Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Ugly Truths’ Category

International Women’s Day came and went (what, you didn’t notice either?), and feminists of all 152 gender persuasions celebrated in style. Memes like this one littered chat rooms:

A patriarchal reader decided it would be the perfect time to remind the celebrants in similar fashion about the men in science to whom we owe most of our civilizational comforts.

That’s one pale-looking pastiche.

The unintended consequence of made-up equalist holidays is to subtly neg the non-straight white male honorees about their disproportionately tiny contributions to Western glory. The designated uplift groups had it better when their spokes-shysters weren’t pushing for transparently phony recognition of romper room achievements. At least before this tard and brony show became America’s light unto the nations, the losers could pretend they had an awesome heritage which was being ignored instead of patronized.

Read Full Post »

A commenter at Cheap Chalupas Revolution, going by the handle TWIF, writes in response to another commenter wondering why the elites are so threatened by RealTalk®,

“Why are they so threatened by the idea that some factors determining an individual’s success are genetic?”

Why indeed? Presumably because the reality of genetic inheritance of talent is too deeply threatening to the status quo. More specifically (assuming Clark is right)

1. We can’t fix the schools. The kids failing in our schools will be failing for a long time to come. Education as a societal panacea is a false god that can’t solve inequality, racial disparities, social problems, etc.

2. If we are going to provide a better life to the bottom half, it is going have to be via something other education. None of the choices (income redistribution, trade restrictions, class based quotas, etc.) are pretty to the NYT readership.

3. Racial and ethnic disparities in America won’t go away anytime soon.

4. Unskilled immigration is a disaster because the immigrants and their children won’t be competitive for the foreseeable future.

5. The current elite (NYT readers) didn’t earn their position in society. They simply inherited it.

Let’s cut to the chase here. Clark is saying “you inherited your position in society and all of your ideas about fixing society won’t work”.

Why wouldn’t they be upset?

As CH has said before, the most powerful force in the universe is the human ego. So powerful, that our rulers would rather send their nation down the toilet to preserve their collective ego than admit their failure and futility. It’s status whoring all the way down. Down. Down.

There are other good comments by TWIF in that thread. I suggest you check them out.

Read Full Post »

Commenter “H” passes along a quote from J. D. Unwin,

CH have you heard of J. D. Unwin? From wikipedia page: In Sex and Culture (1934), Unwin studied 80 primitive tribes and 6 known civilizations through 5,000 years of history and found a positive correlation between the cultural achievement of a people and the sexual restraint they observe….According to Unwin, after a nation becomes prosperous it becomes increasingly liberal with regard to sexual morality and as a result loses it cohesion, its impetus and its purpose. The process, says the author, is irreversible:
“The whole of human history does not contain a single instance of a group becoming civilized unless it has been absolutely monogamous, nor is there any example of a group retaining its culture after it has adopted less rigorous customs.”

Unleashed female sexuality is great fun… while poolside lasts. But then a price must be paid, and that price is nothing less than civilization. Why are women primarily to blame? Because as the sexual gatekeepers, their lack of restraint is more destabilizing to societal prosperity. The female sex is, despite cultural pabulum to the contrary, the wilder sex.

Tragically (and this is one instance when the word tragic correctly applies), it would seem shining civilizations are doomed to eat and screw themselves to oblivion. Restraint — i.e., devotion to the gods of the copybook headings — leads to prosperity. Prosperity leads to liberality. Liberality leads to disintegration.

One can as successfully stop this civilizational cycle as one can stop the cycle of tides. So, you may as well clink a glass and enjoy the time you’ve got here.

Read Full Post »

It’s hardly a secret, even among the SWPL hypocrati, that IQ is important to individual life outcomes, (and, on a grander scale, to a nation’s civilizational supremacy), that it correlates to a host of happy behavioral traits, and that dysgenic mating trends threaten to “decivilize” the West if nothing is done to reverse them. Given these accepted premises, many well-meaning but marginally spergalicious bloggers argue for the glories of assortative mating, (though in point of fact many assortatively sorted couples are meeting based less on shared IQ or unspoken eugenic hopes than on simple segregated convenience). This post may then come as a surprise, advocating as it does for a marital boycott of overeducated women.

IQ (and a woman’s educational level, insofar as the latter is an IQ proxy) is undoubtedly relevant if you’re interested in improving your future kids’ economic prospects, and likely getting more so thanks to increasing occupational cognitive demands, but it isn’t the alpha and omega of the good life. Myopic IQ fetishism notwithstanding, CH has spilled a fair amount of ASCII ink ridiculing equalists who despise the idea of an immutable general factor of intelligence and the consequent futility of public policy that fails to account for its reality. This is because the equalists are today those in power, and thus the most scrumptious targets for the Shiv Wielders.

Implicit or explicit support for assortative mating to boost a country’s “smart fraction” is arid frank & beans counting. Breeding Sorters say we are doomed if we don’t pair off high IQ partners in marriage to make high IQ babies. But there are more things in love and marriage, than are dreamt of in their social science laboratories. And there are more negatives to assortative mating than eugenicist whisperers are willing to admit.

There really is no point to marriage unless one wants children. Absent children, all the good things about marriage can be had in cohabiting relationships. This is even true of raising children if your blood is of Northern European stock, for whom the people of your motherlands demonstrate a facility at successful childrearing in non-marital cohabiting households. (Not to be confused with craptastic American-style single mom households, of which there are blessedly few in Scandinavian countries.)

So a major justification for marriage (and a reminder of the silliness of gay marriage) is that having children within a healthy functioning nuclear family environment benefits their development.

Right there is Problem Number One you’ll encounter if you marry an overeducated woman: She is likely to be far less fecund than less credentialed women. If you want at least the 2.1 kids necessary to replace you and your wife in the next generation, don’t marry a woman with a 4-year college degree and especially not a woman with a doctoral degree. You may as well line the spare bedroom with kitty litter.

Problem Number Two with overeducated women: Over the last 30 years, the happiness of women with graduate degrees has dropped faster than that of women with less than a high school education. (See Table 3, Panel E) The secular trend in happiness is down for women across all educational levels (which is not the case for men), but having more than a four year college degree accelerates the female unhappiness trends to rates above that for high school dropouts. Men are happier when their wives are happier, which means you should avoid marrying a credentialist status whore. And since there is scant evidence that children make you happier, it pays to find a woman who won’t exacerbate an already unhappy prognostication.

Keep in mind, too, that women get a lot unhappier with age than do men. So if you marry a spry 35-year-old post-doc she’s gonna be a real barrel of fun when she’s pushing 50.

Problem Number Three with overeducated women: Pairing them off with smart, accomplished men exacerbates social inequality. And not just because it amplifies white stratification by zip code; it also increases white stratification by IQ (and its attendant cultural fracturing). Society is best served when men with high IQs are free to inject their gifts into the wider world of women, instead of having all that gold-plated DNA locked up in the semi-barren wombs of Ivy Leaguers pushing social constructivism and infinity-wave feminist theory as a day job.

Problem Number Four with overeducated women: They’re sexually frigid. While sex surveys are more prone than any other type of survey to tempt respondents to lie, the results do offer a clue as to which way the tingles vibrate, and according to the data the tingles are practically buried dead underneath a mound of post-grad student loan debt.

For further confirmation of this nonsexular trend among superfluously credentialed women, see this screen capture of poll results on a message board for upper middle class married white women, most of whom probably have college degrees or better. The question asked is how many blowjobs do they give per month (presumably to their husbands). Since it is a private message board among women and not a publicly announced survey with social expectation bias built in, you can expect these responses to better reflect the reality of their marriages.

If you’re a man with a set of functioning gonads and not a sufferer of cerebral scalzi, you will want to avoid hitching yourself to an overeducated woman whose dusty muff and schoolmarmish mouth will open for business once every lunar cycle.

As CH is a cuntoisseur of the overeducated SWPL chick, some may wonder why the Lord of Lasciviousness would deign to game sexually frozen prey? Easily explained. First, a gentlemanly selectiveness honed by years of experience and psychological nimbleness has proved adequate at filtering out women likely to lay like dead fish in my roiling sea of sperm. Second, pre-marriage, pre-kids SWPL chicks are ravenous in a way they never will be within the confines of the marital home, copulating with an alacrity that belies their furtive fear that their future husbands will be unable to arouse in them the same fervor. Third, one must accept that many overeducated women are sexless termagants because they are married to beta males; they’ve lost that lovin’ feeling, and only a suave rico will summon it back.

But, if you don’t have the skill to reintroduce overeducated women to their bygone libidos, it makes sense to find yourself a less educated woman with a naturally higher sex drive and/or less benumbing experience in the desiccating company of anhedonic beta males.

Problem Number Five with overeducated women: They’re uglier. Now I know what you’re thinking. IQ and beauty, according to the evidence compiled, correlate to a nontrivial degree. All else equal, if you date only women with above-average IQs, you are probably dating women with above-average looks as well. But the formula, at least anecdotally, appears to break down once you move into the ranks of women with much higher than average IQs or years of accumulated education. Trawl any lofty Ivy campus and you can’t help but notice how poorly the super smart women compare aesthetically to their earthier competition. State U girls have it in spades over H Bomb girls. If you are a man, this matters for your marital happiness and stability.

***

All together, CH has laid out a fairly convincing case against marrying overeducated women. Yes, intelligent women will get your stupidly ironic SWPL jokes, but that’s not what makes you hard, is it? No, what makes you hard is a cute face perched atop a slender hourglass figure, guided by an electric ham that’s willing to put all those delicious assets to good use. So why are you contemplating marrying an overeducated woman? To have extra money to purchase pixellated distractions? To brag to your buddies that your homely wife has a PeeAcheDee, only to notice how none of them are remotely impressed by that? Sounds like the winning life of a true warrior of the West. Not.

Nothing in this post should impress upon the reader that dumpster diving in the ghetto for sub-80 IQ battering hams is the wise course of action. An aversion to overeducated women is not the same as a desire for the love of blank-eyed obese monstrosities. The undereducated woman has her own laundry list of problems, many of them equal to or worse than the vices of her smarter sistren. To wit, here is a representative of the pro-educated woman, pro-assortative mating crowd, a real “lion” of the commentariat, reader “SC”, who lays out his side’s argument for sacrificing passion at the altar of social status whoring:

And what is it with you and high IQ/high education women?

I know them better than they know themselves.

Just because you have had bad personal experiences with them…

I’ve had very few bad experiences with SMRT overeducated women. In fact, the bulk of my romantic life has been nestled in the boobies of college+ grads (along with some very exciting exceptions I won’t ever regret). But I also have a bad habit of calling it like I see it, and overeducated women come with their own peculiar set of psychological baggage and magical thinking. And I’m a guy who likes to take a big picture view. Individually, these women have been great fun in my life; societally, they are the cuntary in the coal mine.

…doesn’t mean that they are worse than low IQ/low education women in aggregate.

I didn’t say they were worse. Think of this blog as bringing balance to the force.

I am willing to bet any amount of money that high IQ/high education women are: less violent,

…more emotionally manipulative. Or at least better at it.

less likely to have an illegitimate kid,

…more likely to fuck two men concurrently. Overeducated women are less beholden to sexual norms.

less likely to get divorced,

…less likely to get married before they’re haggard. IQ and credential fetishists love to write about the low rate of divorce among the overeducated, but what they always fail to grasp is that a big reason for this is the decrease in sexual market options among the high IQ that accompanies their later in life marriages. So yeah, you get a more faithful wife with crows’ feet and a saggy butt. Lack of options = stability. Worth the trade-off?

If anything, it looks as if the best bet, if you want to avoid divorce, is to 1. skip marriage altogether or 2. marry a woman who will be a stay at home mom and won’t make more money than you. That means, in practice, avoiding women with masters or doctoral degrees, since it is likely they will have upper quintile incomes.

less likely to have a criminal record,

…more likely to snort coke. How many readers have real experience dating and fucking blue city SWPL chicks? I mean, on the order of 30 or more lovers? If you do, then you know how much coke overeducated girls hoover up their dainty noses.

less likely to be on welfare,

…more likely to max out daddy’s credit card. But yeah, if you date an overeducated SWPL chick, she won’t feel much of a need to lean on you for financial support, which is a good thing… if you’re a player. If you’re a beta offering nothing but free dinners, eh, not so good.

and less likely to be overweight than their low IQ counterparts.

That’s true, and that’s the biggest advantage that overeducated women enjoy.
Fatness is the boner-killer.
Fatness is the heavy weight that brings erection annihilation.
I will scorn that fatness.
I will permit it to wobble past me and far away from me.
And when it has stampeded past I will turn the serrated shiv to see its path.
Where the fat chick has gone there will be belly fold fungus.
Only sexy chicks remain.

Just walk through the campus of Harvard or MIT sometime. Hardly any fatties with bastard kids. Every trailer park/ghetto/barrio has TONS of tattooed fatties with bastard babies.

There’s a world of women between Harvard yenta and trailer park methhead. What is the total percentage of 18-year-old American women who attend Ivies? 1%? I gotta laugh at some of these HBD hermits. To them, the world of dateable lovelies is either toothless COPS extras or 140 IQ Harvard students. I thought they were supposed to be numerate? Fellas, step outside. There are a lot of pretty girls with normal lives who aren’t welfare queens or PhD overachievers.

Here’s valuable CH advice you HBDingalings won’t regret following: Learn game. Use your knowledge of the seduction arts to find a cute girl with an associates or bachelors degree, 105-115 IQ, under 27-years-old, with no children and no stated feminist beliefs, whose greatest career aspiration is nursing or teaching and sucking the life force out of your two standard deviation schlong on the daily. If you can do that, all worries about an impending dysgenic disaster will fade to irrelevance.

Read Full Post »

Continuing with our latest CH series exploring the historical records for choice bits of wisdom that would be the equivalent of PUA game and Heartistian theories of the sexual market today, reader Arbiter forwards this excerpt from a 1902 issue of Cosmopolitan Magazine (before it became a women’s rag. Rag. Heh.):

The author explains the “Sissy”:

He is polite and rather anxious to please. He wishes always to do the thing which happens to be the proper thing at any given time. He never would think of initiating anything novel or starting out in a new and unexpected course. He likes very much to be with ladies, and ladies like him – in a way. He is a most useful creature and absolutely harmless, intended by Providence to carry wraps and rugs, to order carriages, to provide theater-tickets, flowers, bon-bons, opera-boxes and four-in-hands, according to his means and the position which he holds. He will call regularly upon a girl and in fact upon all the girls he knows, and he will keep it up for years, and it will never mean anything to him or to them, for he is essentially a tame cat…He is really an indispensable person in our modern life; for it is desirable that young women should have some male creature about them to fetch and carry – one who will do it all for the mere pleasure of the service, and who will never agitate them and disquiet them or make them feel it necessary to be on their guard.

“In a way”. :lol: :lol:

In 1902, (a modern age to the men living back then), men knew what being a beta orbiter meant. Thus we have proof that the sexless friendzone and the female exploitation of servile, supplicating men for “beta bux” have existed for over 100 years, and probably a hell of a lot longer than that.

He then proceeds to describe the qualities that make men respect other men. The explanation is long, but in short he must be honorable, reasonable, courageous and gentle.

The last one does not mean being effeminate, but a refinement in character:

Intellectually it means intuition, sensitiveness to all impressions, and the imaginative element which illumines the dark places of the mind and shows the way to great achievement. Temperamentally it denotes gentleness, and the tenderness which is the perfect complement to strength. It is to men who have this last and finest gift, that other men, since history began, have given not alone their liking but their service, their devotion, and their very lives.

What then is the conclusion? Men like in men these traits: the honor that ennobles; the justice that insures the right; the reasonableness that mellows and makes plain; the courage that proclaims virility; the generous instinct that disdains all meanness; the modesty that makes no boast; the dignity that wins respect; the fineness and the tenderness that know and feel. But when one thinks of it more carefully, may he not sum it up in just a single sentence, and accept it as truth, that all men like a gentleman?

Beta niceguys reading the above passage are undoubtedly saying to themselves, “Reasonableness? Generosity? Modesty? Tenderness? Hey, wait, I have all those qualities! Why don’t men admire me and women invite me to their beds?”

Because, dear beta, you must impress upon people you are those virtuous things by choice, and not by necessity. And the way to prove that is by first demonstrating that you are capable of behaving in the opposite fashion, as suits your needs.

Take a page from the sexy jerk. Watch how he shits with impunity on the polite norms of society, gets the girl and the admiration of his friends, and then pulls a rabbit out of the hat with a sudden and unexpected generous gesture that provokes an explosion of love kibbles raining on his dinner plate.

People, particularly women, overdose on virtue quickly. The scarcity principle applies here. You don’t want to be that dependable guy who’s always there for her; you want to be that inscrutable dark triad jerk whose occasional forays into the Light are greeted with glowing encomiums and flowering furrows.

Read Full Post »

When feminists aren’t happily asserting that women cheat just as much as men do, they’re raging that cheating men are insecure chauvinist pigs who are afraid of strong, independent women. As per usual with the human emojis known as feminists, trying to square their internal contradictions is an exercise in infinitely recursive futility.

Which is why it’s so much fun just to stick the hot shiv in their flabby hides and watch them squeal in pain. Courtesy of ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥science♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥, a study found that men cheat more not because they have weaker self-control than women, but because men have stronger sex drives that compel them to cheat.

A recently published study strongly suggests men succumb to sexual temptations more than women—for example, cheating on a partner—because they experience strong sexual impulses, not because they have weak self-control.

Previous research has shown that men are more likely than women to pursue romantic partners that are “off limits.” However, until now, the explanation for this sex difference was largely unexplored.

One possible explanation for this effect is that men experience stronger sexual impulses than women do. A second possibility is that women have better  than men. The current study’s results support the former explanation and provide new insight into humans’ .

Let’s tally up the scorecard and see how many losses feminists and their equalist paymasters suffered from this one single study:

1. Men have stronger sex drives than women.

Reality: 1, Feminists: 0.

2. Women don’t have more sexual self-control than men; they just have relatively weaker sex drives that reduce their compulsion to cheat.

Reality: 2, Feminists: 0.

3. Men have evolved different sexual strategies than women, and a higher male sex drive is one manifestation of that evolved sex difference.

Reality: 3, Feminists: 0.

4. Any sexual temptation is harder for men to deny than it is for women to deny, because men have more innately powerful sex drives that they must suppress.

Reality: 4, Feminists: 0.

5. Feminists are stoopid. It’s self-evident.

Reality: 5, Feminists: 0.

There’s a dearly held belief by feminists and their beta male suck-ups that women are the more “moral” sex. But virtue is empty braggadocio if it isn’t tested by vice. The fact that men need to expend greater efforts of self-control than are required of women to refuse the temptation of sexual infidelity is proof that, at least along this spectrum of virtuous behavior, men are the more moral sex.

Read Full Post »

Fat apologists:

Environmental shocks:

Keepin’ it real.

Read Full Post »

Salon, the nation’s hindmost menstrual rag of note, stumbled onto Chateau Heartiste grounds and promptly WOWJUSTWOWed until they were overcome with shameful orgasms.

18 hilariously terrible sex tips that all men should ignore. [...]

3. “A woman may want financial and family security, but she does not want passion security. In the same manner, when she has displeased you, punish swiftly, but when she has done you right, reward slowly.” (Chateau Heartiste, pickup artist site)

It works for the Dog Whisperer so it must be true.

In fact, successfully dating women and dog training do share quite a few disturbing similarities.

Naturally, the vapid Salon entity has no rebuttal to offer other than lazy snark.

6. “Flirt with other women in front of her. Do not dissuade other women from flirting with you.Women will never admit this but jealousy excites them. The thought of you turning on another woman will arouse her sexually.” (Cheateau Heartiste)

Of course women (and men) [ed: no, men don't viscerally respond to jealousy incitement the same way women do] want their partner to be perceived as desirable to others. But intentionally trying to make your partner jealous is a pathetic power trip used by the most insecure. And no, women “will never admit” it because it’s not true. Just like men “will never admit” they love surprise anal.

Women who deign to write for globally transmitted magazines really need to begin the arduous task of reading subject matter outside their feminist automaton comfort zones. For instance, CH is not the only one to observe through direct experience that women’s arousal and jealousy are two sides of the same coin; studies have found over and over that “female preselection” — that is, a man’s social and romantic approval by other women — acts directly as an attraction stimulant on any women in his company. Unlike this Salon broad’s non sequitur about “surprise anal” (which, as if it needed to be said, few heterosexual men outside the Salon staff hothouse of lactating manboobs secretly desire), making a woman jealous is proven to work as a means of increasing her romantic arousal. A man deploying such a tactic may or may not be “insecure”, but there’s no arguing with results.

8. “Give your woman two-thirds of everything she gives you. For every three calls or texts, give her two back. Three declarations of love earn two in return. Three gifts; two nights out. Give her two displays of affection and stop until she has answered with three more. When she speaks, you reply with fewer words. When she emotes, you emote less… In her deepest loins it is what she truly wants.” (Chateau Heartiste)

And if she responds with one word, reply with a series of monosyllabic grunts or through miming. She thinks she’s got you in a box, but little does she know, it’s INVISIBLE. Treating every exchange with women like a manipulative math problem is ¾ stupid, ⅝ sad, and 100 percent guaranteed to make you into an ex variable.

Math is hard.

Also, did he just call my loins shallow?

Women should avoid trying to be funny altogether and stick to maximizing the return on their authentically valuable assets. That would be your tits, ass, face and pussy, in case you were wondering.

A word of advice, Salonista: Humorless reductio ad absurdum and inapt mischaracterizations are no way to win debate points.

There’s a reason “mainstream” feminists rarely confront the House of Heartiste head on, preferring instead to snipe futilely from a safe and plausibly deniable distance (see: Lindy “Huge Fat Fuck” West), protectively ensconced by an army of reject freaks spit-shining feminist taint. When an unfortunate representative of their diseased order attempts an ill-prepared direct assault on CH, mistakenly presuming her enemy is a chucklehead bro who can’t wield a shiv like an assassin, she is typically flayed alive and retreats in shock with her fat beaver tail tucked between her ham hocks, never to be heard from again. So they will continue to toss feeble snark turds from their internet hovels while CH continues tearing apart everything they believe and hold dear, sinew by sinew, until the last of them self-delivers or sticks it out in everlasting torment to enjoy her gradual soul-desiccating abandonment by those she considers respectable discourse gatekeepers.

Read Full Post »

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

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

Commenter chris writes,

@CH

In your posts.

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

[ed: see also:

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

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

This article might explain a mechanism for it:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feminism is a war of women against other women.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

progress... but to what?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read Full Post »

The Lost Ark of the human sciences, intelligence genes, has been found and opened, and the faces of Universalist Equalists are melting into a bloody pulp. Researchers have pinpointed a single gene which, in its high-functioning variant, directly contributes to higher intelligence.

Researchers have found that teenagers who had a highly functioning NPTN gene performed better in intelligence tests.

It is thought the NPTN gene indirectly affects how the brain cells communicate and may control the formation of the cerebral cortex, the outermost layer of the human brain, also known as ‘grey matter.’ [...]

Teens with an underperforming NPTN gene did less well in intelligence tests. [...]

They found that, on average, teenagers carrying a particular gene variant had a thinner cortex in the left cerebral hemisphere, particularly in the frontal and temporal lobes, and performed less well on tests for intellectual ability.

The walls are closing in on the lords of lies and their feels army of emotabots. Soon, very soon, they will have nowhere to hide nor any shadowed mental crevice left to dissemble. They will be faced with a stark choice: Capitulate, or self-deliver on the altar of their monstrous, deformed egos.

I foresee an end to the current Leftoid Regime playing out as one of two scenarios: Whole-hearted (and back-rationalized) embrace of eugenics and anti-dysgenic policies, or further retreat into smaller and smaller technologically and economically gated safe spaces where their hedonism can carry them gently to the eternal darkness, as a fetid tide of decivilization rises.

Will it be Gattaca or Attica? Is there a third way, less tyrannical but still wise and sensible? More importantly, is it too late to make these choices?

Addendum:
In Houellebecq’s novel The Elementary Particles, the protagonist, Michel, discovers a molecular process that launches the age of genetic engineering. Michel is loveless and sad, a numberless victim of a ruthless modern sexual market, and in the end… [SPOILER]… he walks into the ocean and disappears. He lived his personal Gattaca, and it was no savior to him. Was his death a warning of what he unleashed, or a fitting tribute to the end of humanity as we know it?

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,836 other followers

%d bloggers like this: