Behold Liberal Tolerance

Shitlibs sure do screech loudly about the virtue of tolerance which they themselves don’t possess. The soyboys and clitdicks doth protest too much.

Another way to look at this: conservatives and independents are more generous of spirit and normal of socialization than are shitlibs. The former can handle political disagreement like adults; the latter runs to HR and tattles like a bratty child to get the bad person fired, that is when they can actually function and aren’t curled up in the pillow-biting position.

(yeah i know D, I, and R aren’t perfect proxies for lib, moderate, con, but it’s close enough for a shivisection.)

Shitlibs are also less charitable than cons, despite agitating for more of other people’s gibs. What’s going on? Psychological projection, for one thing. Lib status is wrapped up in their lifestyle and morality megaphoning, so they can’t bear to grapple with their own flaws, preferring instead to imagine those flaws in their ideological enemies. If you live as if everyone around you is beset with the very vices that beset you, it becomes difficult to tolerate let alone enjoy the company of political foes, because their good-natured presence would constantly remind you of the bankruptcy of your worldview and how far you hypocritically fall short of your professed beliefs.

Another angle to this is race. Comparatively more nonWhites are Democrats, and there are broad racial differences in ability and willingness to tolerate opposing views and those who hold them. See, for an example of this, any recent CNN or MSNBC roundtable discussion. However, I would bet the bank that White Dems/libs show a similar disregard for the tenets of their Tolerance Religion, even if they are not quite as intolerant of the “intolerant” as are tribalistic nonWhites.

Finally, there is the disjunct between a shitlib’s virtue signaling and reality, a disjunct which doesn’t bedevil moderates and conservatives nearly as much because on the whole the latter have a more concrete and intuitive grasp of reality and aren’t constantly trying to abstractify the world to fit the beliefs and commandments of a preconceived equalism religion. I think this disconnection between belief and reality explains best the shitlib intolerance of people who are ideologically different than themselves. If you are a shitlib your waking life is spent in an acid fog of cognitive dissonance, always harshing your mellow, threatening your sanity; to keep up your self-deceiving mental health initiative requires a hard separation from those who would only aggravate and amplify your dissonance. Thus, the shitlib must ensconce xirself in a monastery, away from the temptations of a reality-based enlightenment.

PS Heh:

PPS Heh heh (bottom far right):

Read Full Post »

The Inherent Womanliness Of Leftoidism

This isn’t a new insight to regular guests of Le Chateau, but it bears repeating as we descend swiftly into the leftoid abattoir where the blood and bones of murdered civilizations are collected.

The photo and quote from Dr Unabomber above illustrate the insight nicely: leftoids have a strong submissiveness urge, which is why I liken the male leftoids to women. Part of the desire to submit is a desire to “feel alive” through masochistic suffering. Aggressive or active submission, you could call it, and it is an innate quality in women who evolved the urge so that they are maximally attracted to powerful dominant men. Aggressive submission is also an evolved strategy of the weak and puerile, who must resort to it in place of the direct confrontations which they can’t win.

In leftoids, this urge has turned pathological, and because of its inherent womanly nature the males of the Left are often feminized, emasculated passive-aggressive brats like David Hogg. In the females of the Left, the masochistic compulsion manifests as a spiteful hatred toward the weak males of the Left who are the primary opposite sex company of leftoid females. Unrequited submissiveness can make a woman very hateful against the males incapable of satisfying her primal sexual and romantic desires, (and very confused when the leftoid female is aroused to sudden surrender by the tonic masculinity of a Trumpian Chad).

Kaczynski called this self-hatred, but in fact it’s very much self-love; the twisted self-love of the weak who protect their egos by summoning power from the supine position.

The way to defeat the armies of aggressively submissive leftoids is to cut their rhetorical gordian knot and defang their street theater with unremitting, merciless mockery. Deflate their pretensions, and with their social status robbed from them the allure of strategic submission is dispelled.

Read Full Post »

Power, Approach, And Inhibition: A Study Of Alpha Males And Beta Males

A very interesting paper examines power relations in humans, and in so doing illuminates classic dichotomies between the behaviors of alpha males and beta males. Link.

This article examines how power influences behavior. Elevated power is associated with increased rewards and freedom and thereby activates approach-related tendencies. Reduced power is associated with increased threat, punishment, and social constraint and thereby activates inhibition-related tendencies. The authors derive predictions from recent theorizing about approach and inhibition and review relevant evidence. Specifically, power is associated with (a) positive affect, (b) attention to rewards, (c) automatic information processing, and (d) disinhibited behavior. In contrast, reduced power is associated with (a) negative affect; (b) attention to threat, punishment, others’ interests, and those features of the self that are relevant to others’ goals; (c) controlled information processing; and (d) inhibited social behavior. The potential moderators and consequences of these power-related behavioral patterns are discussed.

If you want to get over Approach Anxiety, feel more powerful. (Likewise, by the transitive property of the behavior-cognition-emotion feedback loops, if you want to feel more powerful, start approaching more girls.) Easier said than done? This is one of those studies where most of the useful gems of knowledge are tucked deep in the paper and only alluded to in the abstract.

Power influences human behavior. When you have it, you act differently, in accordance with the goals of someone who expects deference, gratitude, and reward. When you don’t have it, the world is a frightening place. You act like a trembling field mouse waiting for a hawk to swoop from the air and carry you off.

First, a relevant quote:

The fundamental concept in social science is Power, in the same sense that Energy is the fundamental concept in physics . . . The laws of social dynamics are laws which can only be stated in terms of power. (Russell, 1938, p. 10)

All human interaction can be stripped down to battles for power, on macro and micro levels. Power in this usage means the ability to influence our social environment to our personal advantage. The study authors define power as…

…an individual’s relative capacity to modify others’ states by providing or withholding resources or administering punishments. This capacity is the product of the actual resources and punishments the individual can deliver to others.

Resources and punishments can be material (food, money, economic opportunity, physical harm, or job termination) and social (knowledge, affection, friendship, decision-making opportunities, verbal abuse, or ostracism). The value of resources or punishments reflects other individuals’ dependence on those resources.

The perceived freedom with which individuals can deliver resources and punishments to others also influences the individual’s level of power. Beliefs about the exercise of power figure prominently in cultural values and morals…as well as attitudes within personal relationships. Beliefs about the freedom to exercise power can come into conflict with the actual resources and punishments the individual can deliver to others—a tension that we elaborate on later.

Emphasis mine. Game largely resides in the domain of social resources and punishments, ie mindfucking.

If social status is power, what is status?

Our definition also distinguishes power from related constructs. Status is the outcome of an evaluation of attributes that produces differences in respect and prominence. Status in part determines the allocation of resources within groups and, by implication, each individual’s power. However, it is possible to have power without status (e.g., the corrupt politician) and status without relative power (e.g., a readily identified religious leader in line at the Department of Motor Vehicles). Authority is power that derives from institutionalized roles or arrangements, but power can exist in the absence of formal roles (e.g., within informal groups). Dominance is behavior that has the acquisition of power as its end, yet power can be attained without performing acts of dominance (e.g., leaders who attain their positions through their cooperative and fair-minded style). Thus status, authority, and dominance are all potential determinants of power as we define it.

In seduction, a man’s status, authority, and dominance are each alone highly arousing to women, but together they create the archetypal powerful alpha male which few women can resist. See: our President.

Let’s dig into the relevant meat of the paper that addresses, if obliquely, the power dynamics between alpha and beta males as pertains to pickup and approaching women.

Of the many objects of social attention, we will focus on three: rewards or punishments, other individuals, and the self. We propose that high-power individuals, who are disposed to approach, will attend to potential rewards rather than to threats and as a consequence will construe others through a lens of self-interest. In contrast, low-power individuals will be more sensitive to threats than rewards and will therefore construe themselves vis-a`-vis others’ interests.

Alphas don’t see women as a threat and expect good reactions (rewards) from approaching women, so they feel less inhibited. They are embodiments of male privilege, feeling entitled to rewards from women and seeing them as avenues to fulfill their self-interest. Naturally, women reward these entitled privileged men because women are attracted to confident men.

Betas see every interaction with women as a potential mine field of shame and humiliation and rejection, so they’re more cautious and fearful of approaching women. Betas are also overly empathic and concerned with women’s feelings; they are the opposite of entitled, always assessing their own actions for how they may impact others’ feelings. This is why PUAs say betas “live in their heads” which gets in the way of their romantic success.

A related prediction is that elevated power will increase the tendency to perceive rewards and opportunities in ambiguous acts and interactions (Hypothesis 6). One suggestive line of studies finds that men, who might be assumed to occupy positions of elevated power, perceive sexual interest in women’s ambiguous behavior.

Self-entitled men do better with women because they’re more likely to bust a move, perceiving sexual interest from women where there might not be any. This is an advantageous self-deception because 1. it motivates approaching women which increases his romantic opportunities and 2. it projects supreme self-confidence which is attractive to women.

A complementary prediction is that low-power individuals will perceive themselves as a means to the ends of high-power individuals, or as the instrument of others’ goals and desires. […]

We have posited that high-power individuals selectively attend to rewards and how others satisfy self-interests, whereas low-power individuals attend to punishment and threat and construe the self through a lens of others’ interests.

Alphas are a means to their own ends.
Betas are a means to others’ ends.

This has sexual market implications.

Betas need to be more selfish to succeed at attracting women.
Alphas can become too selfish and sabotage their relationships (platonic and romantic). Often, alphas could benefit from being more selfless.

The approach system modulates processes related to eating, offensive aggression, and sexual behavior. Power should therefore increase the performance of approach related behaviors in these and other domains. Power should prompt the performance of simple approach behaviors (Hypothesis 18), such as entering the social space of others and initiating physical contact. Indeed, high levels of touching behavior correlate with being male, being older, and having higher SES. Studies of adults and children indicate that high-status, powerful individuals are more likely to approach subordinates at interpersonal distances that indicate intimacy.

Game concept vindicated: kino escalation. Get physical sooner rather than later if you want to improve your meet-to-lay ratio with women.

…high-power individuals should be more likely to engage in aggressive acts (Hypothesis 24). Several research literatures lend support to this prediction. Across contexts (e.g., school playgrounds, hospital settings, and summer camps), high-status individuals are more likely to tease (rather than avoid the potentially offensive teasing in the first place), and when they tease, they do so in more hostile ways. In one study of heterosexual and homosexual relationships, the partner who was less committed to the relationship, and therefore more powerful, was more likely to bully the partner.

Bullying is a cue for power. This helps explain why women are attracted to, and stay with, assholes: assholery is a proxy for power, which in a man is a highly attractive trait.

We have not portrayed power in a flattering light. High-power individuals tend to act in ways that disregard conventions, morals, and the effects on others. Yet approach-related behavior can be of a more prosocial nature, and our analysis and the supportive findings of Chen and colleagues (2001) do suggest that high-power individuals will engage in behaviors that violate social norms in prosocial ways. Some of these behaviors include intervening in emergencies or helping others in distress, mediating conflicts, and expressing approval and affection.

I can think of one other, very topical, prosocial way that powerful men violate social norms: speaking ugly truth to globohomo power.

High-need-for-power individuals engaged in profligate gambling, drinking, and sexual licentiousness less often when two kinds of life events enhanced their accountability: having younger siblings and becoming a parent. In fact, the social responsibilities tied to having a younger sibling or being a parent led high-power individuals to engage in more prosocial, approach-related behaviors, such as involvement in voluntary organizations. More generally, we would predict that accountability would lead to less approach-related emotion, more attention to others, and more careful cognition in high-power individuals.

Unsurprisingly to anyone who isn’t a liberal, accountability regulates the expression of power. Relaxing accountability leads to more abuses of power (see for example, the modren American woman).

Accountability is enhanced by younger siblings and parenthood. This should send up a red flag. In European Christendom, White family sizes are shrinking and parenthood is delayed. The consequence will be powerful people expressing their power in less prosocial ways and with more self-gratifying impulsivity.

High-power individuals may be more likely to stereotype others or perceive homogeneity in their social worlds because those with less power inhibit the expression of their actual attitudes.

Weak, spineless soyboys and low value skanky pussyhatters cling to kumbaya universalism because they don’t have the balls nor the smv to express their true feelings.

When do the powerful fall? When their disinhibition becomes pathological:

The very individuals who might keep in check this pattern of [high-power individuals’] behaviors, those with less power, are constrained in thought, word, and action.

This analysis just as readily reveals the conditions for social change: The excesses of powerful leaders—their propensity for disinhibited behavior and stereotypic, error-prone social perceptions—

Virtue signaling leftoid equalists.

are certain to feed into the processes that lead to changes in leadership.

Hello, Deep State!

These speculations make contact with social psychology’s longstanding interest in authority and group dynamics, as seen in Lewin, Lippitt, and White’s (1939) early investigation of authoritarian and egalitarian playgroups; Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood, and Sherif’s (1961) Robbers Cave experiment; Janis’s (1972) discussion of groupthink; and Emerson’s (1962) lasting observation that low-power individuals constrain the actions of high-power individuals by affording them respect and status and thus controlling their public reputation.

Rescinding the respect and status that low-power people accord high-power people will render the latter less powerful. Or, to put it in Heartistian terms, The Mocking Shiv will Save the West.

Read Full Post »

Submission Is Woman’s Calling

i loved that he was so powerful i was nothing.
-O

From anonymous, who misses the mark by equating psychological submission with sex.

one of the pretty little lies of the pua “community”, perhaps the PRETTIEST little lie is that when a woman had sex with a man that she has “submitted”. or that when she falls in love with a man that she has “submitted”. the whole point of birth control, of the state-wielded women’s “rights” bludgeon, is so that women can enjoy sex and power without submitting. she can even birth children without “submitting” via an epidural and C-section.

in every way white women are collectively trying to avoid submitting, unless of course they are forced to. but what happens when society has pretty much banned/demonized all of those traditional ways where women were subjected to submission? game is supposed to be an antidote for ALL THAT. pfffft.

fasteddie said it well above. game is simply a temporary, stop-gap measure. an adaptation to slow, but not remotely stop, the hemorrhaging.

Women have an innate desire to submit…to a worthy man. AKA a dominant man. That’s the catch. Weak men, by constitution or State fiat, aren’t worthy men, and under their tutelage or even in the foulness of their impotent presence it’s of course expected and natural that women would defy submitting to those men. And in fact that women would begin to fight their own feminine instincts to avoid an accidental commingling with a weak man or a weak nation.

And by submission, I mean the hunger that comes from the deep-seated hindbrain place where women frolic in the summery haze of their primeval fantasies. Sex alone is not submission, though with the right man it can be for a woman. The submission I’m talking about is what Pauline Reage described had stricken her book’s heroine: a submission of the soul. It’s the submission of a love felt so profoundly for a powerful man that it never needs summoning, excuse, or rationalization; it is omnipresent and unassailable, proof not only of the man’s worth but of the woman’s worth to him as well.

Women won’t announce this desire, or even consciously recognize it, because evolution has seen fit to conceal women’s truest desires from men, and from women themselves!, to avoid the problem of spoofers and to better assess male mate worthiness (“does he understand intuitively what i really want? then he must be loved by many women and thus worthy of my love”).

If you give women the tools — for instance, via anti-discrimination State mandates to “resolve” discrepancies in outcome and preference between the sexes, or via cultural innovations like the Pill which sabotage the bonding mechanism — to avoid their natural inclination to submission, you get a lot more unhappy women. And that is precisely what the happiness data show since the inception of modren feminism.

When social degeneration forces weaken the native men, their women flee in protest and claim the false god of gogrrl empowerment as their new idol. In their agitated and spiteful escape from their submission-craving femininity, women become increasingly unhappy and unhinged and have no mental template left to help them understand why or to navigate the sexual market shoals. They make things worse for themselves by assuming more aggressive androgyny, man-hating, and anti-femininity are the answer, but the alternative — relaxing into their feminine submission with a strong man ensconced within a State apparatus that celebrates and encourages his strength — is unavailable. Therefore, the idea and the instinctual urge of submission repulses women, makes them ashamed, because they would have to submit to what they view as weak men left adrift by a post-op M2F State hostile to efforts to restrengthen men.

Women in this condition fight endlessly against their nature because on a primal level they’re fighting against pollution by anemic seed. The fight will eventually consume women, but unless strong men backed by a concordant State awaken that latent submissive energy in women these women will never stop availing themselves of products, ideologies, sophistries, technologies, and carousels that serve the purpose of building bigger walls between themselves and the mass of spineless beta males who have forgotten how to excite and inspire women.

Game is one open path to showing men the way to exciting and inspiring women once again.

In the meantime, the poz pendulum continues its arc into Unipolar Ugliness, guaranteeing its return descent will be wicked, swift, and lethal to those who defied the gravitational pull of the sexes into their biomechanically preordained roles.

Read Full Post »

The Divorce Industrial Complex Responds To Incentives

70% of divorces are initiated by women. Now a Pedestalman might say that’s because more than ever men are horrible, but a Pedestalman would say the same if 70% of divorces were initiated by men.

Kids, don’t do pussy pedestals.

The truth about the Divorce Industrial Complex is exactly as I have described it here on this blog: INCENTIVES MATTER. And American women respond to the personally advantageous incentives of the divorce market which massively redistributes money and children away from ex-husbands to ex-wives at no cost or stipulation to the women.

Proof? It’s as plain as the mangina in your midst who never took a risk with the opposite sex in his life. But if you prefer STATS AND DATA, here you go:

Rise of women backing out of divorces as court settlements shrink

Women are backing out of divorce cases because settlements are becoming less generous, experts have said.

Fewer wives are being awarded income for life and they are increasingly having their divorce settlement limited to a few years.

This is making some of them back off from going through with a split, law firms say.

Yo yo yo….ayo hol up….so what you’re sayin is….

WIVES DON’T FRIVORCE WHEN THE GRAVY TRAIN IS SHUT OFF

How about that! Women ARE rational creatures! This is an astounding discovery to the world of white knights who had been laboring under the belief that women bear no moral culpability for social ills, nor exercise any self-serving sex-based calculus which might fray the social fabric.

I’m happy to see that at least in some White redoubts the direction of reform is heading away from incentivizing EatPraySlut frivorce rape and toward equitable treatment rooted in a wise understanding of the inherent, innate, and intractable biosocial differences between men and women.

Read Full Post »

Is Feminism An Ideological Rationalization Of Sour Grapes?

Williamk offers a compelling explanation of the motivating psychology of once-attractive girls who self-mutilate in the name of feminism:

Because they dont want beta orbiters, or random hookups, they want alpha commitment. That’s out of reach for even some genuinely pretty girls, the supply of alpha guys is low.

So they say “well I don’t want that anyway” and chop away their appeal to prove they totally don’t want an alpha commitment. That way it’s “her choice”, and she can stave off enough cognitive dissonance to keep from offing her self.

Pretty much every one of these cases starts with alpha widowhood.

The sour grapes fable is about the fox who can’t pluck delicious grapes hanging out of reach, so the fox pretends that it never really wanted those grapes (“they’re probably sour anyhow”). It’s related to Pointy Elbow Syndrome which afflicts internet dwelling omega males. What Williamk (and myself, in various posts) is saying is that women who have taken up the banner of feminism and uglified themselves are like the fox in the fable, insisting those out-of-reach alpha males are probably losers and misogynists anyhow, and she never really wanted their love and commitment.

Where these feminists differ from the fox is in their willingness to self-abase and self-disfigure in order to convince themselves of their ego assuaging lie. The most effective lies start with self-deception. The fox merely stated his insincere disapproval of the juicy grapes before moving on to nibble on an edible within reach; feminists underscore their insincere disapproval of masculine alpha males by mutilating themselves in body, mind, and/or spirit, and then tacitly declaring that the lack of attention from a dwindling pool of sexy men is how they wanted it. See: Amanjaw Marcuntte, or any “mainstream” feminist mouthpiece.

Which is another way of saying, “How convenient!”.

Understanding this psychology of women who straddle the upper-lower and middle tiers of female SMV, we can predict that Feminist Idiocy will only get worse with the increase in gloryhole faced soyboys. Apropos, vfm#7634 writes,

“the supply of alpha guys is low.”

Women, being the reactive sex, turn femcunt as a reaction to men becoming soybois.

If there were more alphas, you’d think that the average beta would be worse off. Not true. More alphas mean many more attractive women around.

More soyboys => relatively fewer alphas => more bitter romantic losers among women who will find ego saving solace in the embrace of man-hating and femininity-discarding feminism. Every generation deserves the sexes it gets, and if men are weak suckup betasoys, then their women will be haranguing embittered fat feminist harpies. And the feedback loop travels in both directions: the more unfeminine bluehaired fat feminists, the more low T men there are who will abandon the masculine virtues and escape to vidja, pron, and David Fatrellian male feminist toady signaling.

When soyboys abound, plain janes get resentful. Spiteful. In this condition, these tingle-denied middling SMV women on the cusp of cuteness are liable to self-destruct in one final F YOU SOYS to the un-men in their midst. Only charismatic, dominant, entitled, masculine men (including strong fathers) have a hope of walking these women back from the pussyhat brink, but those men are MIA or busy courting hotter, more feminine women.

Piling on, HoneyBear adds,

A similar formulation… they [SMV-destroying feminists] are the female equivalent of MGTOW.

Many girls are probably as disgusted as redpilled men are about the desecration of the postmodern mating market. Their hearts want a prince for life. The self-mutilation is them recoiling in horror from the Jewish slaughterhouse of souls.

They don’t understand the cause and nature of the problem, so they fall prey to diabolical lies; they direct their hate at the wrong target, and lash out in the wrong way.

Aghast at the nature of the beast, men blame women and women blame men. There used to be a system that caged the beast, but somebody unchained it intentionally.

The Id Monster is loosed.

One tried and true method for women to follow if they want to improve their chance to land a winner man willing and eager to commit to them is to avoid accumulating too many cock notches (really, any number greater than one is a red flag), to resist mudsharking, and to give of themselves heart and vagina at a young prime fertility age to a worthy man.

This may mean cutting back on the number of years devoted to mimosa brunches, college degrees, and cat selfies, but it’s a small price to pay for lifelong happiness. You’d think.

I’ve written that the goal of feminism is

…to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.

This goal serves a purpose, and it dovetails with the feminism-as-sour-grapes-rationalization argument, considering that female romantic losers (and mediocre women with a bigger hill to climb to capture a masculine man’s eye) would benefit from rearranging the world so that their every whim, preference, and desire are encouraged and celebrated, while men’s every whim, preference, and desire are circumscribed and shamed. This won’t get those women the alphas they want, but it will provide social cover for their bruised egos.

Similarly, feminism is an equalizing ideology; feminists (though they may not know it) cling to their mistaken beliefs because the point of the ideology isn’t truth, it’s to level the female playing field:

According to Benenson, a common way women deal with the threat represented by a remarkably powerful or beautiful woman is by insisting on standards of equality, uniformity, and sharing for all the women in the group and making these attributes the normative requirements of proper femininity. […]

From early childhood onwards, girls compete using strategies that minimize the risk of retaliation and reduce the strength of other girls. Girls’ competitive strategies include avoiding direct interference with another girl’s goals, disguising competition, competing overtly only from a position of high status in the community, enforcing equality within the female community and socially excluding other girls.

***

So feminists’ promotion of anti slut-shaming and anti fat-shaming and anti ugly-shaming and anti single-mother-shaming etc, is really just an execution of women’s intra-sexual competitive strategies. It’s the bottom third of women versus the top two thirds. Or perhaps it’s the bottom quarter, as if I remember correctly only 20-25% of women identify as feminist.

With knowledge such as this, you can easily reframe any leftist/feminist argument about a war on women as instead a war by the bottom loser women against the top successful women.

It’s the SU’s (Sluts & Uglies) versus the HB’s.

The Sour Grapes and Intrasexual Egalitarianism theories of feminism may at first glance seem unrelated or even contradicting, but it makes sense when you realize the latter theory’s feminist equalizing push for uniformity in standards of female behavior and SMV that evades and eschews judgment (implicitly denying that men have, or should have, standards in female sexual and relationship worth) is a complement to the former theory’s function as cognitive dissonance relief for marginal chicks who lose out in a liberated sexual market. The former — Sour Grapes — is the backup hugbox for their egos when the latter — Female SMV Uniformity — fails sufficiently to convince the HSMV hot babes to relinquish their advantages or to convince society to celebrate every feminist bout of insanity as womanhood perfected.

As society fills up with more soyboys and turns away from enabling the side show circus act known as cunt’th wave feminism (thanks in part to the very special lessons this outpost of love lovingly administers), we can expect to see more borderline chicks, with juuuuust enough latent SMV to help them fantasize they have a shot to land an alpha male, embracing the uglification protocol of Sour Grapes Feminism.

A rapidly disintegrating and unregulated, atomized sexual market that becomes more primal by the day will drive many more disillusioned women on the losing side of the romantic life ledger into self-mutilation, and likewise beta men into self-castration.

In this reading, relations between the sexes have to get much worse before they get better. The Bluehair Apocuntlypse is the necessary nadir of the battle of the sexes, when fraternizing is limited to the few remaining slender feminine women and dominant, charming men, and the rest are mutually repulsed low T soyboys and tatted hair-chopped feminist scolds. That’s rock bottom, and when the West hits it our shared worldview will experience a massive paradigm shift back to accepting and elevating the wisdom of the ancients, when the sexes knew their roles, their weaknesses, and their strengths, and joyfully reveled in their inspiriting sexual polarity…

…instead of denying their polarity to stew angrily and spitefully in an androgynous passionless soulless slop of equalist anhedonia.

Read Full Post »

When A Girl Intercepts A Communique Between Her Brain And Vagina

Chicks dig jerks.

If you want to be the jerk chicks dig, don’t appeal to her forebrain.

Try rubbing her hindbrain.

That means yelling a little and generally behaving like the dominant, self-entitled man truly loved by women who indignantly insist otherwise, instead of like the appeasing yes-beta lackey who gives women everything they claim to want.

After all, you can’t fuck a woman’s frontal cortex. (Fuck with, sure, but that’s filed under Relationship Management Game.)

Read Full Post »