Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘The Id Monster’ Category

In case you aren’t on Twatter, this studious evisceration of an article written by Jonathon Morgan purporting to “prove” that the alt-right is filled with “radical extremists” intent on committing the next 9/11 is one of the best counter-salvos against an emergent shitlib hate meme I have come across.

I suggest you take some time to read it through. Conclusion: What Morgan identifies as evidence of “alt-right radicalization” is actually just evidence that the alt-right is saying things that the media ACTIVELY COVERS UP OR REFUSES TO SAY.

Aligning yourself against the anti-Gentile narrative of the leftoid media hivemind can now class you as a “radical extremist” who is part of a “breeding ground for terrorism”. Did you get that? If you mention an unauthorized fact concerning our wonderful Diversitopia you are the equivalent of an ISIS supporter and should be placed on an FBI anti-terrorism watch list.

We are dealing with some truly evil manipulative fucks running the show in America. It almost as if they’re doing everything in their power to bring to life the very angry backlash they claim to want to avoid.

***

PS Shitlibs love quoting this mathematically ignorant “statistic” from Time:

In fact, until the nightclub shootings in Orlando, white extremists had committed more attacks and killed more Americans than jihadist extremists since 9/11.

Do shitlibs even math? The word a shitlib hates to hear more than any other is “disproportionate”. Meaning, as a share of their population (1%), Muslims in America are 5,000% more likely than non-Muslim Americans to commit a terrorist attack.

5000

Read Full Post »

Recall the Chateau Heartiste Fundamental Premise governing all human social dynamics.

Eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap. Every psychological dynamic you see playing out in mass societies liberated from artificial constraints on the sexual market flows from this premise. This means, as a systemic matter, women are coddled, men are upbraided. Women are victims, men are victimizers. Women need a leg up, men need to man up. Women have advocacy groups, men have equal opportunity violations. A woman subjected to the indignity of eavesdropping on a tame joke about dongles makes national news, while the chilling fact that 95% of all workplace deaths are suffered by men barely pings the media consciousness.

The Fundamental Premise essentially states that women are more reproductively valuable than are men, and that this inherent biological disparity in sex-based worth precipitates all sorts of double standards in social policy and cultural norms.

Aaaaaaand once again ¡SCIENCE!, with love in her heart and fire in her loins, administers a meticulous old-fashioned to my tumescent ego.

Moral decision making study finds men willing to sacrifice 3 hypothetical men for every woman of reproductive value.

***

Killing someone in order to save several lives seems more morally acceptable to men than to women. We suggest that this greater approbation of utilitarian killings may reflect gender differences in the tolerance to inflicting physical harm, which are partly the product of sexual selection. Based on this account, we predicted that men may be less utilitarian than women in other conditions. In four studies, we show that men are more likely than women to make the anti-utilitarian (hypothetical) choice of causing three same sex deaths to save one opposite sex life; and that this choice is more likely when there are fewer potential sexual partners, more likely for heterosexual men and less likely if the female character to be saved no longer has reproductive value.

The id-shiv is contained in that final bolded part. That, more than anything, proves the Fundamental Premise: women are coddled only when they still have REPRODUCTIVE VALUE. As women age into the dead ovary zone, men treat them same as they do other men: with utilitarian indifference.

This, too, explains more than anything the bitter man-hating rage that your typical aging feminist spinster is capable of uncorking on “the patriarchy”. She has lost her female privilege, a privilege that, unlike the mythological male privilege, has real world evidence (and, now, scientific evidence) proving its existence.

White Knighting and Pussy Pedestaling is baked in the braincake, so to speak. As is the disposability of men. Remember all this the next time some whackjob feminist is screeching about the poor poor wymyn suffering under the boot heel of male privilege. She is constructing a semantic fantasy world and deluding herself that she lives in it. Her lying theatrics are a balm for the fear that she’s discovering what it’s really like to live as a man in what is in reality a woman’s world.

Read Full Post »

The globalist warehouse of planned obsolescence consumerism, Amazon, uses the same Takeaway Game that Trump and PUAs use to seduce their respective objects of love. Reader Mutant Seven notices the relevant algorithm,

I was howling over today’s post, “Trump’s Takeaway Game.” The takeaway close is a brilliant maneuver and I fall for it every time – even though I know about it! I keep a bunch of shit in my Amazon “save for later” queue, just to monitor the price fluctuations. These are things I want but don’t at all need. (A lot of people must do this, and the Amazon AI overlords must cackle in fiendish glee every time we take the bait.) Let’s say there’s an item in my queue for $10, for example a new pair of handlebar gel grips. I see it at $10 day after day but all I do is stare at it. Then it starts to move. It goes up to $11.29. The next day $13.01. The day after that $14.75. Now I’m legitimately pissed. Shit, fuck, goddamn! I could have had those at $10. Now they’re way out of price. No way! Then a few days later it drops to $9.99. Man, I jump on that baby like it was a magna cum laude grad at Beverly Hills Cosmetology Tech. Bam, it’s mine now! Hahaha!!

Oh wait, I still didn’t really need it.

Works every time.

You can call it a brain hack. I prefer to call it a pussy pry, given that my amazingly prime (heh) consumer base is lithe ladies.

All goal-oriented language has an element of seduction, and Game denialists who support Trump should know they are as much in thrall to their happy manipulation as any “BPD damaged bar slut”. (self-refuting sneer quotes added for effect).

I wonder if something similar to Takeaway Game can be redirected to utterly discredit and socially isolate Jeff Bezos’ anti-Trump rag, the Washington Post-Op? Flood the gynecomasperger social media hives with broken links to “this great Wapo article DEMOLISHING Trump”, wait for unfulfilled ego validation to build, and then “fix” link to point to whatever mildly anti-Hillary article you can dig up on Wapo. A little bait-n-switch mixed with heightened anticipation and higher buying temperature could yield a lot of snapped shitlimbic systems.

Read Full Post »

Via a Steve post that bitingly mocks David Brooks’ platitude slinging with an impressive economy of words, commenter guest adds,

Brooks: Those who try to reduce politics to these identities do real violence to national life.

For anyone wondering what an empty platitude looks like.

I don’t think it is empty. It’s very revealing. Not just for the psychology behind it, but for what it actually says. It empties out the term “nation,” admittedly, but that is what they, the Brooks types, think a nation is. A big nothing, full of interchangeable people. Or consumption units, if you will. You do damage to the Big, Empty, Interchangeable Nation when you take the consumption units and “reduce” them to their particular attributes.

Then you make all these smaller units, which might not get along. That’s what Brooksites think, anyway. In reality, the identities are real. It’s the Big Empty image that’s an illusion. And the identities will fight; there will be blood. You can’t avoid it by redefining “nation” to preclude their existence.

Shorter version: Diversity + Proximity = War. Anyhow, this talk of “interchangeable consumption units” sounds awfully familiar. Another Sailer commenter, Njguy73, excerpts the relevant connection,

“You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations. There are no peoples…There is only one holistic system of systems, one…dominion of dollars…There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM, and ITT, and AT&T, and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide, and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today….We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale. The world is a college of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable bylaws of business. The world is a business, Mr. Beale. It has been since man crawled out of the slime…” –

Arthur Jensen (Ned Beatty) to Howard Beale (Peter Finch), Network, 1976 film

The consumerization of nation requires the eradication of racial identity, because only race and nation affiliation obstructs the uninterrupted wealth aggrandizement of the symbol manipulators. Globalist ruling elite have taken the message of Network to heart. guest qualifies,

Network, like all things liberal, is pointed the wrong way. We had a country with business in charge, once, and it didn’t look like this. Ideas and idea-men have the power. It’s universities, NGOs, and permanent governments, the managerial elite, who are in charge. They run the corporations, too. Business is along for the ride and allowed to benefit.

Lag time is a factor in these monstrous social upheavals. 1950s American business class didn’t look like they do today, but they agitated for the global order that has erupted in the past fifteen years, and planted the seed that would grow into the multikult kudzu draining the nation’s soil of her life-giving blood.

The 2016 American election pits two ideas of such majestic consequence that it really can be considered a life or death choice: will we be a dominion of dollars (or renminbi), or a nation of people?

Read Full Post »

Both are examples of the commonplace phenomenon of the bitter mulatto who spites his White mother’s heritage and yearns for his missing black daddy’s love.

Keepin’ it real, yo.

Read Full Post »

Porn for women is an overlooked phenomenon, partly because the type of porn that stimulates women isn’t as visually arresting as the porn that consumes men. The pink and moist pyrotechnics we associate with the online porn that readily captures male attention does little for women (though recent data suggest more women are turning to online porn for sexual relief, the numbers are still low, under 20%).

Female porn utilizes a different medium of arousal delivery, but the effect on the female libido and ability to form healthy relationships is just as profound as that of online porn’s effect on men.

So what is female porn? It’s pulp romance — in the form of books, movies and TV — that caresses lady limbic lobes to sprout slick clit dick. In a word: words.

More wokely, a lot of that female porn is rape fantasy porn.

The premise: women are different than men, in the most fundamental ways imaginable. Evolution as old as time has resulted in a sexually reproducing species that has inherited sexual, mental and psychological traits differentiating the sexes.

If you can’t accept this premise (self-delusion is a widespread affliction in post-America), then you won’t understand how it is words can have the same power over women’s horny levels that graphic crotch-slapping close-ups have on men’s horny levels. Nevertheless, it’s true. Women are turned on when they read salacious stories that allow their hindminds to fill in the sticky details.

There are hundreds of thousands of self-published ebook authors, but according to Amazon, only 40 of these have managed to make a profit by selling over 1 million copies of their ebooks over the last five years. Ms. Wild happens to be one of them. What is her secret? […]

So let’s look at what Ms. Wild writes about in her novels. Her first novel, Hardwired, is about a young woman’s encounters with “an array of sexual kinks.” Her subsequent novels are along the same vein. At the end of the article, a writer for Ms. Wild’s new publishing house says she is happy to “focus on writing sex scenes” because: “I just want to write wicked hot books.”

And here the light begins to flicker onto the truth. Under the euphemism of “romance,” Ms. Wild peddles erotica, the literary equivalent of pornography. While her books are not filled with nude photographs or graphic video, they contain the same drug reconstituted into another form: words that translate into pornographic images which burn into the minds of their readers (to see for yourself, excerpts of her novels are available on her website).

Ms. Wild, it turns out, is the female equivalent of Hugh Hefner. She is a verbal drug pusher, shoving words as potent as cocaine at her own gender.

And droves of women are clearly addicted. In an industry that is insanely competitive, where most authors earn below the poverty line, Ms. Wild’s first novel, published in 2014, was making $500,000 in royalties per month soon after its release. Ms. Wild sold a total of 1.4 million copies of this book and agreed to a $6.25 million advance for five books. She also started a new publishing house, which has already sold more than a million copies and hit the New York Times Bestseller list with one of its first titles, Calendar Girl.

The bottom line on the numbers of female porn consumers:

But according to Laurie Kahn, producer of the documentary film Love Between the Covers: “More than 70 million people in the USA alone read at least one romance novel per year, and most of them read many more.”

The US Census for 2015 shows there are 100 million women between 18 and 64 years old living in the United States. If Kahn’s number is correct, and assuming that the majority of those “70 million people” are women, then up to 70 percent of American women are covertly consuming literary pornography.

Pleasureman wept.

Does any of this matter? Parents want to shield their kids from visual porn, but they don’t feel nearly the same protective affront when a woman is reading a pulp romance novel in public.

You are sitting on a bus during your morning commute. In the seat next to you, there is a male passenger reading Penthouse. Chances are you may feel upset, perhaps disgusted. You might even demand that he stop.

On the other side, there is a female passenger holding a book with a very plain cover, entitled Into the Fire. With a mysterious title like that, this book could be about anything. If you ask, the passenger will tell you that it is a “romance” novel by Meredith Wild. The passenger has always loved these kinds of books, she tells you, ever since she read Jane Austen as a teenager. Innocent fairy tale, you conclude.

Both passengers are consuming pornography. But the woman is doing it so discreetly that almost no one recognizes it—often, not even the statistics.

Here’s the thing: the woman reading Into the Fire on the bus is popping a public lady boner just as assuredly as a man scouring Pornclearinghouse on his iPhag is jutting impudently into the public space. From five feet away, typeset is harder to discern than a streaming PIV video; that’s the only difference between the porn-consuming man and woman and the social norms they are violating.

Among those who admit that romance literature is pornography, there is a tendency to consider it “soft-core” (some also downplay it as “mommy porn“). This implies that it is less potent and less dangerous than the “hard” visual stuff that fries the brains of men.

When viewed from a male perspective, it makes sense to classify “pornmance” as “soft” pornography. Men are more visual than women, so they respond more strongly to photographs and video. To men, images are like crack cocaine, and literary pornography is mere marijuana.

But for women, the opposite is true. Women are less visual, and so less attracted to the internet pornography that is irresistible to men. For women, visual pornography should be considered a light beer while the emotionally charged “pornmance” novel is 70-proof liquor, hard-core pornography.

100% truefact. This is something that tradcons don’t get.

And there are many “romance alcoholics.” Women get addicted to romance books in the same way that men get addicted to photographs and videos. In 2011, one psychologist reported that she was “seeing more and more women who are clinically addicted to romantic books.”

Time for a NO DIDDLE movement.

Like other addictions, “pornmance” novels mess with women’s brains and wreak havoc in their lives. According to therapists, these books can cause women to become dissatisfied with their marriages, to become “dangerously unbalanced,” and according to a pornography addiction counselor, to have affairs.

A smarmy white knight would never finger a cause for the high divorce rate that didn’t apportion blame entirely on men. In the pussy pedestaler’s worldview, only drunk, abusive, layabout men end marriages. To them, women aren’t capable of crass sexual escapism driven by primal insatiable lusts.

Is it mere coincidence that nearly 70 percent of divorces in the United States are initiated by women?

The authoress of this article, Lea Singh, must be a CH reader. Little spoon?

If online porn is a problem for society, then so is word porn. If you argue that online porn is causing men to “drop out” and deep-six their marriages and relationships, then you have to also argue that word porn is causing women to do the same.

I’ve said it before to obstinate tradcons and their ironic bedfellows, the man-hating feminist cunts:

It takes two to tango. Especially if that tango two-steps to the metagrave.

Read Full Post »

Via Shiv Maester chris, a study that puts hard numbers to women’s sexual (and thus romantic) worth.

This gives us data showing that late teens to early twenties women are twice the value of a 30 year old women, and the 30 year old woman is twice the value of a 40 year old woman.

Women who leave settling down till they have finished college and started a career/paid off college debts are screwing themselves over when it comes to capitalising on their attractiveness to secure a high value long term mate.

By examining what men are willing to pay for sex, Professor Sohn provides a new window onto this issue of fertility and attraction. Men do not have unrestrained choice in whom they marry or date, but they do get to choose whether or not to pay a prostitute for sex, and the amount they are willing to pay reveals something about what they most prefer. Economists call this “revealed preferences,” assuming that the amount we are willing to pay for any commodity gives a good index of how much we value it.

womensvalue

That is some stone cold id-vivisecting truth right there. Am I a sadist for pressing this news above the fold? Sure. But I am also a giver. A humanitarian, even, whose message, if heeded, will save the love lives of many, many post-America wayward women.

A 40-year-old woman is worth (sexually) half of a 30-year-old woman, who is worth half of a 20-year-old vixen. These incontestable facts about the nature of the sexual market matter, and matter in big ways, to women’s romantic fortunes.

PS Despite the age-related radical decrease in prostitute’s earnings, it is funny to note that a 40-year-old actual whore still makes more than an established 40-year-old corporate whore. Even bad sex is more valuable to men than a paper pushing HR schoolmarm.

PeePeeEss Big swinging stones to the first shivlord who sports a tee with that hourly earnings graphic above on it, and swaggers into daylight to hit on girls while wearing it.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: