Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘The Id Monster’ Category

Commenting on a despicable article of jet-fueled anti-Gentilic chutzpah, BenKenobi writes,

They wanted evil White men. They shall have them.

Do not lament that we have come.

We are the culmination of the entire progressive philosophy.

We are the synthesis.

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

Diversity Heretic adds,

Well and succinctly said, sir! That article absolutely drips with contempt for the white lumpen proletariat. I think the Bourbons had more respect for the peasants in 1789 and the Czar had more genuine concern for Russians in 1917 than our present elite have for us.

It’s a truism that a people who are always having to ask “why do they hate us?” are carried to this contemplation on a windstorm of their own hatred.

Read Full Post »

No, really. This post’s title isn’t an ironic invocation of leading cuckservative pundits. Esssra Klein and his merry band of (((voxlets))) love hissing about authoritarian conservatives; it’s one of their favorite pastimes, along with getting assaulted by dindus and post hoc rationalizing a way to blame )))White((( men.

Liberals have been trotting out the “conservatives are authoritarians” claim in one form or another for generations. It’s a Stalin-esque example of the rhetoric trick favored by leftoid radicals of pathologizing the normal, healthy instincts of one’s ideological enemies. Remote psychological diagnosis, and the Commies were very fond of its agit-prop utility.

Yet, all around us in the current year we are besieged with evidence to the contrary. Conservatives aren’t the ones crashing Trump rallies and stabbing people. Nor are they the ones leading modern-day witch hunts against crime thinkers like James Watson or Jason Richwine and getting them fired from their jobs. Nor are conservatives running gargantuan media conglomerates and information gateways dedicated to purging wrongthink. Nor are conservatives – actual conservatives as the word is commonly understood, not cuckboys like Paul Ryan – using extra-Constitutional executive privilege to foist hundreds of thousands (soon to be millions) of third world refugees on small town America and committing what in a sane world would qualify as treason.

When your lying eyes conflict with social science studies pumped out by tenured academics living the easy life in leftoid hothouses, and propagated by credulous media leftoids whose preexisting biases have been confirmed, the way to bet is that the leftoid study has the problem with accurately assessing reality.

And that’s the case with the flurry of “authoritarian Trump supporters” articles that have appeared recently in such esteemed publications as the Huffington ShitPost, the Washington Post-Op, and The New York Beta Times. A major retraction was issued, unsurprisingly, to very little media coverage, essentially overturning the cherished beliefs of smug liberals.

Conservative political beliefs not linked to psychotic traits, as study claimed

Researchers have fixed a number of papers after mistakenly reporting that people who hold conservative political beliefs are more likely to exhibit traits associated with psychoticism, such as authoritarianism and tough-mindedness.

As one of the notices specifies, now it appears that liberal political beliefs are linked with psychoticism.

WOOPS

When we asked Hatemi to elaborate on what that magnitude was — how much more likely were people who held conservative or liberal views to exhibit certain traits? — he said:

[T]he correlations are spurious, so the direction or even magnitude is not suitable to elaborate on at all- that’s the point of all our papers and the general findings.

If the correlations are spurious and unworthy of elaboration, then WHY THE FUCK DID EVERY GODDAMNED LEFTOID PRICK IN EXISTENCE run with the erroneously reported study results that conservatives are authoritarian?

Even if the errors don’t affect the conclusions of the paper, they matter, Ludeke told us:

The erroneous results represented some of the larger correlations between personality and politics ever reported; they were reported and interpreted, repeatedly, in the wrong direction; and then cited at rates that are (for this field) extremely high. And the relationship between personality and politics is, as we note in the paper, quite a “hot” topic, with a large number of new papers appearing every year. So although the errors do not matter for the result that the authors (rightly) see as their most important, I obviously think the errors themselves matter quite a lot, especially for what it says about the scientific process both pre- and post-review.

Amen. What it says is that a shitlib social scientist found out liberals are actually more likely to be authoritarian, but through partisan negligence or deliberate deception permitted the results of his study to be published and reported as if the exact opposite were true.

I’d ask Essssssra Klein for his thoughts on this retraction, but I fear he’d respond with midnight raids and one way tickets to the gulag.

Read Full Post »

In a study of paraphilia (obsession with unusual sexual practices), a curious sex difference poked out of the findings. See if you can spot it.

masojism

That’s right, men are over-represented in every sexual perversion except one: masochism. Women are the eager beavers of sexual masojism. It is to LOL.

Any regular Chateau guest would not be surprised by the discovery that women are more sexually masochistic than men. Women are attracted to dominant men, and one way male dominance is exerted is in the bedroom. Women therefore enjoy the masochistic pleasure of submitting to a dominant, takes-what-he-wants man, or will purposely assume a masochistic sex play role to fulfill their need for submission to a dominant, takes-what-he-wants man if such a man isn’t satisfyingly forthcoming with his dominance prowess.

Also, the fact that men excel at all sorts of sexual fetishes is indicative of their inherent “cheap sperm” reproductive status. Men are constantly on the lookout for mating opportunities, and expanding the field of sexual outlets beyond normie sex with an alt-right tradwife widens (heh) men’s scope of intercourse possibility. It is therefore hypothesized by your free-thinking host that very LSMV men will be found at the margins of sexual proclivity, hoping to snag some kind of scrotal relief that they are hard-pressed to achieve the normal way.

This fact is the “is” part of the “is, not ought” equation, and its existence should not be used as justification for social engineering to make sexual freaks more accepted by the general public.

Read Full Post »

Some women approaching the Wall so despise having to settle for a dull beta male before the clock runs out that they fantasize about killing off their consolation prizes, and sometimes even go through with it in deed!

For the sake of survival, beta males ought to become acquainted with the telltale signs a woman exhibits when she’s not in love. There are her words, of course….

Investigator DeQuarto had asked her how she felt about Mr. Viafore’s death. Her response, he said, was: “Fine. Over it.”

“She felt like herself,” he testified. “She felt free.”

But it’s a rare woman of incomparable cruelty and capacity for self-sabotage who would admit to her beta male fiancé that she wanted to be free of him (and his beta bux). So men who haven’t yet attained the lofty red-pilled heights of alpha maleness need to watch for nonverbal cues that their women may not love them beyond phony exclamations uttered just before the marital dotted line is signed.

And the more reliable indicator of a woman’s true loveless feeling is her body language, precisely because the body autonomically transmits one’s emotional state. It’s very difficult for most people who aren’t aware of the nature of biomechanics to conceal their real feelings for long under a facade of faked body language. Behold, photos of the murderous woman who killed the beta fiancé she couldn’t bring herself to love:

femalebodylanguage

Leaning away, leaning and looking away, arms crossed protectively over bosom.

If you see any of these loveless body language cues from your girlfriend or wife, it’s already too late to do anything about her state of heart, except two potentially effective interventions:

Dread Game.

Walk away.

That’s it. Don’t be a beta male sufficiently bedeviled by scarcity mentality that you’ll wife up a woman who so blatantly telegraphs her cunt-clasped contempt for you. She might happily watch you die in freezing cold water some day.

Read Full Post »

In a CH post about older men’s advantages in the sexual market, frequent sex difference and Game denialist wolfie65 avers,

There are VERY few things in this world that actually do get better with age.
High quality wine (if you like that sort of thing), high quality cheese (to a point), things made very well from high quality wood, like musical instruments or furniture.
People are not one of those things.

Generally true, past a certain age. But that threshold age from youthful to old is different for men and women. Most men aesthetically peak around 29-30 and stay there well into their late 30s. For women, their physical peak happens somewhere between the late teens and early 20s, and doesn’t stay there long.

Men who lift weights and don’t bloat up can look quite dashing to the majority of women well past their 30s. Women who lift and stay slender will keep their sexual worth longer as well, but not nearly as long as in-shape men keep theirs. So the adage that one should strike while the iron is hot is more germane to a woman’s romantic fortunes.

If men over 30 have any advantages in the dating market, they are:
1) MONEY – Very few younger men have any money worth bragging about and da wimminz do LOVELOVELOVE da moolah, all polls to the contrary.

Sure, women love da moolah, but it takes a LOT of moolah to activate a woman’s love programming. Merely being in the top quintile of SES won’t cut it. The entrance fee for unlimited access to poonworld rides is seven figures in the expensive shitlib cities. Given that most men boffing cute girls have nowhere near seven figures, it stands to reason that, although money may be a powerful attractant once accumulated over a very high amount, it’s a rather weak attractant below that number. Other, more important, factors contribute to a man’s success with women.

2) Social status – Very few younger men (athletes, rock stars) have the kind of ss women are looking for, their mostest favoritest sport being social climbing.

Younger men who aren’t musicians or athletes can accrue social status through sheer force of personality. If you make yourself the life of the party, women will notice. And, always worth reminding recalcitrant readers, BOLDNESS is itself a sign of a man’s social status. If you approach girls uncompromisingly, they will adorn you with a higher status than you would otherwise have had if you stayed in your little corner staring at them lustily.

The ZFG part is more something that benefits you, the guy, internally, as it makes failure easier to deal with.

ZFG does more, far more, than simply make courtship failure easier for a man to deal with, (specifically which in Game terminology is called “outcome independence”). Zero Fucks Given is an ATTITUDE, expressed manifold ways through a man’s words, behavior, and body language, that women have FINELY TUNED VAJDAR for recognizing, because it is in women’s DARWINIAN INTERESTS to hook up with and fall hard for men whose attitude suggests they could TAKE OR LEAVE those women. This kind of man is desirable BECAUSE he acts like he’s desirable. And desirable men have OPTIONS, which they show by never bending over backwards to appease or impress any one woman.

It’s not something she’s going to pick up on at da club, not even with her magical powers of ‘female intuition’ ESP………

Yes, she is. This is the gripe of someone who hasn’t been in a heated sex market arena in a long time. No ESP required. Women have a sense originating at the nexus of their hindbrains and tingling pussies for which men are high value, just like men have a sense originating at the nexus of their hindbrains and boners for which women are high value. Men react instinctively to the sight of a beautiful, height-weight proportionate young woman. Women react equally instinctively to the company of a masculine, devilishly charming, self-confident, ZFG man.

The sexual market is the prime market exactly because its machinations are governed by instinct instead of by considered forethought. It’s hard to undermine human instinct, though our Equalist Overlords are doing their level best to do just that.

Read Full Post »

The newest thought-stopping libfag incantation to join classics such as “It’s [the current year]”, “I can’t even”, and “right side of history”, is “That’s not who we are”. You can hear our esteemed pleaders like president Gay Mulatto, TheCunt, and Paul “I can’t put my ankles any farther behind my ears” Ryan saying it, especially in response to Donald J. Trump’s eminently sensible accusation in the AIDS-soaked wake of the Orlando gay nightclub shooting that Muslim immigration to America presents a dire threat to citizens.

(It really does. A Muslim in America is 5,000% more likely to commit an act of terror than a non-Muslim American. As one alt-right shiv-wielder on Twatter wrote to preempt the predictable shitlib response: “Oddly enough, I don’t find the position that we have an ample supply of idiots and bad guys here a compelling reason to import more.”)

What does “that’s not who we are” really mean? As with all shitlibboleths, there’s nothing of substance underneath the faggy pomp. Pin down a lib on this empty slogan and he’ll twist in the wind whistling through his empty skull trying to come up with a coherent explanation. Are we all self-hating Whites? Are we all avatars of altruistic love eager to permit the resettlement of 7 billion foreigners into our neighborhoods and homes? Are we all similarly disposed to redirect our rational fear of Muslim terrorism onto law-abiding White men who aren’t sufficiently prostrate to the reigning equalist narrative?

The reality is that when shitlibs with an affinity for Islam and the Other, and a kneejerk resentment of Whites, (like the Gay Mulatto), say “that’s not who we are”, what they mean, more precisely, is “that’s not who the degenerate freak mafia are”. And that would be true. The degenerate freak mafia, of which the spiteful half-breed Obama is a proud member, are not friends of common sense, not given to honest appraisal of reality, not advocates of pattern recognition, not guarantors of a livable nation for their posterity, not satisfied with a personal quiet ethics that substitutes for a public virtue signaling, not psychologically capable of race realism, and not visceral defenders of what is true and beautiful.

That is not who they are, and the sooner Americans know this about them, the quicker they will be cast out to the prolapsed wastelands where they can be who they are all by themselves….until they get sick and tired of their own company and stop being who they are in a bathtub of warm water.

Read Full Post »

Commenter maldek regurgitates a shopworn belief among a certain set of manospherians concerning the ability of LSMV women to get sex.

Women at 58 – even much worse looking and overweight women – CAN get dates easily.

No they can’t. More on this below.

They can get as much sex as they want easily. Quantity is not a problem.

Yes it is. More on this below.

The problem is, the quality of mate. Dates are from younger guys who can get laid in their own age group or younger so they date older. Or from guys their own age or older who are in one way or the other SMV rejects and have no other options.

Man with options with an SMV of 7 or higher can and prefer to date younger pussy. This hurts the old hotty even more than it hurts the overweight ex-housewife, because she is used to male attention of the 8+ area and now has to decide between low quality flesh and high quality plastic inside of her lady parts. More often than not, its the later.

Look, you don’t need SCIENCE! to tell you that fat, ugly, and old chicks have trouble getting laid. If you enjoy a halfway-respectable social life, you’ll notice time and again that the unattractive girls show up to parties and events alone, and leave alone, no man to escort them home for post-party boffing. It happens so often no one really blinks an eye, because it’s expected. If you DO need SCIENCE!, please consult the CH archives for studies clearly finding that fat chicks have sex less often than slender babes.

In the real world, fatties, fuglies, oldies and, less frequently, super hot sexpot ingenues with a case of BPD, are the ones who never seem to have a boyfriend when they meet up with their social groups. The sexpots are BF-less for a different reason: they play the field so much they’ve forgotten how to identify a quality man worth slowing down for and stashing the crazy in the crawl space.

The SMV hierarchy of “ease of getting laid” looks like this (note that ease of getting laid does not necessarily imply fulfillment of sex opportunities), in descending order of ease:

Alpha females (HB 8s, 9s and 10s)
Super Alpha males
Beta females
Alpha males
Beta males
Omega females
Omega males

Fat, ugly and old women are essentially omega females in the sexual market, and that’s reflected in the fact they have as much, perhaps more, trouble getting laid as do garden variety beta males. In line with what we know about biomechanics and sex differences in reproductive goals, Omega Females are the instant sexual access equivalent of Beta Males. They don’t get sex offers, direct or indirect, as often as prettier girls, and when they do get laid it’s usually with flings who aren’t their first choice and who don’t even feign a promise of commitment to a longer term agreement.

Omega males have it the worst, and can often go years without so much as a whiff of womb flower.

(Note the curiosity that beta females — 4s, 5s, and 6s — have an easier time getting laid than regular alpha males. The cheapness of sperm guarantees that even alpha males have to put a little legwork in to find a willing buyer.)

So while it is true that in general women can get sex easier than can men, in the particulars we see that this truth varies by the sexual marketability of the woman in question, just as it does for men. What we can say with certainty that applies to all men and women is that the curve for women’s “ease of getting laid” is shifted to the rawdog right of the same curve for men. But there are still plenty of women on the left side of their sex-getting curve who languish as insols for uncomfortable lengths of time.

There’s another psychological dynamic that puts the lie to the “ugly girls can get laid whenever they want” mantra. Women simply don’t emotionally or mentally process their ability to get laid the same way men do for themselves. If a fat chick can slum it with a piss-stained bum, that’s no comfort to her ego. Even if she has an easier time getting hobo dick than a similarly LSMV man has getting fatty furrow, that reality won’t resonate with a positive assessment of her self-conception.

Succinctly, women don’t count loser men as validation of their sexual desirability, (just as they don’t count vacation sex or anal sex as points toward their lifetime partner count). A bum willing to fuck a fat chick just won’t register in her brain as evidence that she can get laid whenever she wants. For women, the only men that register as proof positive of their feminine allure are quality men with options who have willingly chosen them over others, instead of having been chosen because the woman was desperate.

Some manosphere types (and a lot of bitterbitch feminists) forget this because, just like feminists, they frequently dupe themselves into projecting their male sensibilities onto women. That never works. Notch count, and the ability to inflate it, has a different meaning for men and women. However, their wrongness on this subject does spring from a premise with a small kernel of truth: ultimately, sex-getting comparisons between men and women are inherently flawed, because women are, barring exceptions, the receiving sex, and men are the achieving sex. Women wait to receive the sex of a bold sex-getting man emotionally judged worthy of their reception, while men are moved to action to achieve the sex of a beautiful sex-receiving woman penilely judged worthy of their injection.

Because of this intractable psychological and behavioral difference between the sexes, it’s difficult to say with precision that this man and that woman have equal capabilities to easily get laid. The man may have a shy personality or religious feeling that limits his easy sex opportunities, and the woman may be surrounded by timid men who incidentally limit her easy sex opportunities. For this reason, the evidence that fat chicks can’t get laid easily is even more damning than at first blush, given that they have to betray their native womanhood and allow emotional distress into their lives when they chase after men to get the sex they aren’t getting by waiting around passively for a man to approach them unsolicited.

In the big picture, though, the Thirsty Beta Male = Thirsty Omega Female formulation is a useful shorthand. Refer to this post the next time some butthurt blowhard goes on at length about how women have it so great because even the ugly ones can get sex on demand.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,571 other followers

%d bloggers like this: