentives and women have resorted to more “slut signaling” accoutrements like tattoos, skimpy trashy clothes, and yes even bastard spawn (a single mom is a slutty mom).
In the upper classes, paternal investment is still important, so we see less of this among the women who have kept to the traditional SMV norms of their sex: slenderness, clear skin, and childlessness.
Ok, you ask, if tats and single mommery are slut cues to men on the make, what about obesity? No man wants to boff a blob if he has a choice.
Female obesity does present a difficulty for the theory of sexual market primacy….until we realize that very very few women voluntarily choose to be fat (unlike the many who choose to get tats or bear the devil bastards of one night stands). Most fat women want to be thinner, so they know, whether they admit it to anyone or drown their egos in a vat of fat acceptance platitudes, that fatness kills their SMV dead.
Larger societal and chemical forces have conspired in modern societies to accelerate and amplify the gaining of many pounds of fat. Unless you’re careful and actively avoid sugars, grazing and processed foods (all of which increased exponentially sometime in the mid-20th century) then you will likely get fatter than your ideal peak performance weight. (Reminder: For women, peak SMV performance is a 17-23 BMI, 0.7 waist-to-hip ratio, and an age that is roughly half the age of gogrrl feminists looking to conceive their first and only autistic child.)
The relatively recent explosion (heh) of obesity among Westerners suggests that the existence of all these female fatties is not a refutation of sexual market primacy theory, but is rather evidence of a rapidly changing input variable that is causing immense (heh) volatility in the sexual market, as men respond by “dropping out” to amuse themselves with acceptable substitutes that are better than sleeping with a fat chick: porn, controlled substances, video games, and now even gainful unemployment.
So if you notice a lot of tattoos, obesity, and single mommery in the sexual market, you can deduce the following dynamics are in play:
None of the above redact the primacy of the sexual market. They are instead first responder symptoms of a sexual market in dire flux. In the final analysis, SMV remains king of human society, and any secondary markets (economic, social, political) that exert downstream pressures on the sexual market will eventually be reconfigured, even corrupted, by the unstoppable feedback loops unleashed by a primal sexual market convulsing from rapid transformation of the individual players and the higher order systems those players design.
The above is a riff on thecunt’s LGBTQ speech from Friday, in which she labeled Trump’s supporters a “basket of deplorables” (aka normal, sexually dimorphic Americans).
“You could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the ‘basket of deplorables.’ They’re racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it,” Clinton said.
Hillary recites a moral panic laundry list of -isms and -phobias & ends with “you name it”. That coda is very telling. As an id-blurt it reveals that Hillary and her ilk don’t really feel the moral urgency of their frightwords as much as they use them as weapons to intimidate their cucked-up enemies into a cowardly submission.
Thecunt, whether she understands it or not, enunciated the tenets of the Left’s new Secularism faith. The Seven Deplorable Sins are a guide to how the typical shitlib measures a person’s worth, because everyone needs a religion, even shitlibs who have discarded Christian Puritanism for “enlightened” atheism. The religious compulsion is an evolved trait in humans; all that differs across generations is how it’s expressed.
Compare and cuntrast with the Seven Deadly Sins of traditional Christianity:
The difference? The Seven Deplorable Sins of Secularism are affronts to the high priests. The Seven Deadly Sins of Christianity are affronts to God and self.
As Twatter renegade @Ricky_Vaughn99 notes, our modern priests are like the Pharisees in Jesus’ time. And like the Pharisees, if you cross them they’ll try to cast you out of polite society.
The Seven Deplorable Sins are at their core rationalizations for a pleasure island autistopia where harm is banished, personal liberation is the highest ideal, and equality and fairness overcome human nature. And, coincidentally, where the moral paragons of this nonjudgmental religion are free to judge the rabble as unworthy of redemption. Heaven on earth, plus the inevitable feedback loops, unintended consequences, and community disruption that always follow in the wake of liberal utopias.
As a Pepe foot soldier quipped, the central principle of Secularism is “Don’t judge your neighbor as you don’t judge yourself”. It’s the religion of solipsists, (for if one where to judge another, that would mean one would have reason to judge oneself….and that way leads to bad feels).
As another Twatterer wryly noted, the vacuity of the Seven Deplorable Sins is revealed when we attempt to identify the inverse of them; in other words, their virtuous opposites.
Racism => Race Equalism
Sexism => “Men and women are the same except for genitals, and not even then”
Anti-Semitism => Ignore ethnic traits and tribal power imbalances
Islamophobia => NAMALT
Xenophobia => Xenophilia (but not in my backyard)
Homophobia => Love Wins
Judgmentalism => You are free to be judged, but not to judge (the one sin to rule them all)
The inverse of each of the Seven Deplorable Sins is the same: blindness. Pattern denial. Willful ignorance.
In contrast, the inverse of each of the traditional Seven Deadly Sins is a list of seven virtues.
The modern religion of Secularism doesn’t proselytize for anything Good. All it preaches is the child-like virtue of Not Bad. It aspires to nothing but avoidance of social opprobrium. The problem with that ethos is the ever-shifting definition of what qualifies as socially unacceptable. The Secularist’s Seven Deplorable Sins are outgrowths of temporal sensibilities and the detritus of verbally dexterous status whores jockeying for power, distinct in nature from the Seven Deadly Sins which resonate precisely because they tap into timeless truths about humanity and fallen man.
In case you aren’t on Twatter, this studious evisceration of an article written by Jonathon Morgan purporting to “prove” that the alt-right is filled with “radical extremists” intent on committing the next 9/11 is one of the best counter-salvos against an emergent shitlib hate meme I have come across.
I suggest you take some time to read it through. Conclusion: What Morgan identifies as evidence of “alt-right radicalization” is actually just evidence that the alt-right is saying things that the media ACTIVELY COVERS UP OR REFUSES TO SAY.
Aligning yourself against the anti-Gentile narrative of the leftoid media hivemind can now class you as a “radical extremist” who is part of a “breeding ground for terrorism”. Did you get that? If you mention an unauthorized fact concerning our wonderful Diversitopia you are the equivalent of an ISIS supporter and should be placed on an FBI anti-terrorism watch list.
We are dealing with some truly evil manipulative fucks running the show in America. It almost as if they’re doing everything in their power to bring to life the very angry backlash they claim to want to avoid.
PS Shitlibs love quoting this mathematically ignorant “statistic” from Time:
In fact, until the nightclub shootings in Orlando, white extremists had committed more attacks and killed more Americans than jihadist extremists since 9/11.
Do shitlibs even math? The word a shitlib hates to hear more than any other is “disproportionate”. Meaning, as a share of their population (1%), Muslims in America are 5,000% more likely than non-Muslim Americans to commit a terrorist attack.
If you thought the flow of nonWhites into America had recently slowed and our ruling class had graciously delayed the demographic swamping of Whites from the nation they created and which guiding principles only they can sustain, well….
New Data: Immigration Surged in 2014 and 2015
More than three million legal and illegal immigrants settled in the United States in the last two years
An analysis of new government data by the Center for Immigration Studies shows more than three million new legal and illegal immigrants settled in the United States in 2014 and 2015 — a 39 percent increase over the prior two years. The number of legal and illegal immigrants settling in the country is now higher than before the 2007 recession and may match the level in 2000 and 2001. Immigration from other countries has offset a decline in immigration from Mexico.
Several factors have likely contributed to the rebound, including cutbacks in enforcement, an improved economy, and the expansive nature of our legal immigration system (especially for long-term temporary visas such as guestworkers and foreign students).
We need that goddamned Trump Wall, post-haste.
All of the above numbers are based on publicly available information in Census Bureau data; no adjustments have been made for those missed by the bureau. But even without adjusting for undercount, the scale of new immigration is enormous.
Thank el presidente Gay Mulatto; if he wanted, he could have stopped this.
The big increase in new arrivals in the last two years was driven by a rise in immigration from Latin America, particularly countries other than Mexico; South Asia (e.g. Pakistan and India); and East Asia (e.g. China and Vietnam).
Great. Central American peasant conquest of the US is at an all-time high. We’ve replaced Mexicans with their more backward and violent cousins. At least we’ll get more authentically ethnic restaurants serving salmonella on a platter as part of the deal.
There isn’t enough rope in the world to deal with the traitors who reneged on their duty to insure domestic tranquility and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
Honduras fertility rate: 3.
This doesn’t just “stop”.
Via a Steve post that bitingly mocks David Brooks’ platitude slinging with an impressive economy of words, commenter guest adds,
Brooks: Those who try to reduce politics to these identities do real violence to national life.
For anyone wondering what an empty platitude looks like.
I don’t think it is empty. It’s very revealing. Not just for the psychology behind it, but for what it actually says. It empties out the term “nation,” admittedly, but that is what they, the Brooks types, think a nation is. A big nothing, full of interchangeable people. Or consumption units, if you will. You do damage to the Big, Empty, Interchangeable Nation when you take the consumption units and “reduce” them to their particular attributes.
Then you make all these smaller units, which might not get along. That’s what Brooksites think, anyway. In reality, the identities are real. It’s the Big Empty image that’s an illusion. And the identities will fight; there will be blood. You can’t avoid it by redefining “nation” to preclude their existence.
Shorter version: Diversity + Proximity = War. Anyhow, this talk of “interchangeable consumption units” sounds awfully familiar. Another Sailer commenter, Njguy73, excerpts the relevant connection,
“You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations. There are no peoples…There is only one holistic system of systems, one…dominion of dollars…There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM, and ITT, and AT&T, and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide, and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today….We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale. The world is a college of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable bylaws of business. The world is a business, Mr. Beale. It has been since man crawled out of the slime…” –
Arthur Jensen (Ned Beatty) to Howard Beale (Peter Finch), Network, 1976 film
The consumerization of nation requires the eradication of racial identity, because only race and nation affiliation obstructs the uninterrupted wealth aggrandizement of the symbol manipulators. Globalist ruling elite have taken the message of Network to heart. guest qualifies,
Network, like all things liberal, is pointed the wrong way. We had a country with business in charge, once, and it didn’t look like this. Ideas and idea-men have the power. It’s universities, NGOs, and permanent governments, the managerial elite, who are in charge. They run the corporations, too. Business is along for the ride and allowed to benefit.
Lag time is a factor in these monstrous social upheavals. 1950s American business class didn’t look like they do today, but they agitated for the global order that has erupted in the past fifteen years, and planted the seed that would grow into the multikult kudzu draining the nation’s soil of her life-giving blood.
The 2016 American election pits two ideas of such majestic consequence that it really can be considered a life or death choice: will we be a dominion of dollars (or renminbi), or a nation of people?