The most dispiriting aspect of modrenity is how revoltingly ugly and psychologically weak our putative “elites” are. We’ve pulled back the curtain expecting to see a worthy enemy….and we get matt yglesias, brian stelter, peter strzok, lisa page, james comey, harvey weinstein ad infinitum.
That’s more humiliating than anything else, to know that all this time we have vested power in an archipelago of misfit freaks.
From DEUS VULT,
Imagine this fucking goblina brainlet telling you that a famous historical figure who fought for your independence was just some “angry white guy”.
We need a reconquista of the Western world to drive out all foreigners at the point of the sword
She’s gumming up the works.
The above creature is just one monster belched forth by Globohomo to demoralize Sexually Dimorphic America. There are many more like her, all of them gumming up the works with their uselessness, malice, pettiness, and lies.
From readers,
Our enemies are NOT extraordinary in any way. They are not “elite” in any meaningful sense. It should be understood that they CAN be defeated.
***
freaks are reliable employees, they’ll shaft customers with a smile and suck corporate cock with full enthusiasm because they know they don’t fit anywhere else.
***
Degenerates are easy to blackmail
Our revolting elites are no one to fear, to envy, or to bow and scrape before. We have exposed them for the grotesqueries they are, stripped them of their mystique, and mocked the idea that they can instill any kind of deference. Yea, by their phyzzes and passive-aggression ye shall know them: pathetic creatures of the sewerworld, fit only for ridicule and disgust.
***
Modrenity is a deliberate misspelling, meant to evoke the requisite dystopian connotation that the word now carries.
This is a classic rumination, written in 2013, by LaidNYC, one of the original PUAs who made his name during the Mystery/Tyler Durden era if I’m not mistaken. (All those memories lost in time…like jizz in thots.)
Closure Is Bullshit
As a man, you don’t need closure.
A girl either wants to fuck you or she doesn’t. A long, emotional conversation will not change this fact.
Girls, however, need to put a man they are dumping into a desexualized box and wrap a pretty bow of closure around it. By participating in the closure process you are helping her tie the bow around your desexualized fate.
If a girl breaks up with you:
Do not talk about your feelings
Do not talk about her feelings
Do not argue with her reasons
Just accept it and grieve on your own time.
This is hard.
Why?
Because a woman will never give her ACTUAL reasons for breaking up with you. She will only give you society-approved bullshit that makes her look innocent.
She will never say “you didn’t fuck me good enough” or “you’re too nice and not exciting” or “no other girl I know wants to fuck you so something must be wrong with you”.
She will say “I’m really busy with school and work and don’t have time for a relationship now” or “you’re great but I”m not ready for anything serious” or “I care about you as a friend”.
Sometimes the reasons she give will be SO false, such obvious flowery bullshit, that you will feel a deep burning need to set her straight, to correct her misunderstanding.
Don’t.
You can’t logic a woman.
You can say “okay”, walk away with a smirk and never contact her again.
Being robbed of emotionally dripping closure, she’ll always feel a little incomplete.
Why didn’t he fight harder for me?
Did I really not get to his emotions?
Am I not as desirable to him as I thought?
Is he more desirable than I thought?
Girls have egos. They WANT to know you’re emotional about her breaking up with you. It validates her. So don’t do it.
You want a girl dumping you to question her reasons, not verify them.
When a girl dumps you, you want to be able to look back on how your handled it with pride.
When you give a girl closure, you give her your pride.
Most Game wisdom is timeless. It will hardly change in substance over succeeding generations. What I write here isn’t much different than what great men from the past wrote about women, romance, and the nature of the sexes. The packaging may change but the tick, tock remains the same.
LaidNYC’s advice is similar to Chateau advice: when a relationship ends, be the one for whom closure means an opening to seduce and love new women.
The verdict is in: all the dietary, exercise, and longevity science is converging on a holistic lifestyle recommendation for health, vigor, and anti-aging youthfulness.
Scientists looking at the health records of more than 4,000 people have concluded that, while both forms of exercise reduce the risk of developing heart disease, static activities such as weight lifting or press-ups have a greater effect than an equivalent amount of dynamic exercise such as running, walking or cycling.
The research challenges commonly held assumption that so-called “cardiovascular” pursuits like running are of greatest benefit to the heart.
However, it backs up previous studies which suggest that heavy static exercise gives the circulatory system a better workout because the oxygen expenditure is more intense.
Adults who cut carbohydrates from their diets and replaced them with fat sharply increased their metabolisms.
…a large new study published on Wednesday in the journal BMJ challenges the conventional wisdom. It found that overweight adults who cut carbohydrates from their diets and replaced them with fat sharply increased their metabolisms. After five months on the diet, their bodies burned roughly 250 calories more per day than people who ate a high-carb, low-fat diet, suggesting that restricting carb intake could help people maintain their weight loss more easily.
Fast at least 16 hours each day, or 20-24 hours twice per week
…fasting does stimulate autophagy [ed: cell cleaning], he said, and its benefits had also been proven by other studies.
Autophagy was first discovered in the 1960s, but its fundamental importance was only recognised after Yoshinori Ohsumi’s research in the 1990s.
“What we’ve discovered is that it protects against diseases like Parkinson’s, Huntington’s and certain forms of dementia,” said Dr Rubinsztein.
“It also seems to be beneficial in the context of infection control, as well as protecting against excessive inflammation.”
Let’s count off the limpwrists and soylibs BTFO by this information.
Blotchy-skinned vegetarians: your pasta and cereal filler food negates any healthful impact from eating leafy greens. Judgment rendered: BTFO
Skinnyfat marathon runners: Your heart health, and not to mention your aesthetics, would be better if you hit the weight room instead of the pavement. Judgment rendered: BTFO
Big Pharma: We don’t need your drugs. All we need is to intermittently push away from the table. Judgment rendered: BTFO
PPS This is interesting, and funny: “What a week of groceries looks like around the world“. I see a lot of crappy packaged foods in the US and UK, and fresh fruits and veggies everywhere else. Mongolians are big meat eaters. Mexifats love soda. Germans love beer. Italians love bread. And those aren’t Canadians. Or Australians. (And is it really that difficult to find a White family in America?)
PPPS Rogue Health & Fitness is a great website for quickly getting up to speed on the latest science in health and longevity. Mangan to his credit has been on top of this stuff for a while, and the legacy media is only now catching up. The proof is in the photo. Check the front page for a pic of Mangan. This post is particularly interesting — The Rise and Fall of Heart Attacks — because it explores reasons why the US heart attack rate peaked in 1970 and dropped precipitously by 2010 to levels not seen since 1910 (a trend most people are unaware of).
Dr. David Grimes wrote: “Few people are aware that coronary heart disease (CHD) has been an epidemic of the latter half of the 20th century. It is now almost over.” […]
Three Factors: Cigarettes, Hydrogenated Seed Oils, and Sugar
To see what factors may have caused the rise in heart disease, we should ask what factors were low to non-existent in 1900, and that are known to cause heart disease, which then increased in the course of the century.
***
Annual per capita cigarette consumption in the U.S. in 1900 was 54 cigarettes. (Source.) Machine-manufacturing caused the price of cigarettes to drop, and per capita consumption rose dramatically to over 4000 by 1965, and currently stands at about 1000. Less than 5% of Americans smoked cigarettes in 1900, while 42% were smokers in 1965. […]
The culprit is not nicotine, but the chemical stew of thousands of toxic chemicals that forms when tobacco is ignited.
My candidates for the cause of its rise are cigarettes, seed oils, and sugar.
Meat didn’t have anything to do with it.
What’s notable is that the decline in deaths from heart attacks which began around 1970 coincided with the *increase* in obesity. Cigarettes suppress appetite, so the decline in smoking may have promoted a rise in the obesity rate. Sugar consumption has continued to increase right up until the present, so that likely played a role in the obesity pandemic as well. And finally, SOY. Soybean oil consumption really took off about the same time as the obesity crisis.
Why weren’t there many fat Americans in the early part of the 20th Century? Smoking was almost nonexistent then, so appetite suppression caused by cigarette use can’t explain it. Hydrogenated seed oil wasn’t introduced until 1911, so that seems a likelier cause of the increase in overweight Americans as mid-century approached. Sugar consumption has been rising since 1840 but really took off after 1880. That could be a culprit. But my guess is that Americans were thinner a hundred years ago because we a.) didn’t eat as much b.) moved our bodies a lot more c.) ate good fats and unrefined, high fiber carbs and d.) weren’t drinking water teeming with endocrine disruptors.
PPPPS Here is a map showing the geographic outlines of a future New America:
Is there no greater ingrate than the White Woman? You give her the world, and she agitates for your extermination. There’s a Game lesson there.
ps totally OT, but I had to pass along a pretty good defense of tipping, from a commenter who wrote that in a multiracial dystopia like Post-America tipping serves the purpose of allowing White patrons to distinguish themselves from black patrons (who are known to be allergic to tipping).
pps from PA,
How much of it is alpha-baiting — as in, they want the tall blond Chads from an 80s jocks vs nerds movie to take ’em away?
No woman dreams of a hippie ravaging her, as goes the saying. Also no woman dreams of being leered-at by beaners, raped by a black ape, or beaten by a filthy brown muzzie.
If my theory that Western White men are becoming more beta is true, then alpha male baiting would make perfect sense from the woman’s perspective. The aggrocunt man-hate could be viewed as an intimidation tactic to cow the hordes of sniveling betas, and as an incitement to action directed at the alpha males who won’t put up with her shit (and happily rescuing her vagina from a parched desert of Zero Dark Tingle).
ppps tangentially on-topic: FeedBuzz unwittingly exposes the benefits of living in a high trust White Nordic nation. Number 12 could not exist outside of a Northern White nation. All those comforts would be swiped in under fifteen minutes.
Newspeak nails it,
It’s amazing that Aryan Nation Taint Licking is still a hobby of the denialist left. I suppose they get around it by mistaking socialism as the cause rather than the effect, enabling them to perceive the pleasant sensate reality of white civilization without triggering their ideological cogdis.
pppps “White girl learns to virtue signal”, oil on canvas:
From key,
There are no bad demon dogs, only bad owners.
ppppps the essence of cuckservatism:
There really should be more Planet of the Apes memes. An untapped resource.
pms Faceborg NPCs blurred the presidential Seal on Trump videos. In the bottom left pic, they went full petty dorkwad and airbrushed out the Seal entirely. (h/t BigGayKoranBurning Steve)
Related, lizardface cuckersperg was apparently triggered so hard by candidate Trump’s call for a ban on moslem immigration that he cried in the arms of sheryl sandberg and asked if Trump violated Facecock’s TOS. The Visitor wanted to ban Trump’s account.
This is the porn post. Its purpose is to encourage discussion and embarrassing open-cubicle chubbies.
FYI I redact or pseudonomize real names of thread participants because I don’t assume they would want their identifying info spread to outside platforms beyond the one they directly engage. If they would like to be identified, they can say so in the comments or in email.
J.R. kicks it off,
[online porn is] just so insanely hardcore
stuff that maybe only the hardest core degenerate might get into after a lifetime of chasing ever more debauched forms of porn and perversion are basically just another option on the front page of all the major porn sites, so now the average kid has explored the outer boundaries of porn by the time he’s 15
it’s fucked up
Chad Bigly,
Porn is a real public health problem – I truly believe that. It’s easier for people to quit smoking than to quit porn. And it really is so fucking over the top gross now. If I were in power I’d completely ban it tomorrow. Just make it illegal and enforce the shit out of it and watch civilization trend toward normal again.
J.R.,
i think porn has something to do w/ the whole tranny thing
there’s something feminizing about dudes watching that much porn
for 99.9999% of human history the only erection men ever saw was their own
now the avg dude has seen 10k before he gets out of high school
i don’t think evolution prepared the male brain for that possibility
there’s your endocrine disrupter
I don’t buy the theory that porn is inherently gay (because you’re looking at hard dick). (Incel-mocking tradcons at MPC like to cavalierly indulge this theory.) No straight man was turned to homosexuality by watching porn. When men watch, they will focus on the woman’s body and vagina, and imagine their own dick doing the pounding. There’s a dick substitution process that occurs subconsciously during viewing, which obscures or even eliminates the possibility of a mood-killing intrusion of awareness that one is also watching another man get off. Porn producers actually acknowledge this reality by filming in such a way that the male actor is out of the middle of the frame, and his contorted face is off-screen. POV (point-of-view) porn is popular for this reason.
S.K. responds,
Porn is bad, but not for the reason J.R. thinks. Seeing dicks doesn’t make you gay, whether or not they are involved in sex.
It’s watching another male fuck a female you desire. He’s getting her; you aren’t. In primal chimpanzee sexual mode, you have to be a pretty thoroughly inferior male to not get any chance at the female in estrus. So you, the omega male, sit on the sidelines and jerk off while the superior males have their go.
Further, females make more noise when having sex with alpha males. Porn females shriek their heads off, further reinforcing how the males are higher status than you.
Being subordinate status feminizes you. Want to be weak and gay? Watch porn.
Tagging in Heartiste because this is up his alley.
S.K. is closer to identifying the true banefulness of porn addiction. These hypotheses above (among others I’ve come across) are all valid explanations for the potentially deleterious effects of long-term porn viewing, but subordinate to the central pathology of porn: it hijacks the visually oriented arousal mechanism in men to provide a steady yet low dose drip of dopamine, which is just enough to discourage investment in real world courtship.
In short, porn kills real life sex dead.
This is why I predict the sexbot revolution will bring utter destruction to civilization, replacing beta male investment with beta male dopamine imprisonment and massive alpha male harems (with the concomitant male-on-male violence that characterizes rampant polygyny).
A disturbing consequence of my theory, if true (it is), is that Western women might react by inviting hordes of more sexually aggressive swartheners to fill the void in their gines for at least superficially strong and un-gay males. Whatever pap women are menstruating on femcunt wombzines is irrelevant to how women act when the rubber hits the ho, and how they act is unmistakable: they will get their aggressive alpha male courtship from whichever source pool of men is willing to provide it.
So porn might be one major pathway leading to the nexus of our open borders disease.
Newspeak Translator writes,
The trend seems to be reversing somewhat. There was a thread on twatter a few days ago- apparently X-videos has seen a pretty significant drop in traffic recently. The K-ifying political environment has people too paranoid to be horny. Disgust reflexes are comin’ back in style, baby!
An antibiotic resistant sexually transmitted disease that results in rotted out genitals, blindness, and early death is a surefire diabolus ex machina that would elevate the disgust reflex back to the top of the pantheon of moral judgements.
This won’t necessarily contradict Newspeak’s claim, but what I’ve read is that there’s been a rise (heh) in porn searches for lesbian sex and hentai. Make of that what you will. (I will: it’s yet another indicator of rapid mass infantilization and retreat from intimacy.)
S.K. again,
Lesbian porn, and, I speculate, hentai, don’t feature superior men copulating.
I postulate that males are unconsciously recognizing the feminizing effects on themselves. We have a strong ability to associate behavior with reward and punishment across time – future time preference, if that is the correct term.
Hell, my son, only 16, thinks porn is weird and stupid. I pointed out that maybe the reason people like tranny porn is because you can verify that the “female” is aroused; he laughed, “What, OH OH OH OH BABY doesn’t convince you?”
I’m no expert on hentai, but what I know of it is that it features exaggerated genitalia like oversized breasts, enormous cocks, tiny narrow waists, and gushers of jizz, (tentacles optional). I’m not sure that makes it anything like an “escape” from the feminizing effects of real human porn with superior men copulating. It does make it an escape from porn that is “too real” for modren men to consume without feeling like losers.
***
From Deter Naturalist,
“It’s any wonder many weak people escape into movies and video games and as well as the topic of this post: porn.”
And opioid drugs. Opium’s main effect is to make you simply not care…and when your life sucks bad, but you’re not quite ready to off yourself, a pill that makes leaves the pain but makes you not GAF about it…is attractive. And if it’s a hot-lot with too much fentanyl added by the basement chemist, you just drift off to sleep…and stop breathing.
The opioid “crisis” is a direct result of the war on whites, and falls on those whites who often are far worse off than any ghetto-rat. When you take from W to give to B, the W who don’t have anything but their life to give are stripped of that, too.
The opioid crisis is the fruit of the Anti-White Agenda. I pray for a better world to come soon, when the people responsible for both are made to answer for their crimes against Heritage America.
I pity blonde blue-eyed co@lburners. And pity is a form of contempt.
Thousands of years of evolution graced White women with a palette of natural hues that are the envy of the angels, and these short-sighted, spiteful bitches throw it away on a r@cemixing vendetta against daddy, destroying a long lineage forged by blood and tribulation in a single act of grotesque conception.
A glass half-full reader,
At the same time, natural selection is working. The weak leave us.
This argument doesn’t resonate like it used to for me. How many weak members can we afford to lose? The supply of the Weak is increasing while the White population as a fraction of the world total is decreasing.
At current trends, when the Weak leave us there won’t be enough left to thwart subsumption into the Uni-hued Horde.
Shitlibs and anti-White bigots who fear a White America have desperately clung to a wish fulfillment belief called the “Contact Hypothesis”, which claims, against all the real world observational evidence, that different races grow to lurv each other with increased contact. It’s a flip of the “familiarity breeds contempt” aphorism, embodied in the vapid leftoid newspeak “love wins”.
I hadn’t realized that there was a meta-analysis (a study of studies) which the smarter shitlibs liked to reference whenever they needed the notarization of ¡SCIENCE! to pad their virtue sniveling about Diversity™, and to smugly condescend toward BadThink Whites.
Unfortunately for these frantic smuglibs, that meta-analysis (Pettigrew & Tropp (2006)) was undermined by contemporary research, which found the opposite of the claim made by Pettigrew et al, and then invalidated by a 2018 study which concluded that the original 2006 meta-analysis finding support for the Contact Hypothesis was irretrievably marred by the inclusion of a ton of shit studies.
h/t CAPSLOCKHUSTLER for providing the link to the following Twatter thread on the subject of the invalidated Contact Hypothesis.
The Contact Hypothesis is a Mess: Thread 1/n The Contact Hypothesis (hence, “CH”) is an old idea in social psych: That contact between groups reduces prejudice. This was one central theme of Allport’s 1954 classic The Nature of Prejudice, built on even earlier ideas.
Beneficial effects of contact have always been difficult to obtain, requiring an ever-growing list of conditions supposedly necessary or at least beneficial to get it to work (equal status, cooperation, common goals, supports from authorities, and more).
This recent award-receiving meta-analysis by Pettigrew & Tropp (2006) gave the answer so many social psychologists had been (I suspect) rooting** for. Slam dunk, contact works!
** nearly 6k citations
** supports left view/values (eg, immigration? let em all in, contact works!).
A 2014 updating by van der Meer & Tolsma found basically the same thing, especially in the U.S.
WTF is going on? No one really knows, but enter @betsylevyp and her team, with this amazing 2018 paper.
They conducted their own meta-analysis, starting w/ALL the studies in Pettigrew&Tropp’s. But to be included, they required studies to meet all of the following criteria:
1. They had to randomly assign people to contact. I.e., they only included true experiments, which is the clearest way to eliminate correlation&causality inference problems.
2. They had to measure intergroup outcomes more than one day after the treatment. That is, there had to be at least some evidence that the effect was not completely fleeting and ephemeral.
3. The studies had to have actual face-to-face contact.
4. There had to be a no contact control group.
P&G had 713 samples from 515 papers.
By the time Paluck et al’s (some might argue, “minimalist”) standards were met, there were 8 papers reporting 9 studies. [ed: LOL]
They then scoured the lit for studies meeting their standards post 2006. They found a bunch, bringing the total up to 27 studies (still a far far far far cry from the 713 of P&G).
Here are their main findings, reported in Figure 1 of p. 18 of their paper. Its hard to make out, but you have the link to the actual paper.
Several patterns are notable:
1. The effects hover near 0.
2. The one exception is for contact w/ppl w/disabilities. Remove that, and the results are still above 0 (ie, *some* effect of contact), BUT:
3. Fig 1 plots the effect size against the std errors (SEs). Smaller Ns produce larger SEs, and Fig 1 shows larger effects w/larger SEs (smaller samples). This is classic evid. of publication bias.
Note also the sloping line. It means the larger the sample, the smaller the effect. In fact, when they used SE to predict effect, the intercept was negative, meaning that the *predicted* effect of large samples (low SEs) is to (slightly) *increase* prejudice, not reduce it. [ed: kumbaya shitlibs BTFO]
4. Interestingly, the effects for the groups social psychologists seem to be generally most concerned about — groups oppressed based on race, religion, sexual orientation — the effects hover barely above 0, especially for larger studies.
Bottom lines? We know a lot less about contact than Pettigrew & Tropp’s meta-analysis has led us to believe. There may be a there there, but if there is, that there is a helluva lot less and more equivocal than the there that is cracked up to be there.
Contact almost surely can be either harmful or beneficial with respect to intergroup hostility. But, just as surely, the benefits of contact have been wildly oversold to an overeager social psychology consuming audience. End.
AKA GIGO (garbage in, garbage out).
Social psychology may have been at one time, long ago in the pre-zogged era, a useful field of study. Today, it’s a factory of lies to assuage leftoid egos. That’s what happens when leftoids march through the institutions and then turn the places into a giant cistern for them to take a poop on.
I’ve tackled the problem of meta-analyses before, initially provoked to the task by jabba jayman’s reliance on them to deny the fucking obvious fact that environmental inputs have spurred the post-1970 obesity pandemic, regardless of the hereditary nature of susceptibility to fat accumulation.
Bottom line: Meta-analyses can be clarifying, but only if the studies they aggregate aren’t garbage. If you put garbage studies into a meta-analysis, you’ll get a garbage conclusion in return. If researcher bias pollutes the findings of multiple studies, then those studies will pollute the finding of a meta-analysis of them.
Which is exactly what happened with Pettigrew & Tropp’s original meta-analysis finding support for the Contact Hypothesis: the included studies were shit. So many of the studies were shit that nearly all of them had to be tossed out in a more recent and improved meta-analysis, which, unsurprisingly, found the opposite and commonsensical result that contact with different races and groups doesn’t make us like each other more; in fact, all that difference irritates us more than we would have been had we stayed separate and out-of-contact.
But equalist shitlibs run social science, so they have an inherent bias — much as a latino judge might have an inherent bias against Trump — to produce shit studies and to choose shit studies for meta-analyses which buttress their egos, and to handwave the flaws in those studies when a realtalker calls them out on it.
Tipster thoughtfully rants about “tipping culture”, labeling it a wealth transfer from men to women, and therefore a reinforcement of a structurally misandrist system.
Tipping is just another forced transfer M>>>F
I don’t tip. Why should I tip the person who brings food to my table, but not the chef? I don’t tip retail workers, fast food workers, or my delivery guy, so why am I expected to tip at a restaurant?
White knights will screech that wait staff can legally be paid less than minimum wage. So what? Take another job if that’s such a problem.
I think the Euros have it right and we in America should have laws against service industries underpaying wait staff on the expectation of customer tips covering the difference. Oh, but then Fatty Matty Yglesias will have to pay more up front for his authentically amerindian infarction platter.
The REAL reason we’re expected to tip wait staff is that they’re mostly young women. Fuck off, it’s not my problem, pay them a decent wage.
In the cities, the wait staff are young women, gays, or vibrants. White, conspicuously heterosexual male servers are a dying breed.
Escorts give WAY better service than waitresses but they come with an agreed price up front. If I don’t have to tip a woman for pounding her in every hole, why should I tip her for moving some plates around?
The final argument I’d like to address is the “it’s the only job many single mothers can get”. If a MAN was in that position no one would care. “Hey bro, truck driver is the only job I can get, give me an extra fifty for delivery of the pallet.” His feet wouldn’t touch the fucking ground on the way out.
Tips are a semi-forced transfer of money from men to women. Ideally stop tipping completely, practically stop tipping anywhere that you’re not a regular.
The reason the entitled male truck driver would get laughed out of the deal for demanding a tip is the same reason women in general are coddled and men have to stoically endure their hardships:
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.
It is what it is, and it will never change so long as humans are a sexually reproducing species. All the laws in the world can at best only paper over the very primal compulsion of people to value the life of the average woman more than the life of the average man, and sympathize accordingly. Railing against it is akin to shaking a fist at sunspots and gamma rays.
Commenter PA once had a suggestion that you should only tip young White men, reasoning that economically self-sufficient White men are more critical to healthy sexual and marriage market functioning than are young women with spending cash (who are liable to ride the cock carousel with their economic freedom and liberation from needing beta male provisioning). Not to mention, young women can spread their legs for the easy life, which is an option unavailable to men.
I think that’s a good rule of life, and if you balk in the manner of a purs’d-lip white knight or quivering mangina, maybe you should remind yourself that tipping, however generous, never got a man laid.
I ported the following photo from the Goodbye, America blog because it’s just too good to secret it away at a samizdat subsidiary.
See how many signs of American decline you can identify in the pic.
Right off the bat, gloryhole faces. (He sucks cock, she sucks another man’s cock.)
Commenters answer the call,
1. Babel polyglot signage
2. Switchface in both genders
3. Speaking of genders, dimorphism at historical low [ed: srsly, her jaw is as big as his]
4. No children in sight
5. Obesity standard push button door
***
Sick of that open-mouthed tongue-flattened fake-enthusiasm smile. Been seeing it more and more over the past year, it seems to be replacing the duckface as the go-to selfie mask, along with the ubiquitous Snapchat eye enlargements and kitten ears.
***
I’m still trying to decide who’s the woman here.
***
Press button to open.
Button not working.
***
Signs of third-world decay:
1) Soyboy and birth control femme smiles.
2) Signs in many languages for citizens that are required to read/speak English.
3) Wearing “I Voted” stickers like a three year old child would receive for successfully using the toilet instead of wetting themselves.
4) Finally, the To Open Doors Press Button sign for fatties, but a sign under it that appears to read Button Not Working.
***
There’s a lie behind these smiles. A profound lie.
That someone else is meant to pay for.
That is what is so vexing.
***
You missed one. The woman allowed to vote. [ed: LOL]
***
The fact that there is even a taped up sign _at all_. Think about it. Why would a real nation, say with real traditions and standards and the will to enforce them, in a real city, have to tape up signs? All the real citizens would just know, like that question Tom Cruise asked in A Few Good Men about how a Marine would know where the mess hall was. There would be natural, organic communication and instruction and guidance. And newcomers would need to make their bones first before taking part in the political process.
There’s also a subsidiarity aspect to this. Where to vote, the seat of political power, would matter more. People would ask. Talk. It wouldn’t just be a once a year thing.
And it wouldn’t move around. It wouldn’t go from one apartment complex rec room to another based on the latest MBA stats analysis on voting patterns and tax records or likelihood for screwing around or whatever. It would be an honored location, fixed, firm; a place dedicated at least in part to that purpose by a people at least in part dedicated to a good political economic system —and willing to do the work to achieve that. Not some casually dressed immature drones of the propaganda matrix.
