Pro-casual sex likely to be psychopaths + Chad myths

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/darwins-subterranean-world/201902/why-are-there-so-many-jerks-in-the-world

The Chad trope has no actual basis in psychology. Journalists lie.

http://www.epjournal.net/articles/bodily-attractiveness-and-egalitarianism-are-negatively-related-in-males/

Anti-equalism is politics, not personality.
Attractive men are likelier right-wing (genetic attractiveness) and they didn’t study personality but attitudes.
Political attitudes.

Left-wing men score ‘better’ on generosity games because they believe resources are infinite, this does not make them kinder people. Lab conditions are not reality.
Actually when competing in studies, socialists cheat.

Attitudes are not personality.
“People who tended to favor their group over themselves were scored as more altruistic/egalitarian.”
Measure of self-loathing or social desirability bias/lying.
The fatter men would score higher…

“People who preferred socialism more were scored as more altruistic/egalitarian.”

See the bias?
POLITICAL STUDY.

If anything socialists are more selfish, but they didn’t study sense of personal entitlement.

Attractiveness actually correlates to IQ which correlates to earnings. Extremes mean nothing for the population.
Some of the most bitter men are not lookers, saying hot men are ‘mean’ because they know the history and purpose of socialism is just blatant envy and disinfo.

SJWs always lie.

Despite the rigged method, “Results indicated a moderate, statistically significant negative relationship”
MSM lies, don’t trust headlines.

CHECK. What did they actually test?

“there was a strong tendency of raters to perceive that more attractive men and women would be less altruistic and egalitarian in real life.”
Bias. Attractive people have to reject more, from the one person asking they don’t see how often that person is pestered. Thinking there’s something wrong with a person saying No to you doesn’t make them mean, it makes the entitled show up why the source was right to reject. I’ve seen ugly women or slutty women try to force a man to date them or touch them, only to explode in rage at the simple assertion of a right to refuse.

“After all, why wouldn’t we expect for attractive people to be less selfish and more altruistic?”
Dehumanizing and bitter.
Control for SES, attachment style, parent/childhood quality?
Mean people can be typical narcissists and clean up well, their temporary attractiveness doesn’t make them mean.
Genuinely attractive are nice if you respect their rights. Due to wrong ideas about their stupidity, they have a low tolerance for controlling bullshit.

“In any case, I can’t pretend these results were too surprising to us, since we did after all hypothesize that most of them would be true.”
Not science. You’re supposed to not bias it?

“Our hypotheses were based on the theory that because attractive people tend to (a) be highly valued by others as mates and allies, and (b) benefit from inequality, they have reduced incentives to (a) increase their value to others by being altruistic and (b) support egalitarian norms.”
It’s an equalism study, Harrison Bergeron bullshit.

Egalitarianism is meritocracy. Equalism is not.

“Our results were also consistent with related research which has hinted at lower altruism among attractive people, and especially among attractive men.”
Context? [And no, it doesn’t, plus studies don’t hint].
“Why is this tendency more evident in men than in women?”
Then it can’t be sexual.
Why should you be forced to give your property away to others?
Burden of proof.

I can only speculate, but it may be related to the increased tendency of attractive males to pursue short-term, low-investment, low-empathy mating strategies.”
Wrong, more men see themselves married one day than women.
“Because they are more appealing to women as short-term mates”
Sexist and women are the less shallow sex in studies.
“attractive men are more likely to succeed with (and hence to pursue) such strategies”
Actually the most attractive men and women don’t sleep around, disgusted with other’s superficiality.
And hence to pursue – non sequitur. Men can think.
“Less attractive men, in contrast, need to be kinder and more high-investing in order to attract a mate.”
Look at the typical domestic abuse case. Not lookers. Criminals in general are uglier. This was found in the Victorian era.
Psychopaths, as covered prior, actually have a totally average IQ. They’re compulsive liars.
There’s also a confound of going to the gym (nurture) because genetic facial ‘hotness’ has nothing to do with your biceps.
Plus he’s implying all men fake being decent, which isn’t actually a Nice Guy.
Unless you mean r/niceguy
“Women also can pursue either short-term or long-term mating strategies, but unlike men, their strategy of choice seems unrelated to how attractive they are to the opposite sex ”
False. The sluttiest women are around 4-6 trying to poach 7-9. Sex is all they offer. The ugly mistress is actually more spiteful, having few sexual opportunities.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10508-006-9151-2
Men are more shallow, as as sex.
“On average, men ranked good looks and facial attractiveness more important than women did (d = 0.55 and 0.36, respectively), whereas women ranked honesty, humor, kindness, and dependability more important than men did (ds = 0.23, 0.22, 0.18, and 0.15). “Sex-by-nation ANOVAs of individuals’ trait rankings showed that sex differences in rankings of attractiveness, but not of character traits, were extremely consistent across 53 nations and that nation main effects and sex-by-nation interactions were stronger for character traits than for physical attractiveness.”

Good husbands are hotter.

Biased researchers assume everyone is desperate and r-selected.

“Attractiveness as a result of having certain personality traits”

https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03333351

Reputation is important.

Surprising no one, alcohol increased male lechery.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-017-0876-2
The Bible did say not to get drunk.

Old men are more petty and embittered than young ones in rating women, who are fair and more realistic.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10410621
“Both younger and older judges showed an attractiveness bias and downrated the social desirability of younger unattractive targets. Younger judges rated younger and older attractive targets as equal in social desirability. Older male judges rated older attractive targets as less socially desirable than younger attractive targets. Results are discussed in terms of cultural expectations of beauty.”
Classic projection, by being harsh on their own age group they felt better about their own aged situation.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A%3A1025894203368
“Physical Attractiveness and the “Nice Guy Paradox”: Do Nice Guys Really Finish Last?”
TLDR: No.
Do men like other men who aren’t douches? Women aren’t another species. They avoid Mean Girls too.
“Overall results indicated that both niceness and physical attractiveness were positive factors in women’s choices and desirability ratings of the target men.”

Facial attractiveness higher in the not-angry.
Weak men can think acting up by being angry or passive-aggressive will attract women. No. Abnormal behaviour is abnormal for a reason. Personality disorders, real or faked, aren’t attractive.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886914003626
“We find that “what is good is beautiful,” with personality reflecting desired traits as facial attractiveness. This phenomenon can also be called the “halo effect.” We can thus presume that personality traits may contribute to judging facial attractiveness and that the personality traits desired in a person are reflected in facial preference.”

Think about it, alpha males don’t have to be insecure.
Judging all men off American teens is ridiculous.

And bullies? Insane reasoning.

The equalist guy’s topic was already covered. This is why you must check up.

e.g.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071129145852.htm
“The study finds that individuals — both men and women — who exhibit positive traits, such as honesty and helpfulness, are perceived as better looking. Those who exhibit negative traits, such as unfairness and rudeness, appear to be less physically attractive to observers.”

Note: on a one-to-one personal interaction basis, not political.

“Nice guys finish last” – consider the source.

The ugly angry men are literally trying to claim they have a “great personality”. It’s absurd. Having a bad boy persona won’t make up for their genes.

The halo effect is based on something real. A true stereotype.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12147-015-9142-5
And rule-breakers are considered uglier.

Bad ‘boys’ are the balding smelly guy at the bar with a pot belly ten years after high school.

https://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/education/childhood-bullying-adult-health-wealth-crime-social-outcomes-longitudinal/
“Involvement with bullying in any role — bully, victim, or bully-victim — was associated with negative financial, health, behavioral and social outcomes later in life.”
They are at high risk of low IQ habits.
“Bullies were at high risk for later psychiatric problems, regular smoking, and risky or illegal behaviors, including felonies, substance use and self-reported illegal behavior. …All groups were at risk for being impoverished in young adulthood and having difficulty keeping jobs. Both bullies and bully-victims displayed impaired educational attainment. There were no significant differences across groups in the likelihood of being married, having children, or being divorced, but social relationships were disrupted for all subjects who had bullied or been bullied.”

The unstable men who try to make others (including women) absorb their anger are simply defective.
Bullies haven’t actually matured. They’re just weaklings, all groups have them. Low emotional intelligence.
http://www.keepyourchildsafe.org/bullying/consequences-for-bullies.html

“What happens to many bullies is that their social development becomes stuck at the point where they win power and prestige through bullying, and they tend not to progress toward individuation and empathy as adolescents usually do. They get left behind.” – Sullovan, Cleary & Sullovan

“They are more likely to commit acts of domestic violence and child abuse in their adult life”
“Bullies are more likely to commit crimes, with a 4-fold increase in criminal behavior by age 24. By this age, 60% of former bullies have at least one conviction, and 35% to 40% have 3 or more.
(Sources: Nansel et al., 2001; Olweus, 1992; Smith, 2010)”

The death penalty used to address this.
Emotional retards who can only be aggressive and have criminal kids. When they’re eventually losers, this is just the consequence of their anti-social behaviour.

Who wants to be like that? What woman wants a guy likelier to abuse her and their children?

Back to personality, EI also (as covered previously) predicts occupational success.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4873083/
“Research on personality has shown that perceiving a person as attractive fosters positive expectations about his/her personal characteristics. Literature has also demonstrated a significant link between personality traits and occupational achievement. Present research examines the combined effects of attractiveness, occupational status, and gender on the evaluation of others’ personality, according to the Big Five model. The study consisted of a 2 (Attractiveness: High vs. Low) x 2 (occupational Status: High vs. Low) x 2 (Target gender: Male vs. Female) between-subjects experimental design (N = 476). Results showed that attractive targets were considered more positively than unattractive targets, and this effect was even stronger for male targets. Occupational status influenced perceived agreeableness (lower for high-status targets) and perceived conscientiousness (higher for high-status targets).”

Perceptions. Not reality. And they’re probably judged by the average earner and comparatively less attractive, a bitter bias. Like the average woman who calls all better-looking ones slutty despite how that’s actually less likely.

Men are deluded about the importance of genetic looks and refuse to believe in their own ugliness despite world cues.
https://psmag.com/social-justice/louis-c-k-assortative-mating-men-overestimate-level-attractiveness-83197
“Generally, the fewer men at a level of attractiveness, the fewer total messages women sent. The fours, for example, constituted only two percent of the population, and they got only four percent of all the messages.”
As a group, women know their league and most of them are smart enough to date in it.
Men are rejected so much by an ignorance of their league.
Maybe in both sexes the exceptions are personality disorders e.g. histrionic, narcissistic, borderline entitlement.
“What about those with so-so looks? Women rated as twos received only about 10 percent of the messages sent by men. But men at that same level received 25 percent of the messages women sent. The women seem more realistic.”

Average and ugly men actually ignore average and ugly women.
They choose to be alone.

Deny assortative mating all you like, marriage studies prove it.

“Dating” apps pushing race mixing

Of course, that was always the intended purpose of them, plenty of men are easy to influence, just look at pornography and all the unnatural acts it has made seem normal. There’s your flat birth rate. Then look how masculine the women look as “standard” from Jessica Alba to the Blurred Lines girl. Maybe we could get them under the Trades Descriptions Act? “I ordered a purebreed, not a mongrel. Fast shipping though but send it back.”

These guys think they’re really choosing. Look at various white models and look how much fake tan they put on compared to their real, pale photos. The difference is shocking. You’re not allowed to admire a white model unless she’s painted orange!

The illusion of sexual choice. They are deliberately making these women look less naturally attractive so you’ll directly compare to women with a similar skin tone who also wear a lot of make-up. Look at what passes for “porcelain” in foundation shades, it’s a push to shame anyone with fair complexions into changing that.

And what chemicals are even in fake tan?

I’ve seen race-mixing white guys try to claim their kids are white or get this, “honorary white” like WTF does that mean? Pay the toll, nobody is obligated to mix with your kids and statistically, they won’t! Trying to convince yourself “they count” is way too late to be thinking about it.

What about Jews with white or yellow fever, are they anti-Semitic?

Are homosexual men misogynists?

Why aren’t Grindr and Tindr combined, isn’t that sexist?

It’s the current year.

[they will, eventually]

Apparently your sexual orientation is a choice?

Shouldn’t we rewrite laws to account for that fact?

That’s so progressive it’s a circle, circular reasoning.

I’d bet money they also count Muslim as a race, and that’s partially what this is really about.

How dare you make a personal choice with your body!

This is society’s business! No privacy!

Everybody belongs to every body else!

You must perform like a whore for anyone willing to fuck you.

Sexual disgust is OUTLAWED.

No means you’re a bigot. Standards are oppression. /s

They’ve been doing this propaganda for over a century, come now.

https://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/national/article219361075.html

Free apps aren’t free, they’re psyops. They’ve been gathering information in experiments to manipulate you, the intended purpose of any info gathering.

This is also AA for ugly people.

Big Pharma profiting from the public disease risk is a bonus.

It works by foot in the door, you’d give someone a “chance” if it’s “just a date” but if confronted with the logic that dating eventually leads to breeding, marriage and children, that definitely clarifies preferences.

Who wants to break it to them that Richard Spencer actually prefers Asians to his fellow hu-whites? Libertarians are basically guaranteed to have an Oriental fetish, I wonder if it’s a low-level autism thing. I’d read that study. You thought the anime and cartoons did them no harm but woops, psyops telling them Asians are feminine despite shrill harpy manners in marriage browbeating the husband and bodies like little boys. It’s called priming.

Why don’t you have to list race and religion like sex and age in these apps? These are the questions that open a window into their strategy. They don’t want to match you, it’s white erasure.

Remember, white women are the least likely race and sex to miscegenate, no prizes for guessing who this is primarily aimed at but the surest way to weaken their resolve is to distract the white men with “exotic” women. Disheartened and freshly insecure, they make easy prey.

Multiculturalism is quite overtly cultural and genetic rape. It’s becoming obvious to anyone looking, they’re as good as saying you must breed with your conquerors.

 

They invented their own rape culture.

Egalitarian mythos, reverse snobbery

https://bonald.wordpress.com/2015/09/24/the-problem-of-egalitarian-superiority/

It is.

The secret to egalitarianism’s success is that the superior people have been converted to egalitarianism.  They can’t straight-up admit this, of course, since the content of their creed is that there are no superior people, or at least that it has little connection to social power.  On the other hand, they don’t try very hard to deny something so gratifying to their egos.  Officially, IQ doesn’t measure anything, but they make sure you know that theirs are higher than the conservatives’.  Marriage is officially oppressive, but they like to remind us that they beat us on avoiding divorce and unwed pregnancy.  These claims are all more-or-less true.  Liberals dominate every profession because they are by-and-large superior…..

It’s counter-signalling snob. Reverse snobbery. And it’s entirely based on social power, which is inherited (this is why they deny HBD).

I’m too smart to believe in IQ people.

I inherit furniture but throw it out to buy Ikea.

I’ll get an internship I don’t need to be paid for by middle-class secondary school connections but I’ll go to University and treat it like a Booze Cruise.

I can afford to take a Gap Yah on my parent’s savings. You aren’t really human until you travel.

We don’t hate Europe, we love Eurotrash! Our own white trash, however….

Every ism is valid but classism is just silly, what’s with the chip on your shoulder?

They get to tell themselves they earned their privilege. And it’s permanent (nope!)…

Boy, are they in for a shock.

When will this country waterboard the socialists with their own champers?

If we’re all equal, they deserve their position and nobody can drag them down.

Commies want to end inheritance

Not tax, actually inheritance.

Making property worthless, since it cannot be transferred.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/24/utopian-thinking-fund-welfare-state-inheritance-tax

Sorry, excuse me, you’d need a brain to think of that.

Why wait until they’re dead to steal their life savings? Why not make saving illegal?

After all, keeping your earnings is selfish, what are you going to do with that money?
Ban compound interest, it causes inequality.

/s

If only the State owns property, the People have nothing and will give up their labours in short order. Cattle think the grass belongs to them.

Picture the psychology of these people.

This is where ‘wealth tax’ always leads – you have more, I can steal it, because I don’t have it.

They hate nationalism but they love nationalizing on behalf of the Queen’s property portfolio – except council tax means you don’t actually own freehold. It’s a license to pay further tax (after income, VAT, state admin, legal fees, stamp duty etc).

comment

In other words, encourage people NOT to save for retirement, for the future, because anything you don’t spend will be stolen (confiscated, if you wish to be polite) by the state to subsidize those who do not save, or plan ahead.

They already do.

There’s no rationale for inheritance tax.
You’re taxed for dying.
It was a recent change and intended to be temporary.
Now the Government is a 40% stakeholder in all profits you make but no debts.

It’s fucking rigged.

Keynesians want to destroy a house to create jobs to build another.
They’re the four economic horsemen of a real Depression.

this economic illiterate should be shot, or at least laughed out of the room
Economics is by no means my main gig and I see this plain as the egg on this bitch’s face, I’m ashamed to share a sex with this vapid ditz.

best short comment

Funny how the Guardian socialist readership suddenly become all right wing when faced with the prospect of losing their inheritances. Tax the *other* rich!

This authoritarianism is why the People always killed the Communists.

Equality is evil. Behaviourism proves why Communism will never work. Hell, just the Marshmallow test! Same opportunities, differing outcomes! THE NASH EQUILIBRIUM.

Tall Poppy Syndrome and the myth of equality

http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/102769

Now, all of these in fact have been the economic effects of pursuing far too much equality, and I think we have very much now come to the end of the road. And, in fact, we find that the persistent expansion of the role of the state, beyond the capacity of the economy to support it, and the relentless pursuit of equality has caused, and is causing, damage to our economy in a variety of ways. It’s not the sole cause of what some have termed the ‘British sickness’ but it is a major one.

Now, what are the lessons then that we’ve learned from the last thirty years? First, that the pursuit of equality itself is a mirage. What’s more desireable and more practicable than the pursuit of equality is the pursuit of equality of opportunity. And opportunity means nothing unless it includes the right to be unequal and the freedom to be different.

One of the reasons that we value individuals is not because they’re all the same, but because they’re all different. I believe you have a saying in the Middle West: ‘Don’t cut down the tall poppies. Let them rather grow tall.’ I would say, let our children grow tall and some taller than others if they have the ability in them to do so. Because we must build a society in which each citizen can develop his full potential, both for his own benefit and for the community as a whole, a society in which originality, skill, energy and thrift are rewarded, in which we encourage rather than restrict the variety and richness of human nature.

Diversity!

Read Genius Famine.
n.b. The problem of obedience in schools also applies to the military.

Now, holding these views as strongly as I do, you can imagine that I was particularly interested to read a description of some of the problems in Czechoslovakia. And the description went like this—and I’ll tell you the year to which it referred in a moment. ‘The pursuit of equality’—I’m quoting—‘has developed in and unprecedented manner [end p147] and this fact has become one of the most important obstacles to intensive economic development and higher living standards. The negative aspects of equality are that lazy people, passive individuals, and irresponsible employees profit at the expense of dedicated and diligent employees, that unskilled workers profit at the expense of skilled ones, that those who are backward from the viewpoint of technology profit at the expense of those with initiative and talent.’

The problem isn’t women, even the ditzy ones. It’s a systemic issue.
You see the same moral weakness in all-boys schools, for instance.

the r in Refugees Welcome signs + funnies

Look at the facial expression in the Bible quote. That’s an atheist going to Hell for blasphemy.

Spliced with photo of actual ‘refugees’. A picture is worth a thousand words.

Hopefully the Manchester attack, nail-bombing little girls has redpilled these feminists.
Somehow I doubt it. This is the one that started it all.

This one in particular triggers me, the way to kill it is with apathy: So?

So was Jack the Ripper, so was Hitler, so is Trump. Tired of whataboutism.

“they are us, we are them”

true

Meanwhile, actual refugees

Yeah, let’s not save these people waving round the white flag of Christendom.

Are they welcome in YOUR home? Why not?

JK Rowling has yet to take in any ‘refugees’ that someone offered to pay to fly to her homes!

She is irrelevant. Like…

Emma Watson hasn’t spent a night in the Calais camp alone, without security.

Locks are racist! No borders? No walls! Let’s all live in pagodas! 

Now a series of triggering memes and funnies.

It’s been a while. 120 funnies. Some repeats. A few serious.

about as real as her hair

Going by her Coco the Clown makeup, I think they do.

The People do not consent to open borders. The native people.

Everyone into Lord of the Rings.

All harassment is bad but sexual harassment is the worst.
It’s the First World, fucking act like it.
Recently, a German woman was beaten by a ‘migrant’, because she told him not to call her a bitch.

Tesla’s expression, my fucking sides.

He never said that but yes. Fitness is in adaptation.

Just like consciousness. You can’t touch it or test it. It’s unfalsifiable. It’s the scientific concept of spirit.
It isn’t scientific though.

Sexual orientation theory is BS. There’s only behaviour – which hole is your goal?

SJW’s playbook.

The alt-lite treats the J-word as their N.

And strange brown men on the street.

The temporary alliance of SJWs and Muslims is simple: the sexually entitled support the sexually entitled.
Also take down White Man but obviously, SJWs aren’t white or men, typically.