Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Ugly Truths’ Category

CH wrote a few posts explaining why the losers of humanity act out the way they do. WELP, here comes ❤science❤ to… once again… wrap her luscious DSLs around the Heartiste Hambone.

Masculine men and feminine women have greater life satisfaction.

The aim of this study was to investigate the relevance of self-identification in traditional gender roles of masculinity and femininity in women’s and men’s life satisfaction. Participants consisted of 1233 women and 1233 men from the Spanish general population aged between 20 and 60 years. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses showed that although in both genders the most important predictors of life satisfaction were self-esteem and social support, both masculinity and femininity were associated with higher life satisfaction in women and men. Besides, in the prediction of life satisfaction, femininity interacted with social support in women, and masculinity with self-esteem in men, and it was found that the association between femininity and life satisfaction only occurred in women with high social support, and self-esteem was associated with life satisfaction only in men with low masculinity. These results provide information concerning the significance of adherence to gender roles in life satisfaction.

Every goddamned lying filthy loser feminist cunt and mewling diaper loading male feminist manboob just wept on cue. (John Scalzi and David Fatrelle are at this very moment hugging it out, bitch titties intermingling in a dance of erect nipples and pimpled cleavage.)

The evidence is mounting (heh): Happy people are people who more closely adhere to the normal expression of biological sex traits and sex roles. Anyone who veers far from the archetype for her sex will experience unhappiness, dissatisfaction, bitterness, and an unrelenting urge to undermine social norms, get back at her dad, and post tumblr pics of her gross body in a fatkini while insisting she’s sexually attractive to hot, studly men.

If you’re a man, the more you look and act like a masculine man, the more satisfied you are with yourself. If you’re a woman, the more you look and act like a feminine woman, the more satisfied you are with yourself.

It’s as simple as that. And that’s why it drives the rejects on the archipelago of misfit mutants crazy with resentment. It’s a beautiful truth so elegant in its simplicity and unassailable in its parsimony that there’s no way for the degenerates to escape its merciless judgment. They are left swinging futilely at their timeless tormentor, retreating into a false bravado built with lies, sophistry, desperation and the company of their miserable sideshow scoldmates.

Fortunately for the entertainment of the CH reading audience, the Cosmic Shiv doesn’t suffer these tools gladly.

Read Full Post »

The careerist shrike is emblematic of social dissolution and sexual market atavism. Yet women have historically worked in some capacity, whether that was at home or in the fields. It’s a rare culture where the average woman lounges around all day while men and hand maidens provide her an endless stream of creature comforts.

The difference in this iteration of decivilization is the nature of the work occupying the energies and time of “modern” Western women (who are better categorized as premodern women aping the sub-Sahara African style of year-round female farming self-sustenance). “Working” women existed throughout European history, but the substance of their work and, more importantly, the people for whom they worked were markedly different than what we have now, distilled to its rotten essence in the manjawed, pulsing forehead-veined, tankgrrl lawyercunt.

A reader writes,

You said that “women are happier when they abide traditional sex roles.” That is very true, but most people do not know what the role of women was in unadulterated European society. Below is a link to The Moneychanger and his Wife, painted in 1539.

Notice the wife is working with her husband by making entries into the accounting book. Wives were usually expected to work in whatever trade the husband’s was. For example, a farmer’s wife did farming. This also included military ranks, for example the wife of an army count was a countess. Robert E. Lee’s wife was called “Mrs. General Lee.”

The wife was there to help her husband with his trade. Help would consist of cooking and making clothes so to free up his time, then any other time would be to work in that trade. In European civilization a husband and wife were considered partners. Often married couples would be hired as opposed to individuals. Ever notice the Queen sat next to the King?

Good point. Historians in the CH audience can attest to how widespread was the practice of European partnership-style marriage, where the wife’s role was employee to her husband-boss.

What the reader describes is a superior form of social system that redirects the natural female (of which “wife” is a subset) hypergamous instinct toward, instead of against, her husband. The working European woman of 1539 was working for her husband. Her lover and her comfort and her family was also her boss. In this arrangement it would be hard for her not to look up to him, and to admire him, and this admiration would translate quite easily into happy sexual submission. Her instinctual compulsion to surrender to a better man would be sated, and her marriage would thus be stronger.

What we have today is that same working-woman hypergamy now directed to powerful men who are not her husband. The modern wife leaves the world of her husband every morning to submit to sexy male rulers presiding over the parallel world she inhabits during the day. She still has a boss, but it’s no longer her husband. The temptation for her to cheat, either bodily or in mind, must be great. The male equivalent would be as if dutiful husbands were catered to on the job by a steady stream of swimsuit models. Even the firmest virtue will bend to perpetual succulent vice.

This is why I argue that feminist-inspired, female-aggrandizing public policies should be repealed. “Pro-woman” (aka pro-r-selection) policies like Title IX and mandated maternity leave create perverse incentives for a sub-Saharan female-forager style social system that channels natural female hypergamy toward company men and away from family men. Men — particularly men with little experience bedding women — have a hard time understanding this primal craving of women for higher status mates, because men don’t give a fig about female status. To help focus minds, recall what you as a man feel when a beautiful young woman poured into a slinky cocktail dress sits close to you and smiles. That’s what women feel in the presence of powerful male bosses commanding them to do their bidding.

Starting to feel a little nervous kissing your wife goodbye as she heads to work in the morning? You should. She’s doing something that most of her female ancestors never did.

Read Full Post »

A chilling academic paper titled “The Population Cycle Drives Human History — from a Eugenic Phase into a Dysgenic Phase and Eventual Collapse” landed like a soggy Sunday paper at the Chateau doorstep.

In the period before the onset of demographic transition, when fertility rates were positively associated with income levels, Malthusian pressure gave an evolutionary advantage to individuals whose characteristics were positively correlated with child quality and hence higher IQ, increasing in such a way the frequency of underlying genes in the population. As the fraction of individuals of higher quality increased, technological progress intensified. Positive feedback between technological progress and the level of education reinforced the growth process, setting the stage for an industrial revolution that facilitated an endogenous take-off from the Malthusian trap. The population density rose and with it social and political friction, especially important at the top of the social pyramid. Thus, from a certain turning point of history, the well-to-do have fewer children than the poor. Once the economic environment improves sufficiently, the evolutionary pressure weakens, and on the basis of spreading egalitarian ideology and general suffrage the quantity of people gains dominance over quality. At present, we have already reached the phase of global human capital deterioration as the necessary prerequisite for a global collapse by which the overpopulated earth will decimate a species with an average IQ, still too mediocre to understand its own evolution and steer its course.

Executive summary: Equalism is death.

Longer version: Economic success contains the seed of its own destruction. As a people become wealthier and their miseries alleviated by technology, equalism (formerly known as egalitarianism, or in its looser form as liberalism) finds fertile ground in social discourse, and welfare safety nets grow in breadth and complexity, thwarting the natural evolutionary culling process until the reproductive rewards are shared equally between the fit and unfit, and finally reaching a nadir when the economically unfit become reproductively favored at the expense of the economically fit.

Idiocracy, as I have stated, may be the most prophetic movie of any time. The earth becomes overpopulated with mediocrities and dummies as technology interferes with the natural and healthy culling process, the equalist ideology hastens the dysgenic trend, and finally the barbarians swarm over their demographically dying equalist overlords, ending the civilizational project until the cycle renews and rebirth can find purchase in the smoldering ashes.

The difference now? Nukes. All bets are off on how this iteration of doom will realize its potential. It’s possible the destruction this time around is so complete a new cycle of human transcendence will be stillborn.

What does it mean for humanity to understand its own evolution and to “steer its course”? It means knowing that bleeding hearts lead to bleeding civilizations. A few far-seeing people know the score. A great paternalistic (patriarchal, even) impulse — but one that is necessarily cruel (to be kind) — is needed to steer this darkly enlightened course to a happier outcome. I envision a CH six-point insurance program of collapse prevention:

1. Close the borders to Western nations indefinitely. (Reason is self-evident.)
2. Create voluntary incentives to reduce dysgenic fertility. (Dollars for Depo.)
3. Discourage IQ- and education-based assortative mating. (Successful men pairing off with pretty, but less educationally attained women, is eugenic. The smart, industrious genes are passed more fully around the general population.)
4. Reinvigorate protectionism. (Gutted native wages only intensifies public pressure for government largesse to a growing segment of long-term unemployed.)
5. Eliminate all female-friendly public policies. (No more Title IX, mandated day-care, freebie contraceptives, etc. The evidence is strong that publicly catering to women’s fickle pleasures incentivizes bad things like single mommery, latchkey kids, late marriage, low fertility of the higher classes, and punishment of creative iconoclasts who are the engine of progress.)
6. Reduce proximate diversity. (Social atomization encourages short term time orientation, distrust, and corruption, which lead to incompetence and decay.)

That last one may require a break-up of the US. Ironically, to save America, you must kill it first.

Read Full Post »

The Patriarchy is dead. God save the Patriarchy!

In the archives are CH posts about feminist utopias, how they would manifest and the signs that America is becoming a version of one.

If the lesson wasn’t yet clear, matriarchies suck. Historically and present-day, matriarchies (or facsimiles thereof) are associated with poverty, disease, violence and navel-gazing decline. Where a matriarchy is evolving, a civilization is devolving.

Here’s Exhibit M as evidence that we in the US may have crossed a matriarchal Rubicon (Boobicon?):

What used to be underground — gigolos, minus the tacit sex — has gone mainstream. A start-up is offering women their very own personal “ManServant“, or what we in the seduction domculture call “beta male orbiters”, “white knights” and “incels“.

It’s not a stripper who gets naked and rubs his greasy body all over you. It’s a ManServant: a gentleman who treats you like a queen. Book one for a bachelorette party or any gathering to be your personal photographer, bartender, bodyguard, and butler all in one.

How is a ManServant addressed?

A ManServant will answer to the name you’ve bestowed upon him, whether it’s Garçon, Bartholomew, or Ryan Gosling. [ed: John Scalzi and David Fatrelle were taken.]

What is a ManServant’s code of conduct?

A ManServant always responds with “As you wish.”

A ManServant shall address clientele with “My lady.”

A ManServant keeps his penis in his pants and out of the lady’s face.

The Rules to being a ManServant: The lady always makes The Rules.

What are some of the ManServant’s duties?

Takes photos.

Gives round-the-clock compliments.

Cleans up your hot mess.

Going to a ballgame? He’ll be your sports announcer, wait in line for the restroom, and get your hot dogs.

At the club, he’ll act as your bodyguard: secure drinks, shoo away douchebags, and drop off or pick you up curbside.

If it weren’t so ominous it’d be funny.

Naturally, women have to pay for these services, which is telling in itself. Women don’t value men for their penii or sexual prowess. What women value is what women will pay for, and that is male commitment, provisioning, and emotional support.

Just as naturally, real life ManServants get no nookie, because what comforts women in their moments of social need is not the same as what excites them in their moments of sexual need.

ManServitude is just about the end game of the feminist matriarchy. Strip men of all offensive male sexuality — essentially create a kneeling army of eunuchs — and set them loose upon the land to take photos of attention whores and cockblock men with dignity and a working pair.

How soon until ManServitude moves from plucky business venture to accepted cultural practice to legally enforced Damegeld?

Recall CH’s maxim about the true nature of feminism (and, related, the true nature of equalism):

The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.

Welcome to AndrogyNation. Where the women are pushed to be men and the men are happy to be women.

I talk a fair bit about the decline of America, but theatrical aplomb aside I never seriously entertained the thought that the collapse of my country would happen within my lifetime. Now I’ve begun to wonder.

Read Full Post »

In yesterday’s post, one of the beta male of the month contenders was a guy who had lifted a hideous chubster onto his shoulders (“Do I even lift? Why, yes, I do lift!”) so that she could flash the crowd of gawkers a pair of bee stings that Manboob Emeritus David Fatrelle laughs at.

Interestingly, as a reader pointed out, there’s a hidden shiv in this photo if you look closely and direct your attention to the grinning man in the black hoodie, front and center.

“Da fuckin’ tits and bellybutton look like a face!”

Sure, a chubster publicly undulating her naked rolls will achieve “attention” from men, but not all of it, in fact not much of it, will be the sort of attention she wants. Men gawk at naked fat chicks like they gawk at car accidents, or at Kramer’s self-portrait. “She’s a loathsome offensive beast, yet I can’t look away.”

So for all the fat and ugly and manjawed lawyer attention whores who like to clit-stroke on cue about the surfeit of male attention they get, it’s helpful to keep in mind that a lot of the so-called “attention” they think they receive from men is nothing more than the furtive ridicule of happy-go-lucky rogues.

Read Full Post »

Chicks dig aloof and indifferent jerks. It’s a stereotype for a reason. Our ancestors who had experience with women beyond typing furious white knight screeds on feminist blogs and collecting cheetos dust in their manboob cleavage have witnessed this adage in action so often that it’s long been accepted wisdom, passed down from grandfather to father to son. (Until the chain of realtalk was broken with the advent of equalism.)

This facet of female sexual nature is so plain as day that even indignant feminists and ignoramus tradcons have conceded some ground on the issue. As they have retreated in shame ahead of the advancing armies of the Chateau id-palers, they’ve been reduced to arguing “yeah, well, ok but so do men!” and babbling incoherent nonsense about men preferring “bitches”.

CH corrected their misunderstanding in as gentle a manner as befits this noble house, noting that, absent a few rare self-gelding exceptions to the rule, the desire to love and be loved by a jerk is a far stronger and frequently expressed impulse in women than the desire to love a bitch is in those few men who like to be pegged.

Or: If the “bitch” is hot, men will still want to fuck her, albeit with reservations concerning any long-term commitment potential. If the “bitch” is not hot, they won’t.

Women, as is their sex’s formerly inscrutable wont, are markedly different from men in this regard. The jerkboy attitude ITSELF is inherently attractive to women, and women even prefer to harness the commitment of jerks to the detriment of beta male supplicants.

But, why bother retelling the wisdom of the ancients and of the clear-eyed moderns to low born plebes when one can summon a mighty Shiv forged of Heartistian steel instead? A twist of the hilt and equalist ego guts spill out in technicolor anguish.

Men are sexually attracted to women who show an interest in them or who are responsive during a date, the study found. On the flip side, women are not sexually interested in the responsive men they meet for the first time, the research also discovered.

“We wanted to understand the reasons for these gender differences,” said the study’s lead researcher, Gurit Birnbaum, an associate professor of psychology at the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya in Israel. “What makes a responsive woman sexually attractive, and what makes a responsive man less sexually attractive?” [...]

Men who perceive women to be interested in them rated the women as more feminine and sexually attractive. They also showed more interest in having long-term relationships with the responsive women than with the nonresponsive women.

Men dig non-bitchy, feminine women. Commence with the flabbergasting!

At the end of each experiment, the students rated their partners on scales such as responsiveness, attractiveness and masculinity or femininity.

Gender-based stereotypes may play a role in the men’s preference for responsive women, Birnbaum said. During a first date, people tend to rely on gender stereotypes for how they think a person should act. Men may find women more attractive if they fit the female stereotype of showing care and concern, she added.

Nope.

Or, men may think that responsive women are sexually interested in them. This may explain why men rate these “nice” women as more attractive and feminine, Birnbaum said.

Bingo. Also, I’d add that a nice, feminine woman signals to a man that she’ll be a faithful wife and nurturing mother to his children.

“I didn’t know until this [journal] article that men perceive responsive women not only as feminine, but also as sexually arousing,” Finkel told Live Science in an email. “I could have imagined a different set of results in which men found such women feminine, but then viewed them as dainty or less sexually desirable. Birnbaum and colleagues showed that the opposite is true.”

Yes, nicegirls aren’t just admirable or coveted for nonsexual reasons; they are also very arousing to men.

In contrast to the men, the women in the study did not rate the responsive men as more attractive or masculine than the nonresponsive men — a finding that surprised experts.

“Nonresponsive” = “jerk”.

The study did not reveal why women are not sexually interested in responsive men on the first date, but Birnbaum offered several ideas.

Women are typically more cautious daters than men are, and may be skeptical of a responsive man, Birnbaum said. Or, she added, women may think the men are trying too hard to win their affection and get them into bed.

Or, women may see responsive men as eager to please, or even desperate, Birnbaum said. Perhaps, the researchers noted, women may view a responsive man as vulnerable and less dominant.

Bingos all around!

“Regardless of the reasons, perhaps men should slow down, if their goal is to instill sexual desire,” Birnbaum said.

Or, be a challenge.

For Hivemind takes on the studies, see “Study finds that men like nice women, but not the other way around” and “Why playing hard to get only works for men.”

Mmmm. The Scalzied tears of a feminist clown.

So here we come to the close of yet another series of studies which vindicate CH teachings and game. I’d say my turgid vanity couldn’t handle any more old fashioneds, but no, my appetite for strokings is inexhaustible.

Lesson for women: The way to a man’s heart is straight and true.

Lesson for men: The way to a woman’s heart is oblique and discreet.

Read Full Post »

Excessive focus on IQ like that found in certain HBD quarters is dangerous for the reason that it will blind one to group differences in other important human characteristics.

Before hackles rise, this post is not an apologia for ignoring mean and individual IQ differences. IQ matters, arguably matters more than anything else, in big and small and strange ways. You will hardly find a soul who’d wish to possess fewer IQ points than more IQ points.

But IQ isn’t the whole story. There are, for instance, group differences in personality, temperament, proclivity to violence, trustworthiness, and what I’ll call General Interactive Behavioral Socialization (GIBS…medat).

That last mouthful is just a fancy way of describing how people socialize and behave when they aren’t constrained by etiquette or coerced by authority figures to act otherwise. A roomful of white people will organically form a particular social dynamic that is quite different than that formed by a roomful of black people, even controlling for IQ. Anyone who isn’t a lying liar and has not spent a lifetime in a cave knows this intuitively. High school cafeterias are usually the first real world laboratory where these truths about group social behavior and self-segregation become incontestably apparent. We then spend the rest of our lives trying to forget the patterns we noticed in high school.

Proof of group differences in personality and behavior can be found in science, if you’re the sort to mistrust your lying eyes. Chinese and White infants exhibit stark personality differences. In school, black students behave wildly different from white students, even within the same classroom where instruction and teacher demands are similarly accorded.

IQ fetishism can lead the sperg type to sputter futilely when confronted by a trollish leftoid provocateur who disingenuously (or racially) advocates for the importation of millions of Northeast Asians with their average 105 IQs into historically White countries with their average 100 IQs. If IQ is your be all-end all, you won’t have a defense against that line of argument. Now, if I *had* to choose at gunpoint, I’d rather America be flooded with a billion Chinese than a billion Africans, but this doesn’t mean that a billion Chinese, however efficient they are at building high-tech metropolises, won’t utterly destroy America as she used to be known and change it into something resembling China 2.

IQ similarity notwithstanding to the contrary, the Chinese people as a group are markedly different in temperament and personality than White European people as a group. If you value diversity of nations, you would be against turning America into China 2. No offense to the Chinese, but I’d rather they enjoy the full flowering of their Chinese-ness in their own country.

Given the obvious implications above, you would think that normally smart bloggers would avoid straying into territory that fetishizes IQ to the detriment of any other consideration. Commenting about enclaves for the intelligent, PA wrote,

Any solution short of dejure racial segregation will be harmful to whites. But I understand, baby steps toward dismantling the Civil Rights monstrosity we’re living under now.

A white person with 90 IQ is very different from a 90-IQ back in temperament, attitude toward sex and family, future time orientation, taste in music, and a myriad other things.

Lower-SES whites also need informal social contact with higher SES whites for aspirational reasons and guidance. Higher class whites also benefit from communal ties with blue collar whites–the malign downstream effect of the upper class white bubble is apparent in nearly every subject of discussion here.

This sensible appreciation of race differences beyond the IQ factor was met with scorn by the NYC-residing proprietor.

A 90-IQ white is a lot more like a 90-IQ black than he or she is like a 115-IQ white.

And 90-IQ whites are pretty much identical to 90-IQ Mestizo Hispanics.

A statement like this betrays a lifetime devoted to shutting oneself into a video gaming room or an exclusive summer camp. I don’t know if he’s lived in downscale white or black neighborhoods — if he claims he has and still makes statements like this perhaps he should be called “Liar of the Blogosphere” — but for those who have the thing you notice almost before you notice if it’s raining outside is how differently “prole” whites behave from ghetto or even middle class blacks. A group of 90 IQ whites won’t be scintillating company to a 115 IQ spiteful ingrate, and they’ll have some annoying habits of mind and banal cultural pleasures, but they will never be mistaken for a group of 90 IQ blacks. Not by anyone with a modicum of personal integrity. The difference in vibe and social experience, not to mention volume, will feel like a slap across the face.

IQ fetishism, in case you couldn’t previously tell, happens to be quite frequently the province of HBDers with an axe to grind against… mmm, how shall we say… heathen whites. The acidic spite and nursed lifelong hatred waft like a cloud of smog from a Shanghai knock-off factory.

SWPLs and their sympatico ethnies don’t much care for flyover whites, but if their hands were forced you can bet Fuckerberg’s bankroll that they’d choose to live in a neighborhood of predominately 90 IQ whites than in a hood of predominately 90 IQ blacks. The hatred they feel for “the wrong kind of white people” — as opposed to the indifference and pity and paternalism they feel toward their non-white pawns — is better explained by that ageless aphorism “There but for the grace of God go I”. As kissing cousins, the massed numbers of prole whites are the nearest threat to the pretentious SWPL’s cultivated sense of aristocratic superiority.

In related shivs, I wonder if LotB is aware that the cast of Jersey Shore are prepped to exaggerate their prole behavior to extremes? It’s like he actually believes reality TV is reality. Too funny!

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,968 other followers

%d bloggers like this: