Yer ‘ginal aerator has not sifted through virgin forests of montes pubis without noticing a thing or two about the rhythmic ecological tickings of women. One of those tickings is the unmistakable sound of the cogwheel shift that occurs in women who have the good fortune to fall under the admiring gaze of an overconfident man.
“Over-” being the key prefix here.
As always, social science plays catch-up to the keen Heartiste eye.
A study from 2012 concluded that even when overconfidence produces subpar results, its charm still wins the day. We might expect someone with more confidence than ability to underperform when pressed. The study tested that expectation and found it more or less accurate – but also found that it really doesn’t matter. Overconfidence may not shine when objectively tested, but it has a knack for seducing people to such a degree that they ignore the results in favor of keeping the golden child on a pedestal.
Sounds suspiciously like women ignoring the red flags of relationship threat when they’re in love with jerkboys.
If you had to isolate why, it seems to come down to a matter of status—a commodity that overconfidence is expert at creating and nurturing. When managed well, the social status conferred by overconfidence has an aura just shy of magical, capable of keeping our attention diverted from measurable results.
Chicks dig men with social status, i.e., leaders of men and women. They dig that male character trait more than looks, money, or dependability.
That’s a jarringly paradoxical conclusion when you consider the average person’s gut reaction to “that overconfident jerk.” How can we be both repulsed and seduced by the same thing? The question gets stranger in light of another study that showed how even rudeness gets a pass if its bearer’s overconfidence has alchemized sufficient status.
In one of the study’s experiments, participants watched a video of a man at a sidewalk café put his feet on another chair, tap cigarette ashes on the ground and rudely order a meal. Participants rated the man as more likely to “get to make decisions” and able to “get people to listen to what he says” than participants who saw a video of the same man behaving politely. Through a few other experiments the same results prevailed – people tended to rate the rule breakers as more in control and powerful compared to people who toed the line.
Jerks are rule breakers. Rule breaking is perceived as high status. High male status is attractive to women.
And what’s the all-essential ingredient in believing oneself above the rules? Why yes, overconfidence, of course. (This may also help explain why rude sales associates outsell others at luxury stores.)
Fake it till you make it. And then, once you’ve made it, fake it even more.
Those studies circle the question of why we’re prone to falling for the chutzpah of overconfidence, but say little of why the overconfident are so good at pulling it off. The most recent study on the subject has an answer that’s not likely to lessen our irritation about this whole thing, but irritatingly makes decent sense.
It can be summarized like this: Belief sells, whether it’s true or not. In the case of overconfidence, the belief in one’s ability—however out of proportion to reality—generates its own infectious energy. Self-deception is a potent means of convincing the world to see things your way.
Inner game. You won’t succeed with women until you first internalize the belief that you CAN succeed with women. And are DESTINED to succeed with women. Another term for this is ABUNDANCE MENTALITY. When you start to believe that there’s a new woman around every corner excited to meet you, that no one woman has a monopoly on specialness, then WOMEN THEMSELVES will begin to believe that about you, too. It’s as if your self-enlarging belief system is carried aloft on an ether of sexy vibes that women can sniff out from the dispiriting miasma of beta male self-doubt that permeates their existence.
While we may not like that conclusion, it’s difficult to argue that it isn’t in evidence around us every day. People who don’t believe in themselves—whether that belief is well-grounded or not—aren’t likely to convince others to buy in.
A better description of the beta male mindset you would be hard-pressed to find.
What the latest study and elements of the others are telling us is that self-deception is an especially potent brand of status fertilizer. When packaged with personality, it makes others want to believe even when the results would counsel otherwise.
Game is applied charisma. Charisma is status + a charming personality. These characteristics will lift an ugly man to a desirable man in the hearts of women. A false belief in your allure as a womanizer will become a true belief in time, and you can thank women’s loving assistance for the evolution.
It’s time has come. More precisely, it’s time came ten years ago. We’re already playing catch-up.
False rape accusations put innocent men in jail where they are buttfucked by large black men. Feminists cheer this. Feminists are hateful cunts. It’s time to turn the tables on them and their manlet taint-lappers.
A publicly accessible list of women who have falsely accused men of rape they didn’t commit will go a long way towards shaming these succubi until they slice lengthwise. This will also serve as a lesson for the others.
Call it… David’s List. Would a diligent, energetic entrepreneur care to take up the challenge? Justice and righteousness will guide your path.
Q. My Son Can’t Keep His Hands Off Himself: I am a single mother with a 14-year-old son. I knew this time was coming but now I fear I am close to my wit’s end. I have seen evidence in his bedroom, the laundry room, and the kitchen. I know this is normal, but how much is too much? Things escalated last week when his hockey coach called me in for a conference. I have noticed my son has been taking a lot of penalties this season. It turns out he has been intentionally going to the penalty box to pleasure himself. I lashed out at him when about this and things have been awkward around the house this weekend. Am I overreacting? I know I have to talk about this with him in a calm setting, but I always find the thought of this type of discussion horrifying. I am losing sleep and I don’t want to succumb to letting his father deal with this, but what should I do?
Prudie’s (aka Emily YOFFE’s) answer is mostly anodyne, though she can’t resist the femtard compulsions to demonize the biological father and rationalize cutting him out of the picture, and to suggest “therapaaaaaah” for the boy. Yes, that’s the answer to all the problems that boys cause empowered, independent women: Therapy. While you’re at it, why not pry his eyeballs open and have him watch 48 hours of uninterrupted footage of suffrage marches and The View?
“I don’t want to succumb to letting his father deal with this”
Gotta love the pathological, unrelenting selfishness of single moms. Yes, don’t succumb to letting the kid have a talk with his real dad about something that his dad would intuitively understand. Better to yell at him for soiling your cuntrags.
This story? This is future America. Those who are nonchalant about our coming single momhood dystopia take heed: Your world is about to fill up with a lot more crusted calling cards.
Of course not – for a simple reason, when you are face-to-face they don’t compare you to their mythical ideal, they feel attraction and voila, the panties come off. But with an app they compare you to their “idea” of what they should date. That is much more limited, if you meet that criteria, you’re golden, if you don’t you won’t get any trim… Simple…
Remember, women cannot control whom they are attracted to – and it’s often almost the opposite of what they think they want. Heck, no young 18 yo old thinks, “What I need is a 50+ year old to plow me like a field.” And if they thought about it, they would walk, but when they are there and feeling the attraction – all of that doesn’t matter, their little rationalization hamster goes full speed later to justify what they are feeling, “Sure, he’s older, but that means we can do more, and it’s FUN.” I have one that loves it when people will refer to her as “your daughter” when we’re out, as she’ll practically attack me and then say something like, “He’s my step-father.” Just to shock them… That is what women live for – the excitement, and an “app” on a phone can’t deliver that.
It is that simple…
This is well said, and I extend Just Saying a CH Honorary Degree in Preening.
The fact is that any medium which removes context and nuance and body language from the courtship will invariably redound to the man’s detriment, because men are judged by women on far more than their looks. Online dating does not penalize women as much as it does men, because women were always judged first and foremost on their looks. A profile pic may be a flawed substitute for a 3D representation of a girl, but it’s still a serviceable substitute that gives men most of the information they need that they would similarly get in the field, (barring fatties and oldies posting inaccurate pics).
In contrast, men are more harshly penalized by a medium in which the profile pic is heavily weighted. Women are attracted to men’s personalities as much as or more than they’re attracted to men’s physical presences. Online courtship handicaps the ability of men to project, spoken and unspoken, those sexy contours of their personalities that arouse women. Yes, there’s the option to write a witty or indifferently douchey bio that captures some essence of the man, but the style and rapid-fire trawling of online dating sites conspires to focus the female mate judgement algorithm on the attached pic before anything else comes into view. Average looking men are at a disadvantage online that they wouldn’t be in the real world, where they could boldly approach women and force them to take the measure of all their cocksure attributes.
Online courtship isn’t hopeless. For some men — the top 5% in looks, the exceptionally witty who have cornered a niche market, the mass copypastas playing an urban numbers game, the convicts with internet access — online game is a useful adjunct to whatever fleshworld game occupies their time.
But don’t expect internet game to net you the high quality lays and high octane love that face to face game has the greater potential to deliver. In the field, you only have a woman to seduce. Online, you have to seduce her and her alpha male apparition. One hurdle is better than two.
It’s becoming clearer with every close examination of the subject that online dating is a poor facsimile of real world dating. The latest social science shows that the Dunbar number — 150, the number of people of varying acquaintance an average person could reasonably manage in his social circle — doesn’t increase on social media virtual networks. In fact, the evidence suggests that online social networks degrade the quality of our more intimate inner circle relationships because we devote more of our mental energy to maintaining connections with distant people.
With social media, we can easily keep up with the lives and interests of far more than a hundred and fifty people. But without investing the face-to-face time, we lack deeper connections to them, and the time we invest in superficial relationships comes at the expense of more profound ones. We may widen our network to two, three, or four hundred people that we see as friends, not just acquaintances, but keeping up an actual friendship requires resources. “The amount of social capital you have is pretty fixed,” Dunbar said. “It involves time investment. If you garner connections with more people, you end up distributing your fixed amount of social capital more thinly so the average capital per person is lower.” If we’re busy putting in the effort, however minimal, to “like” and comment and interact with an ever-widening network, we have less time and capacity left for our closer groups. Traditionally, it’s a sixty-forty split of attention: we spend sixty per cent of our time with our core groups of fifty, fifteen, and five, and forty with the larger spheres. Social networks may be growing our base, and, in the process, reversing that balance.
Close real world friendships suffer when we whore for attention on Facebook from people we hardly know. It’s similar to how multitasking and clickbait internet distractions corrode our mental ability to focus deeply on a single topic. Our intimate relations and our creativity are both sacrificed in this new world mordor.
On an even deeper level, there may be a physiological aspect of friendship that virtual connections can never replace. This wouldn’t surprise Dunbar, who discovered his number when he was studying the social bonding that occurs among primates through grooming. Over the past few years, Dunbar and his colleagues have been looking at the importance of touch in sparking the sort of neurological and physiological responses that, in turn, lead to bonding and friendship. “We underestimate how important touch is in the social world,” he said. With a light brush on the shoulder, a pat, or a squeeze of the arm or hand, we can communicate a deeper bond than through speaking alone. “Words are easy. But the way someone touches you, even casually, tells you more about what they’re thinking of you.”
Once again, a game concept — this time, kino and the art of touching and physical escalation — is corroborated by ❤science❤. A player will communicate a lot of his sexual intention nonverbally, through escalating violations of his quarry’s personal space. If he is skilled, the woman will respond to his touches with intensifying attraction, and erotic thoughts will sabotage her efforts at studied indifference. This tension is what will make her seduction so memorable for her in days, and maybe years, to come.
One concern, though, is that some social skills may not develop as effectively when so many interactions exist online. We learn how we are and aren’t supposed to act by observing others and then having opportunities to act out our observations ourselves. We aren’t born with full social awareness, and Dunbar fears that too much virtual interaction may subvert that education. “In the sandpit of life, when somebody kicks sand in your face, you can’t get out of the sandpit. You have to deal with it, learn, compromise,” he said. “On the internet, you can pull the plug and walk away. There’s no forcing mechanism that makes us have to learn.” If you spend most of your time online, you may not get enough in-person group experience to learn how to properly interact on a large scale—a fear that, some early evidencesuggests, may be materializing.
Thin-skinned, infantile, tantrum throwing, socially retarded internet SJWs explained. A little bit of pushback, and your typical online male feminist or fatty apologist shrieks in horror and promptly retreats to the comfort of a two liter Mountain Dew with a side of Cheetos.
“It’s quite conceivable that we might end up less social in the future, which would be a disaster because we need to be more social—our world has become so large” Dunbar said. The more our virtual friends replace our face-to-face ones, in fact, the more our Dunbar number may shrink.
Online dating is the perfect match for our sperged-out, credentialist suck-up culture. Static photos, a CV, and all the nuance, grace, subtle physical cues, playful expressions, and sexual tension stripped from the initial courtship maneuverings are exactly what America’s fearful androgynes want. It’s a world perfectly crafted by, or perfectly symptomatic of, the sexually neutered and psychologically withered beta males and the aggro, unfeminine, ego-salving bloat bodies that pass for females. There is even evidence now that relationships which form from meeting online are more likely to break up.
Call me old school, but I prefer meeting and seducing women in the flesh, where the pleasant discomfort of the moment can’t be escaped, our stats can’t be aridly collated and perused, my probing hands can’t be evaded, my warm smirk can’t be missed, my wordless entendres can’t be mistaken. The incitement and sustenance of a woman’s romantic attraction demands a… personal touch.
Anton Chigurh (watch where you point that thing) colorfully, Bukowski-ly, paints a picture of the current state of Western White Man’s self-annihilating mind.
“[re: Ebola], there is always something new out of Africa, and it’s all bad.”
LOL’ed
…
The elites in the West are so terrified of seeming racist that they’re apparently willing to kill us for it.
The West is like the stupid white girl at the bar who gets invited to go off on her own by a black guy. She is terrified of looking racist in front of her friends, one of whom is a black girl from the office who she likes to impress with her liberalism.
So she goes happily with the black fella, who turns out to be a savage niqger. Later, after the niqger brutally rapes her without a condom and leaves her in an alley for dead, she thinks, well, at least now everybody knows I’m not a racist.
A day later she sits in her hospital bed, recovering from her internal and external injuries and having contracted Ebola and AIDS. She will not survive this combination compounded by her weakened, broken body.
She hoarsely tells her friends visiting her, including the sassy black girl from the office who she wants so desperately to impress, “It’s not his fault. He had a hard life. He’s experienced racism his whole life. I know in my heart he just made a mistake. White people are so racist, and we made them slaves for like 800 years, sometimes they get angry. I don’t blame him.”
That’s the mass of Western whites right now.
White ethnomasochism evil is like Ebola: Super virulent, kills with impunity, spreads easily, but burns itself out before reaching truly pandemic proportions.
At least, that’s the hope. Anyone care to place bets?
Related, here’s one of the rotating header images I shamelessly pilfered from the Kakistocracy blog.
The readers have responded to this post’s game challenge with a show of force. It’s a good sign that men who come to this blog are still interested in learning how to pick up women. The scrotal sack of Western man is not yet drained of life.
Many commenters felt that it was a fool’s errand to pursue a girl who had shot her hand up and and barked “No!” before the man could get one word out.
And the instant “No” girls aren’t judging you as a human being because they haven’t met and interacted with you. They’re just lumping you in with a type of low-value guy because for whatever reasons that’s the headspace they’re in at the moment and she wasn’t aware of you doing anything to NOT be lumped in with those guys before you approached.
It’s all very simple. Ones and zeroes, binary shit: If you’re high-value in her mind, she’ll talk to you, if not she’ll lump you with the rest and not give you a chance. So you can either walk away and take the loss, or figure out how to build your value to her. Those are the two options. She still won’t owe you shit even if you build your value, and she doesn’t owe you the opportunity TO demonstrate higher value. IDEALLY, you DHV’ed in front of her before approaching so you don’t get the “No” in the first place, but assuming that’s happened you have two options: You either find a way to DHV or you move on.
I don’t disagree with Ya or with readers who’ve expressed a similar sentiment; as a matter of principle and of practice, it’s best to NEXT a No Girl with apathetic prejudice. If you’re getting a NO! and a Heisman before you’ve opened your mouth, you’ve got a high hurdle that’s not worth the effort to jump. YaReally’s ideal suggestion — to promptly backturn the No Girl and engage an adjacent group while loudly announcing within No Girl’s earshot “wow, that girl HATES me. I didn’t even get past the word ‘hi’. Looks like I’ll be a virgin forever. :(” — is, in my view, the best option from among a really limited set of options.
But the original reader asking for advice did not ask for the ideal response; he asked for the response that would “salvage and optimize” the interaction with No Girl. He wanted to know what he could say or do that would have a chance of turning No Girl around, despite the heavy odds against him. That’s why his question was the topic of a “Test Of Your Game” post.
Assuming he doesn’t have the convenience of an adjacent mixed set he can leverage YaReally-style, he’ll have to game No Girl on her terms. That means a direct verbal or nonverbal reply. The best of the commenters’ suggestions follow. For some, I’ve included a grading system. Entertainment Value measures how hard you, and perhaps No Girl’s circus elephants, would laugh if you were there watching it happen. Workabiliity describes how easy or difficult it would be for a newb to pull it off in the field. And Game Tightness is an appraisal of the chances that the response would actually spur No Girl’s curiosity and attraction.
pupton1974 writes,
By saying “Talk to the hand” she has announced her status as a bitch. Hold nothing back. I don’t want to turn her lemon into lemonade. I want her to feel like the turd she is. Any of these with a “don’t give a fuck” smirk could take her down a peg:
1) “Eww, it looks like you’ve pitted out that blouse really bad.”
2) “Put your arm down, you’re attracting flies.”
3) “Raise your hand if you have a yeast infection.”
#3 is the best. “Raise your hand if [X]” is a good all-purpose takedown of the No Girl’s signature “talk to the hand” maneuver.
Entertainment Value: A+
Workability: C (These lines can be a mouthful under pressure.)
Game Tightness: D (Don’t expect this tack to result in a mutually satisfying interaction.)
***
monster211 writes,
GIRL: *hand shoots up* “No!”
BABY’S ARM HOLDING AN APPLE: *sneeze all over her hand, wipe your nose with your arm while sniffling and then wink while nonchalantly grabbing your crotch*
I would pay to see a guy sneeze violently on a No Girl’s jivemama hand.
Entertainment Value: A
Workability: D (You’d better be able to sneeze on command.)
Game Tightness: F (Hard to see this leading to a love match.)
***
Days of Broken Arrows flashes his Macchiavelli card,
“No.”
“Um…I was going to ask if you were one of my sister’s friends. She died last month. Have a nice day.”
Cold as ice. I can’t think of a better wedge between No Girl and her friends. The shame will burn to the bone.
Entertainment Value: C (A downer for everyone but you.)
Workability: C (You’ll need good acting chops.)
Game Tightness: B (If she believes you, she’s yours. If not, she still might be yours. At least, one of her friends will want to console you.)
Entertainment Value: B
Workability: A (Short and sweet.)
Game Tightness: B (More insult than neg, given the context. Don’t expect miracles.)
***
Anonymous couples the high five with a disqualification,
hahahaaa, my immediate response was the high 5 with a huge grin on my face before i even finished reading, maybe followed with ‘eww, whats that on your hand, thats fucking disgusting’ and then a ‘made you look’.
I like the high five. It’s quick and easy to pull off on a No Girl (she might not even see it coming, what with her head facing the other way), it’s surprising, it’s amusing for you and her friends, and it can open up a lot of disqualification possibilities and enable follow-up ramble game. It’d be really funny if you execute the high five, grinning like a jerk, as you’re passing by her to talk to her friend. An alternate but similar version of the high five is “rock paper scissors”; start playing the game with her when her hand shoots up.
Entertainment Value: B (High fives lift everyone’s mood.)
Workability: A (Easy peasy lemon squeezy.)
Game Tightness: C- (Outside chance No Girl turns into Yes Girl.)
***
corvinus takes a shot at her id,
“Hmm, no wedding ring. Figures.”
Another superb shiv that draws its blood without much thrashing about. But as another commenter suggested, it might be more “game savvy” to frame this reply differently, less spitefully. “Hmm, nice wedding ring.” Nuanced wording can create wildly different impressions.
***
gnarlinbrando writes,
*sexy grin and slight chuckle to yourself* then look to her friends:
“Is she always this much fun?”
This is a classic PUA neg. The goal is to embarrass her and DHV yourself, while getting her group to switch allegiance.
***
DangerWolf opts for the nonverbal, physical tease,
Immediately back-turning and talking to another girl, then slowly backing up into her and, if she objects, shouting “no!” with the hand gesture is also fun.
Just sticking around No Girl after the fact can make it deliciously awkward for her and fun for you, as long as you aren’t sticking around nursing your butthurtness. This tactic only works if you have a YaReally-esque scenario set up where another group is directly adjacent and available to open.
***
Boron and a host of commenters went the palm reading route,
Pretend to read palm.
“And this is your cat line. I see A LOT of cats in your future.”
Entertainment Value: C (Most people aren’t good at this.)
Workability: D (You’ve really got to command her attention for the duration.)
Game Tightness: B (If it sticks, you’re in like WIN!)
***
leahnnovash tries the plausible deniability strategy,
If she is alone, simply ask if I can take one of the extra chairs.
Entertainment Value: B (Could be really funny if timing is perfect.)
Workability: B (How good is your state control?)
Game Tightness: F (It’ll save face, but not much else.)
Others suggested similar versions of Plausible Deniability Game (cf., Francis Beam’s comment about sipping her drink and wincing). It’s popular among the commentariat. Done well, yeah I do think this can take the wind out of No Girl’s sails, but the dynamic between you and her won’t be much altered. Also, PD Game could backfire if it’s obvious you first approached her with an intention to hit on her.
***
whorefinder blows up the joint,
flash and smoke and smell of sulfur. Whorefinder appears
Why, thank you, kind sir. However, the treatment for this kind of Obama voter, er, See-You-Next-Tuesday rag is a bit different…
1. Observe hand.
2. Slowly check the crowd’s reaction from left to right.
3. Smile in friendship and extend your own hand, shaking hers, and pulling her onto her feet.
4. Quick, sharp kick to her stomach, double-middle finger to her face , and STUNNER, STUNNER BY GAWD J.R. ITS A STUNNER!!!!!
….
5. And only THEN rape….on the floor in front of the entire bar/club.
Stone Cold Awesome Rape! Rape on, gentlemen, rape on!
flash and smoke and sulfer. Whorefinder vanishes
Entertainment Value: A+ (A++ if smoke bomb included.)
Workability: F (Good luck!)
Game Tightness: F (Rape Game Tightness: A)
***
newlyaloof writes,
Girl: No!
You to her friend: Hmm. I like your friend. She’s feisty.
This is another take on “making lemonade out of lemons” game. The “feisty” line has been a staple of PUA tactics for a long time. The idea is that it signals your imperturbability. Nothing gets under your skin. Chicks like that about men.
***
anotheronetakesthepill,
That’s right. No, I don’t wanna get you pregnant
Funny, quippy, jerkish. Wanna see just how much funnier, quippier, and jerky you can get. Post your progress. #TINGLENATION.
“So I guess a blow job in the parking lot is out of the question?”
Entertainment Value: B- (Entertaining for you, not for her.)
Workability: B- (Gonna be tough to say this with a straight face.)
Game Tightness: D- (May work on a crazy slut with a history of dating serial killers.)
***
Eeyore tries Disagree&Amplify,
Disagree and amplify [meta, you’re agreeing to play disagree]. Yes! Yes like you’re Ben fucking Kingsley. Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Dean Moriarity turned up to 11. Preach it. Sell the fuck out of yes, like you’re discovering it for the first time. Yes is America, Apollo 11, and that first girl who let you feel her up when you were supposed to be doing homework. What the fuck is no? No is no. No is nothing. Yes is everything else. Yes is what you want, what she wants, what everybody wants. So yes. Yes to yes. Fuck yes. No fucking no. Yes.
My hunch is she will either (a) disagree more and more playfully or (b) shrink away (and look at you in awe). Regardless, your name for her is Yes. The rest is superfluous.
D&A is taking a page out of Toddler Game. If you are truly a No Fucks Given kinda guy, I say try it out. NOYESNOYESNOYESYESYESNO!!!YESYESYESEVERYTHINGYES
WE’RECOMINGUPYESATHOUSANDYESSESMLADY!!!!
Anyone who tries this is required to report back to CH with his results.
***
Steve enlightens us all,
If you don’t have a fart ready to fire, a burp will do.
Entertainment Value: B+ (Until the smell hits.)
Workability: F (Unless you ate a burrito beforehand.)
Game Tightness: Who cares? I don’t think I’d stop laughing if I saw this go down.
***
Anonymous gets to the heart of the matter,
“who’s gay”
The trick to this reply is NEUTRALITY. It only works as intended if your facial expression and vocal tone are blank and monotone respectively. If you insert emotion, it’s liable to come off angry.
***
Nathan imaginatively writes,
Keep it simple:
sticking your tongue out and ice cube to the neck/down the dress
–
‘At least I’m not wasting my time’, 360, moonwalk away
Whorefinder has competition in the Totally Unrealistic But Awesome If You Can Pull It Off Game challenge.
***
Finally, from Mean Mr. Mustard, there’s Penis Game.
Entertainment Value: Busts the grade curve.
Workability: A+ if flaccid, C+ if erect.
Game Tightness: A+ in Toronto and Wellesley.
Researchers performed a historical analysis of cohabitation in the US and discovered that previous estimates of cohabitation understated the pace of change after 1960, and that the cohabitation rate before 1970 and going back to 1880 was historically low. After 1970, cohabitation rose dramatically, and has not stopped rising.
1970 appears to be the foremost dividing line between “good, functional, beautiful America” and “bad, dysfunctional, ugly America”. So many social ills explode with a ferocity sometime around 1970, and continue exploding right to the present day. Count them out.
Single momhood.
Obesity.
Male unemployment.
Divorce. (Appears to have plateaued recently, thanks in part to fewer marriages.)
Total marriage rate.
Alternative mating arrangements.
STDs.
Abortion.
Low White fertility.
Astronomical debt.
Crime. (Though crime began a long decline in the 1990s, thanks in part to mass incarceration and internet porn.)
Feminism.
Equalism.
Multiculturalism.
PC neoPuritanism.
Anti-white and anti-free association Acts.
Wiggers.
SJWs.
Slut parades.
Fat acceptors.
Credentialism.
Bryan Caplan.
$22 trillion wasted in malign “war on disparate outcomes”.
Hijacking of every major public institution by the Left.
Diversity graft.
Welfare replacing workfare.
Parasite shamelessness.
Surveillance nation.
Manboobery.
White population displacement.
And the Big Kahuna that arguably precipitated or magnified at least half of the culture diseases in the above list:
The 1965 Open Borders to the Non-White European World Act.
It makes one wonder if a supervillain dumped a mind-altering drug in American water supplies in the summer of ’69 that stripped citizens of the character traits which were responsible for the relative sanity of previous generations.
Cohabitation, like abortion, may not necessarily qualify as a social ill (e.g., cohabitation “works”, so far as we know, in the Swedish parts of Sweden), but let’s just say both are leading indicators of trouble brewing in the mating market.
And a generation unable to talk straight or feel healthy human emotions because they’re either utterly brainwashed into true belief or cowed into sociopathic self-policing by anti-white shock troops is a leading indicator of a culture on the verge of giving itself over to the sweet release of death.
Some social problems, notably crime, are cyclical, following patterns for which we yet struggle to identify causes. But even the cyclical social ills experience a radical jump and disheartening persistence after 1970 that set them apart from previous incarnations. Emergence of new ills and amplification of old ills is the story of late 20th century and early 21st century America. Ebola ain’t got nothin’ on whatever post-1970 shadow poison rots the soul of this once glorious nation.
Men instinctively know to avoid single moms and BPD headcases. No man wants to help raise another man’s kid, and crazy drama whores aren’t much fun after the post-coital glow wears off.
Now we can add another archetype to the list of women to avoid: The Credentialist Whore.
Reader Dr. Giggles explains,
Perhaps we’ve found another type of woman who, like the single mom, should be avoided by men at all costs. Call her the credentialist bachelorette. She carries baggage like the single mom in the form of spiraling college debt which you end up subsidizing, by either paying for everything during the relationship, or outright paying the debt itself once married. Unlike the bastard spawn you can kick to the curb once it turns 18, the debt may last into her golden years, according to a recent Beta times article.
A woman who whores herself out for useless college credentials like an MA in Vagina Pondering, and amasses a mountain of debt on her quest for status feels and anonymous urban fucking, is a horrible long-term relationship prospect. Not only will you invariably get stuck directly or indirectly paying off chunks of her debt, you will have to deal with her insufferable “credentialed girl” entitlement lovingly honed from years fobbing her bills off on her daddy. If you’re really unlucky, she might be the type of CW to unload on you about the patriarchy during a first date.
File the Credentialist Whore, along with the Single Mom and Crazy Bitch, under “pump and dump”, and don’t even think about moving in with her. Sex is a lot more satisfying when you’re not paying for it in some form or another.
Freelance Comment Of The Week: White Girl Plead A Lot
Oct 12th, 2014 by CH
Anton Chigurh (watch where you point that thing) colorfully, Bukowski-ly, paints a picture of the current state of Western White Man’s self-annihilating mind.
“[re: Ebola], there is always something new out of Africa, and it’s all bad.”
LOL’ed
…
The elites in the West are so terrified of seeming racist that they’re apparently willing to kill us for it.
The West is like the stupid white girl at the bar who gets invited to go off on her own by a black guy. She is terrified of looking racist in front of her friends, one of whom is a black girl from the office who she likes to impress with her liberalism.
So she goes happily with the black fella, who turns out to be a savage niqger. Later, after the niqger brutally rapes her without a condom and leaves her in an alley for dead, she thinks, well, at least now everybody knows I’m not a racist.
A day later she sits in her hospital bed, recovering from her internal and external injuries and having contracted Ebola and AIDS. She will not survive this combination compounded by her weakened, broken body.
She hoarsely tells her friends visiting her, including the sassy black girl from the office who she wants so desperately to impress, “It’s not his fault. He had a hard life. He’s experienced racism his whole life. I know in my heart he just made a mistake. White people are so racist, and we made them slaves for like 800 years, sometimes they get angry. I don’t blame him.”
That’s the mass of Western whites right now.
White ethnomasochism evil is like Ebola: Super virulent, kills with impunity, spreads easily, but burns itself out before reaching truly pandemic proportions.
At least, that’s the hope. Anyone care to place bets?
Related, here’s one of the rotating header images I shamelessly pilfered from the Kakistocracy blog.
[crypto-donation-box]
Posted in Comment Winners | Comments Off