Feed on
Posts
Comments

A field report from an anonymous realtalker:

De-urbanization has to be a long-term goal of the Trump administration, or whichever “more Trump than Trump” Presidency follows Trump. A handful of megalopolis shitlib hideouts accelerates civil breakdown and regional alienation. I’m not saying do away with cities; I’m saying de-scale them, make them smaller, spread them out, and redistribute their talent and hothouse ideological insanity so that the damage the urban hives can do to America is muted. (Questions about if or how to redistribute the urban Diversity™ I leave as an exercise for the reader.)

Reintroduce connections between city, town and countryside that today are utterly severed, and you’ll reinvigorate the sense of shared values and mutual concern for countrymen that naturally evolves in healthy connected societies. As part of this project, de-diversification must accompany de-urbanization, which can be achieve by deportations, an immigration moratorium, and a later immigration policy that exemplifies the spirit of the 1924 Immigration and Naturalization Act.

As is the wont of their crabbed mental condition, shitlibs project their maladjusted social insularity and general cold-heartedness onto rural Americans, and with a vengeance, because the shitlib hates nothing more than his own self-deceiving smallness.

CH, Feb 5, 2018:

It almost looks as if the FBI used one of their agents (Carter Page) to entrap Trump by assigning him to worm his way into his campaign.

Kimberley Strassel, WSJ, May 10, 2018:

The Department of Justice lost its latest battle with Congress Thursday when it allowed House Intelligence Committee members to view classified documents about a top-secret intelligence source that was part of the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign. Even without official confirmation of that source’s name, the news so far holds some stunning implications.

Among them is that the Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation outright hid critical information from a congressional investigation. In a Thursday press conference, Speaker Paul Ryan bluntly noted that Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes’s request for details on this secret source was “wholly appropriate,” “completely within the scope” of the committee’s long-running FBI investigation, and “something that probably should have been answered a while ago.” Translation: The department knew full well it should have turned this material over to congressional investigators last year, but instead deliberately concealed it. […]

Justice asked the White House to back its stonewall. And it even began spinning that daddy of all superspook arguments—that revealing any detail about this particular asset could result in “loss of human lives.”

This is desperation, and it strongly suggests that whatever is in these files is going to prove very uncomfortable to the FBI. […]

The bureau already has some explaining to do. Thanks to the Washington Post’s unnamed law-enforcement leakers, we know Mr. Nunes’s request deals with a “top secret intelligence source” of the FBI and CIA, who is a U.S. citizen and who was involved in the Russia collusion probe. When government agencies refer to sources, they mean people who appear to be average citizens but use their profession or contacts to spy for the agency. Ergo, we might take this to mean that the FBI secretly had a person on the payroll who used his or her non-FBI credentials to interact in some capacity with the Trump campaign.

This would amount to spying, and it is hugely disconcerting. […]

Obama political appointees rampantly “unmasked” Trump campaign officials to monitor their conversations, while the FBI played dirty with its surveillance warrant against Carter Page, failing to tell the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that its supporting information came from the Hillary Clinton campaign. Now we find it may have also been rolling out human intelligence, John Le Carré style, to infiltrate the Trump campaign. […]

Nixon resigned because a loyalist bugged a hotel room used by the DNC. The Gay Mulatto-Clinton-DNC-Deep State axis of weasels surveilled, bugged, tapped, and SPIED on the Trump campaign AND the Trump transition team AFTER Trump had been elected President in an all-out effort to delegitimize the incoming Trump Administration, set the table for impeachment, and steal the votes from the American people who put Trump in the White House.

Bigger that Watergate? This makes Watergate look like piker’s play.

This suggests the “source” may be overseas, have ties to foreign intelligence, or both. That’s notable, given the highly suspicious role foreigners have played in this escapade. It was an Australian diplomat who reported the Papadopoulos conversation. Dossier author Christopher Steele is British, used to work for MI6, and retains ties to that spy agency as well as to a network of former spooks. It was a former British diplomat who tipped off Sen. John McCain to the dossier.

Deep State, Clinton, Obama, and DNC collusion with British, Australian, and Russian foreign agents. What’s that saying about accusing your enemy of the very crimes you are committing?

I believe I know the name of the informant, but my intelligence sources did not provide it to me and refuse to confirm it. It would therefore be irresponsible to publish it.

Carter Page may or may not have been the Deep State’s mole in the Trump campaign and transition team, but my instincts were right. Someone working for the FBI was planted in Trump’s inner circle to set him up and arrange the pieces for the later Mueller investigation aka attempted coup.

GAL-LOWS
SWEET LARIAT

***

Latest: Brennan, Strzok And Kerry Allegedly Set “Spy Traps” For Trump Team; Hunt For FBI Mole Intensifies

Fuglyamory

From Thhhlate,

Easier With Three

My wife’s girlfriend moved in with us, and balancing work, life, and leisure has never gone better.

By EVAN URQUHART

*SHUDDER*

*SHIVER*

*THERE GOES MY DINNER*

More proof that avowed polyamory is a refuge for subhuman dregs so ugly their mommas don’t love them.

Atavator reclines into the bigger picture,

Either of those “women” could be a tranny — no problem.

These cases raise an interesting question: is there, perhaps, a correlation or at least a parallel between polyamory, and what the evolutionary guys call r-selection?

That is, when you get high r-selection, there is care, but it’s generalized and weak, with low particular investment.  Your kid just got mowed over? Oh well, shit happens. (Parenthetically, I’m always horrified by the nonchalance of some of my liberal neighbors regarding not just dirt and squalor, but the fates of people in their own families.)

Is polyamory just one type of r-select behavior? There is the sex urge, but it’s not targeted with any particularity, and hence jealousy cannot exercise as much force.

Though the language was not present for this sort of thing at the time, it is more or less the way the first “sociologists” in the 17th and 18th centuries described the amorous lives of primitives. This was before either “racism” or egalitarianism came into vogue, and I tend to think the early observers got this right.

And you have to figure there is some genetic remnant for these behaviors even among white europeans; it’s just that for a long time civilized mores prevented their expression.

If sexual markets can become disrupted and grossly distorted by degenerating social forces similar to those of Calhoun’s rat experiments, then the evidence you’d look for would be increases in sexual deviancy, loneliness, involuntary celibacy, rancor within and between the sexes, sexual identity problems, STDs, sex panics, ideological hysteria, and miscegenation. You would look as well for decreases in the marriage rate, long-term relationship formation, and fertility.

Well, look around. What do you see?

***

In related Fuggernaut News, the NeverTrump Uniparty’s pathological open borders xenophilia continues importing thousands of MS-13 gang members who shoot dead completely random innocents and then burn the bodies in their cars. Let’s have a look-see at the chupacabran horrors our virtue signaling single White women are welcoming into your neighborhood:

I’ve lost count of how many treasonous fucks in our ruling class deserve to sway eye-bulgingly in the warm Spring breeze.

Oh, and Fred Reed? Go fuck yourself and the burro you rode out on.

ps tonight let’s all say a prayer for mccain’s tumor.

Here’s an insightful post from what looks like a Reddit group source. (click on the link for zoomable reading)

Summarizing, women employ a three tiered counterstrategy when they are accused of lying or cheating (or of doing anything a self-respecting man would consider out of bounds).

Stage One: Denial

If a man confronts a woman with her deceit/lies, she will ALWAYS start denying whatever he’s accusing her of. [Beta males] are easily manipulated and they don’t want to believe that their woman would cheat on them/lie to them, so they WANT to believe her lies. Most men never get past this stage of the flowchart.

Stage Two: Playing The Victim

[If the man presses further] she will start crying and blaming the other men/other people. She will start using words like rape, drunk, drugs, roofies, “I was going to pay you back”, “I thought it was our money” etc. They deviously abuse the male protective instinct. […] 99% of men will be fooled by stage 1 or stage 2.

Stage Three: Confrontation

There is a rare side of women that men will only see if they STILL aren’t fooled by stage 2. She will start getting angry at HIM and she will blame HIM for whatever she’s accusing him of. She could have been doing gangbangs and stealing money out of his bank account and she will tell him that he wasn’t home enough and she wasn’t feeling desired. She will start yelling, throwing shit, destroying property and doing lord knows what else. At this stage there are STILL men who will believe her and think they’re somehow responsible for their woman’s behaviour.

This Three Stage description of women’s self-defense strategy is spot on. Denial, victimhood, blame shifting (aka psychological projection). Coincidentally, it’s also the typical self-preservation strategy of narcissistic sociopaths.

Women are narcissistic sociopaths? What kind of sexy jerkboy would draw such a comparison!?

If you are the rare man that is actually able to see through her lies and you break up with her/kick her out/sue her, you will have a new stalker in your life.

Sadly, so true. You want to turn a half-hearted girlfriend into an obsessed lovestruck stalker? Follow these three easy steps:

  1. Be unmoved by her antics
  2. Call her bluff
  3. Show her the door

She’ll be curled up at your door the next day, begging you to take her back [true story].

It’s not even that they actually care about you, it just seems like women are traumatized by the fact that they weren’t able to manipulate a man into believing her.

Understandable reaction. Most men are appeasing credulous betas inexperienced in the wiles of woman, and will fold like a cheap lawn chair under pussy pressure. Give this reality, women are unprepared for the rare alpha male who defies her expectation of a toady.

That shit is the worst feeling for a woman and she will spend a LONG TIME trying to figure out HOW she wasn’t able to fool the man.

In fact, the emotional and mental energy the woman will spend trying to figure out how she wasn’t able to wrap the Chateau acolyte around her finger WILL make her care more about him. The frazzled hamster is a form of devotion, of investment, and women are programmed by the Cosmic Coder to fall deeply in love with men who have wrested this form of emotional commitment from them.

This blog teaches men how to identify these three stages of female smoke and mirrors and to see them for what they are: manipulative tactics to exculpate herself, to hide the contours of her hypergamy, and to place all blame and accountability on the man. Once you can see them coming, you have the tools — Game and jerkboy psy ops — to dismantle them and come out looking like a champ instead of a chump.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“the supply of alpha guys is low.”

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

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

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

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

Piling on, HoneyBear adds,

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

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

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

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

The Id Monster is loosed.

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

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

I’ve written that the goal of feminism is

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The first scribed instance of use of the coinage “rationalization hamster” at Le Chateau. A later definition:

The rationalization hamster is a descriptive term for the typical woman’s tendency to rationalize her decisions to fulfill herself sexually such that her personal culpability in making the sex happen is removed or reduced. Since that original definition, the rationalization hamster has come to acquire a broader meaning, encapsulating all the odd little mental tricks that women (and sometimes men) do in service to their glowing self-conceptions.

I bring this up because in my Pullkit I have many lines that excite women’s hamsters, and a spinning hamster is a slicking clamster. (Translating from the wordplay: a woman thinking a lot about the hidden meaning behind a man’s words is emotionally investing in him, which will persuade her to perceive the man as a high value mate prospect.)

Zee personal anecdote:

YER ‘UMBLE BED-RAKER: i like your kicks.

THE LADY AND HER HAMSTER: thanks.

YER ‘UMBLE BED-RAKER: the unisex style is in right now.

THE LADY AND HER HAMSTER: *rictus grin* i’m preeeetty sure these aren’t unisex.

YER ‘UMBLE BED-RAKER: don’t run from it. look at me. *sweeps hands over self* everything i’m wearing is unisex.

THE LADY AND HER HAMSTER: haha, but no these are women’s shoes.

YER ‘UMBLE BED-RAKER: i figured you’d say that.

***

It’s that last line — “I figured you’d say that” — which has been killer for me on many occasions. It can be deployed in a multitude of milieus and in response to a plethora of parries (notably excepting two: when she calls out your self-disqualification bluff and when she rejects your advance outright), and it works the same ambiguity magic every time, stroking that hamster against the grain so hard it spins itself into a fluffy orgasm.

HER: buy me a drink first.

ME: i figured you’d say that.

***

HER: are you hitting on me?

ME: i figured you’d say that.

***

HER: what do you do?

ME: i figured you’d say that.

***

HER: well i’m a lawyer at ballcutter, llc

ME: i figured you’d say that.

***

HER: no i don’t have a waterbed.

ME: i figured you’d say that.

The point of the line, if used correctly, is to pave the way for a cold read. It gets the girl wondering, “what did he mean by that? what is it about me that seems predictable to him?”, and then you are off to the races if she so much as haltingly whispers, “how do you figure that?”. Curiosity drills the hamster.

Chicks dig jerks.

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

Try rubbing her hindbrain.

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

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

What happens when a once-desirable woman hits all three extinction event Walls — the Wasting Wall, The Wailing Wall, and the Wymyn Wall — at once?

She might look like what’s become of Rose McGowan (NSF male libidos):

Jay in DC comments,

[Rose McGowan] is officially “quitting” acting to become an activist. LOLWHAT? You haven’t been relevant or acted since the late 90s. Dafuq outta here…

[McGowan] with her lawyercunts from the firm Ballcutters, LLC.:

Fugg that pic is frightening. It embodies everything wrong with American women: the manjawed stridency, the lawyercuntery, the man-hating, the phony empowerment bravado, the total annihilation of the last remaining traces of femininity…

If the future is that kind of female, then the future after that future will be this kind of man:

The traditional age-appropriate Wall — the Wasting Wall — hits all women, turning Ladyhawks into Viragovultures with merciless efficiency. But when a woman additionally smashes into the Wailing Wall and the Wymyn Wall at the same moment in her life and with the same impact velocity, as Rose McGowan did under the tutelages of Father Time, Weinstein, and Feminism Prime…..

the carnage is awful to behold.

Look away, for there is nothing to see here but the soul ashes of a woman who stared too long into the abyss.

Reminder: This was Rose McGowan before The Three Walls exacted their tribute from her:

so sad.

The Chick Bump

A reader reminded me of a classic female IOI (Indicator of Interest): the Chick Bump. (don’t get excited Captain Obvious, not that kind of bump)

If a girl keeps “accidentally” bumping into you while you walk together, she’s incipiently aroused.

“Accidental” physical contact NEVER happens if the girl isn’t into the man. In fact, girls are hard-wired to go out of their way to avoid even the briefest brushes of physical contact with a beta male. Prime Lubricity girls are very careful to avoid giving lsmv men the wrong idea. Girls would much rather low value men keep their distance than have to fend off their clumsy advances. Accidental elbow touching could excite a blue balled incel to a rash solicitation.

Therefore, if the girl in your company bumps into you more than once, assume she wants your D. Pass Ho, collect 200 tingles. This is the female version of kino escalation, and it means you are cleared for philandering.

A reflective, honest White lady. Truly a rare find in the wild. (h/t mendo via Daily Stormer)

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Also reachable over Tor: roissyrwpgxawb3etwznvay4eelbws4lkdtr4tt2r7wxb6adq6pajtqd.onion