Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Goodbye America’ Category

I wonder if the dam is beginning to burst on public discourse, leading to growing awareness of converging androgyny of the sexes. CH was out front informing the masses of a strange trend toward sexual unipolarity characterized by a psychological and physiognomic swapping and sharing of normal sexually dimorphic traits. Men appeared to be getting womanlier and women manlier.

But it was the stuff of quirky anecdote and peripheral observation, out there on the bleeding edge of heartistian thought. The science had yet to catch up to CH’s eagle eye. But now the ♥science♥ is here, and as per usual the boys in the lab are busily verifying precocious CH insight.

Commenter chris writes,

@CH

In your posts.

http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2009/06/15/the-masculinization-of-the-western-white-female/
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2013/01/15/the-manjaw-ification-of-american-women-science/
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2013/09/26/study-women-really-are-becoming-more-like-men/

[ed: see also:

http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2009/04/24/the-feminization-of-the-western-white-male/
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2012/02/22/are-the-chemicals-of-modern-society-emasculating-men/
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2013/11/28/is-humanity-becoming-androgynous/ ]

You discuss the masculinisation of western women [and feminization of western men].

This article might explain a mechanism for it:

http://www.livescience.com/3098-female-figure-hourglass.html

“Androgens, a class of hormones that includes testosterone, increase waist-to-hip ratios in women by increasing visceral fat, which is carried around the waist. But on the upside, increased androgen levels are also associated with increased strength, stamina and competitiveness. Cortisol, a hormone that helps the body deal with stressful situations, also increases fat carried around the waist.

Hormone levels linked with a high waist-to-hip ratio could lead to such health benefits, which would be particularly useful during times of stress, Cashdan said. These benefits could outweigh those attained from having the tiny waist, hourglass figure, she said.

Perhaps the differences between predominant body shapes in some societies have to do with sexual equality, Cashdan said.

In Japan, Greece and Portugal, where women tend to be less economically independent, men place a higher value on a mate’s thin waist than men in Britain or Denmark, where there tends to be more sexual equality, Cashdan said. And in some non-Western societies where food is scarce and women bear the responsibility for finding it, men actually prefer larger waist-to-hip ratios.

“Waist-to-hip ratio may indeed be a useful signal to men, then, but whether men prefer a [waist-to-hip ratio] associated with lower or higher androgen/estrogen ratios (or value them equally) should depend on the degree to which they want their mates to be strong, tough, economically successful and politically competitive,” Cashdan writes.”

So as we head to a female forager/matriarchal/feminist society, in order to compete and WIN, the women will have to, and are, masculinising.

It’s interesting how the feminists who agitate for a society organised along these lines are the females most likely to be successful in these societies. Feminist women win, non-feminist women lose.

Feminism is a war of women against other women.

It’s about making the feminist/female forager mating strategy the winning mating strategy.

And any woman who isn’t a masculinised female/feminist, will be a loser in this world.

Fitting, yes, that the Western leftoid project to economically and socially equalize the sexes is literally equalizing men and women in body mass, shape and temperament. Fuck with the forces of nature and nature will fuck you right back, hard.

But I wouldn’t make too much hay of this latest study. One, there is a mound of accumulated evidence that male preference, at least in Europe and Asia, is for women with waist-hip ratios of 0.7 and BMIs falling between 17 and 23. Two, the enlarging (heh), sugar-fueled and automobile-enabled Western obesity epidemic is likely distorting measurements of the natural WHRs of women under a layer of belly blubber. Three, what the above study could be measuring is not changes in innate, unconstrained male preference but rapid female adaptation to environmental pressures that occur *despite* male sexual preference. (Note, also, that the majority of sampled countries in the data set were non-European. A good rule of thumb: Female beauty standards are universal, EXCEPT in Africa. “Except in Africa” is a clause that could be appended to a lot of generalizable observations about human nature.)

Nevertheless, this study is hinting at something that CH has noticed: Western women are looking, and acting, manlier. We have cast about for reasons why, and now we have one plausible mechanism: When propagandized sexual equality pushes women into the workforce and away from children and home, their bodies respond by jacking up their tiny reserve of male hormones until they more resemble the men with whom they now compete in arenas historically occupied only by men.

And so what kind of women does our post-biology, androgyne culture beget? Manjaws. Narrower eyes and hips. Thinner lips. Wider waists. Aggressive posturing. Leering, focused gazes. Snarls and snarks.

Recall this contrast between composites of Golden Age Hollywood starlets and modern actresses:

progress... but to what?

The face composite on the left is of actresses from 2008, the right of actresses from the 1940s. Neither are unattractive, but the left one clearly has undergone some masculinization. Anymore, and she veers into tranny territory. What does this mean for men? Most men will feel like sexually conquering the girl on the left, and romantically protecting the girl on the right. Funny, that seems to be the way our sexual market is heading.

What else do our present and future masculine women offer? Shrieking feminist agit-prop. Wall to wall lies to deny sex differences. “Art” made from menstrual blood. Pussy riots. Delayed childbirth. Women breaking their bodies competing in high-impact sports traditionally dominated by men. And, in a final middle finger to the god of biomechanics, a simultaneous war to feminize men so that women’s descent to maleness can proceed unhindered.

That last part is happening too, in case you were wondering. I could show you a pic of John Scalzi as proof and call it a day, but as demonstrated by the CH links above there is similar data-rich evidence piling up that something weird and disconcerting is happening to Western men to turn them into mewling manboobs, overweight male feminists, slope-shouldered hipsters, and huge beta sycophants. Although it isn’t (yet) making the nightly news, far-flung quarters are beginning to pick up on the CH-identified disturbing inversion of men to a physical and psychological female form.

None of this is good news, except to ugly feminists and socially awkward male toadies who never stood a chance in the grindhouse of the mating bazaar. I don’t see how civilization sustains itself under these conditions, not demographically at any rate. There will be a price to pay for messing with nature’s prime directive. I don’t know exactly what amount, or what currency we’ll pay it in, but the bill is coming due.

The title of this post is not an affectation. The convergent masculinization and feminization of the sexes to a shapeless, infantilized alien gray is a deliberate project by the elites as much as it is an emergent phenomenon of uncontrolled environmental insults. The ruling class wants this. People in power, people who don’t want to relinquish even a speck of their power, want their nearest competition — white middle class men — gelded. They want them soft and blubbery and pliable. They want women unfeminine, self-supporting, aggressive and ballcutting, because they know that a culture dominated by such women will reinforce and solidify the slavish adherence to the preferred propaganda matrix of the elite.

The elite’s most dangerous enemy are men like themselves, competent and hungry, but with less to lose. And so the elite play social engineering with the sexes, in hopes of ridding themselves of men capable of rebelling. If they taste success, they will move on from social engineering to biological engineering of the wider culture of men to cement their rule. You scoff. Ask yourself, are you, at this late hour, willing to place your faith in the benevolence of your ruling elite should such technological game-changers drop in their laps?

Ultimately, whether our ruling class knows it or they bumble along like drug addicts seeking the next pleasurable injection of power at any cost, their sex-swapping project will turn the West into matricentric, female forager Africa. And it shouldn’t be too hard to figure out what comes next.

Read Full Post »

Facebook Likes are a cancer on society. They glorify feels and enervate reason. They abet lies and exile truth. But they do perform a valuable service for the keen observer of civilizational decay. The FB Like, and what gets Liked most, are revealing glimpses into a nation’s character, and especially the character of its women, for whom Facebook Likes are happy drugs for their gluttonous egos. Remove the Like, and severe withdrawal symptoms manifest, similar to the effects one sees from the psychological damage that incurs after an extended stint in an isolation chamber.

A reader passes along two telling examples.

I found these two pictures today on my FB friend’s feed.  (They aren’t my friends, fortunately, but they are friends of friends.)  Both got lots of “likes” and supportive comments.  I thought of you as soon as I saw them.

Since most of Facebook is a wasteland of middling SMV women patting each other on the backs for awe-inspiring accomplishments like getting knocked up by a black guy or sucking down in one gulp a boat of sugar through a straw, it’s fair to say that what gets Liked is what American women like. And what American women like is, to put a coarse point on it, a mountain of shit.

What do American women and their yappy beta orbiters like so much that they feel compelled to craft a public consensus of their PC boilerplate?
- Mystery meat fetuses.
- Interracial dating.
- Male empathy pregnancies.
- Fat chicks.
- Fat chicks feeding like swine on ice cream sundaes that could sustain a family of four for a week.
- Fat chicks feeding like swine while insouciantly arched eyebrows that demand acceptance leap from their bloated brows.

Could this country and its people be going down the shitter any faster? Forget Rome’s historical precedence. America is in double-time decline, setting new records of scraping bottom as we speak. I think I will dub this Millennifag cohort the Like Me Generation. “Like me, because if you don’t I’ll have a mental breakdown as the realization that I’m a mediocrity sweeps over me. Nothing less than total unanimity in judgment of my awesomeness and the rightness of my knee-jerk emotional opinions will keep me alive another day.”

Yeah, no. I think instead I will take this shiv and give it an extra twist in your guts, just because I like… yes, Like… watching you effete nancies and spluttering mutants scream bloody murder. And you know what? The country will become a place truly worth liking for your suffering.

Read Full Post »

A very homely, urbanely decayed spinster has taken photographs of herself posed with male and child mannequins, presumably as some sort of statement on the present condition of her bifurcated ego.

If you thought 21st Century American women have plumbed the depths of crazy, you’d be wrong. There’s totes crazy left in those desiccated wombs and cock-ravaged holes where their feminine hearts used to reside. Expect to see a plague of crazy visited upon the women of the West, as the modern diversity industrial complex and no-holds-barred sexual market drives the wedge deeper between their mothering and materialistic desires. We have only begun to bear witness to a total meltdown of the American woman’s psyche.

My advice to American men: If you didn’t get lucky and find yourself a sane, feminine American woman before this late-stage twisted empire in rapid decay corrupted her, head overseas. You’ve got to know when to hold an American woman, and know when to fold her. And right now, she’s coming up 2-7 off-suit.

Read Full Post »

The post title is a quote of Tyler Cowen, aka Cheap Chalupas aka Bargain Beans, from a Walled Street Journal review of his book “Average is Over” (h/t to Plucky Gents, Inc.),

To sum up, Mr. Cowen believes that America is dividing itself in two. At the top will be 10% to 15% of high achievers, the “Tiger Mother” kids if you like, whose self-motivation and mastery of technology will allow them to roar away into the future. Then there will be everyone else, slouching into an underfunded future of lower economic expectations, shantytowns and an endless diet of beans. I’m not kidding about the beans.

Poor Americans, writes Mr. Cowen, will have to “reshape their tastes” and live more like Mexicans. “Don’t scoff at the beans,” he says. “With an income above the national average, I receive more pleasure from the beans, which I cook with freshly ground cumin and rehydrated, pureed chilies. Good tacos and quesadillas and tamales are cheap too, and that is one reason why they are eaten so frequently in low-income countries.”

Cowen likes to eat his nation’s heritage with a sprinkling of freshly ground cumin and a side of refried beans. You can’t make this shit up. If it were any other psychologically healthy person, I would say this quote is a deliberate self-parody to subvert the deracinating Elsa Island narrative. But Cowen is borderline sperg, so you can assume his sincerity.

Commenter Porter responds,

More pleasure from the beans than what? Wearing a gimp suit? Having a sigmoidoscopy? And do the epicurean delights of bean consumption occur with or despite a higher than the national average income?

Does this Maria Antoinette actually believe his imported oompa loompas will forever docilely dine on discarded legumes while he devours caviar, truffles, and quail eggs? More importantly, does he have any subsidiary labor units…what pre-beaners called “children?” What are his hopes for their future? A warm grate in the winter? A cozy 300sqft favela? A hale old age of 35? Perhaps he assumes his higher than the national average income will purchase for them the best electrified concertina money can buy. Or perhaps he simply doesn’t give a damn. After all, The Economy is a jealous master.

An above national average amount of open borders nutjobbery is abetted by low ruling class fertility. When you don’t have kids, you don’t care much for entrusting a prosperous and livable nation to its posterity. You mostly care about cheap iPhones and status whore feels with your ideologically inbred SWPL courtesans. Your coin of the realm is phony morals instead of fecund maidens.

On a related TCCC post about Switzerland’s recent pro-national integrity vote to curb immigration, commenter The Anti-Gnostic writes,

how much immigration is possible without a backlash?

Lots, when you have an entire Cathedral that mandates equal treatment and endlessly reminds everyone how horrible and stupid they are for not allowing high-rise apartments on every square foot of available space.

Also, of course this is all framed in terms of “backlash.” In the Cathedral’s calculation, corporations exist but nations do not, and people are interchangeable cogs.

The more important question is how much immigration is possible before the traits which made the host society desirable to begin with are lost? I think that percentage is probably quite low, particularly for K-selected societies importing r-selected societies. My hunch, and it’s just a hunch, around 5%/yr immigrants assimilate. Around 10%/yr they gravitate to certain areas and leverage their presence. The natives start withdrawing. Above 10%/yr, the immigrants want their own country. Sure, they may speak the language and adopt some superficial norms, but at that point it’s not about assimilation but transformation.

The natives, lacking anywhere to withdraw, start shutting down.

Taking a cue from The Anti-Gnostic, a good metric for predicting at what levels Diversity + Proximity will explode into War by whichever means is a tiered alert system based on percentage of country that is foreign or otherwise ethnically or racially very different from the people who created and sustain the nation and its culture. CH suggests a reformatted DEFCON warning system, called DIVCON, for Diversity Overload Condition.

DIVCON 5: Five percent of population is genetically and culturally distant from natives. Assimilation probable with minimal fiscal outlay or native sacrifice.

DIVCON 4: Ten percent of population is genetically and culturally distant from natives. Assimilation possible with substantial fiscal outlay. Social cohesion index (SCI) shows first signs of stress. Foreign immigrants begin to self-segregate into politically potent neighborhoods that serve as conduits for overseas relatives and the continuance of their homeland cultures.

DIVCON 3: Twenty percent of population is genetically and culturally distant from natives. Assimilation improbable without enormous fiscal outlay and native sacrifice. SCI records explosion of cultural and racial fault lines running through regions and communities. Foreign immigrants and non-native minorities control entire neighborhoods and some cities. Multilingualism is codified into law. Native and racial flight from these non-native outposts of political and cultural control accelerates.

DIVCON 2: Thirty percent of population is genetically and culturally distant from natives. Assimilation impossible despite massive debt-propped outlays and propagandized humiliation of natives to abjure their culture and identity. SCI passes threshold from greater social cohesion to greater social strife. States begin to switch political allegiances as demographic change sweeps out native majority status. Native/racial flight peaks in intensity, limited only by economically constrained immobility. Self-segregation reverses historical integrationist policies. Regional power bases coalesce as federal power simultaneously strengthens and fractures. Anti-native propaganda loses its influence to inform native sensibilities and self-identity.

DIVCON 1: Forty percent or more of population is genetically and culturally distant from natives. Nation begins irrevocable transformation into resembling the countries from which the non-native populations originate. Political compromise impossible. Jury system breaks down along ethnic and racial boundaries. Wealth inequality reaches historical maximums. SCI red lines. Social discord and native ennui/withdrawal from civic processes undermine legitimacy of state apparatuses. “Anarcho-tyranny” — underclass and overclass lawlessness combined with police state intimidation of native middle class — is implemented to tamp down rising hostilities. Major cities and some states are abandoned by natives to non-native control. Redistribution to politically powerful non-natives impoverishes the natives. Anti-native propaganda assaults every cultural institution, becomes bolder and more transparently aggressive. Natives begin active and unapologetic campaigns against ruling class propaganda. Racial and cultural tensions provoke excessive and violent government response. Free speech surrendered as a founding principle. Mass surveillance and kangaroo courts operate with impunity.

At DIVCON 1, political and armed rebellion become distinct possibilities. Secession movements grow in number and intensify rapidly. Tax evasion increases. Tax havens multiply. Political parties realign. Military volunteerism bottoms out. Third parties experience surge in popularity. Tribal nepotism and corruption in every facet of life erodes trust, bankrupts communities, endangers citizens, and reduces standard of living and other measures of personal happiness. Mental illness and symptoms of psychological distress increase. Private militias, high- and low-tech security systems and fortress communities sever the last strands of national unity. Break-up is inevitable barring repatriation of immigrants, anti-dysgenic fertility policies, and social and economic protection of native middle classes.

America currently sits its rehydrated, pureed ass at DIVCON 2. And as any good economics PhD will tell you, this is good news. So bend over and take it like you like it. Those PhD models of human nature can’t be wrong.

Read Full Post »

The question put before us, gentlemen, is why the President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, lies about the sex wage gap and the nature of its origin and scope, as he recently did during his State of the Union address, and in so doing assists in propelling it further into the media narrative as the nefarious plotting of boogymen misogynists, when an obscene preponderance of evidence exists in the literature on the subject disproving any favored notion that the sex wage gap is caused by male discrimination or similar hobbyhorses of the cackling feminist collective.

Gentlemen, ignorance of the facts is no excuse for propagating lies and stupidity, particularly when those lies cause real suffering to segments of the population, but willful ignorance is especially inexcusable in the President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama. Of all men, he should know best the power of lies from a public representative to contort opinion and sacralize injustice against political enemies. Of men of station, he is most keenly aware of the truth and the requisite need to seek it, and so his insistence on spreading bald lies is all the more malevolent, coming as it does from a fount of spite and ill-will rather than a forgivable foolishness usually characteristic of the lower classes.

Why does President Barack Hussein Obama lie, then? More importantly, how can we, the assembled, end his reign of lies? You gather here, under the stone carapace of this haunt, to discuss just these weighty matters. Intimations of revolt whisper in the halls. Mutterings of secession, even civil war, trickle like condensation from winter windows. A slow heating rage, its potency strengthened by patient superintendence, arcs like static electricity on the deep pile rugs.

The verdict is unchallenged. President Barack Hussein Obama is a willful liar. He lies with breathtaking expediency and has as little concern for the truth as suits his political calculations or personal pique. He is aided in his mendacity by coteries of lickspittles and an opposition, such as it is, of cowards. Any hope that the light of truth might penetrate the hardened bunker of the current administration and its houses of sniveling, ineffectual partisans must be abandoned. The truth rarely glides to prominence on the feathered wings of angels. Instead, it drips from the bloody edge of swords.

Read Full Post »

It’s hardly a secret that women vote more liberal and Democrat than do men. Even married women, while voting less liberal than their unmarried cohort, retain the sex disparity in vote preference. A study has found that suffrage moved the country inexorably to the left, and it hasn’t stopped moving in the degenerate direction since.

CH proposed a biological mechanism that follows from an understanding of the sexual market to explain the greater liberalism of women. As the resource-exploiting sex, women are neurally charged to extract support and transfer provisions from men to themselves to see them through the tough times of pregnancy and the raising of small children. To aid them in this purpose, women have evolved an innate (if subtly shifting) warmth for men who can provide for them and who show it through romantic displays of fidelity.

But when women become self-supporting, either by their own financial independence or via government largesse (which is in practice the redistribution of beta male resources to women), then the limbic impulses that help them connect with beta providers become short-circuited and redirected to charming cads and government growth. The cad serves the pile driver need while the sugar daddio big government serves the provider need. Under this arrangement, women can indeed “have it all”, (except for long-term commitment from men, which loses its incentive structure in this beta-bypass system).

Therefore, the liberalism of women is as much a consequence of their reliance on government serving as husband substitute as of their inherently greater sensitivity to perceived inequality or rifts in community cohesion. This theory gains traction by the evidence that married women become less liberal, ostensibly because their provider needs are being met by a real husband and the government has assumed the role of a malevolent outsider ransacking their intact family for tax money to be distributed to other women and their children.

All’s fair in souls and shivs, but this may be only part of the story of women’s infantile harm-based liberalism. The political and economic liberalism of women coexists with a greater female tendency to collectivism and religious feeling. Oddly, women appear to be both more liberal and more conservative than men, at least when the metrics used for comparison are sliced thinner. (And the hamster went wheeee….)

Researchers have (re)discovered that boys are slugs and snails and puppy dogs’ tails and girls are sugar and spice and everything nice.

Can disgust sensitivity help explain why women tend to be more collectivistic?

The researchers sought to examine why women are more likely than men to endorse the socially conservative attitudes of collectivism and religious fundamentalism. Both attitudes encourage cooperation with one’s own social group and the shunning of outsiders.

Women on average tend to adhere to social and religious norms, and practice within-group reciprocity more than their male counterparts.

So… women are conformist lemmings who get the vapors when someone dissents from the party line. Never woulda guessed.

“Females are more likely to exhibit forms of social conservatism that involve ingroup cohesion and outgroup avoidance (e.g., collectivism)…”

White women, in particular, are assiduous about dating within their race. SWPL chicks may chant kumbaya, but their revealed dating preferences say “white is right”.

Across four separate studies, the researcher found that those who were more easily disgusted and more afraid of contamination were more likely to be both female and socially conservative. The four studies were comprised of 980 undergraduate students in total.

WEIRD alert.

The link between disgust and conservativism is bolstered by previous studies. [...]

But why do women tend to be more easily disgusted than men? The researchers think this can be attributed to evolution.

Men and women are both vulnerable to pathogens in the environment. However, the sexes face a distinct imbalance when it comes to reproduction. Women must bear approximately 9 months of pregnancy, while men’s “initial investment can be as little as the amount of time that it takes for copulation,” the researcher explained.

Women therefore have more to lose from mating with a bad partner. They also need to avoid exposing their gestating offspring to pathogens. Women with heightened feelings of disgust would have been more likely to avoid sickly mates and keep their fetus healthy, and consequentially more likely to pass on their genes.

Makes sense. In the environment of evolutionary adaptation, pathogens were a much greater threat than they are today in the age of penicillin and indoor plumbing. Disgust and its concomitant moral rationale evolved because it increased the chances of one’s survival, and the survival of one’s children.

Women’s heightened feeling of disgust also explains the quickness with which they resort to labeling men they don’t want to have sex with as “creeps”.

Disgust, in turn, encourages “the preference of ingroup members over outgroup members, because outgroup members pose a greater disease threat,” the researchers wrote. This preference towards members of one’s own group manifests itself as socially conservative attitudes, like religious fundamentalism.

“In other words, disgust sensitivity prepares individuals to have a negative perception of others who may be a source of contamination and to avoid them.”

If women feel more disgust, why do they vote more liberal? The conundrum is solved if you don’t conflate “collectivism” and “conservatism”. The two are very different moral outlooks. Collectivists have strong liberal tendencies, such as wealth redistribution and PC policing. Conformism, too, is today more a trait of liberals than of non-liberals.

What about social liberalism? Aren’t women on the whole more socially liberal than men? First, SWPL women are not all women. For example, support for abortion restrictions runs about dead even between men and women nationally, but I’m sure you’d find that in the baby-less blue cities, pro-abortion is the default position among women.

Second, social liberalism can accommodate collectivism (or vice versa). If the prevailing view of “your tribe” is that gay marriage is doubleplusgood, then you’ll happily parrot newspeak if it means strengthening in-group cohesion. And you’ll do this even if your sex possesses a lower disgust threshold.

Jonathan Haidt has theorized that disgust/sanctity is one of five moral foundations, of which ideological conservatives weigh more heavily than do liberals. I think there is evidence based on women’s greater propensity to feel disgust to question Haidt’s categorization. The disgust reflex apparently acts to amplify women’s social liberalism, possibly by providing emotional justification for repurposing feelings of disgust against ideological outsiders. If this is happening, as I suspect it is, then natural female disgust is, in the modern context, less a behavioral adaptation to infectious disease than it is protection against “infectious ideological opponents”.

The analysis gets more complicated when race is added to the mix. Black women are liberal, but their liberalism is driven by different moral and self-interested motivations than that which drives white women. The question left unanswered is whether the disgust reflex is universally higher among women or if it varies in intensity between the races.

Finally, we can predict that liberalism is ascendent and will continue its cultural ascent in lockstep with generationally decreasing testosterone levels, because lower testosterone among men putatively translates to stronger feelings of (ideological) disgust in men (akin to what women feel), and a stronger predilection toward feminine collectivism and equalist conformism.

In other words, the world is becoming more womanly and scalzied. Those who hope for a return to reason and common sense may first need to figure a way to re-inflate the sad shriveled sacks of the manlets of the West.

Read Full Post »

Chuck has a great exposé on Wendy Davis, the Texas Democrat gubernatorial candidate who’s been lionized by the mass liberal media as some sort of working single mom superheroine.

If your values are inverted, then, yes, Wendy Davis would seem to you an icon for the age. Her life resumé reads like a leftoid wet dream.

- Lawyercunt. Could it be any other way?
- Single mom.
- Crusader fighting the good fight against “old boys’ network”.
- Poster bitch for grrlpower.
- Self-supporting Harvard grad.
- Beacon of liberal hope in backward, inbred, red state Texas.

The truth about Wendy Davis is somewhat less heartening for her loyal spinster army.

- Lived with her mom for a while after she dumped her first husband.
- Relied on the patriarchy — her father — for a job as a waitress at the theater he owned.
- Married her second husband, Jeff Davis, who is 13 years older than her.
- Jeff Davis paid for her final two years at college, and then for her Harvard Law School tuition by raiding his 401(k) savings.
- The DAY AFTER he made the final payment on her Harvard school loans, the golddigging, scheming, sociopathic, hypergamous cunt filed for divorce.
- This proud single mom relinquished custody of her kid.
- In Jeff Davis’ divorce affidavit, he cited his ex-wife for adultery.

Heroic single mom, my squat-hardened ass. This anvil-jawed broad is a con artist and a leech.

Allow CH to drop some truly hideous truths into your lap today.

Single mommery is not heroic, apart from a few special circumstances (e.g., war widow). The single mother who has tragically and prematurely lost a husband and a father to her children is not a single mom; she’s a widow, and like any befallen widow her extended families and her neighbors will feel the pull of charity and rally to her aid, and give her and her children comfort and love. This will redound to the children’s benefit. But the single mom who cavalierly disposes of a good husband and father, or who makes a poor, tingle-inspired choice of mate, will not inspire nearly the same outpouring of charity and love from her families or neighbors. Her bastard spawn will suffer in part from this organic casting out by those on whom she expects to rely.

The institution of single mommery — and let there be no doubt that the equalists are attempting to elevate the single mom lifestyle to an honored place in American society — is a cancer on civilization. Single moms who are in their predicament by choice or by cumulative bad decisions are vectors of societal disease, bearing with them the rotten fruit of a new generation of misfits, degenerates, orcs and orc-incubators. They are not to be lauded; they are to be shunned. Ridiculed. Insulted. Shamed. Driven from the body politic like a virus, surrounded by healthy white blood cells and cordoned off from the functioning of vital organs. As a lesson for the others who may be teasing with the idea of following the same malignant life path.

But our body politic is weak, suffering from an autoimmune disorder that is incapable of identifying viral agents let alone expelling them before lethal damage is inflicted. Instead of watching Wendy Davis laughed out of the public sphere, she collects millions in feels money from feminists and their leftoid lackeys who excuse or ignore her malevolence with the same alacrity they pounce on those who commit the slightest realtalk offenses against PC boilerplate.

Wendy Davis is one woman — specifically, she’s one cunt — in the wasteland of a deathstruck nation, but the exquisite arrangement of her life particulars makes her emblematic of the times. It’s rare to find encapsulated in one gnarled specimen so many modern ills and torments and false gods; a woman that lies built. For this reason, Wendy Davis is the iconic American woman for the young century. She is the mudpie that the slouched beasts lift up and proclaim art. She is anti-truth. She is anti-beauty. She is death, destroyer of worlds.

Read Full Post »

Via:

The ghost of George wept.

I’m sure there’s a segment of the American public — let’s call them dickless cucks — who look at this and see a vision of progress, an America hurtling toward a bright future of rhythmic world beats, Oval Office courtship displays, and white pissboys gamely pretending to enjoy their cultural annihilation. But those of us with a bigger picture mentality see a different harbinger.

Read Full Post »

Citizen Enemy

From the comments to a New York Beta Times article about the NSA’s ability to crack any privacy protection internet tools,

My mouth is agape. With names like “Bullrun” and “Manassas” for these programs, NSA is now (inadvertently) telling us they consider themselves to be battling a civil war… with the citizens of the United States.

***

It’s almost like the United States has a secret “royal family”, to use the term loosely, and they are becoming more and more uneasy at the prospect of a peasant uprising.

It sure would explain this massive surveillance we now see before us. This can’t possibly be to fight terrorists as we know them to be. This seems to me to be something all the more sinister, something dangerous to everyone on Earth.

Some would call this the result of mass scale managerialism run amok. I’d use a less innocuous-sounding term: Tyranny.

Read Full Post »

DAN IN ATL passes along wise words from a long-gone species of man: The keen observer of reality.

In his classic study “Democracy in America”, Alexis de Tocqueville included this gem:

“There are people in Europe who, confounding together the different characteristics of the sexes, would make man and woman into beings not only equal but alike. They would give to both the same functions, impose on both the same duties, and grant to both the same rights; they would mix them in all things–their occupations, their pleasures, their business. It may readily be conceived that by thus attempting to make one sex equal to the other, both are degraded, and from so preposterous a medley of the works of nature nothing could ever result but weak men and disorderly women.”

The twisted roots of American feminism trace back to the motherland: Europe. To find the malevolent pool of black goo that belched the feminism-equalism battleaxes-of-evil, you need to journey to the ancestral lands of your forebears. For most Americans prior the 1965 White Dissolution Immigration Act, that means the lands of Napoleon, Richard III, and Kaiser Wilhelm.

Weak men and disorderly women. de Tocqueville saw clear what many of us living in the grip of his realized dystopia cannot or will not. Time enough has passed; the weakness spreads and the binds of men and women fray. We had warnings. Why didn’t we heed them? Because, perhaps, free will is illusory. We crash in the machinery of these ageless, infinitely looping social cycles, rattling like loose nuts, dimly grasping the exhausted end we’re hurtling toward, but unable to do anything about it save rust within the decay. Our hopes and aspirations, it appears, exist in precarious balance with an ineradicable death wish.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,842 other followers

%d bloggers like this: