Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘The Id Monster’ Category

Reports coming in confirm that it’s likely co-pilot Andreas Lubitz intentionally brought down Flight #4U9525 and crashed it into a mountainside. A lone photo of Lubitz sitting near what looks like the Golden Gate Bridge shows a beta-ish looking European man with a kind face.

I speculate on his motives for killing 150 people.

1. He had a schizophrenic break from reality. One report claimed he had taken six months off from flight school to combat “burn-out”. If a mental disorder caused him to snap, people will begin to wonder if we can pretest pilot applicants for susceptibility to paranoia. The Minority Report of the future may not be used to identify would-be criminals as much as used to identify people with hidden mental diseases capable of symptomatically erupting later in life that make them high risk candidates for jobs requiring responsibility over the lives of others.

2. Beta male rage. He suffered a recent breakup and took it out on himself and 150 strangers.

3. Omega male rage. One of the passengers was a woman (or man) he distantly loved, but couldn’t have, and in a fit of spite decided to kill his fantasy amour the only way he knew how.

4. Terrorist mole. We’ve had a spate of planes going down because of pilot treachery. Have secretive terror-sponsoring societies filled flight schools with terrorist moles? Talk about the long game…

5. Acute depression. Can depression really drive someone to kill? I thought very depressed people are prone to retreating to solitude, away from public activity.

6. Muslim convert. No evidence of this, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the media Hivemind keeps this kind of info under wraps for the duration of public interest. Very little of his Facebook profile is revealing:

His Facebook page lists his interests, including German electronica band Schiller, French superstar DJ David Guetta, his local Burger King, 10-pin bowling, aviation humour and a technical website about the A320 model of aircraft he flew into a mountainside.

Dat last part. How droll.

7. Bowling and Burger King are traditionally prole pastimes. Maybe Lubitz was a prole who, by dint of hard work and native gifts, elevated himself into the upper class. While there, he came to hate his upper class peers. He took out his resentment on them in spectacular fashion. Or maybe his anodyne Facebook interests are a clever misdirection to fool people about his true beliefs.

8. Lubitz hated his co-pilot for personal reasons. Not sure why he felt the need to kill innocents along with his main target.

9. Globalized elite conspiracy to firm up their authority. Why not? A global elite conspiracy is more believable now than at any time in the recent past.

10. There were a bunch of noted globalist liberals in the passenger list. Lubitz somehow knew this beforehand, and pulled an Anders Breivik, taking out scores of the enemy in one revolutionary blow.

My bet is on #1: A schizoid break from reality. The next time you’re boarding a plane, look the pilot right in the eye. Does he seem off to you? If so, reschedule your flight.

******

UPDATE

Commenter Days of Broken Arrows thinks Lubitz was on anti-depressants, and that these drugs have a history of occasionally causing users to snap, which Big Pharma in cahoots with Big Davos covers up. There is evidence that Lubitz took time off for “depression”. Was he on “approved” drugs for his mental illness? Would 150 people be alive today if society hadn’t deemed it helpful to shovel mouthfuls of psychotropic drugs down the throats of depressed people?

Commenter Bill offers a larger view which rings true:

Anomie. Expect more psychotic incidents as the West grows increasingly unmoored from any coherent social paradigm.

Some people can handle radical individualism and social atomization in a sea of increasing materialist diversity. But most people can’t. Unmoored is the right word to describe it all.

PS I think there’s more to Lubitz’s actions than garden variety suicidal tendencies. Suicide is a loner’s province. But someone who takes out 150 innocents on his escape from the binds of the flesh has other motivations than simple self-loathing or gloomy hopelessness. He has hatred in his heart. Who did Lubitz hate, and why did he hate them? Is a side effect of schizophrenia a scatter-shot hatred of everyone in sight?

Read Full Post »

CH is feeling slutty and hypergamously empowered, hence the reason for this batch of themed posts. We’ll be back to practical pickup advice on the morrow. *tips fedora to adoring concubines*

A reader passes along a sly study which found some discomfiting facts about the mate pairing choices of male and female doctors.

DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey.
SETTING: Two medical schools in Ohio.
PARTICIPANTS: A random sample of physicians from the classes of 1980 to 1990.

RESULTS: Of 2000 eligible physicians, 1208 responded (752 men and 456 women). Twenty-two percent of male physicians and 44% of female physicians were married to physicians (P < 0.001). Men and women in dual-doctor families differed (P < 0.001) from other married physicians in key aspects of their professional and family lives: They earned less money, less often felt that their career took precedence over their spouse’s career, and more often played a major role in child-rearing. These differences were greater for female physicians than for male physicians. Men and women in dual-doctor families were similar to other physicians in the frequency with which they achieved career goals and goals for their children and with which they felt conflict between professional and family roles. Marriage to another physician had distinct benefits (P < 0.001) for both men and women, including more frequent enjoyment from shared work interests and higher family incomes.

***

Case study of hypergamy regarding “high status women” i.e. doctors:

22% percent of male physicians and 44% of female physicians were married to other physicians

How do those numbers add up?

How indeed. 😏

Part of the reason for the sex disparity in physician-to-physician (P2P) marriage is the demographics of these two medical schools. If male medical students roughly outnumber female medical students two-to-one, then a necessarily higher percentage of the female student pool will be married to their male peers, assuming all the P2P marriages are within-school.

That’s a big assumption, of course. Most likely, many of these P2P marriages drew from the larger physician mating pool outside of the medical school context. Therefore, something else must be going on to fully account for the P2P sex disparity.

Female hypergamy is the most obvious “something else”. Women HATE HATE HATE marrying down, where by “marrying down” we mean marriage to a man with a combination of social, physical, personality, occupational, and economic statuses that in total lower his MMV below the woman’s achievable spouse acquisition threshold. Given two equally attractive men, (attractive along multiple dimensions of measurement), separated by only one difference — their job title, say — most women would choose the man with the higher status title.

This is a highly abstract thought experiment, to be sure, but it does help illustrate how intolerable the idea of, as Rollo puts it, an “unoptimized hypergamous desire” is to women. Unlike men, for whom as a sex there is very little psychological consternation when contemplating marrying an HB8 nurse versus marrying an HB8 doctor (usually the nurse wins this mental exercise and almost as often wins the real world exercise), women have a real aversion to failing to absolutely maximize the return on their sexual value. Women’s visceral aversion to marrying down expresses as a distraught emotional state, which itself is a property of their Bartholin’s-drenched genes impelling them (usually) to be supremely cautious about choosing which men will have the honor of monopolizing their limited collection of rapidly-spoiling eggs.

Sperm is cheap, eggs are expensive, as it were. 😎

If Female Hypergamy, MD is at play in the P2P marriage statistics, then the numbers found in the linked study make sense. More female doctors refuse to marry non-doctor men (“doctor” being one of, if not the, highest status general occupations), and instead hold out to marry (likely beta male) doctors. If men are not as hypergamous as women, (and given men are predominately interested in youth and beauty), then we would see relatively fewer male doctors obsessively pursing marriage with female doctors to the exclusion of all other kinds of women who meet similar physical attractiveness thresholds.

Which, again, is what the numbers allude.

Female hypergamy can be both a force for good and a recipe for decrepitude. Think of it this way: when women place high demands on their potential suitors, men are motivated, under normal patriarchally-delineated and tribally-coherent circumstances, to step up and appease the reproductively more valuable sex. Female hypergamy, in this instance, can assist in civilizing an organic nation. But the civilizing assist rests in large part on the nature of the women’s demands. Do women demand accomplished, peaceable, wise men, or tattooed, impulsive roughnecks? The answer isn’t so obvious, and can change depending on environmental or biological cues, the most palpable cue being women’s ovulation cycle.

Where female hypergamy can fail a civilization is when it spins out of control, driving high social status women possessing a more civilized suite of genes to become terribly assiduous about reserving their genes for men of equal or greater genetic blessing. This failure manifests in two ways: One, by reducing the fertility of aging, high IQ spinster candidates. Two, by restricting the Clarkian genetic mobility to a small sliver of inbred, credentialist, suckup overachievers.

If female doctors refuse to breed with any man who isn’t a doctor, then their civilization-compatible genes get shunted into a narrow, shrinking demographic slice. In this scenario, female hypergamy fails to further civilizational progress, and can even reverse it by unwittingly creating massive chasms in intra-ethnic economic, social, and reproductive inequalities.

The real mean trick the devil played on women when he crafted their souls was his refusal to reconcile female hypergamy with female beauty. Ugly women with high social status want the same high social status men that pretty women want. Her intrinsic hypergamy becomes the ugly overachiever woman’s worst enemy.

But the ugly women have no chance, an intractable problem which is compounded by the ability and willingness of many unattractive, masculinized SMRT women to conceal under mounds of self-delusion and ego-sparing bromides, aka Feminism.

In stark contrast, high IQ and high social status male doctors, who aren’t nearly as maritally hypergamous as their female peers, spread their civilization-compatible genes more widely. There are plenty of youthful, pretty girls at most IQ ranges, after all. There then follows a “trickle down” effect in doubleplusgood genes, as higher status men knock up sexy but not quite as feminist tankgrrl striver-ish secretaries and nurses. If anything, most men with options prefer somewhat lower social status wives, as they generally present fewer headaches on the way to romantic and familial bliss. (Sexual polarity is the best preventive medicine against marital discord.)

Female Hypergamy is both Brahma the Creator and SHIVa the Destroyer. Women’s leashed sexuality births empires; women’s unleashed sexuality desiccates civilizations. We are well past the birthing stage of America and well into the barren womb stage.

I have mentioned before that the cultural, if not consequently procreative, shift in female romantic preference for badboys may be a subconscious reaction to a native society getting overrun with weak, effete males intent on bending over and taking it up the pooper by unapologetically self-serving, outgroup marauders. If I’m right, then the trend toward intensified assortative mating within the credentialist classes, as noted by Charles Murray of “Coming Apart” fame, may get short-circuited by a silent, but extremely powerful, resistance in the form of a shift in female hypergamous mate preference for less conformist (and hence less credentialed), less obediently beta, sexier jerkboys.

Highly speculative, I admit, but my instant-feedback field observations tell me something like this is happening in geographic beta male cuckspots. Picking up the dinner tab, waiting months for sex, and signaling dependability just don’t buy as much lovestruck pussy as it used to. Sending a half-assed birthday cat emoji, on the other hand, pays poon dividends.

In secular, sex egalitarian, established civilizations like the West, the great anti-feminist truth may be that Male Hypergamy — the desire of men for ever prettier and younger women, and the ability of HMMV men to fulfill that desire — will be the heart matter force that saves the advanced cultures from navel-gazing themselves into oblivion.

Read Full Post »

European natives are grappling with the issue of free speech. Reader Cortesar writes,

“European Framework National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance” [is] a model law which defines the limits of tolerance”

It is safe to say that Orwell is turning in [his] grave overwhelmed by jealousy. How in the hell he could not come up with such a brilliant concept as “a framework for promotion of tolerance which defines the limit of tolerance

——————————————————————————————————
“We need practical solutions and so we have prioritised the adoption of the European Framework National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance.”

This Model Law, drafted by leading European experts and legislators, and supported by the EJC, defines the limits of tolerance, which is the demand for security. This is intended to be a pan-European law that for the first time deals with not only the general commitment to tolerance, but defines the values that needs preserving and the limitation of tolerance towards
minority groups who risk the security of other minorities and of their host countries.
——————————————————————————————————-

Behold the universally beneficial uses of high IQ.

It comes down to this: Free speech, small government, community trust, and, among other virtues, a public sphere blessedly unpolluted by leftoid newspeak, are incompatible with a massive, multiracial, legalistic conglomerate of spineless cowards, pacified matrix pods, and malicious parasites. America and the EU will have to break apart if they are to survive united.

UPDATE

Related: Commenter Flip notices the belching of the Hivemind Hatemachine:

I went to one of the Ivy League colleges and flip through the alumni magazine, and every page is dripping with hostility to straight, white, Gentile males.

That’s the alpha and omega of 21st century America right there. Underneath all the stürm und drang it’s just white hot hatred for flyover straight white gentile men. Time to throw a wrench in the machine.

Read Full Post »

False Rape Accusations made by women are a systemic problem, and deserve scrutiny in the interest of justice. False Domestic Abuse Accusations are a slightly less malign version of FRAs, and for this reason perhaps occur more frequently. This video and story are an interesting insider look at the mechanics of an FDAA, how it unfolds, and how it speaks to a particularly vile part of female nature few people are willing to confront: The part that trips into action when a woman wants to hurt a man and chooses the expedient of enlisting white knights to serve as her violence and punishment proxies.

It’s time to fight the false rape accusation and false domestic abuse accusation cultures. Empowered women and dopey, gullible white knights conspire to put innocent men in jail. Active and persistent shaming of the women who lie about being victimized by rape and domestic abuse (and lie about both being a bigger problem than they are), and active and persistent shaming of the white knights who mindlessly rush to the defense of these wicked women, will help put an end to the twisted judicial and corrupt family court systems that have slowly and inexorably morphed over decades into an anonymous, gluttonous, anti-male woodchipper.

It’s time to have a national dialogue about FRAs and FDAAs.

Do women really want men to secretly videotape every moment of every day spent together as a means of self-preservation in the event of an emotional female outburst? Because that’s the world women and their feminist leaders are creating, whether they know it or not.

Read Full Post »

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

******

Here’s a theory for you:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

******

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The view is coming into focus now.

Loudmouthed feminists are more often than not:

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

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

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

Read Full Post »

Holding up a finger to the cultural winds carrying tingles aloft, a (probably) female reader writes,

Sia is a singer/song writer , ex–party girl with alcohol problems.

She wrote an interesting song, [Fair Game], which outline everything you have described at The Château.

I put in bold the interesting parts.

You terrify me
Cause you’re a man- you’re not a boy
You’ve got some power
And I can’t treat you like a toy
The road less…Traveled by a little girl
You disregard the mess
While I try to control the world
Don’t leave me
Stay here and frighten me
Don’t leave me
Come now enlighten me
Give me all you got
Give me your wallet and your watch
Give me your first born
Give me the rainbow and the-
So go on and challenge me
Take the reigns and the seat
Watch me squirm baby
But you are just what I need
And I’ve never played a fair game
I’ve always had the upper hand
But what good is intellect and nerve if
I can’t respect any man
Yeah I want to play a fair game
Yeah I want to play a fair game

You terrify me
We’ve still not kissed
And yet I’ve cried
You got too close in
I pushed and pushed
Opened your bites
So I could run run
And then I did betray the dust
You saw those teeth marks
They weren’t all yours
You had been trusted to a history
That had not worked for me
Into a history from which I could not face
So go on and shake me
Shake until I give it up
When I am in doubt baby
I know that we could make some love

So go on challenge me
Take the reigns and the seat
Watch me squirm baby
But you’re just what I need
And I’ve never played a fair game
I’ve always had the upper hand
But what good is intellect and nerve if
I can’t respect any man
Yeah I want to play a fair game
Yeah I want to play a fair game
And I never played a fair game
I’ve always had the upper hand
But what good is intellect and nerve if
I can’t respect any man
Yeah I want to play a fair game
Yeah I want to play a fair game

I’ve always had the upper hand
But what good is intellect and nerve if
I can’t respect any man
I want to play a fair game
Oh, I want to play a fair game
I’ve always had the upper hand
What good is intellect and nerve if
I can’t respect any man
I want to play a fair game

Sia is a 39-year-old Australian singer who’s experiencing something of a career resurgence right now. Most of you would recognize her current hit song “Chandelier”. It’s catchy, visually arresting, and vaguely pedophilic.

Her gimmick of late has been wearing a veil covering her face from view during performances. She’s been quoted in interviews as saying the veil is a feminist protest against the objectification of blah blah trail of hamster pellets. A less charitable observer might say that 39yo Sia has suffered her first contact with the Wall and the veil is radical wrinkle-remover and career-extender.

But enough of that. Clearly, Sia loves her incorrigible badboys. Sia later, betaboys!

From the beginning, women have been singing the praises of badboys. What’s more interesting, from a sociological perspective, is any noteworthy change in frequency of badboy odes, and in how those female singers opt to stylize their lyrical meanderings. Are the musical paeans to the allure of badboys prideful boasts, seeming almost like taunts aimed at the crushed hearts of lame-o betas? Or are female singers disguising their love for badboys under layers of obfuscating wordplay?

Tuning my ear snare to the pop starlet zeitgeist, I do think barely-concealed confessions of cravings for badboys have been on the increase recently. The weird thing is that this badboy exaltation is occurring simultaneously with a muddled feminist empowerment pop culture fad (think Katy Perry singing “you’re gonna hear me roar”). It’s as if women singers can’t make up their minds whether they want to be mistresses of the universe or just bound and gagged mistresses of a ZeroFucksGiven jerkboy.

If there is a social trend toward women freely expressing their deepest desires for hounds and heartbreakers, this reinvigorated female lust on public display may owe itself to the context within which pop singers, and their fans, circulate. As CH explained, a society that is bottom heavy with mewling, supplicating beta males would push women into the aloof and indifferent arms of alpha jerks. And when the bottled-up pussy pressure becomes too much to bear, even Wall-impact cougars like Sia can’t help but throw their natural romantic constituency — older, defeated, weak beta males ready to settle down with any old slutty cow — under the bus.

Women’s love for challenging jerks never dies, it just wistfully succumbs to a slow awareness of SMV self-depreciation.

Read Full Post »

How is a wounded woman like a wounded animal? PA explains as he hoists the COTW trophy:

A nasty form of red pill involves thoughts of how to act when your woman has been through great trauma, rape or otherwise. A wounded human being is in a shitload of pain, in such cases psychic pain.

They say that you shouldn’t try to comfort a beloved dog that was injured by a car because its pain can cause it to bite you. External-source duress, usually financial, can turn a wife into a bitch.

There was an article a few years after the 9.11 attacks, about a middle aged woman, civilian employee at the Pentagon, who was badly disfigured in the resulting fires and how she copes with life. Her husband (photos from happier days were shown, they were both radiant) had left her after the disfigurement.

I was quick to fault the man for abandoning her. But now I wonder, did he try to ‘be there’ and she pushed him away? I don’t know. In the story she said she is not angry with him.

A man wants to be needed and many of us want to help the few people in our inner circle when they need us. When we were little and got hurt, our moms poured concerned affection on us, and in those recesses of our psyches lies a template for healing another’s pain.

But like the struck dog, does the traumatized woman lash out at those closest to her? Those with the hard task of ‘being there’ have to think about what she really needs. Soft care may not be it.

Yes, this is a deeply dark red pill to swallow. I’ve seen it myself, and I’ve experienced it: The lashing out of the hurt woman against those trying to comfort her. The proper response to the hurt woman is a nod of sympathy and a studied avoidance of getting entangled in her drama other than giving her time to cry it out, (and giving yourself a little distance from her bared claws).

Why is it not uncommon for traumatized women to push away their supportive lovers? It’s a mystery, but my theory is that it has to do with the natural revulsion men and women feel for sex role inversions. The caretaker and the nurturer is the woman; when a man eagerly tries to assume this role, it’s disturbing to women on a primal level. It’s similar to the aggressive career woman barging into a meeting ready to close a big deal. Men may admire her gumption in the abstract, but as a character trait it’s very off-putting to behold in a woman.

Another, related, possibility is the idea that a supportive man, in his readiness to “be there” for a hurt woman, inadvertently “betatizes” himself. He may be perceived less as a shoulder to lean on than as a cloying handmanlet who in his zeal to be helpful winds up reminding the woman of the source of her pain.

Traumatized men do this too, but it seems more common with women. Or perhaps, when it concerns women, it’s more shocking to men who witness it, given the pedestal-contoured presumptions that men hold of women’s receptivity to assistance in times of need.

Maybe there’s a reason why in large parts of the world women who are rape victims are considered sexual persona non grata. Could it be that, underneath the religious or moral justifications, men shun traumatized women because they know, instinctively, that those women will never be “right” as relationship material?

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,195 other followers

%d bloggers like this: