Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Status Is King’ Category

Jordan Peterson had this to say about sex-differentiated status hierarchies:

Girls can win by winning in their own hierarchy—by being good at what girls value, as girls. They can add to this victory by winning in the boys’ hierarchy. Boys, however, can only win by winning in the male hierarchy. They will lose status, among girls and boys, by being good at what girls value. It costs them in reputation among the boys, and in attractiveness among the girls. Girls aren’t attracted to boys who are their friends, even though they might like them, whatever that means. They are attracted to boys who win status contests with other boys.

“whatever that means”. Heh. Shivvy way to say, “which means nothing”.

When JP discusses sex differences, he could be reading CH posts. Whatever one thinks of the criticisms leveled against him (some are valid), he does have a decent grasp of the sexual market and how men and women navigate divergent routes through an ocean of mate prospects to get what they want.

However, this is one of the rare instances when I disagree with his premise. He’s generally correct that, at least within the bounds of our current cultural arrangement, women have two status hierarchies available to them while men only have one. Our gynarcho-tyranny not only encourages but aggressively impresses upon women the urgency and even moral duty of succeeding in male domains (leaning in), while simultaneously encouraging men to sacrifice their status within their own male domains to make way for more women (and consequently rendering themselves less sexually attractive to women who are now their equal or higher in social status).

Women who do succeed in the man’s world can expect to ascend the intrafemale status ladder (more precisely, the intra-feminist status ladder), but where JP is wrong is assuming these women don’t also suffer an SMV status loss the near-equivalent of the SMV status loss suffered by men who succeed at girlie games of one-uppance.

Just as girls aren’t attracted to effeminate males, and other men are repulsed by nancyboys, the inverse is as true: men aren’t attracted to masculine, status-striving girls, and other women don’t subconsciously look up to mouthy careerist shrikes with the same mix of envy and admiration that they look up to physically beautiful women.

Ballcutters pay a romantic price for their aping of male characteristics and their chutzpah to take on the men in the male status domains. Yes, even the beautiful ballcutters pay the price, (there aren’t many, but stand by for the point of this hypothetical). Men will want to bang a hot babe whether she’s a coy waitress or a boardroom banshee, but men won’t be keen to emotionally betroth the latter. And in the landscape of a woman’s hindbrain, romantic success is measured by quality of vows, not number of plows. If a woman has a reserved seat on the cock carousel, she’s likely to have a tough time winning over the hearts of alpha men, which is a much more valuable prize to women than men’s dicks.

What always gets lost in these discussions of intersex status competitions is the relevant feedback loop and polarity amplifying magnetism that accompanies the dynamic when a demure, feminine women who #resists leaning in meets a dominant, masculine man who insists on leading quim. The protective instinct in men is strong, and only vulnerable women who haven’t achieved maximum economic self-sufficiency and aphoristic empowerment can trigger it. Thus, men appraise ladder-climbing manjaws with the same simmering disgust and antipathy that they feel towards effeminate soyboys.

A woman’s femininity and vulnerability arouses men and incites them to emotionally commit and fall in love (psychological states which can later be leveraged by women into stone cold legal binding). Girls who win in the men’s hierarchy will lose status — romantic and marriageable status — which they will #resist noticing because the here-and-now easy bangs with pump and dump looters (slooters?) cloud their judgment and long-term vision, hiding from girls the very real price they will pay down the road when those sexy alpha men are wifing up stay-at-home tradwives who have known no other Cock but his Cock.

I have to laugh at White Knights who think that women put themselves in a dangerous position by not pursuing a lucrative career and therefore making themselves dependent on a man with a plan. These numbnuts are oblivious, or act as if they are oblivious, to sexual energy and how it vibrates along different sex-based frequencies. Women who become like men in accomplishment, drive, temperament, and behavior become less like the women men truly desire. The paradox left unresolved in the minds of White Knight transactionalists is how the very act of embracing and cherishing her vulnerable femininity reduces a woman’s exposure to penury and abandonment. It’s no coincidence that the rise in the divorce rate, the decline in the rate of marriage, and the delay in age of first marriage all happened in lockstep with the increasing numbers of women marching into the domains of men.

Read Full Post »

Riffing on this long-form neg, (is it working, Bri? DM me!), some bantz regarding Brittany Pettibone’s purpose and pleasure ensued between readers and yours cruelly. As a stand-in for the constellation of PIVnat alt-right thotties, Brit does nicely. NAMinxALT, yes, yes, but let’s face it, these camera-ready nonconformist coquettes must share similar characteristics (and characters).

If they’re categorizable as femmes fatales, which archetype would best fit them?

The Golddigger?

The Waif/Neurotic?

The Eternal Ingenue?

The Amazonian Alpha?

I’d need more time studying her…personality, but from what little I know and have seen of B. Pettibone, she’s a cross between the Golddigger and Neurotic femme fatale archetypes.

Jack McKrack writes,

I doubt she’s a Golddigger – she’s attractive enough 2 have hooked a wealthy man by now if money was what she desired. maybe…Famedigger is more accurate? or maybe she’s playing a long game of seeking fame that turns into more wealth than could be had by a more direct approach (marrying a dude who’s rich already but with a comparatively low wealth ceiling)?

Yes, she’d more precisely be a Famedigger, a subcategory of Golddigger. (Less flattering terms are fame whore, starfucker, groupie, renown hound, rep chaser, klieg queen, YidTube sensation, blue tick snip dick (for the males).) These kinds of women don’t necessarily marry or fuck for money, but they are characterized by a ruthless pursuit of their goals, and a fulfillment of their desires, which can be unremunerated social status rather than wealth. This type doesn’t fall in love very easily, because love tends to interfere with the aggrandizement directive. And many of the men they latch onto are treated as stepping stones to further their public exposure, which also works against love finding any purchase.

FYI the modren sexual market with its economic and cultural incentives to ride the carousel into the Wall somewhat selects against attractive women hooking wealthy men for a lifetime of comfort and security. That option is always in the back of the thot’s head, but more than ever before she is unmoved to urgency by its siren call. This will likely change when penury and menace sweeps Western nations once again.

Jack,

i’m real torn on this phenomenon as it pertains to the Maul Right. their T & A gets eyeballs where there normally would be none, but the Maul Right is rife with betas and white knights that are easily weakened and coaxed off message by Brit’s pouty lips or Lauren’s cosplay selfies. i disagree with Roosh on a lot but i agree with him on the imminent dangers here.

Taken in isolation, I don’t have a problem with cuties jamming the airwaves with their girlythoughts. In the aggregate, though, I agree that paradigmatic shifts in thinking and revolutionary movements are best led by men, of men, and for men, because men make the sacrifices in dire times. The women will, and should in a healthy sociosexual system, follow.

As for beta male thirst, yes it’s been discussed ad nauseam here and elsewhere that social media amplifies the thirst to pathological affliction, and likewise blows up the egos of oftentimes marginal SMV women who ultimately pay the price for their short-term ego boost by refusing to settle down until the settlin’ down’s out of reach for them.

Every girl has a bit of Famedigger in her. Not every girl can act on the impulse. Those that can, often do.

Famedigger and Woman are practically synonymous for the very simple explanation that women are ATTRACTED TO, AROUSED BY, AND LUBE UP TORRENTIALLY FOR famous men. That these women, when in the company of famous men, get to experience a little of that fame for themselves is icing on the handsome rake.

So most Famediggers swarm the spotlight because that’s where the famous alpha men are. Others, perhaps including our intrepid thots, seek fame for its own sake, and use famous men — specifically, beta famous men who aren’t at ease with their newfound HSMV and don’t know how to exploit it — to vault themselves into the public consciousness, where they can display their….minds….to a much larger audience of men. It’s every woman’s most cherished fantasy to be the object of desire of many (alpha) men, their coy protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

Read Full Post »

Via TheExcrutiationator, a great comment by Matt in VA regrettably hitched to a Rod Dreher post, making the point that we live in a nation increasingly populated by sociopathic narcissists who aren’t all that different than the murderous school shooters they exploit as a springboard to the start of their left-wing political activism careers with CNN.

I am surprised that you don’t draw out the parallel between school shootings and another common theme on this blog — early-onset transgenderism.

Both are to some degree social contagions and media/extremely-online-culture phenomena.

The most recent school shooting in Florida is depressing but the school shooting itself is not the only thing that is revealing. What is most interesting from a cultural-criticism standpoint is the way the shooting generated a simultaneous parallel media spectacle in the form of the survivors who were already making videos for Youtube while bullets were being fired and who had media handlers and hashtags ready to go before the bodies had a chance to get cold.

I have seen the faces of the *gun control NOW* kids about 1,000 times since the shooting happened less than a week ago. I don’t think I’ve seen any photos of the kids who got murdered at all.

Generation Z will have two big cohorts:

alienated dysfunctional (to a greater or lesser degree) kids who engage in activities ranging from incredibly dedicated online trolling to can’t-get-a-girlfriend PUA forum posting to going crazy and school shooter speedrunning like it’s a videogame

and

smarmy cold-blooded strivers born on third base whose reaction to traumatic and horrifying experiences is to seek–instantaneously, instinctively, even while bodies are hitting the floor around them– to convert them to clicks, engagement, and fodder to pad college resumes with killer ways to sell themselves as passionate self-starters and change agents, hugely effective at doing exactly what Silicon Valley wants most — generating likes, comments, and shares.

100 years ago, many young people (not too much older than these high school kids) responded to the carnage they witnessed and experienced on the Western Front — how? By carrying around a well-worn volume of Housman and writing poetry (*the* characteristic response of that particular generation to the war.)

Now, kids’ primary response to something like this is to trample over the freshly fallen bodies of their classmates in order to throw themselves in front of as many TV and smartphone cameras as possible. The narcissistic sociopathy (cloaked of course, in repeated hysterical assertions of moral self-righteousness based not on acts but on political positions) is related, in a way, to the murderous nihilism of the school shooters themselves. This is how the winners and the losers of today’s society conduct themselves.

The question left to be asked is, WHY is there runaway narcissism in America?

Why do we have a generation of bratlings bouncing like hypertards from one hashtag to the next for a quick fix of social media applause? Why are there limelight hogs like David Hogg who will effortlessly segue from a traumatic school shooting to reciting focus-group tested shitlib lines in front of CNN cameras? Is no one else utterly repulsed by the sight of attention whores slipping in their dying classmates’ blood to grab headlines and harangue Congressmen with political talking points put together by craven chaimstream media propagandists?

Is this cultural trend not SICK AS FUCK to anyone with a scintilla of common decency left in him?

My answer to the narcissism question: it’s the feminization, stupid. Narcissism is an inherently female trait (and homosexual male trait). Both sexes have their narcissists, but the condition is more prevalent and manifests more acutely in women, who are natural attention whores constitutionally aware that their bodies and faces are their primary means of capturing male interest. Furthermore, in a sexual market becoming more r-selected (cads over dads), narcissistic men have a leg up on the male competition.

As our culture and institutions feminize, and media agitprop pathologizes normal healthy masculinity, we get more womanly narcissists. YouGoGrrlism and gay poz are yielding a bounty of narcissists for whom other people are either obstacles or accomplices to the public recognition of their glowing self-conception.

The explosion of Americans with the Dark Triad suite of personality traits means more psycho narcissists mugging for cameras and wearing pussyhats as substitutes for good character. Narcissism is being genetically or socially selected for via open borders mass immigration, sexual choice, cultural propaganda, and social atomization. The latter condition is particularly fertile ground for narcissists to flower, because a complete lack of social controls that otherwise small communities bring to bear on individuals means there is a lot of upside to using narcissistic exploitation to get similar social benefits from strangers that one would normally get in a rooted community from family and neighbors. And given that rootless itinerants are less likely to stick around for long after their sociopathic, narcissistic exploitation has shattered the lives around them, there is less possibility for corrective punishment like social shaming to curb the narcissist’s excesses.

The David Hoggs of the world aren’t far removed from the de Jesus Cruzes of the world. That’s something which should worry us all, because narcissism has a bad habit of burning itself out in a pyre of self-centered immolation that scorches everything in its radius of contact.

Read Full Post »

There are two very good articles about our changing cultural conditions which are helping to breed mentally deranged school shooting mass murderers like de Jesus Cruz. Both come at the problem from different angles, but provide equally compelling explanations in my view, so I’ve included each in this post.

The first is a Quora post by Jon Davis, a Marine Corps weapons instructor. His basic thesis is that school shooters are the inevitable detritus of a “victimhood culture”.

People hate generalizations, but here you have a fairly undeniable one. School shootings regularly are perpetrated by almost exclusively males, either boys or young men, who have had severe socialization problems. I’m not even aware of a single female shooter in the lot. Following Columbine, schools began implementing “anti-bullying” campaigns, attempting to target everyday violence and general mean behavior among kids. Did that solve anything? Anything at all?

[…]

The problem with being at the bottom is that there are many barriers to prevent you from exiting it, but few to climb back up. There simply aren’t many ways to overcome your oppressors. Fighting my bully was how I did it. This was how I was able to right my situation.

Does it sound extreme? Well, not so much if you were born before the 1980’s. And if you were born after, it probably sounds barbaric. After three years as a teacher, I saw a culture that acts very foreign from my own. Almost no one gets into fights. At first, I thought this was a good thing, but then I started seeing what was missing. The boys are almost completely incapable of competing academically besides the very few with parents who are very motivated, mostly teachers themselves. They lack motivation and a sense of purpose or meaning. Obviously there is more going on then a lack of the schoolyard tumble, but that seemed to be part of it. I found that many longed for the presence of an authoritative male figure. With two Iraq deployments under my belt, I fit the mold. I was surprised the authoritarian routine worked. Everyone said it wouldn’t, but it was all I knew, and it was like they craved it. But the darker thing I noticed was that it seemed very hard for my personal success story to work today. Those who started off losers stayed losers, forever. There was no climbing the hierarchy as I had. As I said before, it is not good to be at the bottom, especially for long.

I pieced together that this had a great deal to do with the anti-bullying policies put in place since I graduated. Again, I thought it was fine to avoid problems and keep the peace so that students could learn. But they weren’t learning. At best, it felt like they were being herded. What’s worse, “bullying”, at least the far more pervasive and much more common forms of bullying I experienced, the non-violent kind was just as present. Ironically, bullies now used the system to bully others.

[…]

According to a 2015 study Microaggression and Moral Cultures, this is textbook victimhood culture. Victimhood culture is when a culture evolves to handle slights against them through responding to each of them, not directly, but leverage third party intervention. These third parties could be parents, school authority, police, voters, or political donors. What makes victimhood cultures dangerous was that it incentivized “victims” to catalog and broadcast every conceivable slight against them, no matter how trivial or unintentional the insult. They need to build cases and this encouraged to exaggerating or falsify harm they received to create a case against the accused satisfactory enough to warrant some desired or demanded action. That said, I sympathize with schools. To stand up to a mob and say, “You don’t have all the facts,” is hard. So I understand why schools gravitated in this direction.

But victimhood culture does something else to the character of its members. It causes them to value victimhood as a form of virtue itself. That means that those within such cultures seek to gain the short term benefits of being perceived as a victim, such as pity or advocacy, but at the cost of long term appreciation from the culture, as classic (and more healthy) character traits, such as self-reliance and self-respect are ignored and allowed to atrophy.

This matters to those concerned about the development of boys. The reason that victimhood culture is dangerous is because it short-circuits natural boyhood development by specifically contradicting with the nature of boys. Boys align themselves in the same way as anyone else, through dominance hierarchies. The adolescent male dominance hierarchy is one which is attempting to collectively define what being a man should look like, and it socializes its members to this archetypal masculinity identity.

Bolded emphasis mine. Male dominance is the yang to female submissiveness. And male dominance hierarchies are a natural and healthy self-organizing behavior among young and old men. Hierarchies keep the peace and enable male cooperation for the greater good. Women and male shitlibs of womanly disposition don’t understand this inherent property of manhood because the former don’t compete to establish useful hierarchies and the latter are always on the bottom of male hierarchies and so seek to destroy them and the need for them.

A part of this is that schoolyard fights are common, even normal form of social interaction for boys. In many ways, they are necessary to create an ordered hierarchy, establish norms, set ideals, and importantly, provide a vehicle for boys to climb the hierarchy. So that I am not taken out of context, schoolyard fighting is in no way the same as the violence that is the subject of this question. They are categorically different. The fighting among boys was not intended to cause permanent physical injury or death. It is a simple non-lethal duel by two unarmed combatants until one of them gives up. The fighting provided a means for all boys to attain respect across the local microculture, even those at the bottom of the dominance hierarchy, so long as they proved to the collective that they were willing to take their lumps.

Victimhood culture disrupts this process and is contrary to honor cultures. Both are reactionary when slighted, but honor cultures seek to handle matters personally without intervention of third-party authority. With victimhood culture, third-party intervention is the goal. In this way, one playing by the rules of a victimhood culture can undermine the entire adolescent male dominance hierarchy, disrupting its ability to socialize males, preventing the establishment of positive male ideals, and removing a means for the boys at the bottom to rise to a healthy middle.

Victimhood culture is the outgrowth of a feminizing (and feministing) nation. As our institutions have caved to the deluge of the Great Menstruation, boys have been severed from their innate biological predispositions, with no outlet of expressing their inborn male-ness. The result has been a massive retreat of boys from school and of men from public life, and a terrible overrun of our institutions by women, particularly women who harbor deep wells of spiteful man-hatred.

The last element is important for the subject of school shooters. Without the normal processes of restitution, such as fighting, boys at the bottom of the school’s dominance hierarchy may have no means to gain respect in their local community, relegating them to the bottom of a very brutal hierarchy for a very long time during many of their formative years. In this way, the banned behavior of schoolyard “violence” may actually be what immunizes boys from murderousness later in life.

[…]

I’d argue that system of discipline we have in place short-circuits this all important process of childhood adolescent development. To prevent “bullying” we have prevented this necessary outlet for boyhood socialization and replaced it with one where real bullying, the manipulation of those in power or who know how to game the system, continues to take place.

aka credentialism and status striving suckuppery.

Without the outlet, the means to settle the score, the tyrants have no means of being humbled, as the only power they respect is prevented from reaching them. By that, I mean a truly self-righteous boy. But worse, those who are their victims have literally no means of recourse… unless of course they want to tattle and increase their suffering tenfold in the days to come.

Great insight. The protection of the feminized State protects the tyrants from their deserved humblings at the hands of boys who are proud to be boys and not some twisted tranny genderfluid simulacrum of a male-thing. We’ve created a real monster in our zeal to defeat an imaginary monster.

I say this is worse because we believe we have protected the boy who is being bullied by preventing only one form of conflict – physical violence. Because we have conflated a schoolyard tussle with a school shooting, we’ve made all forms of violence evil. I’ll say this to make it clear, there is a need for the Marines to kill people. There is a need for the justice system to sometimes take a life in defense of others. Sometimes, violence is necessary, but in making the idea of violence taboo — “there’s never a reason for violence” — we’ve short-circuited that all important understanding of the world where we teach kids what kinds of violence are acceptable, what kind is not, and what kind is necessary.

This aligns with Jon Haidt’s moral foundations research which uncovered that liberals stress fairness and harm in their moral calculations, while conservatives place equal emphasis on all six moral dimensions (fairness, harm, liberty, authority, purity, and loyalty). What this means is that shitlibs are constricted in their world views, seeing all violence as against their notions of harm-based morality, instead of having the more nuanced moral view of conservatives who better understand that some violence is necessary to preserve societal health.

By removing the most observable conflict method, we removed from him the ability to rectify his own situation through that ancient of means, and I’ll add, the means most common and most widely respected among boys. At the same time, we interfered in socialization through friends and peers, a form of solidifying social norms which the data is clear on, is far more powerful than teachers and schools. And worst of all, we never taught him about violence, so he’s teaching himself.

Now, look at many of the cases of school shooters. I see disturbing similarities to my own story. What was different, was that I figured out how to move up a few notches, so that no matter how bad it got, I was never the guy on the bottom. It needs to be understood that the difference between the least popular kid and the next to least popular is enormous. For mathematicians (many of whom probably understand this personally) the pattern follows somewhat of a pareto distribution. The kid at the bottom doesn’t just have it worse than the kids above him in the dominance hierarchies, he has it exponentially worse. They start off on the wrong foot, then stress causes them to make mistakes which causes them to fall further. Continued stress causes their grades to slip, which causes problems with parents and future outlook. Stress amplifies. Eventually emotional regulation becomes a problem and eventually, even their immune system is weakened. Logically, these children are more likely to need medication to cope or adapt normally to the world, either in the form of antidepressants or through self-aid, in the form of illegal drug use. The former may help or it may only exacerbate their problems, while the latter will surely only provide short term relief at the expense of long term suffering. Maybe other things are factors. Perhaps divorce of the parents, or someone with cancer, or a recent death is part of the story. All of these make it harder and as unfair as that may be, make it easier to fall down the dominance hierarchy. Maybe they seek help by playing up their victimhood status for a while, and maybe it will help for the short term. Pity can feel very good for a little while. However, if they do it wrong, they risk revulsion because neediness is repulsive. There is a point where you can become so bad off, that even asking for help makes others resent you more. These people are in complete collapse.

Neediness is repulsive to women too. So the young boy who fails to learn this lesson on the playground will grow up and fail the same lesson in the dating market. He will be rejected by women later in life as assuredly as he was rejected by male peers early in his life

Put all this together, and I think we have a much better understanding of what makes a school shooter. They aren’t just bullied kids. Everyone faces some degree of meanness from time time, but they are kids who absolutely cannot escape the bottom rungs of the adolescent social structure. Over a period of years they absorb abuse by other kids using them to climb their own dominance structures. They never develop strategies to deal with this, but instead, attempt and fail at other strategies which exacerbate their position, such as retreating into isolation or seeking to accentuate their own victimhood to the revulsion of everyone else around them, even adults.

[…]

Then the final evolution is to embrace that hatred for the world, hatred for themselves, and sense of meaninglessness to the point of suicide. Many simply stop at that tragedy, but some take it even further, wanting to take as much with them before they go. Maybe they’ll use a gun, maybe arson, maybe a bomb, but those few will stop at nothing to express their resentment of Creation.

[…]

And as much as schools are trying to resist this message, it’s becoming clearer with every instance of young men and boys massacring their peers, that all the ad-hoc programs cooked up by our “Anti-Bullying Committees” aren’t helping. At best, they are patronizing programs intended to communicate a child’s uniqueness and individual value, diluted by the fact it is exactly like the message given to all the other kids. Like the message of the Syndrome in the Incredibles, “When everyone’s special… no one will be.” At the same time, these programs seem to do little more than categorize many of the behaviors necessary to escape the bottom of the social hierarchy are the same as the violence it evolved to replace. Throwing these behaviors out has left a hole in how we socialize boys, not just in preventing them from committing massacres, but in how we they define their own identities and how they become healthy men in society.

Flattening male hierarchy creates psychologically flattened men untethered from society.

One more thing I’d add: Cruz was an omega male with girl problems.

Cruz had been suspended from the school from fighting his ex girlfriend’s new boyfriend and was depressed and having girl problems at the time of the shooting.

Victimhood culture also prevents young men from learning how better to appeal to women and to understand what makes women tick, and the result is that a single rejection can send an omega or beta over the edge.

Btw, I think social media and the instant access to one’s loserdom provided by internet search engines only magnifies the social isolation felt by the bottom-rung young men in society. Before the Eye in the Skynet and Faceborg broadcast everyone’s social standing across the globe it was likely easier for losers to manage the burden of their low social status. Now, everyone sees it, all day every day, and this must contribute to feelings of hopelessness and rage in outcasts like Cruz.

One more thing: we should be looking out for Crooked Face people like Cruz because these are the sorts of LSMV omega males who have likely inherited a heavy genetic mutational load that predisposes them to low self-control and psychopathy.

******

The second post is by Agnostic, whose thesis is that rootlessness — characterized by geographic regions that are full of recent transplants — is a major factor in the creation of mass shooters.

A striking fact about the deadliest mass shootings is their geographic distribution, lying mostly in areas that are heavily colonized by transplants, rather than in places with deep historical roots and communities.

This tends to be a fractal phenomenon — at the regional level, they’re most likely in the Sun Belt, but even within such states, they’re from newly founded suburban enclaves (ironically intended to be “safe” unlike the dangerous old towns and cities nearby), and often the killer’s family and perhaps the killer himself are transplants (including immigrants or sons of immigrants).

Ann Coulter recently made this point: a lot of our relatively recent mass shooters have been the poison fruit of our open borders policy.

Rootless places attract people guided by a laissez-faire approach to behavior, who don’t mind throwing away the constraints of living in a place where traditions are strong, family ties are extensive, and even strangers know each other. Perhaps that’s the exact reason they’re fleeing a rooted place — so they can just live their own lives without being bound to others.

As a place comes to be colonized more and more by such people, normlessness becomes the norm. Do whatever, say whatever, think whatever. Fuck the haters. If it feels good, do it. If you got it, flaunt it.

Shitlibs think the above describes a utopia, but it has a dark side.

The residents may think this low-lying level of anti-sociality is no big deal. They’re being true to their individual selves, and at worst it produces bratty and entitled children. Nothing devastating, certainly not worth going back to the rooted environment with all of its constraints on individual behavior.

But it’s precisely this code of “do whatever” that allows the small handful of truly warped individuals to carry out their warped fantasies. Typically these are revenge fantasies (rape or murder), as the social reject killer has no other ties to sustain him, and seeks to lash out at those who have rejected him. He has no extended family, no neighbors, no other communal links that would keep him calmed down despite being a loner at school.

Once he stews in those revenge fantasies long enough, what constraints are there to hold him back from carrying them out? He lives in a world of his own, with no palpable policing presence.

Social norms exist for a reason, even if liberaltardians don’t have the mental capacity to see those reasons beyond “Ugh, stop harshing my buttplug mellow, man!”. As we add more Diversity, we add more competing norms, and we take away more of the national cohesion that makes America a real country and not a bus depot for international frugalists and their buffer zone third world pets.

Although such cases may be rare, their impact is catastrophic when they do hit — there could be dozens of innocent people brutally murdered for no reason in a public spectacle. In addition to the immediate loss of life, there’s the permanent scar left on the area. It is exactly these rare-yet-catastrophic cases that social norms are supposed to protect against. They may feel annoying sometimes when you want to do your own thing, but they’re there for the greater good of preserving the community, like a form of insurance.

Liberals may be slightly better than conservatives on tests of abstraction, but I’ve normally found that conservatives are much better “big picture” thinkers than are liberals who are hidebound by their pinched individualistic morality to focus exclusively on short-term affronts to their lifestyles.

These kinds of spree murders have become more common as more people have dislocated themselves and their families in pursuit of higher career prospects. It’s generally not dirt-poor people reluctantly moving to the nearest city after the good jobs vanished in rural areas. It’s middle class people moving from Nowheresville to an up-and-coming “it” place. This is what makes the shootings so counter-intuitive to most observers — they happen in middle-class enclaves with good schools and promising children.

[…]

Only when we reverse this trend by staying put where our roots are, and accepting the duties and constraints that this places on our behavior, will these kinds of warped revenge fantasies no longer be thought of, let alone acted upon. The moral code will change from “do whatever” to “rein it in for the greater good”.

That will mean denying yourself the attempt to climb the status ladder by moving around all over the place — but by now that’s mostly a fool’s game anyway, all of the good spots having been taken and held onto for awhile. If a handful of people do this, it may not wreck society, but if enough people uproot themselves, then the entire society gets destabilized — behaviorally and morally.

Parents who put their kids through wrenching geographic dislocations to pursue their own status goals are committing a form of child abuse.

To put it bluntly, we do not have the right to “do whatever” as long as it doesn’t immediately harm others. Acting as though we did have that right leads to patterns of behavior that, after a sufficient percolating delay, cause far more destruction to ourselves and others than we imagined was possible.

Conservatives rely more on their gut instinct, which is why they tend to lose media-framed sophistic shitlib “debates”, but also why they are smarter about foreseeing the downstream effects of social policies favored by liberals.

But you can’t push for tough regulations on other people’s behavior without accepting more regulations on your own personal behavior. Pointing to potential “harm” done by the other person is no good, since your own laissez-faire behavior is corroding and destroying others, just not in as concentrated of a way. It’s long-term and diffuse, but no less offensive to social norms.

Narcissists are more likely to be represented among rootless transplants, (“why should I let anyone hold me back? I do it my way!”), so it’s not surprising that they have more of the attitude that their actions do no harm, it’s all the other guy’s fault.

And of course the ultimate form of regulation comes from feeling social pressure, whether from extended family, neighbors, peers you’ve known your whole lives, and so on.

A rootless nation substitutes one form of social pressure — family and neighbors — with another form that accommodates the atomized existence — pressure from fake news media, entertainment, social media, and BIGCORP. It’s a malignant trade-off in the long run.

Diversity™ of course exacerbates rootlessness and the problems that come from population churn. White people constantly fleeing encroaching Diversity can turn an entire nation into a rootless mob of psychologically frayed zombies doped up on SSRIs and opioids.

It’s not a shock to learn that almost all the school shooters were taking anti-anxiety drugs. Cause and effect are hard to disentangle — it probably goes both ways in a vicious feedback loop of degenerating evil: rootlessness brings on the anxiety which is prescribed BIGPHARMA drugs which with chronic use mentally destabilizes the user and makes him more susceptible to the problems arising from rootlessness and social isolation.

We’ve got a long way to go to make America great again. Trump was only the opening salvo.

Read Full Post »

DEUSVULT wonders,

what is the lefts obsession on hating Christianity, but going balls deep in love with islam?

Less complex answer: Leftoids are cowards. It’s easier to insult people who won’t fight back.

More complex answer: Leapfrogging loyalty (a term coined by Steve Sailer iirc).

There are many psychological factors that explain leftist virtue sniveling, but one that I don’t see getting much airplay is this: virtue signaling is a way for leftoids to morally preen without actually having to act morally.

It’s a lot more work to be manifestly charitable toward your White neighbor than it is to profess empty charity toward a far away foreigner you will never see nor interact with except possibly at political protests against HURPHLE DRUMPH. Leftoids don’t want to do the hard work of charitable giving, they just want to emote about how charitable they are, and the best way for them to do that is by directing their phony piousness to alien hordes who are kept out of leftoid neighborhoods by restrictive zoning laws and high housing costs. The leftoid who claims the mantle of the xenophilic priesthood is careful to choose distant Others as the objects of her mouthed generosity, because if she made the mistake of speaking charitably about her countrymen and neighbors there’s a chance she’d have to put her signaling into concrete action.

Read Full Post »

COTW winner is williamk, adding this insight to a discussion about the ideological proclivities of anonymous realtalk forums like 4chan,

Any anonymous board is by its very nature Right Wing and pro-White. The chans are /ourguys/, they just have lots of energy and no clear, explicit goals, which leads to lots of entropy.

“You don’t have to believe in chaos. It’s self-evident.”

Anything anonymous inevitably turns Right Wing, because the only point of being Left Wing is for status, and you can’t win status anonymously, so left wing talking points quickly dissipate, there is no incentive to repeat the pretty lies of the left.

The less anonymous the forum, the less about truth and more about status-signalling the political discussion becomes. It’s why Left Wingers create and congregate in the most deanonymous discussion places, they quickly abandon anonymous places. They can’t hang with unvarnished discussion, and have no status to gain there, so they leave.

The /chan autists are /ourguys/. They just have too much disordered energy and don’t always operate with perfect long term strategy.

The (((drive))) to de-anonymize the web (via policy and threats of doxxing) is motivated entirely by the Left’s fear of maul-right realtalk and the mockery it makes of leftist virtue signaling. Anonymity is the Left’s thermal exhaust port, because anonymity provides a means of expressing truths free from witch hunts. Anonymity exposes the impotence of the leftoid mob.

Humiliating impotence is something the Left can’t tolerate without cracking up in a brain blast of cogdis.

For the record, I don’t think the chans are apolitical agents of chaos. They’re anti-Left agents of chaos. That’s what makes them truly dangerous to the corrupt existing order; disaffected, angry young White men can change the world like no other force on earth.

Read Full Post »

From the “tell us dread pillers something new why doncha ya” file: A Faceborg psychonerd insider reveals the psy ops that social media companies engage in to hack your brain’s need for dopaminergic speed.

“I don’t know if I really understood the consequences of what I was saying, because [of] the unintended consequences of a network when it grows to a billion or 2 billion people and … it literally changes your relationship with society, with each other … It probably interferes with productivity in weird ways. God only knows what it’s doing to our children’s brains.”

Dunbar wept.

“The thought process that went into building these applications, Facebook being the first of them, … was all about: ‘How do we consume as much of your time and conscious attention as possible?'”

Porn wasn’t the answer, because the refractory period cuts into the profit margin.

“And that means that we need to sort of give you a little dopamine hit every once in a while, because someone liked or commented on a photo or a post or whatever. And that’s going to get you to contribute more content, and that’s going to get you … more likes and comments.”

“It’s a social-validation feedback loop … exactly the kind of thing that a hacker like myself would come up with, because you’re exploiting a vulnerability in human psychology.”

Corn and Porn is the updated version of Bread and Circuses, but we should expand it to Corn, Porn and Attention Whoring. The term encapsulates the “little dopamine hits” that modern society provides in the form of refined carbs, sexual abundance, and instant ego gratification. The key is the dopamine hits aren’t immediately overwhelming; the good feelings are small at first, but just pleasurable enough to coax continued investment in attaining those hits. Then we get fat, androgynous, anhedonic, and toxically narcissistic until no one is attractive to anyone. And Americans need those dopamine hits more than ever as they become less appealing offline. The cycle accelerates until you have what we see today: a sexual market imploding into rancor, despair, aggressive posturing, and inverted sex-based roles.

“The inventors, creators — it’s me, it’s Mark [Zuckerberg], it’s Kevin Systrom on Instagram, it’s all of these people — understood this consciously. And we did it anyway.”

Is Mark Cuckerspserg the most evil man in the world, or would that be Soros? Or Bezos? Between these three Satan has a run for his money.

So we have a confessional from an insider that the Big Tech industry deliberately hacks the attention whoring algorithm to hook its users, just as a drug dealer would “hack” users with the highs that his product supplies until they become addicted and experience withdrawal when the dopamine hits are stopped.

From observed experience, it’s a safe assumption that the Attention Whore Hack hits women and soyboys hardest. Both are emotionally needy and thrive to an inordinate and often unhealthy degree on external validation by social peers. The Female/Soyboy ego is fragile and requires constant stroking and affirmation of feels, because they secretly fear everything they believe and hold up as worthy of admiration is built on a foundation of lies.

Furthermore, the retreat from establishing family while still in the bloom of youth has left American women unmoored and drifting on a sea of self-doubt; they are easy victims for hacks that give them the sense of purpose and worth that a husband and children used to give women. As for the soyboys, the romantic rejection they have to endure for years before a past-prime careerist shrike deigns to marry them has likewise aggravated their need for validation. They slobber their thirst all over thots for the same reason thots trawl for thirsty Likes: a sense of purpose and worth that someone, anyone, is listening to them, even if only to platonically pat them on their pointy eggheads.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: