Why aren’t men fighting for the West?

They’re drugging themselves with male victory soma – steroids.
If they feel the complacency (and entitlement) of the victor, why bother?

(The testosterone released by compulsive masturbators has the same effect, teenage boys used to have more motivation when it was discouraged, SJWs noticed).

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-319-02904-7_12

Testosterone is the dominant hormone in both male and female brains.

regulates the turnover of the social monoamines, dopamine and serotonin.

They’re happy pills, indirect happy pills.
For people too proud to admit they’re depressed.

The hormone also has many other actions in the brain; thus the social brain’s main chemical, without exaggeration, is testosterone

Peterson told you none of this.

 investigate social dominance and trustworthiness behaviors

Whatever I say, they’ll insult me.

Losers.

….

Actually, why do I care what they think? Who else does?

Fine. If you need to get energy from drugs, and don’t see that as a problem to be dropped at some point, you’re as bad a degenerate as the people you insult. Why do you think they’re doing it??

(Also: why r-types do drugs. There’s nothing intellectual about it. To avoid negative consequences, they get high or drunk or laid again, to avoid the experience’s outcome and the need to learn from it).

Guardian test, they’re doing it. For the “energy” = narc supply.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/mar/31/rise-in-middle-aged-men-taking-steroids-to-feel-more-youthful-experts-say

But women don’t care about looks, huh….. keep telling yourself that.

At best, you’re the Beautiful Ones. Still unfit and not masculine.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9624002?dopt=Abstract

Studies in animals have implicated the amygdala in emotional and social behaviours, especially those related to fear and aggression. Although lesion and functional imaging studies in humans have demonstrated the amygdala’s participation in recognizing emotional facial expressions, its role in human social behaviour has remained unclear. We report here our investigation into the hypothesis that the human amygdala is required for accurate social judgments of other individuals on the basis of their facial appearance. We asked three subjects with complete bilateral amygdala damage to judge faces of unfamiliar people with respect to two attributes important in real-life social encounters: approachability and trustworthiness. All three subjects judged unfamiliar individuals to be more approachable and more trustworthy than did control subjects.The impairment was most striking for faces to which normal subjects assign the most negative ratings: unapproachable and untrustworthy looking individuals. Additional investigations revealed that the impairment does not extend to judging verbal descriptions of people. The amygdala appears to be an important component of the neural systems that help retrieve socially relevant knowledge on the basis of facial appearance.

r-types

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12948440

Basolateral amygdala and orbitofrontal cortex are implicated in cue-outcome learning. In this issue of Neuron, Schoenbaum et al. show that, following basolateral amygdala lesions, cue-selective neurons in orbitofrontal cortex are more sensory driven and less sensitive to the motivational value of an outcome, suggesting that predictive value coding in orbitofrontal cortex is dependent on input from basolateral amygdala.

They’re conditioning themselves for pathological altruism.

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2018/05/06/why-does-shunning-make-locusts-leave/

By making your brain happy, you make it dumber.

It’s the illusion of safety. Your body assumes the threat is dead.

Your body also produces less of a thing when you supplement. Basic biology.
So men and women shouldn’t take any sex hormones unless they produce zero.

If your levels are normal (for your AGE, Peter Pan), you’re poisoning yourself.

https://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/cognoculture/testosterone_and_human_aggression_or_180520

 Yet others still have suggested that hypogonadal males (a.k.a low testosterone-producing males) who had their testosterone increased saw no jump in aggressive behaviour, and in fact became more friendly, energetic and, well, happy.

Cucks.

If you’re being treated badly, the chemical suffering is vital to fixing that. It’s like cutting off nerves, they’ve deadened their sense of injustice.

Notice how when men get power, they become over-friendly and obliging?

Ah, they say, but wouldn’t this also occur in women?

 The result: the women who had received testosterone without knowing became fairer, more generous and had increased efficiency in social interactions, while the other group (those who had been told that they were receiving testosterone) behaved much more unfairly. In sum: one group acted they way they thought testosterone should affect humans (and it wasn’t pretty). But the reality was much different. Case and point, ladies and gentlemen.

Notice how many pathological altruist women are high-T? And middle-class?

You’re buying the chemical fake equivalent of class. I cannot think of anything more indicative of a loser.

I used to think it was the broke guy with a sportscar.

If anyone’s doping T, it should be women. It makes us nicer and better looking. When we produce less naturally, no loss.

It’s always the “inferior” men who abuse women, isn’t it? They seem to be lacking in T.
In civilization, status is conferred to men who cooperate. Killers get wiped out quickly.

Better-looking embrace inequality

http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/researchers-few-bad-hair-days-can-change-your-life

The series of five studies conducted by Neale and Belmi, with participants that included both men and women, has important implications for research on inequality. If you believe you are attractive, you tend to think you belong in a higher social class yourself and believe, accordingly, that hierarchies are a legitimate way for organizing people and groups. You also are more likely to believe people lower down in a hierarchy are there because they deserve to be. The research also showed that self-perceived physical attractiveness mattered more to people’s perception of their social rank than their self-perceived goodness — qualities like empathy and integrity — did.

Good luck ironing out that kink.

They're so stupid it's a laughriot

The lookism people have a point. Both groups.
And a love of competency is natural too. If you have a bad leader, they don’t last long.

This research is the first to draw an explicit connection between people’s perceptions of their own physical attractiveness and their attitudes toward inequality and hierarchies. Among other things, it helps establish how malleable people’s views of inequality are.

No. No they aren’t. That’s the point. You can only boost your looks (SMV+MMV) by 2, 3 points maxed out.

The Keynesian Sexual Marketplace

http://uncabob.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/the-keynesian-sexual-marketplace.html

I don’t accept the “social-sexual hierarchy” and the classifications of Alpha/Beta/Whatever because it goes completely against my experience.

I have never met an “alpha” because they don’t exist – at least the commonly-accepted definition: “The alpha is the tall, good-looking guy who is the center of both male and female attention. The classic star of the football team who at a social gathering like a party, he’s usually the loud, charismatic guy telling self-flattering stories to a group of attractive women who are listening with interest. However, alphas are only interested in women to the extent that they exist for the alpha’s gratification, physical and psychological, they are actually more concerned with their overall group status.”

That’s a psychopath/narcissist and they should be referred to as such. As for someone fitting the entire definition – they don’t exist.

The PUAs I’ve met have been cowards and douches, every one of them. In fact every one of them has been the bottom-of-the-barrel…..

I must admit, the Alpha Male seems like the Knight of Old, you hear a lot about them but you never see them. In practice they’re as real as a unicorn and I’ve noted a trend where PUAs go around calling other men ‘alpha’ when usually the man in question is repellant to most sensible women (aka not sluts). If they can’t mentalise a woman’s attraction mechanisms well enough to know what we value, it’s no wonder they fail. A site called sluthate make the very good point that Game doesn’t work with women unless you’re physically attractive, and physically attractive men are usually naturals at working with the attention they get or refuse to whore around (they do exist, but when they get married such men are dismissed as beta inferiors regardless of the woman in question). Choosing to wait and marrying his Helen of Troy do not make a man weak.

I must laugh when they call themselves Lone Wolves, because in nature, lone wolves don’t get laid. Their species avoids them and they usually end up dead, without having passed on their genes (as most players refuse to have children, as if arrogantly denying the world your genetics is such a great loss when you have achieved nothing with them).

Personally, I like the scale but it’s a social scale of dominance and applies to both sexes (as both exist in the social sphere and sexual power is rarely manifest). It cannot be sexual because women are just as shallow as men, the PUAs get us wrong there. All of us care about appearance and health (including no STDs), their denial of this is adorably childish. We use the 10-scale too. The exception for famous aka rich men only applies to gold-digging sluts (not most women).

The myths of the PUA and Manosphere get their wires crossed and you couldn’t honestly follow them all without going insane, it’s guesswork. It’s one way to go Dark Triad though, I’ll tell you that. Except you rarely see middle-aged players, do you? Young nubile women begin to see them as “creepy” and men do age out.

From what I’ve observed, the promiscuous of both sexes age out and either give up and marry or form a diminishing series of meaningless attachments which leave them more hollow and empty as time goes on. Male vanity from the supposed harsh truth-tellers deny this occurs as if living alone at 30 is the same as 40, 50, 60, 70….

Why is “check your privilege” popular? Master-suppression techniques and kafkatrapping

I want to put in a recc. for thought-terminating cliche. Which the SJW lot at wikipedia have deleted as a standalone page.

Lifton said:[4][5]

The language of the totalist environment is characterized by the thought-terminating cliché. The most far-reaching and complex of human problems are compressed into brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized and easily expressed. These become the start and finish of any ideological analysis.

Kafkatrapping is basically: Your refusal to acknowlege (sin) is proof of (sin) and that is why we condemn you. Yes, history buffs. Witch trial logic. 

It relies on self-hatred and vague evil authorities (cough capitalism)

Sometimes the kafkatrap is presented in less direct forms. A common variant, which I’ll call the Model C, is to assert something like this: “Even if you do not feel yourself to be guilty of {sin,racism,sexism, homophobia,oppression…}, you are guilty because you have benefited from the {sinful,racist,sexist,homophobic,oppressive,…} behavior of others in the system.” The aim of the Model C is to induce the subject to self-condemnation not on the basis of anything the individual subject has actually done, but on the basis of choices by others which the subject typically had no power to affect. The subject must at all costs be prevented from noticing that it is not ultimately possible to be responsible for the behavior of other free human beings.

A close variant of the model C is the model P: “Even if you do not feel yourself to be guilty of {sin,racism,sexism, homophobia,oppression…}, you are guilty because you have a privileged position in the {sinful,racist,sexist,homophobic,oppressive,…} system.” For the model P to work, the subject must be prevented from noticing that the demand to self-condemn is not based on the subject’s own actions or choices or feelings, but rather on an in-group identification ascribed by the operator of the kafkatrap.

It is essential to the operation of all three of the variants of the kafkatrap so far described that the subject’s attention be deflected away from the fact that no wrongdoing by the subject, about which the subject need feel personally guilty, has actually been specified. The kafkatrapper’s objective is to hook into chronic self-doubt in the subject and inflate it, in much the same way an emotional abuser convinces a victim that the abuse is deserved – in fact, the mechanism is identical. Thus kafkatrapping tends to work best on weak and emotionally vulnerable personalities, and poorly on personalities with a strong internalized ethos.

“Oppression”
“Institutional”
“Global”
“____ Culture”
and so forth.

Being a loser can make you crazy

medicalxpress.com/news/2014-12-wealth-power-lack-thereof-heart.html

I am refraining from an easy jibe at SJW expense. Scarcely.

UC Berkeley researchers have linked inflated or deflated feelings of self-worth to such afflictions as , narcissistic personality disorder, , providing yet more evidence that the widening gulf between rich and poor can be bad for your health.

“We found that it is important to consider the motivation to pursue , beliefs about how much power one has attained, pro-social and aggressive strategies for attaining power, and emotions related to attaining power,” said Sheri Johnson, a UC Berkeley psychologist and senior author of the study published in the journal Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice.

It implies men are evil for seeking status too.
There are health studies which show successful people with social status have better health. All other forms are an offshoot.

Studies have long established that feelings of powerlessness and helplessness weaken the immune system, making one more vulnerable to physical and mental ailments. Conversely, an inflated sense of power is among the behaviors associated with bipolar disorder and narcissistic personality disorder, which can be both personally and socially corrosive.

Except women assert dominance socially more than men. http://www.livescience.com/40717-indirect-aggression-between-females-works.html Sure, don’t mention that. Men are power-hungry, never women.

In one study, they were gauged for two distinct kinds of pride: “authentic pride,” which is based on specific achievements and is related to positive social behaviors and healthy self-esteem; and “hubristic pride,” which is defined as being overconfident, and is correlated with aggression, hostility and poor interpersonal skills. [female biased metric]

…”This is the first study to assess the dominance behavioral system across psychopathologies,” Johnson said. “The findings present more evidence that it is important to consider dominance in understanding vulnerability to psychological symptoms.”

It’s fundamentally flawed. Humans need hierarchy. Social dominance is a good thing when the leader is competent.

Did you control for anomalies? No? So who were the crazies? Where is the breakdown of data?
Did you seperate the real achievement group from fake? Did you fact-check? No? Did that division show sex differences? Is that why?

Yeah, that’s why.

Castes of the West

http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.co.uk/2007/05/castes-of-united-states.html

Fine breakdown of the social strata.
By my use of the word strata, you could place me presently, but you’d be erroneous to trace my background (hint: dirt poor). That is the problem with these structures, no account of mobility (trajectory upward or bankrupted).
I would like to make a distinction between rich and wealthy.
The rich need to work. That’s it.

Idiocracy is happening: dysgenics is making our brains shrink

http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinking

“Which brings us to an unpleasant possibility. “You may not want to hear this,” says cognitive scientist David Geary of the University of Missouri, “but I think the best explanation for the decline in our brain size is the idiocracy theory.” Geary is referring to the eponymous 2006 film by Mike Judge about an ordinary guy who becomes involved in a hibernation experiment at the dawn of the 21st century. When he wakes up 500 years later, he is easily the smartest person on the dumbed-down planet. “I think something a little bit like that happened to us,” Geary says. In other words, idiocracy is where we are now.”

Reminds me of something