The Stifling Uniformity Of Shitlibopolises

Jay in DC writes,

I jump on Tinder every now and then just for shits & grins. It is definitely heading downhill in a big way. It is similar to what Hermes stated above. As Clown World grows the ‘list of demands’ gets longer and the attractiveness of those demanding gets lower. Also those insane 35+; women speaking as if they are 20 and have all the time in the world is exceptionally common now.

The current market is insanity incarnate. First of all, they are VERY fucking hostile. Fully half of the profiles I flicked through are just angsty, angry, demanding, and entitled. Who the fuck wants to be around that for even a nano-second? I will tell you who. Thirsty ass beta herbs. And they are LEGION. This is why allows this shitshow to continue.

Then you have the fact that we are down to about 1 in 10 or 1 in 20 women with a normal BMI. That reflects the thing we talk about on college campuses too which is even more distressing. Because at 18-21 you are the BEST you are ever going to be, its all downhill from there. If you are a hambeast then? Yikes…

The West is fucking miserable in almost every aspect. Maybe in the in between places it is still somewhat normal but based on my own experience and talking to the peeps I know in other urban areas, its shyte pretty much across the board. Pozzed Gynarcho-Tyranny is our system of government and life in general.

For the reasons Jay and Hermes give (and which I’ve written about before), I abandoned online dating a long time ago. I saw the writing on the wall: it was always going to end in a veil of beta male thirst and battlecunt entitlement.

Face to face, eyeball to eyeball, cockas to tingle, is the only way a man can break through the entitled bitch field now. And yes, the poz has gone national. I’ve been to almost every major “I’m With Her” city, and lived in a considerable number of them. All the big blue shitlib cities are the same — same shitlibbery, same slogans, same bumper stickers and window signs, same restaurants, same museums filled with the same ugly modern art, same “celebrating diversity” murals, same graphic tees, same apartment and condo glass-encased architecture, same local papers written in the same smug activist style, same craft breweries and gin distilleries, same nightclubs, same bars, same faux grimy music halls, same luxury indie theaters, same outdoor hanging lights, same “ironic” themed Millennial venues, same vintage shops serving the same shabby chic clientele, same cocktails with the same pop culture inspired names, same fertility-killing cost of living, same pride parades, same language of euphemisms to describe the same fucking thing (staying away from blacks and browns), same uber drivers, and same entitled overeducated battlecunt shrikes.

About fifteen or so years ago, a blueprint was set for how to gentrify cities, and it took off like wildfire through every shitlibopolis, sea to syphilitic sea, and in the process all the local flavor, the uniqueness inherent in such a large nation like America, was flattened into a smarmy White hipster beanbag romper room.

Channeling J Derbyshire, “Goodbye, weird, wild America.” This is what happens to a country when it imports too much mutually antagonistic nonWhite Diversity: a leveling of wonderfully peculiar White subcultures into a corporatized, MBA-approved mash that only distinguishes itself in relation to the utter dreariness and dysfunction of the nonWhite communitaaaahhs encircling these White urban hospices like a gathering enemy army.

Caught Your GF Cheating. What Do You Do?

Wisely, you could videotape her treachery so you don’t have to listen to hours of her insulting denials:

Lmao my girlfriend just cheated on me in real life pic.twitter.com/MW9b6ehcWg

— TJ Laramie (@laramietj) August 19, 2018

Not always, but often enough, when a man acts blasé upon discovering his gf cheated on him, it means he’s got side pieces and doesn’t care very much about his primary’s fidelity. Or, he could be a stone cold chronicler of slore perfidy, a man of focused mind and icy blood, who knows videotape evidence utterly exonerates him in the court of social opinion and ruins his whore’s reputation with any man worth having and with any woman worth befriending.

Cast to the cock holster wastelands, is she.

A twatterer asked TJ Laramie (a UFC fighter) why he didn’t smash the interloper male. His reply,

This video was worth way more than a charge

In Current Year Clown World — aka our dysfunctional Gynarcho-Tyranny — Laramie is right. This was the smart play. Public humiliation of a whore > State sponsored punishment for defending one’s property from an invading force.

Some understand the nature of the game:

You went about it correctly. Unless this guy knows you personally the anger needs to be placed on the person in connection with you.

***

When that dude walked in the house he knew another man lived there.

***

So did she.

Touché.

Realtalk that will upset the White Knight Wünderdorks: when a ho cheats, she owns the infraction. None of this “oh but he seduced me” or “he took advantage of me in a weak moment” crap. This is the dawning of the Age of Awakening. Men who are the least bit clued in to the rough and sleazy nature of Woman know that ye faire maidens are neither, and will willfully, voluntarily, gleefully cheat if circumstances and plausibly deniable hamster-fueled PR align for sexploitation.

Every man’s cold rage should primarily be directed at his cheating ho, secondarily at the cheating ho’s accessory to the gine crime. Women are the gatekeepers of sex, it’s always been that women exert ultimate control over who gains entry and who doesn’t, and women are especially and zealously discriminatory in their governance of that control.

So when a woman cheats, she meant to cheat, and she could have stopped herself at any moment leading up to the act. Laramie beating up the male accessory, while surely satisfying his primal urge for revenge, would have, absent complementary punishment of his ho, indirectly relieved her of some measure of guilt and agency, and established the peculiar precedent that whatever shit she pulls going forward will be met with his feeble anger deflated by depletion on the relatively more innocent party to the treachery.

Aging Single Mom Sues Dating Service Over ‘Lack Of Interested Men’

Woman Successfully Sues Dating Agency Over ‘Lack Of Men’

Tereza Burki was awarded $23,000 in damages for ‘deceit’ and ‘distress’.

A woman seeking a wealthy boyfriend has won £3,100 ($A23,000) in damages after an elite dating agency failed to introduce her to “possibly the man of my dreams, the father of my child”.

The High Court ruled Tereza Burki, a businesswoman living in London, was misled and deceived by dating agency Seventy Thirty about it’s “exclusive” membership, the Guardianreports.

The 47-year-old mother of three approached the dating service in 2013 in pursuit of a new partner, however, Judge Richard Parkes noted, her requirements were “not modest”.

She wanted a “sophisticated gentleman”, ideally working in finance and leading a “wealthy lifestyle”. He must also be “open to travelling internationally”. Plus, most importantly, he must be willing to have more children (she’s always wanted four).

As is usually the case with these tragic tales of bitterbitch lament, a much…clearer…understanding of the transactional dynamics motivating the complainant’s accusation is had with a glance at the glowing gal’s photo:

Three questions come to mind:

Have aging single mommies always been this delusional?

If not, what changed in the aging single mommy extended universe to lead them marching straight into the abyss of self-delusion?

If so, what culture constraints in the past helped to keep a lid on aging single mommy delusion?

Naturally, this being Clown World, she won her lawsuit.

***

williamk comments,

Those who seek status but can’t attain it through the settled order of Nature must seek to negotiate their status through whatever is its perceived arbiter. Their resulting character is a function then of the culture and who doles out status. Some cultures will produce nuns, others will give Guardian bylines and court payouts to delusional hags. Is it six of one, half dozen of the other? Not from my vantage point.

***

key keys in on the core conceit,

always wants the one kid with new sucker to lock in sprog support

busted timeline of xer retarded plan led to this legal tantrum

Gives new meaning to the term ‘anchor baby’.

The True Value Of Peacocking

The true value of peacocking — wearing or attaching something to yourself that makes you stand out in a crowd of men — is that it provokes women to test you for your alpha male boner fides.

You won’t get far with women if you aren’t being shit tested (unless your mate status is so conspicuous that the need for needling is obviated). You need those tests to demonstrate your higher value to curious women. So stoking women’s curiosity and their envy of a man who can steal audience attention from them is step one towards the bedroom.

What women are wired to seek in a potential mate is an unfakeable signal of fitness.

The problem of dishonest mutants seemed intractable until Amotz Zahavi suggested a solution: the ‘handicap principle’. The handicap principle suggested that some signals might be too costly for a signaler to fake. For instance, certain mate attraction signals might only be produced by males that are of sufficiently high quality, because the costs to lower quality males of displaying these signals would be prohibitive.

Malefeminism.exe

Parallel concepts had arisen independently in economics, where ‘conspicuous consumption’ and ‘extravagant wastefulness’ were suggested to reliably signal wealth among humans. For the handicap principle, in particular, the long train of the peacock seemed to provide a plausible example, given the expense of growing and displaying such a costly structure for its bearer. Yet, the question remained whether the handicap principle could solve other cases of conflicts-of-interest between signalers and recipients; and if not, whether there might be other solutions for signal reliability.

As men and women have competing reproductive goals, an intersex evolutionary arms race is almost guaranteed in any sexually reproducing species. Thus, men have evolved an ability or disposition to fake signals of alpha maleness, and they are successful often enough at duping women over the millennia that the fakery continues to be a feature of the modren sexual market.

Solutions for signal reliability

Recent work has indicated that the handicap principle is not the only possible explanation for the reliability of animal signals and, in fact, several mechanisms — not all of which require excessive production costs — may guarantee that signals continue to be informative over evolutionary time. Indeed, when signalers and recipients are highly related to one another, or when they have minimal conflicting interest, then signals may be cost free,

Another curse of Diversity™: the added expense of signaling mate value to the opposite sex. Maybe this explains why the sexual market of racially/ethnically diversified societies becomes more r-selected over time.

with certain types of ‘pooling equilibria’ emerging in which some signalers of different types employ the same cost-free signal. And even when signalers and recipients have strong conflicts of interest, theoretical models indicate that honesty itself need not be costly: all that is required is that each instance of lying that deviates from the honest equilibrium be met with high costs. Mechanisms for reliability in conflict situations, therefore, typically hinge on the fact that recipients of signals have their own evolutionary interests, so if signals do become unreliable, then it will no longer pay recipients to attend to them.

A big part of the PUA literature is focused on anti-AMOG tactics, which you will need to have if you intend to provoke female (and therefore competitor alpha male) interest with gaudy signaling (peacocking). If you can’t back up your peacocking with a ZFG attitude, you WILL get BTFO by women and men alike.

(Think of the newb PUAlet dressed in a royal purple jacket who gets pressed on his sartorial choice by a hottie and immediately turns red-faced, stammering a weak rationalization for an adventurous style that obviously belies the lack of an adventurous personality.)

So the real value in peacocking is that it opens a path to demonstrating grace under pressure. That pressure can come in many forms (typically via sarcastic comments from women or belittling comments from AMOGs). There’s really no point to peacocking — in fact, it can be counter-productive — unless you intend to convert it into charisma currency, ie a proof of concept, a show of alpha male cred.

For instance, I sometimes wear a goofy [X] at the [Xplace], and a few times girls have approached me to comment on [X], to which I have usually replied “I’m glad you like it!” or “you have good taste” if the girl was transparently sarcastic, putting her back on her heels defending herself and/or trying to correct my intentional misinterpretation (and therefore investing herself in my approval). If she was more mean-spirited about it, I’d say “don’t be jealous”. If she was being flirty, I might opt for an equally flirtatious reply: “I bet you say that to all the guys wearing [X]”. If (exceedingly rarely) another man makes a snide remark, I ignore him or quip “I didn’t ask for your fashion advice”. Usually, though, when I get AMOGed it’s in the spirit of frattish good fun, and I laugh along and neg the dude on his “queer eye for the straight guy”.

I don’t always peacock, but when I do it’s Dos Sexist. I have a purpose in mind, which is to trigger women out of their humdrum lives and step into the ring with a Groove Perforator. I expect the backtalk, and so I’m prepared for it, immune to the flustering which catches anxious men off-guard, which means that my “faked” signal of mate value is effective and, in a deeply meta sense, authentic.

Freelance Comment Of The Week: Anti-Fragility Is Code For ZFG

A two-fer from deadlifting economist and international man of pithiness N.N. Taleb (The Bed of Procrustes),

When she shouts that what you did was unforgivable, she has already started to forgive you.

True. This is a variation on the CH maxim that the opposite of a woman’s love isn’t her hate, it’s her indifference. A woman truly in an unforgiving mood will check out of the relationship and not care whether you express remorse. If she’s shouting at you through tears and indignation, she’s still very much in love.

Charm is the ability to insult people without offending them; nerdiness the reverse.

It’s the Neg versus the Tedium.

The Virgin Sissy Vs The Chad Oak Tree

Best thing about that Sissy Mulatto pic is that Koko Michelle is showing more masculine esprit than her wife husband.

PS Trumptweet activity is turning hot. Does our Goad Emperor know something about the state of the cracked dam we don’t yet know?

Every. Single. Time.

Another manjaw.

EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

Atavator adds,

Men have evidently been perpetually in crisis. For about 2 million years.
It’s such a shame that it took one very sensitive woman’s observations for it to be detected.

The Brown Wall is the bitterest of impacts.

ps this broad isn’t american. she will never be american.