Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Self-aggrandizement’ Category

Hugo Schwyzer, buffoon. Hugo Schwyzer, hypocrite. Hugo Schwyzer, self-proclaimed male feminist leader. Hugo Schwyzer, lover of porn stars, seducer of younger coeds, defiler of the matrimonial vow, potential giver of the herpes simplex Types 1 and 2, self-pegging fap-exposing murder-suicide contemplating part-time homosexing beacon of hope to dumbass feminists and their suck-up allies.

Now we can add one more honorific to Schwyzer’s curriculum vitae: Disgraced, womanly pity whore.

And who, besides Schwyzer himself, helped bring Schwyzer to the depths of the most public of public humiliations? Who was the first to mock his phoniness, ridicule his idiotic male feminist musings, turn him over on the spit for the world to poke with pointed sticks, implicate his supporters and advocates for hitching their fortunes to his ass-kissing self-aggrandizing lies?

Who, indeed.

Schwyster knows all this, too, which makes him a phonyfuck of the highest caliber. The guy spent his early years as a professor cashing in his higher status for the pleasure of fucking his 18-21 year old students. Maybe he is wracked with guilt, and his current ultrafeminist stance is his form of atonement. Or maybe (and more likely, in my view) his hypocritical feminist sycophancy is a ruse to get in the panties of the deluded naifs who take his classes.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that. The difference between me and a lickspittle errand boy like Schwyster is that I don’t go around claiming there’s something psychologically wrong with men for desiring the hot bods and feminine charms of young women. I don’t blame a guy like Schwyster for wanting to stick his dick in his peak fertility students, nor do I stroke feminist egos to earn PC brownie points and page views.

If you want to know who got under Hugo’s skin the most, you need only see which of his tormenters goes missing by name from his meltdown Twitter feed and from his confessionals to less sadistic bloggers than CH.

The reason Hugo doesn’t want to credit the source of his everlasting torment is because CH stuck the shiv in his mottled hide hard and deep, and it’s the twist that still pains him. Unlike many more charitable judgers of Hugo Schwyzer, I feel no pity toward him, nor any incipient feeling of charity. He is a liar, a phonyfuck, a charlatan, and a male attention whore with flapping labia where his mouth should be. He is an enabler of the worst of society, a useful tool conveying the rotten propaganda of assorted losers and misfits and degenerates, singing their off-key tune while he happily cashed in his exploitative scheming for the very nubile rewards his mass of followers tune in to hear him rail against. He is utterly repellent, a lizard in human clothing. I hope that he slices lengthwise, and should he do so, I will dance a happy snoopy dance the likes of which the dark side of the internet has never seen.

But there is a bigger story here than Hugo’s personal twilight, and that is the quickness with which mainstream, widely read feminist media outlets are attempting to bury and conveniently forget their association with Schwyzer. Hugo was, for a long time, a well-regarded paid contributor to such popular feminist and feminism-favoring organs as Jezebel, BlogHer, xojaneThe Atlantic, and The Good Men Project. As Chuck noted,

But a few outlets like The Good Men Project, Jezebel, and The Atlantic took a chance on the history and gender studies professor from Pasadena City College who established himself as a male pop feminist by kissing the right asses and having sex with the right people.  Those outlets have avoided addressing their relationship with Hugo.  Jezebel’s editor Jessica Coen wrote a slippery post which was clearly about her former writer, but she wasn’t willing to actually mention Hugo by name. The post was evasive, and many commenters at the site called Coen out for it since Jezebel generally has a confrontational style.  I pitched my conversations with Hugo to The Atlantic as a tale of how two adversaries had spoken about his troubles.  Maybe my low Klout score kept the editor there from accepting the pitch.  And I didn’t go to The Good Men Project with a piece because they’re boring.  Regardless, all of those outlets saw the same person before them that me and many other critics of feminism saw, but they hosted Hugo for years.  Behold the power of telling people what they want to hear.

Funny how that works. You tell an ego-parched fug feminist what she wants to hear, and she opens her legs to your cock and her internet real estate to your cockamamie drivel, believing… oh, so very believing!… .that the male feminist lunacy dripping like honey into her ear palate was the Word of Goddess Herself. Hugo had a niche, and his sneaky fucker strategy netted him the adulation and the blowjobs he craved. Such a niche is not without its merits, but do keep in mind that being a community college professor to dimwits, however lowly in the academia hierarchy, is the lube that greases the coed skids. Playing the male feminist for fun and profit is not likely to work for the man who doesn’t have that hypergamously-grooved prof podium from which to tingle the tangles of thick-bushed queer gender studies acolytes. I don’t fault Hugo for pursuing this snatch-accumulating strategy. But I do shit in his lying face, and I do shit again in the faces of those who took his lies for truth.

So this is a glorious time to be an anti-male feminist. The wails and the rending of pit-stained t-shirts of the manboobs and the scalzied and the Dumb Hams of the world are the dulcet melodies of soaring symphonies, punctuated by the thunderous cymbal crash of lies being smashed. Ahhh, indeed.

But Hugo is an impenetrable pathological narcissist. No amount of soul shivving, however poison-tipped or torturously twisted to tickle vitals, will bring him the event horizon pain he so richly deserves. A shell entity who lives and breathes publicity, bad or good, will only welcome the psy knife that surgically pries his id. No, Hugo will only feel pain, real pain, when something else, something much more threatening to his ego survival, is presented to him. And that something else is Ostracism Total.

The targets of tender CH ministrations, then, are Hugo’s benefactors as much as Hugo himself. Jizzebel, The Atlantic, Good Men Project… you were duped, but only because you wanted to be duped. You wanted to believe in equalist, man-hating lies that caressed your stunted, shriveled, gimpy souls. You bent over and received the tepid diseased injection of a broken freak who knew how to locate and lick your ascended testes. Losers of a feather…

Jizzebel et al., you are served notice. I have you and your lackeys in my sights, and your filth that spews from the fountain of filth which is your whole stillborn existence is the effluvium I will shove back down your throats until you choke on it and recede from public discourse to clear the shit from your veins. The days when you can hire gutter liars like Hugo Schwyzer, and wallow in his fetid stink free of consequence, are over. Your only hope is to drive the Schwyzerian rats from your manicured harridan shelters, so that your circle diddles may continue under the radar of stone cold soul shivvers like yours truly with an eye and a scalpel for finding and dissecting egoistic neediness.

Then, when you — Jizzebel and the rest of the twisted sisters — have cast Hugo and his fellow castrati to the icy wastelands, will the real howls of pain fill the air to the delight of CH guardians of truth and beauty. For nothing will torment the likes of Hugo Schwyzer more profoundly than the torment of solitude.

Hugo, I know you’re reading this. If my words will bring any goodness and light to this world, your days as a lying sack of shit media token shilling for other lying sacks of shit are over. No one will call you, not even your former feminist allies. No one will publish you. No one will admire cross-eyed your throbbing intellect. No one will talk of you. No one will even think of you. When that day comes, and the barrel of the pistol is nestled in your mouth, lazing metallically on your tongue as your thinning, middle-aged lips glide over the shaft like long-ago unshaven feminist coed lovers used to do to your anti-feminist, patriarchal boner, no one, not even your family, will give a shit.

And that will be the lonely solitary pain from which you can’t escape or repurpose to your craven desires. In that moment, that sweet final moment of true and real reflection just before self-deliverance, you will think of my words, and my reminder that you had a choice to turn yourself against the mountain of lies you willingly embraced as your totem and your fate and your salvation. Sweet dreams, eternal darkness.

Read Full Post »

If a man is presented with a choice between a butterface (ugly face, hot body, everything “but her face”) and a myspace angle (cute face, ugly body), his decision will depend in part on whether he’s down for a short-term fling or if he’s seeking a long-term lover.

The reason for this is not hard to figure out upon reflection: the prime directive is to survive and reproduce, and that means, for men, getting seed into womb (or wombs, as the opportunity may present). A man with pump and dumps on his mind will shift focus to girls with highly fertile bodies, placing less emphasis on their faces. His dividing rod will target women with 0.7 WHRs, 17-23 BMIs, fruitfully ripening in the age range of 22-29. Since he’s not planning on investing much time or energy in his little red curvette, he doesn’t sweat the worry of romantically gazing into the limpid eyes of a plain jane year after year.

A man who is more K-selected, i.e., more NW European white or East Asian (ain’t I a steenker!), feels a cosmic pull toward hitching himself to a woman for the long term so that his few kids have a shot to thrive in a resource-restricted environment. It’s the quality over quantity strategy. To this man, a woman’s facial prettiness matters, a lot. He’s gotta look at her and provide for her for a long time, and he won’t be much inspired to do either if her face isn’t intoxicating. The body is still important (fat chicks left out in cold again, news at 11), but now the contours of her face have become a crucial determinant of her acceptability as a mate. His dividing rod will be recalibrated toward younger women — ages late adolescence to mid-20s — with large, expressive eyes, small chins and jaws, and exquisitely molded subcutaneous fat deposits.

This is the theory. In practice, such choices rarely come up, because there is a strong correlation between a woman’s facial prettiness and her body attractiveness. When a rift between body and face does occur in the same woman, it is typically a butterface. Homely-faced women with slender boffable bodies are more common than pretty-faced women with unappealing bodies. Fat chicks stir the needle a little toward myspace anglers, but just a little, because it doesn’t take much weight gain until a girl’s face begins to display the deformity that is evident in her body. Another example of the myspace angler is the masculinized woman with a striking model-esque face tethered to a curveless body built for spiking volleyballs.

Another point worth making is that men, regardless of their mating strategies, will only choose between butterfaces and myspace anglers when they HAVE to choose. Most men, given a free choice, will choose women who are blessed with both. Plotting cads and plodding dads will both choose the woman who has it all, face and body (and yeah, personality too, I guess) if such a woman is a real prospect.

Originally, this post was meant as conjecture, based on observation and hunch. But to my surprise, there are ♥♥♥STUDIES♥♥♥ available for perusal which have looked into the issue of male preference for female body versus female face and how that preference might change depending on a man’s mating strategy. These studies, naturally, confirm CH hunches, as they almost always do, because it’s hard to be disproven by SCIENCE when you simply keep your eyes open to watch how the world works.

PS The Area Code Rating System is a handy method for efficiently categorizing your dates by their bangability and relationship worthiness. If you regularly hook up with 000s, might I suggest you lay off the absinthe?

Read Full Post »

Some readers took yesterday’s post as an opportunity to grind an axe about the supposed fact of alpha males rutting with undesirable females. Puzzlingly, a few readers credulously assumed the factual basis of the featured BDF’s (Bitter, Delusional Fattie) proof-free assertions that she has spread for the seraph rods of “Adonises” of “wealth and success” with “chiseled abs”, despite the BDF having a history as a hardcore delusionist spinning weird, often self-contradictory, fantasies on feminist websites.

Sorry, gullible readers, but this does not happen in real life, at least not nearly as often as fat, deluded shits trying to pump their sexual market value would like you to believe. Perhaps a reacquaintance with the rules of the sexual marketplace are in order:

1. Men prefer younger, hotter, thinner babes over older, uglier, fatter broads.

2. Men with options — aka alpha males — will exercise their freedom to date and fuck and even marry younger, hotter, thinner babes.

3. The sorts of men who date and fuck older, uglier, fatter women are men with fewer options, aka beta males and omega males.

I hope this clears things up. But if not, allow me to bring the abstract down to earth with a personal story.

I know a guy who possesses almost every single genetic and personality marker for high male mate value that a woman can dream of in her wildest fantasies — he’s charming, funny, top 2% looks, wealthy, mesomorphic, ambitious, has a certain amount of local fame, loves kids, owns a dog, stylish, seductive, and cocky — I mean, the dude is heaven sent for women, no homo. If he has a flaw it’s that he’s not very interested in romantic gestures, or putting much effort into pursuing women. It’s a flaw most women he dates are all too happy to dismiss as irrelevant. Mostly his “game” is to demonstrate social status by cracking jokes that get the whole group laughing, tease any hot girls nearby, pull back, and wait for them to throw themselves at him. He is very lazy about the follow-up and closing the deal, preferring instead to call it an early night, skip out on exchanging numbers or insta-dates, and walk home in anticipation of sex as the girl nips at his heels, eager to oblige. His laziness in regards the courtship of women means that he will often “slum it” with 7s and 8s rather than put in effort to get the 9s and 10s who would be ecstatic to assume the role as his natural prey. He is the perfect emblem of the “lazy cad”, iow.

In all the time I’ve known him (a long time), he has never, not once, not even a little bit, bedded a woman less than a 7. And when he has bedded a 7, he treated her with a summary cruelty that would be the envy of badboy loving feminists diddling their beans to female porn about sadistic billionaires. Worse still, when shameless BDFs like the chick showcased in yesterday’s post shower him with attention and practically beg for his cock, he stares at them coldly and arrogantly waves them away, as if to say “what in the hell makes you think you have a chance with me?” He does not disguise his contempt for the over-reaching, sexually aggressive BDF. Most alpha males don’t disguise their contempt, because to be approached with an almost open invitation for sex by a grotesquerie is a slap in the face, a denial of the alpha male’s high standing.

This is, I believe, an accurate reflection of the workings of the sexual market at large. True “Adonises” are not slumming it with gross pigs. They are ignoring them, totally, utterly, completely. That is, when they’re not ridiculing them for shits and giggles. Instead, the rare “Adonises” that BDFs claim to fuck are much more likely, upon closer inspection, to be revealed as simply chucklehead losers or, on very good nights, slightly higher value than bland, nondescript lesser betas. In all my forced acquaintances with these “Adonises” who were banging BDFs, the dude turned out to be much less than the BDF proudly advertised. And, along these lines, you have never seen a more wretched prototype of man than the omega orbiter who revolves around BDFs hoping for some of that fat slut love.

In reality, the following observations are the typical scenarios for low value women:

BDF 3s pumped and quickly dumped by male 4s or 5s, with a very lucky few once in a decade (or year, depending how depraved the slut allows herself to become) getting a shot at male 6 penis. And penis is all she will get.

BDF 3s getting short term flings with male 3s or 4s.

And BDF 3s getting long-term flings with male 2s and 3s, possibly male 4s, and most of the times with no men at all.

The rarity of the BDF 3 hooking up with a male 7 cannot be over-emphasized. It happens, but it happens so infrequently that it tells us nothing generalizable about the mating market. I have never seen nor heard of a male 8 or higher hooking up, even for a few seconds in a dark corner of a club, with a BDF 3, unless he was so blotto that he couldn’t clearly see the pig he was sticking.

Some readers will balk and offer Arnold Schwarzenegger and Hugh Grant as examples of alpha males who slummed it with ugly women. Yes, but the reason they are noted punchlines of jokes about indiscriminate horny men is because they are exceptions to the rule, and hence less forgettable than the hordes of alphas who only abide the love of hot babes. For every Arnie banging a Mexican maid on the DL, there are hundreds of Clooneys, DiCaprios, Pitts, Depps and Berlusconis who have a long, long history of banging only grade A ass. And let’s not forget that Arnie has been under the judgment-altering influence of steroids on and off his whole life, and if you have any experience hanging around meatheads on roids, you know that their powers of discrimination quickly yield to their wall-climbing horniness. I once knew a a guy on the juice who said his erections became so uncomfortably insistent that he would look at any hole, animate or inanimate, and wonder about ways to make it conducive to penetration. He was once caught masturbating into a gym towel in the locker room. No one paid him much mind, though, because apparently it is common practice among juicers to relieve themselves at the gym.

Other readers will claim that high testosterone makes men indiscriminate, and they will point to young men or black men as examples of “alphas” who will bone almost anything, thus vindicating the assertions of the BDF. Two problems with this: One, teenage youth — which is the age at which young men have the most free-flowing T and are presumably the most indiscriminate, is not in and of itself an attractive male trait to most women. Since women judge a man’s mate value on a suite of factors of which facial attractiveness is only one variable, it stands to reason that younger dudes out for a thrill would be lower value to most women. So their rankings, from the BDF perspective, would be lower than what she is claiming to score internet debate points. Two, most white women, which is what the BDF under discussion is, want to date and sleep with white men. They may claim their lovers are Adonii, but if their lovers are black men, the BDF is likely to feel that she is settling.

Black men are, not to put too fine a point on it, more willing than are men of other races to fornicate with the dregs of womanhood. I know there are brothers reading this site, and I know you know that I’m right. This point, along with accompanying scientific evidence, was made in the coda to yesterday’s post, so I suggest readers peruse it again so as to avoid these annoying redundancies. It is a horrible, viciously sadistic point I make, but it is a true point. If the black guys in the studio audience have a problem with it, they can start raising their standards and stop dumping in plumpers. I won’t be holding my breath.

Still more readers argue that every man goes through a dry spell, and it is during these periods that BDFs get their holes morosely plundered by alphas. Again, this claim falls under closer examination. First, alpha males have fewer and shorter dry spells than other men. They are rarely without the company of cute girls, so they rarely feel the need to dumpster dive. When they do experience the odd down time, they attempt to end it by aggressively pursuing… more cute girls! Second, beta males, who would be the natural constituent of BDFs looking to satisfy a hypergamous tingle for higher value men (remember, the omega male is the BDF’s SMV equal) are MORE likely to retreat to video games and porn than to recklessly dumpster dive with a fattie! Even betas have a sense of self-respect, arguably a greater sense than do alphas, for the beta is ever so closer to falling permanently into a BDF dating career track.

Finally, there are some readers who argue that alpha males dumpster dive a lot because “they just don’t give a fuck what people think”. Funny, this theory. Since when has a “don’t give a fuck” attitude been incompatible with adhering to standards for oneself? If anything, alpha male don’tgiveafuckness correlates highly with not giving a fuck about risking rejection from hot girls.

The bottom line is this: Alpha males, like all males, prefer thin babes. The difference is that alpha males have the power to fulfill their preferences, and they do. Betas and omegas are the men who must make sacrifices in quality, and who will occasionally dumpster dive because they feel more urgency to grab those infrequent opportunities when they arise.

And doesn’t that just get to the heart of it? Alphas make their opportunities. Betas mind their opportunities.

Nothing in this post should be taken wholly as a counterfactual to the above claims of BDF sexual opportunity. There is, in fact, truth to the notion that BDFs occasionally get their sloppy wet holes serviced by men somewhat higher in value than the BDF could be expected to realistically date in longer term arrangements. The issue I take with those readers who credulously (and curiously) buy BDF assertions of sex with Adonises is the lack of perspective they reveal about the relevance of sexual market hierarchy gradations.

Dumpster diving men above the omega male threshold do exist, but they are rarer than BDF fantasists assert. And they are not nearly as alpha as the typical BDF will eagerly claim in credulous company. Accidental real life meetings with the “sex toys” of BDFs usually confirm suspicions the BDF was lying to stroke her ego: The “lovers” are either black men who are gonna bolt in two days time, or they are white men who are way more beta, charmless, goofy, older, uglier and/or socially awkward than the BDF let on prior to public exposure of her “conquests”.

But even if the BDF gets her ego temporarily massaged by a parade of one night stands only one SMV point higher than herself, that is still enough pressure exerted on the mating market to skew the pairing up and pairing off outcomes. A one point SMV differential between herself and her regretful pumper can be enough to raise the expectations and entitlement of the BDF, and when a slew of these fly-by-nighters are accumulated, the BDF may actually come to believe her own bullshit. When that happens, omegas and lesser beta males who would be the rightful and natural heirs to the puffy sausage hands of BDFs come to find themselves passed over by these beasts who continue to trawl the singles scene hoping to capture the attention of an out-of-sight greater beta male.

The BDF who thinks herself a CSB (Certified Sexy Babe) is bad news for the nation’s betas, who are forced by circumstance of bloated BDF entitlement to put more effort into wooing women lower on the sexual market totem pole. Luckily, this is a self-correcting market skew, as the egotistic BDF who has not made a realistic reappraisal of her romantic worth is left, at last, lonely and unloved under the rubble of the wall that smashed down on top of her.

This is why game is so important for reasons beyond simply the promotion of techniques for snagging verifiably cute chicks; game is an invaluable market-correcting mechanism that redounds to the benefit of beta males who only wish to date IN THEIR OWN LEAGUE. Game opens pathways to hard 10s, and closes off dead ends to flabby 2s.

Read Full Post »

What deranged psychology motivates the defecatory self-flagellating of masculinity-hating manboobs like Hugo Schwyzer? At first glance, they seem broken souls driven to assume guilt for imagined evils committed by the group to which they ostensibly belong. They side with freaks who hate their kind. They mouth empty-headed platitudes and brazen lies with such alacrity one wonders if they can any longer distinguish reality from fantasy. They relish the whip coming down on their backs and the backs of those remotely like them with sick masochistic zeal.

Hugo Schwyzer is a cartoonish copypaste of the manboob archetype. He’s such a vile and transparent emissary for the reject crowd, that you really have to wonder if it’s all an act. I imagine there are at least a few sufficiently brain damaged co-eds who lap up his runny shit to make it all worth it. I bet he’s still leveraging his prof power dynamic to score illicit tail on the down low. It would explain his behavioral similarity to closeted gays who rail against homosexuality.

Or maybe he’s a True Believer. If that’s so, he’s an even bigger pud than I peg him for. At least one can understand, if not condone, a fraudulent shucking and jiving act to off-pitch feminist tunes in order to dupe dumbo conformist leftoids still in the bloom of youth to give up the goods. But a guy who dances like this with his junk tucked between his legs because he actually enjoys two-stepping like a spaz eunuch? It beggars comprehension.

So we must delve deep into the neural swamp of the self-annihilator, on a journey of adventure to darkest manboobery, to examine up close the stunted, sniveling, fetal id crouched like Gollum at the center of their twisted psyches. For to understand one’s enemies is to hone the precision of one’s ridicule aimed at them. You can plunge the soulshiv into the outer folds of the prefrontal all day long, but the delusional crackpot will merely incorporate legions of á la main ego-assuaging dendrites to rapidly bridge the wound in response. The killing blow comes at last when you have located Smaug’s lone, unjeweled breastplate — revealing an open pathway to the core leprotic force animating the multitude of ego layers — and held the gom jabbar wickedly, tantalizingly, against the defenseless, quivering, pustular infant monster within. Only then, will you have hit the mother of all nerves.

Chuck, over at GLPiggy, offers a diagnosis of Schwyzer’s underlying manboob illness.

Hugo Schwyzer’s latest piece is typical.  What you first have to understand about anything that Schwyzer writes is that he’s attempting to alleviate his own guilt by painting every transgression of white men against others as a systemic issue in which we are all complicit.

Schwyzer has done a lot of screwy things in his life so he believes that it is now his job to throw all other white men under the bus.  He avoids trying to deal empathically with white men by harping on “white male privilege”.

Guilt alleviation. The one emotional compulsion, above all others, that appears to guide and channel the self-annihilator’s moral preening, if not his moral compass. Schwyzer has had, as he has himself admitted, a number of “improper” affairs with his female students — affairs of the sort that would send the typical self-identifying feminist into a tailspin of scattershot histrionics about the “white male power structure” if done by any man other than a mewling manboob who effusively apologizes for his pleasure as penitence to his femcunt overladies. But Schwyzer retains just enough charm and traitorous gusto to keep his erstwhile feminist foes safely within his orbit of self-congratulatory sympathy.

But does Schwyzer really feel guilt for his naughty sexcapades? I’ve known quite a few womanizers in my life, and one thing I can say about them is that none were genuinely guilt-ridden over their scores of intimacies. None felt any pressing need to convince the world that their peripatetic love, or the behavior of men who do the same, was exploitative badness. They are healthy men at peace with their natural, masculine desire. Sure, they may occasionally pretend to introspection when in the company of finger waggers or glaring wives, but one could tell that was all for show. There was enough wink wink, nudge nudge to remind of their sanity.

So, no, I don’t believe that Hugs Shyster feels guilt, real guilt, for his past (and probably present). Most self-annhilating whites (and it is mostly whites who suffer from the appalling condition) don’t act out of guilt; they act out of a crass, surging impulse to step on their closest co-ethnic competitors in order to lift themselves up. Narcissism of small differences, and all that. They are, before all else, status whores, even if they don’t realize it themselves. And the status points that count will change depending on the context one finds oneself, or the context in which one deliberately inserts oneself. In Schwyzer’s case, he has been, and is, surrounded on all sides by clucking man-haters, women who loathe male desire in all its permutations save the one which can be wholly choreographed by feminist puppeteering.

The irony of it all is that Schwyzer has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to apologize or repent for, whether to himself or to others. His leverage of his occupation’s high social status and situational dominance to seduce young women by giving them what they want is no less part and parcel of the natural evolved order of romantic interlude than the woman who keeps herself trim and dresses sexily to capture the appreciation of the high value men she desires. You can argue that Schwyzer imprudently crossed an ethical line peculiar to academia, but what you can’t argue is that he acted immorally, strangely, misogynistically, or with patriarchal hate in his heart toward those women who welcomed his wooing.

But if suppressed guilt is the real motivation (and I concede that the possibility exists in the most egregious cases of manboobery, such as that evidenced by Schwyzer), then Chuck is right to identify the mechanism as an ego-salving one which attempts to shirk the blame off to an entire group as indicative of a “systemic issue” instead of manfully accepting sole blame for one’s individual failings (as one sees them). But the full-blown narcissist will have nothing to do with taking responsiblity for his actions when a whole world of patriarchal privilege and cultural constructivism is out there which will take the blame for him.

A second theory of manboob mind is that the proselytizing self-annihilator (and by extension, group-annihilator) suffers from a case of pathological altruism. Pathological altruism is likely an acute manifestation of biologically inherited leftoidism. While there is no proof to date that political bias is genetic in origin, evidence is mounting in favor of the hypothesis. Pathological altruism is a mental illness that possesses psychological dimensions not unlike Stockholm Syndrome, which compels the afflicted to heal the world’s hurt, and to demand inclusion for the world’s monsters and failures, no matter what cost to oneself (or, more likely, to one’s taxpaying compatriots). It is liberal universalist perfectionism run amok, and it eventually devolves, as it must, to subverting normality and truth and beauty and to sanctifying deviancy and lies and ugliness. (And genocide, if you look at the historical record.)

The motivation of those who hold themselves Messiahs to the Monsters can often be murky to the untrained eye, but the motivation of those who are actual monsters is clearer. The designs of the latter to institute not just the social acceptance, but the social desirability, of degenerates and degeneracy stems from a survival instinct. To be cast to the metaphorical icy wastelands is metadeath, and in the ancestral state of nature the casting out would have meant real death. But what to make of monster apologists like Hugo Schwyzer who, superficially at least, don’t immediately provoke disgust in people? What motivates them? If the pathological altruist theory of manboobery is correct, then “normals” who suffer from it are motivated by the warm, dopaminergic good feelings they receive from “fighting oppressors” and “lifting the oppressed”. It’s a savior complex that earns brownie points the more self-indicting its message. This is similar in function to how the handicap principle operates.

Which leads to the third theory of manboobery: subversive status whoring.

Ultimately, if evolutionary biologists are correct, pathological altruism (PA) will subordinate to the genetic imperative for status accrual, for all human traits are merely more or less successful evolutionary experiments cobbled together under ecological pressures to maximize survival and reproduction. PA might have been socially adaptive in small hunter-gatherer tribes, but in the modern context of atomized city dwelling that pushes millions of humans shoulder to shoulder, PA becomes more individually adaptive while also becoming more societally maladaptive. Now we are right back to the original speculation that manboobs are, in their own bizarre fashion, raising their status within their postmodern milieu via the mechanisms of narcissistic martyrdom and shared blame redistribution to the entire group in which they putatively belong. PA is, in a sense, a sneaky fucker strategy, a cheater’s ploy, which relies for its success on the existence of a strong, commanding overculture to parasitize. Once that culture is gone and the gutter filth are in charge, there is no longer any gain from letting your freak flag, or your freak-enabler flag, fly.

The manboob with PA disorder may sincerely believe in his good intentions, but he is actually a servant carrying out ancient genetically-coded algorithms that will redound to the benefit of his personal social status and, hence, his reproductive fitness. You scoff at “reproductive fitness”, but in fact this tact appears to have worked for Schwyzer, who, if his claims are to be believed, has enjoyed an ample supply of nubile, young, gullible feminist libtard majors.

We come to the fourth theory of manboob mind, and perhaps the most cynical of the theories: That manboobs like Schwyzer don’t believe a word of the crap they brownly vomit; that their bleatings are a minstrel show for the tiny niche of ideological sympathizers who fortuitously happen to be decked in the plumage of alluring boob and ass that all men, even revolting manboobs, want to defile. (Almost) every male endeavor has its female groupies, and manboobery is no exception, (except when the manboob is so physically deformed or dispositionally neutered he cannot even hope for gnarled table scraps left behind by greater manboobs than he).

The feigned male feminist act doesn’t even have to find fruit among its intended audience for it to be a successful mating strategy. Schwyzer could get no play from the Jizzebel crowd, but it won’t matter as long as attractive women closer to his social circle observe the laurels he receives from thousands of anonymously obese feminist skanks thankful for his words which soothe their scorched feelings of self-worth. All he has to do is humblebrag a little, shit on the “right” sorts of men, and sit back as innate female desire for preselected men works its magic. For all we know, Schwyzer may be a stone cold dominating quasi-rapist in bed with women, once he is free to drop the “this is what a feminist looks like” charade. And how much you want to bet the women he fucks — or fucked, I hear he’s married — are slender, height-weight proportionate, facially attractive women on the fertile side of the wall? Lindy West wept.

A corollary to the fourth theory of manboob mind — the theory that manboobery is a cynical ploy to attract niche female attention — is the notion that manboobs deliberately scheme to rearrange the contours of the sexual market so that their types have more access to women. It’s a strategy to clear the field of competitor males. It’s obviously not possible to literally clear the field of other men (unless you imprison them or kill them), but it is possible, through silver-tongued verbal calisthenics, to build insular social contexts that delineate and ostracize outsiders from insiders, and attract women simpatico to one’s message, much like the growth of a religious cult. The key to this mate competition strategy is to execute it with sincere-sounding passion, creating emotional states that coax the girls to be more open to the manboob’s wiles. An actively promoted, pro-femcunt system allows manboobs like Schwyzer to successfully compete with other men, whereas in a sane, anti-feminist, anti-sophist culture he would be at a distinct disadvantage competing against manlier men who eschew the mincing dishonor of passive-aggressive subterfuge.

Finally, we come to the fifth theory of manboob mind, and one I include for purposes of thoroughness rather than insight, as it shares obvious common threads with the previous four theories: Manboobs are simply bigoted against those not like them, which amounts to being bigoted against their betters, and will tirelessly do or say whatever is necessary, no matter how inconsistent or hypocritical, to bring down those they irrationally hate. I leave it as an exercise for the reader why a guy like Hugo Schwyzer would reflexively perceive the majority white male contingent as the Other.

In summary, here are the five primary theories of manboob mind, in no particular order of probability or explanatory power:

1. Guilt complex
2. Pathological altruism
3. Status whoring
4. Mate competition strategy
5. Raw bigotry

These theories don’t have to be distinct entities; they can overlap, and they probably do. A status whoring manboob on the make for chubby feminist love might harbor guilt for some strange perversion he committed in his past. A bigoted hater might also be a pathological altruist who goes livid when the subject turns to inequality, and if you think those two emotional states are contradictory, well you just don’t know the leftoid mind very well. Let’s say internal consistency is not their strong suit.

It wouldn’t be CH if we didn’t punctuate a SERIOUS post with a goofy coda, so to head off those jesters salivating to bombard the comment section with theories they deem to be the most obvious explanations, yes, manboobs like Schwyzer may just be acting out revenge fantasies birthed in the crucible of some punch to the jaw they took by a frat bro when they were striplings making their way through a man’s world. You could call that theory of manboobery, “Punchuated Equilibrium”. Those slights of youth have amazing staying power to warp the adult mind. Hate for normal, healthy men can germinate in such seething soil. You’d not be far from the mark to guess that a lot of the more monstrous manboobs nurse grudges from some rejection they suffered by a girl who never reciprocated their LJBFery in the way the manboobs hoped. But instead of turn against normal women or themselves, they shifted their hate beams to those men the girls liked.

As a theory of manboob mind, I don’t buy this tact. For every skulking manboob with a distant humiliation fueling his misandry, there are a thousand men who suffered similar high school slights who never went the egregious manboob route. Something else, some other psychological misfire, has to gird the ancient grudge, to give the grudge its unusual outsized power. And that is where you have to dig deeper, to the transgendered id, where the murmuring heart of the manboob pumps sewage through his buttplug-shaped cerebellum.

PS Schwyzer and his ilk might just be garden-variety closeted gays, which I know will be the preferred theory of a lot of tradcon types who have a hard time fathoming the queer workings of the manboob mind. But that’s a dismissive assertion that’s hard to subscribe to when there are years of evidence, past and current, that the Hugo manboob under the microscope has enjoyed, and continues to enjoy, the sexual company of women. We don’t live in an age where gay men need a parade of beards to function in society.

PPS Feel free to include your theories for the existence of nauseating manboobs in the comments. If there’s a better theory out there than the five presented here, we’d all like to hear it.

Read Full Post »

A common anti-male prerogative hater tactic is to concern troll womanizers about their life trajectories. It usually takes this form:

“What are you going to do? Spend your best years banging one woman after another, and then wind up old and alone? Don’t you want healthy kids?”

Those players who want kids have nothing to worry about. Men produce viable seed well into their dotage, and can theoretically create a lasting legacy with one final, righteous spurt from their deathbeds that sends them to valhalla with a smile on their faces.

Women cannot do this. Once a woman’s eggs are gone, (late 30s to 40s for most women), she is out of the reproduction business altogether. For her, any more sex will strictly and necessarily be for pleasure and intimacy purposes. Or bribery to get her husband to fix the water heater.

But why take my word for it? The science is out and it shows that men benefit from older fatherhood in ways that women will never benefit from older motherhood.

1. A recent study has shown that men who exercise regularly improve the quality of their sperm, counteracting the effects of aging.

[A] new study shows exercise could make sperm quality better; improving a man’s reproductive health.

Diana Vaamonde, a researcher at the University of Cordoba and lead author of the study said in a press release, “We have analysed qualitative semen parameters like the ejaculated volume, sperm count, mobility and sperm morphology.”

For the study the men were also tested for hormone levels that included follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinizing hormone (LH), testosterone (T), cortisol (C) and the T/C ratio that the researchers explain provides a better picture of the environment needed for sperm creation, in addition to giving a picture of the general health of the 31 men included in the study.

The results showed men who exercise more had faster swimming sperm that was more perfectly formed, compared to their sedentary counterparts. Exercising appears to create a more favorable environment for sperm creation that comes from healthy hormone levels.

The good news is the researchers say it only takes moderate exercise to keep your sperm in good shape.

According to the CDC, it’s possible to change a man’s sperm with healthy lifestyle changes.

As far as we know, there is no amount of exercise in the world that will return a woman’s lost eggs to her womb.

Score: Older dads 1, older moms 0.

2. Another study find that older men who eat healthy have less age-related damage to their sperm.

As far as we know, there is no amount of healthy eating that will return a woman’s lost eggs to her womb.

Score: Older dads 2, older moms 0.

3. A study which acts like a shiv to the feminist careerist heart finds that the risk of autism goes up considerably more in the children of older mothers in all age ranges than it does in the children of older fathers.

The older a mother is when she gives birth, the higher her child’s risk of autism, new data show.

A smaller effect also is seen for the age of the father, but only when the child is born to a father over age 40 and a mother under age 30.

As far as we know, there is no amount of feminist delusion that will make an older woman’s eggs relatively as healthy as an older man’s sperm.

Score: Older dads 3, older moms 0.

4. Finally, a Stanford study finds that it is evolutionarily good when older men have kids with younger women. May-December romances weed out life-shortening mutations and promote health and longevity in the human population.

Old Men Chasing Young Women: A Good Thing

It turns out that older men chasing younger women contributes to human longevity and the survival of the species, according to new findings by researchers at Stanford and the University of California-Santa Barbara.

Evolutionary theory says that individuals should die of old age when their reproductive lives are complete, generally by age 55 in humans, according to demographer Cedric Puleston, a doctoral candidate in biological sciences at Stanford. But the fatherhood of a small number of older men is enough to postpone the date with death because natural selection fights life-shortening mutations until the species is finished reproducing.

“Rod Stewart and David Letterman having babies in their 50s and 60s provide no benefit for their personal survival, but the pattern [of reproducing at a later age] has an effect on the population as a whole,” Puleston said. “It’s advantageous to the species if these people stick around. By increasing the survival of men you have a spillover effect on women because men pass their genes to children of both sexes.” [...]

In the paper, the researchers analyzed “a general two-sex model to show that selection favors survival for as long as men reproduce.” The scientists presented a “range of data showing that males much older than 50 years have substantial realized fertility through matings with younger females, a pattern that was likely typical among early humans.” As a result, Puleston said, older male fertility helps to select against damaging cell mutations in humans who have passed the age of female menopause, consequently eliminating the “wall of death.”

“Our analysis shows that old-age male fertility allows evolution to breach Hamilton’s wall of death and predicts a gradual rise in mortality after the age of female menopause without relying on ‘grandmother’ effects or economic optimality,” the researchers say in the paper.

So older fathers are gifting us all more years of life on this chortling roil. When you say your prayers this Sunday, be sure to include an hallelujah for dirty old men.

Score: Older dads 1 billion, older moms 50 cats.

I wonder if this means that aging cougars settling for younger, desperate beta males — as seems to be the trend lately in the West — is shortening the human lifespan? Cougars? Yuck. Dashing gentlemen? Yay!

I’m enjoying life right now sans sprog, but I anticipate that when I get older there is an outside chance I will feel a pull toward creating from my dark matter-infused slamseed a few heirs to suckle at my much younger lover’s milky white teats. While I have never been concerned with any possibility of setback in that hypothetical department, it’s nice to know the science affirms my life choices as not only practicable, but also moral.

Also, as an anecdote, I know a couple of older fathers — married to women ten years or more younger than themselves — whose sons are the most well-adjusted, confident, and happy boys I have ever had the pleasure to impart with my shadowy wisdom to meet. Sue me for extrapolating from personal observation, but it’s my impression that the most stable and loving families with the happiest and most grounded kids are those where dad is older than mom. Selection effect for older, high status alpha males by younger women? Perhaps. Or maybe older dads, wielding a history of knowledge and a wider perspective that younger dads don’t yet possess, simply bring more gravitas to family affairs, and therefore naturally and organically induce respect and admiration from their kids.

***

I expect this post to really chafe the hides of a few flabby-rumped cunts and their manboobed apologists. There will be much Q_Q and gnashing of labia. And it will be good.

Read Full Post »

We here at CH don’t just knock women off their princess pedestals (or knock men out from under them), we grind the pedestal into dust and toss the ashes into the Pacific breeze. But even our yeoman efforts occasionally struggle to adequately express the depraved depths of unrestricted female nature. Apropos, a reader writes:

Hi. I ran across your blog through a Google search. It looks very interesting and I am for sure going to read more later tonight after work. I was wondering if you had any advice for second wives that are married to nice guys that are paying alimony to an ex-wife that might have gotten secretly remarried to their elderly boyfriend? I’m sorry that sentence is so complicated.

Me: Wife #2

Me thinks: Wife #1 secretly remarried and is “double-dipping.”

Wife #1′s boyfriend: considerably older than her and has no heirs

She has tried to financially double-dip in the past, has a history of lying, there’s no nation-wide search we can run to check this out, and besides just having to pay back the money, there’s no downside like jail time or punitive fines for secretly remarrying and continuing to collect alimony from Husband #1.

Any suggestions would be super helpful!

Alimony double-dipping by ex-wives is real, and since it affects the resource pool of women hitched to the victimized ex-husbands, dumbshit man-haters can’t go around calling those men “whiners” without also incriminating their newly beloved women for the same illusory crime against status preening. Thus, we hear SILENCE TOTAL from the feminist kunt kollective on this matter of alimony double-dipping, which undoubtedly occurs with greater frequency than official tallies claim. Speaking of official tallies… where the hell are they? Is this mass buttfucking of betaboy cogs just one of those crimes that no one in power gives a rat’s ass about to even bother writing a report?

Double-dipping alimony whores are nearly the worst of the hypergamous worst. Second only to knowing cuckolders who try to foist alpha issue on unsuspecting beta providers. Think about the utter degradation, the abject humiliation, these craven harlots visit upon their ex-betas:

1. Coerces alimony payments from beta ex freed from any sex obligation in return.

2. Shacks up with new alpha lover and uses ex-beta’s coerced payments to buy sexy lingerie as demanded by alpha.

3. Refrains from reporting relationship. Gets to enjoy continued flow of resources from both new alpha lover and estranged beta ex.

4. Beta ex’s money now going to buy not only ex-wife’s pre-coituswear, but her alpha lover’s cock rings.

5. Cackles to herself how easy it is to keep kids away from schlubby beta ex.

6. Impoverishes beta ex and kneecaps his ability to find and keep a new woman to give him love.

What I just described above is the legal equivalent of getting a meth-addled ferret shoved up your ass, pulled out, and then shoved into your mouth to lick it clean. I believe the Latinate term is AF2MF, Ass-Ferret-to-Mouth-Ferret.

What man in his right mind would go to war for such a system?

Having never gotten myself entangled in the vulgarities of the divorce-industrial complex, all I can tell you, dear reader, is to find whatever shred of evidence that you can of your husband’s ex-wife’s remarriage and present it to a family court. This may mean coaxing your husband to wheedle any kids he may have to cough up the goods on their mother. Surprisingly, despite years of mommy poisoning the well, many children can see through her machinations and retain affection and loyalty to their father. But channels of communication will have to be open for this strategy to work.

In the meantime, you should do your best to ostracize any female or manboob acquaintances who parrot feminist lies in your presence. It’s a small act of rebellion, but big revolutions are seeded with the polite vengeances of individuals.

Read Full Post »

How many of the men reading this have fathers who give (or gave) them realtalk about women? How many had heart to hearts with Pops about what women really desire in men? Reader Zombie Shane writes:

I have a theory about “The Natural”.

It’s kinda the White Peoples’ version of Amy Chua and the Tiger Mom phenomenon.

And here’s the theory: I think that some Dads CHEAT and teach their sons all the secrets at a very young age.

Kinda like what Adam Carolla and Jimmy Kimmel used to do with that fat obnoxious kid on The Man Show.

Can you imagine how much more poontang you would have scored in the early years if your Dad had taught you the forbidden secrets?

But instead your Dad forces you to be self-taught and to learn all the lessons for yourself.

Yeah, long-term, it’s a much better character-building exercise to absorb all the “hard knocks”, and to learn from experience, but wow, can you imagine if you had had the “White-Peoples-Amy-Chua-Dad” in, say, Middle School?

Being an 8th-Grader and hitting on all that fine-assed perky young just-barely-pubescent poontang?

Shit damn, man, shit damn.

Actually, on second thought [thinking about all that jailbait tail], maybe I should thank my Dad for keeping me out of prison [or at least out of Reform School] at that age…

The fact that you had a dad around to raise you is a leading indicator he is a beta male who himself didn’t know the secrets to women. That’s my theory for why more fathers don’t teach their sons the truth about women: they don’t know it themselves!

Not that there’s anything wrong with having a beta male for a father. If you like civilization you can thank beta male fathers.

Another theory that perhaps explains why so many fathers neglect their duty to impart the lessons of love to their sons is that they feel embarrassed talking about these topics. Even the most cold-blooded womanizers would squirm a little when the time came for them to teach what they’ve learned to their sons. And it’s easy to understand why: when you know women inside and out, you can’t help but be aware of their unsavory natures. Any talk with your son is going to necessarily implicate his mother.

Finally, there are some fathers who are so alpha that they actually view their sons as competition. To them, revealing the secret of snatch is like fraternizing with the enemy. These aging Lotharios wistfully long for the days when pubescent poose clung to them like dryer lint. In some dark recess of their minds, they harbor an envy for their sons which motivates them to conceal their knowledge.

Ultimately, though, I think the best explanations for the dearth of fatherly wisdom regarding female nature is that there are too few fathers experienced in the ways of women to know what to teach, and there are too many fathers protective of their children’s mothers who fear the risk that dangerous knowledge would tarnish by association the esteem with which the children hold their mothers (and sisters).

There is also the theory — and I throw this out here for completeness — that fathers are somehow genetically or psychologically predisposed to encourage their sons to attain resources and status to win the attentions of high value women, and that this mitigates against them teaching their sons the dark arts of seduction which would enable them to short circuit the laborious process that is the conventional method for attracting women.

As regards the origin of Naturals, the greatest influence on them is likely to have been their peers rather than their fathers. Or, if they have been influenced by their fathers, to have been influenced *despite* their fathers’ reticence to share their wisdom. I suspect Naturals benefit from three advantages, in varying degrees of imprint, that most men don’t have:

1. Fathers and friends who teach them the effective (note: I did not say morally righteous) alpha attitude through their own behavior with women.

2. Favorable genetic traits in whatever ratio, which may include sociopathy, narcissism, lack of empathy, mesomorphy, good looks, high sociosexuality, intelligence, artistry, humor.

3. Fortuitous successful early encounters with girls that set the budding Naturals on a path of alluring self-assurance.

So… if your father was an unapologetic cheater, you see vaginas in every Rorschach test, and you got your first knob job at the ripe age of seven, chances are good you are a Natural with women. Chances are also good you would not be able to teach other men what you know, because you only know it intuitively.

Read Full Post »

Way back, Chateau Heartiste wrote in regards the spreading (heh) sluttification of America:

Single moms like to talk about how they do things on their own, and they “don’t need a man”. But in fact, flex time and related corporate incentives *are* a form of substitute husband and father. That money for flex time has to come from somewhere, usually in higher prices for the company’s products or in lowered salaries for its employees. It is private welfare, but welfare just the same. Now companies can choose to offer this to their heart’s content; after all, no one is forcing me to buy their products or work there and thus subsidize the lifestyles of a bunch of single moms and harried working moms. But my advice to men who want to maximize their earning potential — work for companies that don’t offer generous payoffs in an effort to recruit working moms. It is likely you will command a higher salary with more patriarchal companies. [...]

When financially self-sufficient women turn away from beta providers as a source of sexual arousal, they substitute other alpha male qualities in its place. Big government is a beta provider substitute with alpha male qualities.

Fast forward to today: GLPiggy has a post up quoting a young, newly minted feminist who wishes to strip single momhood of its social stigma.

Teen motherhood, single motherhood, unmarried cohabitation—these are not plagues or social ills that pose a threat to the otherwise normal structures of everyday life. They are our new social reality.

What the show doesn’t get to is that this is a good thing.

There is nothing wrong with teenage or single motherhood. The things children need: economic livelihood, emotional support and an education, are not dependent on a nuclear family structure. Poverty is poverty whether it’s endured by two people or four. A couple cannot raise a child better than one can. Once we get rid of the idea that marriage is the privileged form of cohabitation and that women cannot raise children without the help of a man—ideas that the Left has been working to eradicate for decades—there is no reason that a teen should not be financially and emotionally assisted for her choice to have a family. The potential diffusion of the family (as the New York Times recently reported, it doesn’t look like the trends will stop anytime soon) is one of the most exciting things to happen to the American social pattern since sexual liberation. It means the end of what were just decades ago universal truths: every household must be headed by a breadwinning man; only when married will a woman have social value.

I invite readers to draw the relevant connections between these two excerpts.

Meanwhile, I suggest aspiring single moms who wish to truly Go Their Own Way (SGTOW?) practice what they preach and divest themselves of all male support, in whatever form. That means: no redistribution from unrelated men to single moms, no corporate welfare in the form of maternity leave or flex time or special insurance policy discounts, no government handouts predicated on number of children, no shamelessness exacerbating EBT cards, no punitive alimony or child support payouts, no affirmative action for the children of single moms. In short, no sexless drone provider beta male largesse to save single moms from a self-inflicted life of indigent misery.

If this were to happen, and feminists were taken at their word and bequeathed a world in which all male influence was excised from their lives and they were left to fend for themselves and their bastard spawn, empowered and self-actualized, the resulting river of blood and the symphony of children’s cries reverberating through hell’s heart itself would quickly, very quickly I predict, disabuse feminist cunts of the luxury of their man and father hatred. Lie-exalting ruling class sophistry would blow away effortlessly like hay in a hurricane.

But of course feminists don’t really want men removed from their lives; they love having de facto castrated beta males foot their bills, and the bills of their unholy unclaimed consolidated stem cell packages. A massive transfer of wealth from quasi-cuckolded beta males to feckless females is the *whole point*, the UR PURPOSE, of feminism. It is giving women what they want — money and support — to do as they please, without asking of them anything in return (typically, sex and fidelity).

In the distant future, when archaeologists (or aliens who are rummaging through the wreckage of their terraforming experiment) stumble upon a lone monolithic server storing the collected wisdom of this blog, the group of excavators will hook it up, read the ancient scrolls, and stare in quiet at their feet as a depressing realization sweeps over their collective consciousness:

“someone knew. someone saw it coming.”

And from the origin point of the universe, a great guffaw will issue, and galaxies will rattle as the mightiest HAA HAWW ever to grace the cosmic firmament blasts forth from its waiting slumber.

Read Full Post »

A commenter at Mangan’s linked to a recent 60 Minutes segment which discussed study findings that babies are born with a moral compass and innate biases against people (or things) not like themselves. In short, it would appear that in-groupism, and hostility to the Other, is inborn in all of us.

Favoritism for one’s own kind and racism are, not to put too fine a point on it, a property of human nature and not something “taught” or constructed out of whole cloth by mean parents, the KKK, or afrocentric studies professors. This property can certainly be amplified or dampened by cultural intervention, but it cannot be eradicated or wished away.

In-groupism has evolved for a reason, and that reason likely led to an increase in reproductive fitness for those humans who had the gene(s) for in-groupism. In-groupism is, from the gene’s point of view, a GOOD THING. Now whether in-groupism is still as fitness maximizing today as it necessarily has been throughout human history is another question, but no one can seriously argue that it’s a pointless emotional reflex only designated “bad people” (read: working class white men) possess. If you need the dots connected, tribal favoritism is as natural as love.

As I am a person who generally prefers to not make life miserable for the mediocre masses who are just trundling by trying to eke out a slice of joy without stepping on my toes, I instinctively recoil at those self-righteous social engineers who would attempt to reprogram certain classes of people (read: working class white men) to betray their essence as human beings in order to more properly mouth the hypocritical bleatings of the gated-community pompous elite. So, inevitably, when some malevolent leftists seize on these studies and deliberately misconstrue the message they should be taking from them to further their anti-human status whoring agenda, I draw my sword and level it at their throats.

Since beheading of one’s ideological enemies is not yet (again) in fashion, we must settle for the weapon of our words, and no verbal artillery is more powerful in today’s snark-soaked society than the insouciant reframe. A successful reframe will win friends and influence people, and, best of all, it will drive your foes insane with impotent rage.

To wit: the commenter at Mangan’s worried that our leftist overlords would misuse this study for their nefarious ends, instead of taking the proper lesson from it that their unpracticed worldview is a mile high pile of horseshit.

Babies are born to be biased against the other. And to listen to these PC Marxist Professors going ‘Oh no, we have to train these people out of this’. Instead of saying wait a minute–maybe I’m wrong about political correctness.

How would your typical ankle-grabbing rightie like, oh, say, Rich Lowry, reply to a ruling class leftist who asserted that any proof of hard-wired racism meant that emotionally torturous reeducation must continue until morale improves? Likely, he would comply that steps must be taken to reduce the chance that inborn racism would lead to immigration restrictions, but that we must also be careful not to place any blame on [white men] for their regressive views because, after all, they were born with this original sin, blah fucking blah.

No doubt the mass of mainstream “””conservatives””” would fall right in step with their leftie tormentors’ frames, presenting their chafed rumps for yet another humiliating ramming.

Now how would this conversation go if the ruling class leftie had to confront an aloof asshole like yours truly who didn’t give a shit about clinking glasses with rancid anti-white leftoids at stiffly polite cocktail parties?

Leftoid: “Oh no, we have to train [white men] out of this.”

Demon’s Herald: “Sure, and while we’re at it, what do you think of training gays out of their homosexuality? It’ll cut down on the AIDS if the studies are to be believed.”

The masterful reframe uses the momentum of your enemy’s thrusting knife against him. Your goal with any reframe should be to either divert the withering mockery of the audience toward your opponent, or to ensnare your opponent in a logic trap which forces him to defend whatever blithe inanity he intones to lubricate his limbic folds.

It is similar in function to seductive reframes with women: you either redirect a woman’s alpha probing into self-conscious insecurity where she will revert to defending her attitude and become psychologically conditioned to perceive you as higher value than herself, or you make her feel the burn of mockery that is the undercurrent of teasing foreplay leading to sexual relinquishment to your obvious dominating presence.

Here’s another example. A commenter at Larry Auster’s accurately imagines what a typical anti-white leftoid (in this case, John Podhoretz) would say to a realist schooled in the facts of intransigent human nature and the evolved preference for tribalism:

You [Auster] wrote:

“But humanity does not consist of universal individuals. It consists of various cultures, ethnicities, and races all of which have particular identities, characteristics, ability levels, values, and agendas which are different from those of the host society. As a result, the mass presence of those different groups in the host society, far from advancing right-liberal equal freedom, empowers their unassimilable identities, characteristics, ability levels, values, and agendas, and thus changes the host country from a right-liberal society into a multicultural, left-liberal, racial-socialist society whose ruling principle is equality of outcome for all groups.”

To which Podhoretz pere et fils would surely reply, “Why do you hate freedom?”

How does a weak-willed, supplicating, betaboy “””conservative””” like, oh, say, Jim Geraghty, respond to this all-too-realistic, imagined Podhoretz coercive frame? Probably something like this: “I don’t hate freedom! Really, I don’t! Look, some of my best friends are freedom lovers. And I promise never again to use the word slut, no matter how applicable it is. Be kind to me?”

Lame. Podhoretz owns the frame, and Geraghty is just playing within its bounds.

Now how would this imagined yet highly probable conversation go if Podhoretz were trying to box in a mischief maker like yours sincerely?

Pod: “Why do you hate freedom?”

Demon’s Padawan: “Why do you fellate goats?”

Leftoid’s frame destroyed, razed by brutal and vicious ridicule, and, should the demonic horde so choose, seamlessly replaced with a frame of their comfortable choosing.

Some GOP operatives who shall remain unnamed have written here asking for ideas about reframing against the media-dominated leftism that rules the airwaves and the shit channels. Well, here are some ideas. I could give more, but I don’t feel much like it, mostly because I have my suspicions that the lot of the mainstream right isn’t really interested in LISTENING and WAKING THE FUCK UP, but instead would prefer the glass-clinking route until either the whole thing goes down in flames or they can grab the coattails of a truly brave leader and say “See, I was right there with you all along!”

Fucking puling waterboys. Ass-lapping company men.

Anyhow, I leave you with this final thought: Mockery.

Mockery.

And more mockery.

This is the age of superficiality, of winning through intimidation, and the only way the right is ever going to defeat the left in any meaningful manner is to mock them relentlessly, mercilessly, sadistically. You cannot defeat snark — the leftoid’s debate tactic of choice — with logical exposition or appeals to civility. You only kill it by turning it on itself. If you think this is a sorry turn of events… well, it is, but it’s the world we live in. Abide reality, or abort. The reality is that three huge branches of mind massaging — the media, academia, and government — are in control of the discourse, and it is blatantly against your interests as a realist thinker and lover of truth and beauty.

Appeasement is a luxury of winners.

Even then, even if the right took all my advice and gamed the shit out of their media cockblocks and the LJBF electorate, there may be no saving this sinking ship. Even the tightest game is no match for a demographic tsunami that is constitutionally wedded to the idea of Big Daddy State and Bad, Beta White Man.

As always,

yours in poolside.

Read Full Post »

Judging Sluts

The Man Who Was… comments:

It’s hard for men to hold two contradictory attitudes towards sluttiness at once, so PUA advice to just be non-judgmental is better if your only goal is getting laid.

Some readers are under the mistaken impression that my posts about slutty women and the deleterious effects they have on society and marital/LTR stability must mean that I conduct my dating life with a stern judgmental attitude toward women and with the goal of flushing out sluts from my pool of prospects.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I will conceal my true feelings when concealing them is personally advantageous. No way no how am I getting the play I do if I decide to accost every girl I date for a spreadsheet of her sexual history. Real life doesn’t work that way. I want to disable women’s anti-slut defenses, not power them up. I don’t know about you, but when I date, my idea of a successful close is the opposite of the girl clamping her legs shut.

Now, if I am in the market for a long-term girlfriend, I will, post haste, covertly judge my dates for their sexual modesty, and screen out those women who strike me as being world class cock consumers. This, too, is to my personal advantage, for the chronic slut is a potential cheating risk, not to mention a barrel of drama queen laughs that gets tiresome sooner rather than later.

Commenter YaReally is correct to say that adopting a pose of non-judgmentalism as regards women’s sexuality is practically a sine qua non for womanizers. I have yet to meet an experienced player who harshly condemned women (to their faces) for any perceived sluttery. And, let’s face it, when you’re an unmarried guy just looking for a piece of tail, you’re more apt to light up with happy anticipation than power down with clucking disapproval when you learn that the girl you are talking to is handicapped in the sexual self-control department.

“She’s good to go!” isn’t a male rallying cry for nothing.

All that said, I find it off-putting when players try to spin certain obviously self-serving game strategies into self-righteous moral crusades. Some famous PUAs are particularly susceptible to this (cough Neil Strauss cough). Encouraging women to be comfortable with expressing, and surrendering, their sexuality as part of a designed pickup strategy is not equivalent to some grandiose philosophy about the life-giving blessings that sluts bring to the cosmic symphony. Sluts are, in fact, anti-civilization; so if you like being surrounded by the good things in life, and living in a prosperous nation, you would not want too many women to embrace the cock-hopping credo.

Which brings me to the crux of this post. A campaign to relieve women of their sexual coyness and take up the slut banner would, given enough converts, actually work against the goals of players. You see, the sexual non-judgmentalism player pose only works when there is a dominant social current that encourages the opposite. The “secret society” and “you and me against the world, baby” subliminal connection that bonds a woman to the player and tempts her to unleash the loin needs an over-arching force to push against, or it withers from its own growing conventionality and dullness. There is no giddy feeling of taboo breaking when every other girl is happy to give it up for pennies to the dollar, and every other man is spouting the same tired non-judgmentalism schtick.

So, paradoxically, players ought to pray that the greater society keeps their lasses on a leash, else they might see their prey decide that laying down with lions is not as much fun as it used to be.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,831 other followers

%d bloggers like this: