Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Self-aggrandizement’ Category

I’ve been meaning to start up a Stone Cold Truth T-shirt Company monetized through something like CafePress, but, well, life, like my meat, intrudes. It’s too bad, really, because perusing back issues of this blogsheet reminds me of all the stick figure drawings and verbal jujitsu that would look great emblazoned on a pec-hugging v-neck, to be worn to da clubs to provoke tingle-gushing shit tests.

ANYHO, a Gabster thought the following by yours truly — an ASCII tablet of inscribed Chateau Principles inspired by a stray musing about the nature of the power of sophistic skypery — would make a great graphic tee:

Jews understand that a coherent, pithy world view can subvert civilizations. Right back atcha, schlomo inc, the chateau world view, annotated:

Chicks dig power
Men dig beauty
Equalism is a lie
Sex differences are real
Race differences are real
Culture is race
Race is genes
and the hour is late

There’s a dissident business owner on Gab who goes by the handle @cryptofashion who may be interested in seeing my Weltanschauung on a line of t-shirts, papuan cock sleeves, beach towels, and bikini bottoms (waif font required).

It’s time to Make Shitlibs Uncomfortable Again.

Read Full Post »

We can learn something about ourselves from the animals who share this earth with us. (Warning: Not all lessons SJW-approved.)

Mongoose are one of the few species known to go to war (along with humans and chimpanzees) and females use this to their advantage when it’s time to mate.

Family troops suffer badly from inbreeding, which means pups are less healthy and are more likely to die. But mongoose are fiercely territorial, so mating with a stranger is extremely difficult.

The devious female will deliberately lead her family into a rival clan’s territory to start a war, then use the chaos to scurry off into the bushes with her chosen male to mate.

Mongoose, chimps, and humans are among the few species who go to war. And how do they do it? The females lure their men to war, and then in the chaos fuck the other tribe’s males. Sound familiar?

***

A female prairie dog is fertile for just six hours each year, but during that time she will mate with up to six different males within her group.

The more partners she has, the greater the danger of being caught in the open by a predator or catching a sexually transmitted disease.

Not all prairie dogs are promiscuous – a third have just one partner – but those that are increase their chances of conceiving and can even give birth to pups with different fathers in the same litter. That genetic diversity reduces the risk of the whole family being wiped out by a new disease.

r-selection versus K-selection within the same species. Sound familiar?

Liz said: “We are still working out how a female can mate with lots of different males and bear young from each of them. It is a fantastic strategy.”

Yes, the human female is very excited with the idea of being able to fuck lots of alphas during her ovulation and carry the issue of multiple fathers.

***

They may be the most beautiful birds on the planet, but even peacocks struggle to find a mate.

So lusty males have come up with an ingenious way to get lucky.

When males mate they climax with a strangled squawk. This pitiful sound attracts other females that are keen to check out this stud as a potential partner.

Less desirable males have even learned to fake this cry when they cannot find a mate, as a way to lure peahens into having sex with them.

Liz says: “You might think that peacocks use so much energy looking flamboyant that they don’t have much intelligence in their little head, but that’s not the case. Faking the mating cry is an incredibly cunning ploy to make females think they are in demand, so they come running.”

aka peahen preselection. Women (and peahens) dig men (and peacocks) who are loved by other women. Game crosses the species barrier!

***

The Long Tailed Manakin puts on a song and dance to attract a mate.

Two male birds work together on a slender branch to perform a series of synchronised dance moves, including the cartwheel and the popcorn. The better the dance, the more likely they are to attract a female. But only one dance partner can get the girl.

While the alpha male flies off to mate with his new admirer, the subordinate is left spitting feathers.

Liz says: “This looks like the ultimate betrayal as the poor wing man is left with nothing to show for his efforts. But when the dominant male dies, the subordinate will inherit his dance site.

“Females will return to the best dance sites year after year, so his hard work eventually pays off.”

The male feminist/beta male orbiter strategy: Be a shoulder for the girl to cry on about all the jerkboys she loved, let season for a few years, then make your move during a moment of weakness, like when she hasn’t been boned for more than three months.

***

The saying ‘the female of the species is more deadly than the male’ is certainly true of the praying mantis. She beheads and devours her mate after their 40 hour sex marathon.

The female lays hundreds of eggs, which requires a huge amount of energy. Eating the male increases the quality of the eggs and the number she produces by up 40 per cent.

Liz says: “This sounds horrific, but it is just nature at its best.”

…she giggled with delight.

“Nature has made the male mantis far more nutritious that her regular diet of caterpillars and butterflies. It is absolutely logical that once she has mated with the male, she should eat him too.”

One species, the false garden mantis, can even release powerful pheromones to attract males before she is ready to mate. She eats the first male to arrive to ensure she has the nutrition and energy she needs to produce the highest quality eggs, before mating with the next.

The inverse of alpha fux-beta bux, in this case beta bux (in the material form of the beta himself) is followed by the alpha fux.

***

Dawson’s burrowing bees have one of the most frenzied approaches to mating in the animal world.

Thousands of females spend most of the year hidden beneath the baked earth before digging their way to freedom, only to be confronted by hundreds of thousands of males.

Each female only mates once, so the males fight it out, mobbing each female until there are huge balls of bees fighting each other with their powerful jaws and spiny legs.

These battles are so intense the males sometimes kill the object of their desire by accident. The fight continues until the female emerges with one male on her back and they must dash to the safety of the nearby scrubland to mate before the rest of the bees catch them.

Beta male thirst, complete with the occasional #BeeToo infraction.

Liz says: “Violence is nature’s way of separating the strong from the weak, so this mating frenzy is brutally effective way of selecting the strongest genes.”

“Let’s you and him fight,” the human female coyly implored.

Read Full Post »

that one guy (the MPC-celeb?) emailed a NYBetaTimes article with a link to a study finding that….SHOCKER…White liberals aren’t so keen on open borders when the borders open directly into their wealthy homogeneous superzips.

SCIENCE: putting pseudo-“immigrants” into super white liberal communities makes the shitlibs favor immigration restrictions.

***

Ryan Enos, a political scientist at Harvard, published a book last year, “The Space Between Us,” suggesting that the ideological commitment of liberals in these and other similar communities may waver, or fail entirely, when their white homogeneity is threatened.

Not only is the upscale wing of the Democratic Party an unreliable ally of the left on economic issues — as I have noted in this column before and as Lily Geismer and Matthew D. Lassiter eloquently pointed out in The Times last week — but Enos demonstrates that the liberal resolve of affluent Democrats can disintegrate when racially or ethnically charged issues like neighborhood integration are at stake.

When the self-aggrandizement of the signal is challenged by the consequences of the virtue, the signal retreats.

Six years ago, Enos looked at nine townships southwest of Boston that were “overwhelmingly racially and politically liberal.” As such, these communities were a “test of the power of demographic change because these were people who, we might think, would be unlikely to change their attitudes in the face of immigration.”

There’s nothing more satisfying than getting a liberal to betray her own principles.

Enos and his colleagues conducted an experiment, which is described in detail in a 2014 paper, “Causal effect of intergroup contact on exclusionary attitudes,” published by the National Academy of Sciences. The results are thought provoking.

Testing the signal-to-lawnboys ratio.

Enos described the experiment as:

a randomized controlled trial testing the causal effects of repeated intergroup contact, in which Spanish-speaking confederates were randomly assigned to be inserted, for a period of days, into the daily routines of unknowing Anglo-whites living in homogeneous communities in the United States, thus simulating the conditions of demographic change.

Libs preen
Beans stream
Now not so keen
on a vibrant scene

To achieve this goal, during the summer of 2012, Enos dispatched “a small number of Spanish-speaking confederates to commuter train stations in homogeneously Anglo communities every day, at the same time, for two weeks.”

The stations were on two Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority commuter rail lines into Boston — one starting in Worcester, the other in Forge Park — at nine stations in upscale, mostly white towns.

Enos reported that the Anglo commuters he studied had an average income of $143,365, and 88 percent had college degrees, compared with 30.4 percent nationally that year. The median household income for the country at large was $51,371 in 2012, according to the census.

Shitlibs act, despite their professed ideals, as if credentials and money are the traits of the virtuous GoodWhite.

Subjects were exposed to the same Spanish-speaking persons in a location near their homes for an extended period, as would be the situation if immigrants had moved into their neighborhood and used the public transportation.

The Spanish-speaking confederates reported to Enos that:

persons noticed and displayed some unease with them: for example reporting that “Because we are chatting in Spanish, they look at us. I don’t think it is common to hear people speaking in Spanish on this route.” After the experiment, the confederates reported that other passengers were generally friendly to them but also reported that they felt people noticed them for “not being like them and being Latino.”

After the perfunctory nervous niceties that shitlibs excel at when their all-White dreamscape is suddenly rattled by invaders from their nightmares, we get to the juicy stuff leaking from the lib-id:

Members of the treatment groups and control groups were surveyed before and after the two weeklong experiments in an effort to identify the effect of exposure to Spanish-speaking people. In both surveys, respondents were asked three questions about immigration along with other more general questions […]

How did the respondents’ answers change?

Treated subjects [ed: subjects exposed to increased diversity on their daily commutes] were far more likely to advocate a reduction in immigration from Mexico and were far less likely to indicate that illegal immigrants should be allowed to remain in this country.

WOMP there it is.

[The experiment] demonstrated that exclusionary attitudes can be stimulated by even very minor, noninvasive demographic change: in this case, the introduction of only two persons. […]

The good liberal people catching trains in the Boston suburbs became exclusionary.

Exposure to two young Spanish speakers for just a few minutes, or less, for just three days had driven them toward anti-immigration policies associated with their political opponents.

LMAO. When shitlibs virtue signal, the signal is typically a few orders of magnitude more powerful than the claimed virtue.

Segregation and White voting behavior was examined:

A white voter in the least-segregated metropolitan area was 10 percentage points more likely to vote for Obama than a white voter in the most-segregated area.

These voting patterns, according to Enos, reflect what might be called a self-reinforcing cycle of prejudice.

In the mid-to-late twentieth century, Enos writes, “whites — spurred by forces including their own racism [ed: aka pattern recognition] — abandoned the inner cities.” But, he goes on, that “is not where the story ends. Attitudes do not remain static.” In practice, the very fact of being segregated creates an environment in which hostile views “become even more negative and their political consequences even more severe.”

That’s not it. What happens is that Whites who have found their all-White elysium will want to protect it from the very real negative social consequences of Diversity™.

Prejudice may have helped cause segregation, but then the segregation helped cause even more prejudice.

The segregation reminded Whites just how good life can be without Diversity™, so their attitudes toward racial overrun hardened. ftfy.

Liberal democracies endorse diversity, Enos writes,

indeed, it is often considered one of our strengths and liberal individuals usually favor diversity as a matter of ideology and public policy.

The Equalism Ideology is a religion of secular degeneration, and should therefore not be used as the premise of public policy.

We often support diversity out of a genuine ideological commitment and because we rightly perceive that diversity can improve the performance of many organizations, such as universities and businesses.

Rightly perceive? There’s Enos’s (and his liberal friends’) problem right there: they have constructed a worldview based on a false premise. Namely, the false premise that diversity of race and ethnicity “improves performance”. Every real world observation and replicable study has found otherwise.

But, he continues, “looking across the world and even across states and cities within the United States, most of us would rather not live with some of the social, economic, and political consequences of diversity.” This is what Enos calls “the liberal dilemma.”

Or what I call “the liberal delusion”.

Not all of Enos’s findings are bleak. Group hostility, he writes, grows as the size of the immigrant population grows until it reaches a certain point and then begins to recede:

The relationship between the proportion of an out-group in an area and group-based bias is curvilinear: it becomes greater as the out-group proportion increases until reaching a tipping point and then starting to decrease. This means that when a group makes up a large portion of a place — for concreteness, say 40 percent — each additional person above 40 percent actually decreases group-based bias.

LOL is this guy pulling our legs? No shit intergroup hostility decreases when the outgroup becomes a majority; the beset-upon ingroup must trade in their hostility for appeasement when their numbers are insufficient to protect the homogeneity of their turf.

Ryan [Enos]’s book is brilliant and his findings dovetail with my belief that we’re in for a tough road ahead as the country diversifies, at least in the short term.

Liberals are very sanguine about the eventually of a happy, functional diversitopia. It’s always a “short term” tough road until we reach nirvana. 400 years of black dysfunction and inability to assimilate to White norms and values belies the shitlib hope of a “short term” bump in the road. Now of course, the smarter shitlibs know there will be no short term tough road, that instead it will take tens if not hundreds of generations of racial mixing to bring about their vision of a White-Asian elite ruling over a muddy peasantry of braindead consumerists. This is why the elites have begun pushing miscegenation so hard in entertainment, media, and advertising. They are acclimating Whites to accept their racial dissolution.

The Trumpening angle:

“But the polarizing rhetoric of politicians ‘politicizes’ the places where Americans live,” Sides, Tesler and Vavreck observe,

and people who live in places with a recent influx of immigrants then become more concerned about immigration. This unfolded in 2016: white Democrats voted for Trump in the highest numbers where the Latino population had grown the most.

Diversity + Proximity = War (by political means and then, later, by violent means if the political solution has failed).

Read Full Post »

It’s no mystery who among Whites supports open borders and the consequent swamping of America with Swarth World spindrift: Single White Women.

As I teased in the previous post, here I’ll explain why Single White Women (SWWs) are in love with the idea of a borderless America that is overrun with Dirt World detritus. I call it the Shiny Object Theory of the SWW Open Borders Welcoming Committee.

My reasoning is simple: sexual selection electrifies all human interaction, and women have evolved to display themselves to catch the attention of high value men.

The fewer high value men there are, and/or the more attractive women there are, the more frequent and intense the sexual display of women. Supply and demand. So, for instance, when men are in short supply, as has been hypothesized was the situation for prehistorical European hunter-gatherers with high male attrition rates from hunting megafauna, the few surviving men are able to afford to be choosy, and they choose only the most beautiful of women from their tribes.

It’s speculated that this is how blonde and red hair, and blue and green eyes, evolved in European White women…a long time ago those choosy men had to be enticed with the biological equivalent of shiny baubles, so women evolved bright, eye-catching accoutrements like blonde hair, blue eyes, big titties, swayback, and exquisite White woman facial beauty.

White male choosiness gave the world White female beauty. God may have made man in His image, but White man made White woman in his vision.

Getting back to the subject of this post, if we start with the premise that the number of high value White Men has decreased relative to the number of Single White Women who want them — a premise which has sound footing, given the surge of economically self-sufficient White women and the retreat of White men from positions of power, influence, and cultural supremacy to languish in faptivity — then there would consequently develop an increase in sexual display by White women to more effectively bait HSMV White men into relationships (or at least into pump and dumps).

Subcultures would spring from this sexual market shift in female strategy, such as Slut Pride, Deep Thots, multicolored hair, skintight yoga pants showing camel toe, wine mommery, and the omnipresent social media attention whore.

One other negative externality would be apparent: SWWs agitating for more Twerk World trash, because nothing sparkles quite as brightly as a diamond in the dirt.

Sweden is overflowing with pretty blondes, so any one blonde doesn’t stand out much (which is probably why the brunette hair color was evolutionarily retained in European White women). Similarly, America was once 90% White (a mere fifty years ago), but its homogeneity and pride of heritage also meant there were a lot of relatively hsmv White men to go around. Back then, SWWs didn’t have to viciously compete for a shrinking pool of hsmv White men.

Today, they do, and these SWWs competing for fewer hsmv White men see open borders as a short cut to standing out in a rapidly muddying crowd. That mousy, stringy-haired sandy blonde plain jane with the muffin top might not be a catch in 90% White America, but she’s a fucking princess bathed in ethereal light in 40% Earth Tone America.

The contrast of hordes of (to White men not named ¡Jeb!) sexually invisible squatamalans relieves the pressure on Mediocre Mauves to signal their sexual readiness or to compete in a losing battle with naturally prettier girls. Thanks to the magic of polychromatic patriotism, the middle of the belle curve SWWs can reap the reward of more hsmv White man attention without incurring any of the responsibility to look and act more pleasingly feminine.

Of course, as I’ve argued, female beauty is objective, universally agreed upon, and biometrically standardized. A millimeter here, a millimeter there, according to God of Biomechanics spec, can mean the difference between involuntary solitude and catching the eye of President Trump. So White men aren’t going to start believing HB5s are HB9s. But that doesn’t matter; what matters is perception. And if even hsmv White men perceive their menu of minxes disappearing under a gloomy tide of boner-killing brown, they might start to consider the romantic appeal of the White HB5s.

These White men won’t be happy, but if the perceived alternative is a tubular desert trekker then they’ll settle for the White HB5 and make a go of it. And comparative beauty isn’t Fake News; we’ve all noticed that a blah girl will look more bangable when she’s standing next to a fug. It’s a trick of the male brain that ensures the human species doesn’t stop in its tracks when the supply of beauties dips below the threshold at which the majority of men feel they have a chance.

Paradoxically, the American obesity epidemic that has gone worldwide in the past two decades may be partly fueling SWW clit boners for rapefugees, by providing fat White women an even less desirable horde of females against which to compare favorably, because the Third World peasantry invading America is increasingly Girth World peasantry.

There really is no end to the ways in which closed border homogeneous White nations are more romantically appealing than open border diversitopias, so make it your life’s work to shame any SWW who shrieks with vitriolic virtue about the blessings of Diversity™. She is literally advocating for the death of your dating life.

Read Full Post »

Personality, like nearly all human traits, is heritable. There remains debate about how much of personality is genetically predetermined versus how much is formed and shaped by interaction with the environment, but unlike IQ which is hard to change at all over the long-term with intensive intervention, personality is “spongier” and less resistant to active efforts to change it. One can adapt and alter one’s personality to suit certain social contexts, and though personality tends to rebound to one’s genetic default over time it’s possible through repeated efforts to make nontrivial and long-lasting improvements in one’s character and demeanor where one sees fit to do so.

Since personality is an umbrella term for human relational characteristics that include charisma and coolness, Game falls under its rubric. Game is, essentially, cultivated personality.

I bring this up because yesterday’s post about psychological biases links to research that strongly suggests the old Game maxim “fake it till you make it” really works.

10. If you think of yourself as flexible, you will do much better.

People’s own theories about who they are influence how they behave. One’s self-image can therefore easily become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Carol Dweck of Stanford University has spent much time researching such effects. Her takeaway: if we view a characteristic as mutable, we are inclined to work on it more. On the other hand, if we view a trait such as IQ or willpower as largely unchangeable and inherent, we will do little to improve it.

Note that this isn’t social priming (which deserves more study but to date hasn’t been very replicable). This is about adopting a mentality that encourages practice, and people will do better at any task or skill if they have practiced it. Not everyone will achieve the heights of facility with the skill they practice, but they will get better than not doing anything at all.

In Dweck’s studies of students, men and women, parents and teachers, she gleaned a basic principle: people with a rigid sense of self take failure badly. They see it as evidence of their limitations and fear it; fear of failure, meanwhile, can itself cause failure.

Some people (we call them black pillers, mgtows, and feminists) enjoy wallowing in failure and pessimism because, as I wrote, “The men who swear up and down [self-improvement] is impossible are usually the men who daren’t try. Fear of success is as strong in the human condition as is fear of failure, because success, unlike failure, sweeps away the refuge of excuses and rationalizations weak men flee to for comfort.”

In contrast, those who understand that a particular talent can be developed accept setbacks as an invitation to do better next time. Dweck thus recommends an attitude aimed at personal growth. When in doubt, we should assume that we have something more to learn and that we can improve and develop.

President Trump’s secular religion is personal improvement. I think it worked out for him.

But even people who have a rigid sense of self are not fixed in all aspects of their personality. According to psychologist Andreas Steimer of the University of Heidelberg in Germany, even when people describe their strengths as completely stable, they tend to believe that they will outgrow their weaknesses sooner or later. If we try to imagine how our personality will look in several years, we lean toward views such as: “Level-headedness and clear focus will still be part and parcel of who I am, and I’ll probably have fewer self-doubts.”

If you think you can change — better yet, if you think you WILL change — then you’ll be more eager to set about doing those things which help bring about the change you seek. It’s a psy op that denies the genetic overlord his tribute in predetermination by creating a cognitive loophole that evades (if not entirely) the helical straitjacket.

Overall, we tend to view our character as more static than it is, presumably because this assessment offers security and direction. We want to recognize our particular traits and preferences so that we can act accordingly. In the final analysis, the image that we create of ourselves is a kind of safe haven in an ever-changing world.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it: create an image of yourself as a charming mofo irresistible to girls. THAT should be your safe haven (safe for you, not so much for the delicate hearts of your conquests). Create it till you make it.

And the moral of the story? According to researchers, self-knowledge is even more difficult to attain than has been thought.

This explains why the majority of men who come here for guidance fight tooth and nail against the lessons imparted. Self-knowledge eludes them, because it’s frightening to contemplate the abyss at the center of our souls. Very few will heed my wisdom, but if even one man is saved it will have been worth it.

Read Full Post »

Heritage Blogger A to the E has a good post up about the sexlessness of Millennials (a paradox in an age of overt sexual degeneracy and proud slut walks), in which he pulls the polls (heh) to uncover data on women’s idea of what constitutes sexual harassment.

The following graph is sourced from a Reuters-Ipsos poll asking women if they consider unwanted compliments about appearance to be sexual harassment. The results, by age (“don’t know” responses are excluded, N = 1,958:

You can go there at the link to view the graphs. Basically, the percentage of women who think unwanted compliments about appearance are sexual harassment drops linearly and precipitously with age, confirming the age-old Chateau wisdom that the hungry dog loves table scraps while the well-fed dog turns his nose up at a buffet.

What is deemed “unwanted [compliments]” is entirely up to the subjective judgment of the woman in question. It’s tough for men to gauge whether or not the compliment is wanted or unwanted until after it is made.

This makes apprehension manifesting as approach anxiety relevant again for men. Exploding Muhammads excepted, today it’s relevant not because the woman’s brother or father might put a shiv in your ribs for approaching, as was the case earlier in human history. It’s relevant instead because the woman who is approached may decide not only is the one who approached her beneath her attention, but he should suffer for thinking she’d have anything to do with him.

American beta and omega males (the latter group housing your typical incel) have it tougher today than they have in a long long while. Not only are American women fatter and more obnoxious, and older when they do decide to grace a beta male with a pre-Wall impact relationship, but the discount bints are more cruelly sadistic against the bottom 80% of American men who impertinently hit on them.

For alphas, this isn’t that big of a deal, though it carries risks even for them. For lesser betas and omegas, however, it’s ruinous.

Incel hate is punching down. I wonder if libs understand that? (they do, they don’t care, they’re unprincipled). I mock pretentious losers. I help honest losers trying to better themselves. My blog is a guidebook to lift incels out of celibacy, to lift omegas to betas, to lift betas to alphas, and to remind them all that what alphas possess isn’t unknowable or unlearnable. Never have the beta male masses needed Game wisdom more than now, when women have been let loose to wreak havoc on the sexual market and in turn on civilization.

The following graph shows the percentages of women, by race and presidential vote, who consider unwanted compliments about appearance to be sexual harassment. Sample sizes for blacks, Hispanics, and Asians are too small to break out separately so they are combined and presented here as “non-white”:

No surprises in that graph. Female Trump voters are far less offended by “unwanted compliments about their appearance” than are female thecunt voters. This skew applies almost as notably to White Trump and thecunt voters.

Why? Well, shitlib women are snowflakes with fragile egos. Shitlib women are also, on average, uglier than Trump women. Ugly women tend to get unwanted compliments from soyboys, noodle-armed male feminists, fat depraved challahwood producers, and swarthy quasimodos, so they get real bitter real fast about the whole male-female courtship dynamic, and sublimate their frustrations in the PoundMeToo movement.

Also unsurprising to anyone who’s lived a day in his life, White women are considerably less likely than nonWhite women to say unwanted compliments about appearance constitute sexual harassment. This is because nonWhite women receive most of those compliments in the form of cat-calling from their nonWhite men.

As AE mentioned, some of this skew is due to older women supporting Trump and younger single women supporting thecunt, but not all of the skew. Differences in female attractiveness and the (relatively) lower attractiveness of nonWhite men account for some of the bias. Call it the Chad Effect.

Commenters IHTG and Chris Lutz bring up another salient reason for the readily aggrieved spitefulness of the careerist shrike:

Familiarity breeds contempt?

Familiarity breeds verklempft, for those who work in entertainment, media, or finance.

IHTG, I was thinking the same thing. I think there are a host of reasons.

1. Your point. You deal with women all day. You want to deal with them later in more social situations?

2. Prevalence of porn.

3. The loose sexual mores have created a situation where it’s the Alphas getting the girls and the rest are stuck on the sidelines.

4. Toxic feminism which makes interacting with women in social situations legally dangerous.

Sexualizing everything has killed sex.

Too much asexual time around women, as would be the case in a sterile office environment, corrupts the frisson between the sexes that is necessary for romance. Men and women need each other to be a little mysterious to the opposite sex to fully charge the libido.

AE’s post aside, my attention was caught by sid’s comment, recapitulating a common refrain I hear from Game skeptics.

In a number of blue cities in North America, especially those in tech, talking up women is honestly more trouble than it’s worth. I could repeat what everyone has said here, but why bother? You all know what I’m talking about.

For a lot of guys, the best that happens is that they get laid more frequently. To do so, you need to scour your ego with an acid bath, talking with girls who honestly have few positive qualities but a lot of entitlement, snarkiness, and just plain rude behavior.

At worst, you can be accused of sexual harassment and rape, the definitions of which become blurier every month.

I’ve found that if you’re a charming mofo, girls are unlikely to wake up in the morning thinking about lodging a false rape accusation against you.

After a certain point, spending your free time playing video games and watching pornography is a whole lot less painful and not all that much more shallow of a way to while away your hours.

If you have a high libido and a silver tongue, porn and vidja won’t sufficiently scratch your hedonistic itch.

I think pornography is corrosive to the male mind, and while the occasional video game isn’t bad, you’re definitely not living up to your potential if you’re playing 100 hour long fetch quests. Even so, I can’t call either activity all that much better or worse than talking with a feminist woman in hopes of getting a date.

Porn and vid are dangerous because they co-opt the dopamine channels in male brains, squatting there by spoofing the rewards of sexual conquest and status acquisition.

What is to be done? I frequent manosphere and PUA forums and blogs far, far less frequently than I used to, but I don’t think I’ve heard a solid answer.

Game and self-improvement only go so far. Both are essentially zero-sum endeavors on the dating market, though I guess the average guy being able to talk to a girl competently MIGHT make the dating market more egalitarian. I don’t know.

Game isn’t a zero sum activity. Think on this analogy: Imagine the cosmic overlord snapped his fingers and every American woman became an HB10. The sum total of happy arousal in men would increase beyond the environment’s carrying capacity. Boners would pop far and wide, jizz would flow like the Nile. (gross but needfully vivid) There would be an increase in the sum total of male joy.

Likewise for Game. More charismatic men means an increase in the sum total of female joy.

If you want to nerd out and summon your Inner Darwin, sure, after many generations there would be sexual selection effects that re-establish a natural SMV hierarchy. Today’s HB10s would become the distant future’s plain janes. Over time, picky alpha males would choose to wife up and impregnate HB10++s, while regular HB10s sob tears of feminist butthurt, and the contours of a female SMV belle curve would reappear. Same for the charismatic men; today’s charming jerkboys would evolve to tomorrow’s hypnotizing jerkboys.

After all, there were hot cavewomen millennia ago who turned all the cavemen’s eyes, but today that poor cavewoman transposed into our modren sexual market would be alone and unloved, barely an SMV notch above Amanjaw Marcuntte.

But none of that really matters much to the man living now, in this gineline. He learns Game, he gets more and better quality attention from women. A fat woman loses weight, she gets more and better quality attention from men.

Speaking of zero sum activity, here’s Scott Adams on the desperate sophistry of a cornered Deep State:

Read Full Post »

Leftoids love identity politics — less euphemistically, race and sex politics — because to date they’ve been able to exploit nonWhite and feminist shrike tribalism (aka identity) to advance their political goals, which is basically the destruction of European Christendom.

Inciting chauvinist and tribal feelings in women and minorities against White men has worked out well for the Left, because Whites are the least tribal race on earth and therefore the most susceptible to accusations of privilege and oppression and to pleas for warped notions of fairness that handicap Whites to the benefit of the anti-Whites.

But I’ve noticed something simmering in the last few years, as realtalk about race and sex has seeped into the neural crevices of the Chaimstream Media hivemind. That old anti-identity politics Boomer meme is finding new purchase in the rhetoric of the goyennes of acceptable discourse. You’re gonna hear in the coming months and years a lot more calls to “abandon identity politics” from the Left and the CuckRight (but I repeat myself), and the reason is simple: they’re afraid. Afraid that White men are embracing identity politics with the same eagerness that nonWhites and women have embraced it. The Left wielded a double-edged identity politics sword and now that blade is swinging back at them.

And that’s gonna kill the Left’s identity politics cash cow for good, because White men (as distinguished from (((fellow white men)))) organizing politically and culturally for their own benefit means White men resisting their psychological and economic fleecing and disrupting for good the host-parasite relationship that has been the primary feature of the Anglosphere since WWI.

I thought of this post and wrote it before I was informed by commenter redone that Chris Langan, the American with supposedly the highest tested IQ in the world, recently wrote the following about identity politics, mirroring what I wrote above,

My view on identity politics is that it can be justified only if everyone of any ethnicity is entitled to participate, in which case it is necessary for all (because failing to assert it, as when White people of European ancestry fail to assert it lest they be branded as “racists”, means leaving oneself and one’s group defenseless against competition for resources and opportunity). Alternatively, lest any group be denied its identity while others assert their own, group identity must be equitably denied to everyone.

Human identity is stratified, and thus has both individual and group levels. Accordingly, we can (and sometimes must) reason in terms of group identity. But when group self-identification is officially granted to some groups yet denied to others against which they compete, this can only result in imbalance and injustice. For example, when some overpopulating groups which have overtaxed their own resources by reproductive incontinence and homegrown oligarchy are allowed to migrate into the sovereign territories of worldwide ethnic minorities – e.g., people of European descent – and enjoy special “oppressed” status whereby they reap special benefits such as free food, free housing, free education, free healthcare, affirmative action, reproductive subsidies, and special treatment under the law, and are even credited with moral superiority due to their alleged “oppression”, this can result in the destruction of the national, cultural, and ethnic identity of the hosts, leading ultimately to their extinction. Incoming groups which assert their own collective identities while denying their hosts any reciprocal right of political group cohesion thus amount to noxious, invasive, and ultimately lethal socioeconomic parasites. Obviously, any governmental authority which enforces or encourages such asymmetry – e.g., the European Union – is illegitimate.

Bear in mind that once we cease to treat individuals as individuals per se, thus allowing members of their respective groups to assert their ethnic, cultural, or religious (etc.) identities against their “oppressors”, their group properties and statistics are automatically opened to scrutiny and comparative analysis. For example, if after several generations of special treatment in the educational sphere (compulsory school integration, special programs, modifications of educational procedure, racially defined college admission preferences, etc.), a particular “oppressed” group fails as a whole to outgrow these measures, its members are no longer entitled to exemption from objective characterization in terms of associated group statistics; if one wants to enjoy the social benefits attending ethically loaded group-defined properties like “belonging to an oppressed group”, one must submit to rational policies formed on the basis of not just individual assessment, but empirically confirmed group-defined properties such as “belonging to a group exhibiting a relatively low mean IQ and a tendency to violently disrupt the educational environment”. Continuing to pursue racially parameterized measures of human worth and achievement can only lead to personal injustice, social degradation, and biological degeneration (because such measures inevitably supplant any rational form of social, economic, and reproductive selection).

In short, identity politics should either be shut down immediately, or the majority populations of Europe and North America should be encouraged to assert their own ethnic and cultural identities and group interests with full force. Any governmental, academic, religious, or media authority which tries to prevent it is clearly unworthy of respect and obedience.

Or: Diversity + Proximity = War.

White men built up a huge store of seed corn in America, so we’ve had the luxury of putting our virtue signaling preening into policy without knee-capping ourselves in the competition for resources and opportunity, but that’s changing with the swiftness of the demographic change in America to minority White and with the boldness of nonWhites to demand ever more concessions and obeisance from Whites.

When identity politics battlespace dominance is achieved, and this time is coming sooner than most would like to think, we will see a rapid reorientation of American society and politics that will make the present age seem like a three day acid trip from historical reality. A political and societal asymmetry is inherently unstable, and will resolve in short order with one or more sides capitulating in abject submission to the dominant group, or all groups vying unabashedly for power and fighting for their own group-defined interests.

Now personally, I don’t relish a society structured solely around identity politics. It’s gauche, claustrophobic, miserably stressful, and a mockery of the transcendent. But damned if I’m gonna idly sit by as every other group looks out for themselves at my group’s expense. That’s a suicide pact. But the only way out of this inevitability is to restore Whites to demographic primacy in their homelands, from which perch Whites can safely and confidently eschew identity politics without risk of parasitic infection.

My idea of a great country to live in:

One that’s so explicitly homogeneous that these implicit identity conundrums never need addressing.

The Danes seem to understand better than most NW Europeans the value of what I say. Denmark recently passed an immigration law that sets “an annual limit of 1,000 persons on new citizenships, whereby there will be a premise that people from Western cultures are given a higher ranking”. (code word for the White race)

The Danes have decided to stop paying the Danegeld and have gone full 1924 Immigration Act.

We can hope America follows Denmark’s lead in returning to her own roots in that civilization affirming 1924 Immigration Act which has so conveniently been flushed down the memory hole by those who would rather see America drowned under a deluge of alien invaders constitutionally incompatible with and derisive of the historical American ideals and habits.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: