50 Shades of Grey.. Beauty and the Beast… both the same story and the #1 form of female porn (bad guy the women turns to good) searched for on the Internet.. according to Dr. Jordan Peterson. So if that is the case then women would seek out the bad boy and try to win him over to ‘good’ using the awesome power of her vagina.. and when that fails.. she creates a victim narrative to cover up her failure. Sounds about right, doesn’t it Single mothers?
comment on this video by Northern Iggy
The West succeeded beyond all other civilizations in recent history, but by doing so, it bred and attracted people who wanted simply to participate instead of participating in an active culture. These went into cities, started businesses and became prosperous, and quickly — in league with the Church, foreign groups and secret societies — began agitating for power over those above them in the hierarchy.
With prole revolt, the West overthrew the social order that had worked so well for it, and began a thousand-year fall into Leftism, which triumphed with the end of WWII and since that time has ravaged this society so thoroughly it is unrecognizable. Leftism is egalitarianism, which arises from individualism, which comes from hubris or the “me first” attitude that denies the natural hierarchy of ability.
On D-Day, democracy won its greatest victory since the French Revolution, and a mere twenty years later the people of the West — drugged on postwar economic booms and Leftist self-congratulatory rhetoric — voted for their own ethnic replacement.
They were not aware that this was what they were doing, but this is the failing of democracy: voters are not personally accountable, nor do they experience direct consequences, so they treat voting like going to the circus and choose whatever they think makes them appear to be wise, compassionate, generous and most of all, egalitarian.
Democracy always goes Leftward for this reason.
As happened in World War One, the West sacrificed many of its best to destroy those who opposed democracy, and drugged itself with talk of freedom, equality, liberty, tolerance, pluralism, justice and peace as a way to explain away the obvious collapse of civilization. Generations despaired. Culture faded away. Religious faith died, and the family was hollowed out.
The picture that emerges is that of a state and a country becoming more and more acutely the way they are.
I do know that Gianforte got 50% of the vote, and Quist got 44%. You can make the comparison with Ryan Zinke, who left the Montana congressional seat to become Donald Trump’s secretary of the interior, and who received 56% in his two elections, while his Democratic opponents got 40% (2014) and 41% (2016). If you’re curious about the Libertarian candidates, their percentages were 4 (2014), 3 (2016) and 6 (2017).
Oh, and there’s one other series of numbers to consider. Voter turnout was 368,000 (2014), 508,000 (2016), and 377,000 (2017).
So what do you make of this?
. . . . .
The picture that emerges, at least the picture seen through my eyes, is that of a state and a country becoming more and more acutely the way they are. This is especially true of Democrats. They will vote for anything so long as it’s Democratic — which means that they will always be around, “resisting.” They are emphatically not resisters to government; they are resisters to Republican ideas of government, which they often falsely claim are anti-government. And they will be successful in maintaining the national status quo — if the Republicans, who are plainly in the cultural majority, don’t learn how to use the elections that they keep winning.
We investigated the moderating influence of individual differences in women’s sociosexuality on romantic preferences within three specific relationship contexts. Female participants were presented with four prospective mates, varying in their ambition and attractiveness, and were asked to rate interest in these targets as short-term sexual partners, as casual dating partners, and as long-term romantic partners.
Short-term sexual appeal largely rested on targets’ attractiveness, particularly among women with an unrestricted sociosexual orientation. Dating appeal was dependent on attractiveness, particularly among unrestricted women, and on ambition. Ambition and attractiveness synergistically influenced targets’ long-term desirability, and these preferences were not moderated by women’s sociosexual orientation.
These findings portray the textured manner in which sociosexual orientation shapes women’s mate preferences and underscore the need to delineate different types of short-term relationships. We advance an interactionist framework that considers how women’s dispositions and the traits of potential mates jointly operate to influence romantic preferences within distinct contexts.
Stimulated by Scarlett Johansson’s recent divorce (her second one, and she’s only 32, Jesus) and her recent statements that she thinks monogamy isn’t natural (it isn’t, but she’s still full of shit; she’ll try it again, just watch), various news outlets are now discussing the “duh obvious” concept that attractive people are far less capable of monogamy or staying married.
Indeed, studies have shown [*][*] that with men and women both, the better-looking you are, the more likely you are to cheat and the more likely you are to get divorced (if you’re dumb enough to get into a traditional monogamous marriage, that is). Several of you recently sent me this article written by a woman who is “too beautiful to be faithful.”
The fact I was attractive meant I was constantly surrounded by men ready and willing to distract me from the path of true love. The more offers I got, the more convinced I became that the grass really was greener on the other side.
When things started to go awry with a boyfriend, I never felt remotely inclined to try to work through any problems. I simply moved on to the next man.
As a beautiful woman, I never had that fear I would be left alone.
There was always another charming, handsome replacement waiting in the wings to offer me the heady excitement of a new relationship.
. . . . .
This is why people still get married and cheated on / divorced in massive numbers. No one is willing to be honest about this.
This research examined whether individual differences in women’s sexual attitudes and behaviors are associated with men’s ratings of them as desirable long-term mates when men were exposed to only pictures of women’s faces. Links between sexual attitudes and behaviors with the presence of more masculine facial features were also assessed.
Women completed the Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI; Simpson & Gangestad, 1991) and had their faces photographed (without make-up). Facial markers of masculinity were measured, and female raters then independently rated the perceived masculinity of each face.
Following this, male raters independently evaluated each woman’s face on two dimensions: desirability as a long-term mate and trustworthiness. More sexually unrestricted women, who pose a greater threat of future infidelity, had more masculine facial features, and were evaluated as being both less desirable long-term mates and less trustworthy in relationships.
Exploratory analyses suggested that men rated women with higher SOI scores less positively partly because these women had a more masculine facial appearance.
Earlier this week, “People of color” students of Evergreen college hosted a “Day of absence” protest, where they demanded that all white students and teachers leave the school premises. One white professor defied and opposed this idea, so, to show their disapproval, the students demanded his expulsion. The school administration decided to host a meeting between the students and faculty to resolve their differences, but the students weren’t having any of it. At the meeting, the students hurled insults and abuse at their teachers, shouting phrases like “racist white teachers”, “white-ass administrators” and “black power!” – luckily, someone recorded the whole thing and posted it online.
The video spread like wild fire, making its way through Facebook, twitter, and almost everywhere else. The students are now demanding that all traces of the video should be deleted from the Internet, or they’re going to file criminal charges against whoever “stole” it from them. I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP.
. . . . .
Here are just a few highlights from the video:
— “FUCK YOU, AND FUCK THE POLICE!”
— “Whiteness is the most violent fuckin’ system to ever breathe!”
— “I’m tired of white people talking about what black and brown people need.”
— “These white-ass faculty members need to be holding HIM, and HIM, and ALL these people accountable!”
— “FUCK YOU [President] GEORGE [Bridges], we don’t wanna listen to a GODDAMN thing you have to say! No, you shut the fuck up!”
— “I’m tellin’ you, you’re speakin’ to your ancestor, all right? We been here before you. We built these cities, we had civilization way before you ever had … comin’ out your caves.”
— “You have the fucking nerve to, like, fucking dehumanize our (unintelligible)!”
The same is true of the internet. What will be left will be like the shopping malls of the 1980s: you go to Google and for any search, see a list of approved sites. You can then shop at any of those, including non-profits in which content has been denatured for your safety. The former Wild West will be a managed experience entirely driven by consumer demand.
Accordingly, programming will calm down as well. Most offices will have a guy who codes up the web site, maintains the network, and answers help calls from people having trouble with their computers. It will be well-paid, but not beyond what a good plumber makes. The gold rush is over, and the boom in needing engineers and programmers is also fading.
There never was a STEM gap, after all. We had enough people here to do the jobs, and the jobs were going away and losing their shine anyway. Even those who flocked to Silicon Valley to earn a quarter million a year soon found that expenses ate away most of that. Every time the herd stampedes, it destroys what it stampedes toward.