A clue to the sorts of “”"men”"” who willingly date human tubas is in the photo attached to this fatso’s confessional about getting befuddled stares from people when she’s out in public with her thin boyfriend.

Hmm, where have we all seen that neotenous face?

The article is too unintentionally hilarious not to pull illuminative self-contradicting quotes from it.

I’m overweight and my boyfriend’s not. Big freaking deal.

We’ve been dating for 18 months, and wherever we go—whether we’re walking hand in hand through the mall, airport or down the street in his hometown (Glasgow, Scotland) or mine (San Jose, California)—we get confused looks that say, He can do better than her!

People are uncomfortable with monstrous aberrations.

When people say things out loud, their comments range from cruel (“Is he blind?” or “He’s only with you to get a green card”)

A reasonable suspicion.

to quips such as, “It’s great he can see past your looks”

or “He’s so nice for being with you.”

 I usually respond, “He’s not doing me a favor—he’s my boyfriend!”

When you’re a sexual market loser, the whole world is doing you a favor by tolerating your presence instead of tossing you out on your fat keister to the icy wastelands.

Now and then, even people close to me made unkind remarks. Once, when I confided to a friend, “I can’t believe he likes me!” he answered, “Yeah, I know!”

The more repulsive you are, the harder it is for people to conceal their true feelings in your company.

I have a YouTube channel, Glowpinkstah, with more than 250,000 subscribers, and, as a comic,

She swallowed the belly laughs.

I review beauty products,

At least she understands that female beauty matters. Now all she needs to do is realize that lipstick on a pig just makes the pig look goofy.

answer fan mail,

“I love how you own your fat body! Can you give me tips on how to hide my wiping implements so guests won’t see them when they use the bathroom?”

share my edgy brand of humor

More like rounded brand of humor, amirite?

and details about my life, so they know all about Ali and me.

Does Ali sleep in the piano case with you?

While most are supportive, there are a fair number of bullies:

“She has a boyfriend? What is wrong with the world?”

Shamelessness.

“These two had sex?! Oh god, why?”

Lack of options. Mental illness.

Some have gone so far as to ask how we have sex.

Pulleys, a garage jack, industrial lubricant, and the jaws of life.

I feel like saying, “If you have to ask, clearly you missed an important class back in the fifth grade.”

Whatever that class was, it wasn’t physics!

I just really liked food, and I didn’t think about consequences.

Not thinking about consequences? Sounds like a feminist fantasy world.

Also, I didn’t care that much about the way I looked

We can see.

—but other people did.

They can see.

In middle school, one guy imitated the way my thighs rubbed together when I walked.

I think I was friends with that guy.

While it upset me, I realized that it was more his problem than mine.

That’s just something the targets of cruelty say.

While I was talking about my dreams, he volunteered to decode them. “I study psychology,” he explained.

What a waste of game.

So I gave him my Instant Messenger screen name.

“Pelican Gullet”

Two-and-a-half years later, the miles and time zones between us hardly mattered. We were spending so many hours a week talking online.

A two and a half year talking relationship. For once, a closeted gay man beta dweeb didn’t mind years of blue balls.

I thought Ali was cute too, but I figured someone like him wouldn’t have feelings for me.

Gay men are like that.

I knew he was into big girls—his exes were chubby.

Ah, the elusive fatty fucker. Good news for fat chicks: a few men appear to suffer from brain defects that make them aroused by the sight of undulating blubber. Bad news for fat chicks: For every one of these invaluable fatty fuckers, there are one hundred of you trampling over yourselves trying to get at him.

Some think it’s weird, but it’s like having a thing for blondes: It’s just a preference.

“That’s just, like, your opinion, man.”
- Stalin

Not long after, Ali—who I was now seeing exclusively—told me he loved me. We had yet to meet in person.

She had Skype sex with a turkey drumstick, while he masturbated to photoshopped nudes of Justin Bieber. No one was the wiser.

I turned around and saw him walking toward me with a huge smile on his face. He gave me a hug and kissed me on the lips. I thought to myself, He’s my boyfriend, and he’s here!

“And his kisses feel like I’m kissing my brother!”

Another ex told me, with sincerity: “Maybe if you lost weight, my parents would accept you, and we could be together again.”

Most fatty fuckers are actually loser men who piss themselves in the company of attractive women who would be elated if their fatso girlfriends slimmed down. Of course, the elation wouldn’t last long, as the newly thin girlfriends would quickly dump their loser boyfriends and cash in their sexy figures for love with better men.

I have days when I say, “Why do you like me?” He says, “Because you’re beautiful and for the person you are.”

Those are sweet words of acceptance. Let’s see if he means them.

And he’s been good for my health. I was at my heaviest when we met, and I’ve lost 40 pounds since. My goal is to lose 80 pounds total, and he’s very supportive.

Nope.

Before Ali, I never showed any skin whatsoever, but he makes me feel confident going out in a cute little dress

Aka house gown.

that doesn’t cover me head-to-toe.

More’s the pity.

I can wear a sleeveless dress, shorts

Aka canvas tent.

—things that typically people don’t want to see me wearing—and not care.

Yes, you sound like you don’t care at all.

So, with Ali’s support, I started The Beauty Adjustment, a collaborative video project in which my subscribers help me spread the word that there is no one “normal” way to look or love. Beauty and relationships come in all shapes and sides: brown, yellow, short, tall, thin, fat—and one partner doesn’t have to mirror the other.

Great, more fat acceptance. Just what America needs. An excuse to get galactically fat.

Despite her sweet-sounding entreaties for acceptaaaaaaance, let there be no mistaking her message for what it is: Vile, ugly lies. The more women who heed her comfort food words, the fewer sexy babes there will be in the world, and the unhappier everyone gets. It affects me personally when women think they can bloat up without consequence. And since I am, as a human male, representative of the way most men think, the resentment at having our shared environment stripped of its most beautiful creations is a universal feeling.

At Le Chateau, there will be no acceptance of human garbage. There will be no excuses. There will be only the white hot sting of shame, of mockery, of ostracism. And, in the end, when the losers have gone through the crucible of hell — some burning in everlasting torment, others finding cool relief in self-improvement — will the world be a more beautiful place, and hence, a more truthful place.

The good-looking beta male who takes up with the gross fat chick is a riddle to most people, but that’s because most people have a narrow vision of what constitutes the desirable man. They retreat to a simple and readily-identifiable criterion of worth, e.g., looks, not understanding that such a criterion, while useful as a measurement of women’s sexual worth, is woefully inadequate as a metric for capturing a man’s sexual worth. The good-looking beta male dating the fat chick is not betrayed by his looks; he’s betrayed by his attitude. His psychology. His lack of confidence. His cowardice. His closeted homosexuality.

Whatever those traits are that women love in men are missing in the man who fucks a flesh pierogie when he could be fucking a slender girl. He’s a loser just as much as the ugly fat man who will lay with land whales out of expedience; the differences in each man’s looks are subsumed by their similarities in psychology. It’s the psychology of the feeble, the insecure, the deranged, and the undiscriminating.

In the late 1970s, after a long period of holding fairly steady, the gap in wages between men and women began improving. In 1979, the median hourly wage for women was 62.7 percent of the median hourly wage for men; by 2012, it was 82.8 percent. However, a big chunk of that improvement – more than a quarter of it — happened because of men’s wage losses, rather than women’s wage gains. [...]

This cannot be blamed on economic stagnation. Between 1979 and 2012, productivity – the average amount of goods and services produced in an hour by workers in the U.S. economy — grew by 69.5 percent, but that did not translate into higher wages for most men. Over this period, the real wage of the median male dropped 7.6 percent. This is a new and troubling disconnect: In the decades prior to the 1970s, as productivity increased, the wages of the median worker increased right along with it.

Furthermore, looking at the median wage understates the losses many men have experienced since the 1970s. For men with a high school degree, real wages have fallen by more than 14 percent. It is not the case, however, that men’s wages have fared poorly since the 1970s because men do not have the right education or skills. In the last 10 years, even workers with a college degree have failed to see any real wage growth.

Nor are men’s losses are due to women’s gains. The forces that were holding back male wage growth were also acting on women’s wages, but the gains made by women over this period in educational attainment, labor force attachment, and occupational upgrading, along with greater legal protections against discriminatory pay, initially compensated for adverse forces. In the last decade, however, women’s wages have also dropped. [...]

The decline in unionization alone explains about a third of the rise in male wage inequality (and about a fifth of the increase in female wage inequality) over this period.

Together, these policies have eroded the individual and collective bargaining power of most workers, depleting access to good jobs. In other words, these policies have served to make the already-affluent better off at the expense of the rest.

As any halfway informed reader will tell you, the supposed discriminatory basis of the sex wage gap so beloved of femcunts for its usefulness as a blunt semantic weapon to cow lickspittles of the Undescended Testes Society into submission, is utter bullshit. Now there is evidence that some of the wage increase women have experienced is less a consequence of GOGRRL ambition than of FUCK MEN economic policies.

Automation, illegal infiltration of cheap labor, outsourcing, H1B insourcing, the move to a service and health economy that favors women’s strengths, cultural derision of men’s strengths… all these things plus more have combined to economically shaft men. Coupled with the declining attraction of self-sufficient women for beta providers, is it any wonder that marginalized men are faced with the stark choice of cadding it up for muff and puss lips, or dropping out entirely?

The answer to this problem isn’t pat, but we could start with these CH suggestions:

- Stop pedestalizing women on a mass scale. This means drop the “lean in” schtick and the “white male privilege” dorm room BS sessions. Embrace the innate biological differences of the sexes and stop bitching and moaning when the consequence of men and women following their natural compulsions leads to organically emergent disparities in pay or social status.

- End all quota programs and affirmative action. Men, and white men in particular, pay the brunt of these redistributionist schemes.

- Ditch the legal concepts of disparate impact and disparate outcomes. These two fallacious theories have exerted more deceptive subversion on US law and government policy than any other.

- Close the borders. Deport the illegals and their “naturalized” children. Lower supply of labor = higher demand for labor = higher wages. Bonus: Revoke the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.

- Immigration moratorium for forty years, followed by a restructured immigration policy that primarily favors Northern Europeans. America was largely built from the ground up by a particular group of people. Radically altering the demographics of America assures that the country will change, irrevocably, in line with the abilities and psychologies of the new and different groups of people comprising her. Some people are fine with this, but what those people won’t be able to say is that America will continue to be anything like the America she has been during her rise to world bestriding greatness.

- Decentralization, and how. The federal government has acquired too much power. The IRS and NSA scandals are evidence of a centralized regime attempting to corral too many people of too many differing temperaments, abilities and behavioral idiosyncrasies into a benign, mollified, indistinguishable mass of Pavlovian consumers. The states must grow in power, or the federal government will cede them their power by events out of its control.

- Gut the humanities departments of colleges. These departments and their increasingly malign spin-offs have become nothing more than warehouses for women pursuing useless degrees in feminist boilerplate and discredited blank slatism. A big chunk of the growth in female college grads is in majors like Communications and Women’s Studies which amount to debt accumulation programs and memetic delivery systems for leftoid propaganda. Online education, tenure abolition, and job-offers-per-graduate debt relief loan contracts are all possibilities to reduce the stranglehold that the Cathedral Hivemind has on higher education.

- End international free trade. Two billion Chinese and Indians is a lot of cheap labor to churn through before the markets rebalance and wage labor costs rise in developing countries. In the meantime, a lot of Americans will suffer with no relief in sight.

- Shorten the work week. Rapid automation of jobs previously done by humans and increasing cognitive demands of non-roboticized jobs means an increase in the number of people who are, for all practical purposes, worthless in the economic market. The upside to automation is cheaper products. This means a four-day work week is feasible since employees won’t need as much money to purchase pleasure-maximizing gadgets.

- Reconfigure finance regulation so that the huge wealth inequality that is a consequence of insiders and the lucky high IQ few taking advantage of private equity markets unavailable to the general public is alleviated. This means some “conservatives” will have to abandon their pro-business mentality in favor of a more nuanced grasp of how the free market shakes out when the cognitive elite are permitted to prey on the less genetically fortunate.

- Make welfare contingent on contraceptive use. Offer the option for a guaranteed lifetime income in exchange for permanent sterilization. All voluntary, all eugenic, all humane. No need to worry about a future of Matt Damons blowing up your Elysium.

- The downside to automation is that, eventually, there won’t be anything left for human people to do. You may call this a Luddite fallacy, but the logic is inescapable: Returns to productivity get undermined by ever larger pools of people unable to generate an income stream. You say there will be more need for people to service the robots, but that requires a baseline cognitive profile that is likely higher than what we have now (thanks in big part to immigration-fueled dysgenia), or higher than what we needed in the past when new tech supplanted older tech. The solution to this problem is the consideration of a government guaranteed income, again contingent upon birth control use.

The tsunami of evidence that men, women, and races are fundamentally and intractably different in important and relevant ways to the hedonistic principle — first, do no self-harm — is going to wash over the ruling class so forcefully that they’ll have no choice but to jettison their ballast of lies and rise to the surface, or sink into a murky oblivion weighed down by hoary platitudes of the past. This means equalists will have to become comfortable with the reality that some people will do better in life than other people, and there is no one to blame for this except the distant cosmic overlord.

Men can win again. And when men are winning, women win too. How is that, you ask? Well… chicks dig a winner.

I would leave everything I have to be with [the guy who almost gave me herpes and dumped me after a weekend of multiple orifice violating that I wouldn't dream of allowing my beta dentist fiance to do to me].

Five minutes of alpha…

A regular CH reader, Zombie Shane, left a comment over at Slate (amazingly left undeleted) which sent the femborgs and manboobs ululating into righteous, backboob swinging, indignation.

Two points:

1) Women are incapable of knowing what they want – if they knew what they wanted, then they’d be men.

2) What this particular woman wants is what every woman wants – the gina tingles which come from the dangerous liaisons with an “alpha” cad – not the bed-death predictability which comes from entering into the prison which is married life with a boring, dependable, politically-correct, utterly emasculated “beta” dad.

Alpha cads, not beta dads.

That’s what women want.

So either dentist dude can step it up a notch, grow a pair, and start acting like a man, or else he can prepare [or at least he ought to prepare] for a lifetime of raising a family full of children who were biologically sired by the likes of her tennis instructor at the country club.

“dutchshepherdconspiracytheory” replies,

Oh so glad one of the menz could tell me what I wanted.

Anyone who (erroneously) pluralizes words with the letter z is guaranteed to be a triple-chinned nerdo leftoid or cauliflower-thighed chunkster chick. No exceptions.

Is it the alcoholism, unemployment or herpes that women love about sexy badboys? No. What women love about them is their ATTITUDE.

The attitude dictates that you don’t care whether she comes, stays, lays, or prays. I mean whatever happens, your toes are still tappin’. Now when you got that, then you have the attitude.

The Attitude is sex panther cologne reformulated to work 100% 100% of the time. The Attitude is powerful enough to induce in women a quasi-catatonic, chronically orgasmic state that renders them unable to discriminate against men failing on several objective measures of conventional mate worth. Many sexy cads with venereal diseases, low future time orientation and crippling addictions do well with women because they possess The Attitude, and that is often all that’s needed to outcompete beta males for drilling rights to women’s peak nubility hearts.

Online game update: 2 weeks ago I asked for advice concerning a girl who politely cancelled meeting me because she had something going on with someone else and wanted to see where it went. I wasn’t sure how to respond because it was generally polite, and since we had never met, I felt any kind of negative response would indicate butt hurtness.

Good call. Think of female politeness as entrapment to lull beta males into revealing butthurtness.

Yareally seemed to agree and suggested that I stay positive and say something casually light and humorous. I responded to her “good luck. Let me know when you’re ready to party with a real man”

She responded last night “so…..I’m ready to party with a real man.  ” Any suggestions on how to close this one out? My thought is to completely ignore her previous cancellation, but to somehow motivate her to prove her interest to me.

Shouldn’t be too hard to close this girl. She handed you a serious indicator of interest. Play around with her a little more, and then escalate.

“Ok, I’ve got Justin Bieber on the line for you. lol”

As the second choice of this girl, you have to focus extra hard on qualifying her as worthy of your attention, because the head space she’s in right now is very conducive to perceiving you as less man than what she ideally wants. That means DO NOT reference her previous cancellation or her excuses (unless it’s in a humorous way, but even that is fraught with risk), and DO NOT express any sort of gratitude for finally getting a shot with her. It DOES mean acting as if you were the one the whole time deliberating whether she was worth your effort to pursue.

“Great. Swing by my place first, we’ll pre-drink with hot cocoa and snort fresh country air.”

Playfulness, dismissiveness, self-regard. These are the keys to the VAJ lounge.

question for CH readers.. so I TA at a college getting my masters and I sent out an email to my class and I got one back from a 6-7 in my class.

“Thanks for a fun quarter! It’s the first time I actually enjoyed going to section.

Hope to see you around!”

how can I flip this to see if she really wants to see me?

You don’t need to flip anything. Girls will rarely go out of their way to email a man such effusive praise unless there’s a sexual undercurrent. My bet is that she harbors illicit thoughts about you and her… together… under the silver moonlight.

Since you’re not a professor, I don’t believe the standard ethics codes prohibiting teacher-student affairs applies, but someone in the belly of the beast who is more informed can correct me if I’m wrong about that. A safe ROI reply would be simply providing an opportunity for her to meet you in an out-of-school or in-my-office context, and see if she bites. For example:

“I’m giving career advice to students on [X] at [X], if you’d like to stop by we can discuss further.”

Isolation is the key here. If the calculated ruse is not your thing, then just straight up segue into flirty banter.

“If I didn’t know any better, I’d say you were flirting with me.”

If she’s at all interested in seeing you again, she’ll respond to that stinky bait in a way that indicates she’d like the conversation sustained rather than curtly cut off. Plus, such an email gives you plausible deniability should any school termagants get wind of it and summon you to a tribunal. Really, given the risks, you’re best off communicating with this girl in person, instead of over email. At the least, use your personal email.

Women respond viscerally in their vagina area to unpredictability, mixed signals, danger, and drama in spite of their best efforts to convince themselves otherwise. Managing your relationship in such a way that she is left with a constant, gnawing feeling of impending doom will do more for your cause than all the Valentine’s Day cards and expertly performed tongue love in the world. Like it or not, the threat of a looming breakup, whether the facts justify it or not, will spin her into a paranoid estrogen-fueled tizzy, and she’ll spend every waking second thinking about you, thinking about the relationship, thinking about how to fix it. Her love for you will blossom under these conditions. Result: she works harder to please you.

The bitterboy haters really swooned with indignation after reading that post, feeling deep in their bones that anything less than flowers and constant supplication was the only way a man should act if he wanted to revive a flagging relationship. Hundreds of testimonials to the contrary would not convince them. Theirs is a Hallmark world, and goddamnit it’s going to stay a Hallmark world.

By why heed your real world experiences and the wisdom of CH when you can wait for CREDENTIALED EXPERTS to give you the go-ahead to try something new and daring with your life?

But the [female] rationale [for wanting sex] I’d like to focus on here is one that’s rarely alluded to in the literature: namely, a woman’s wanting sex–and at times desperately so–out of fear that her partner may be on the verge of leaving her. That is, she may actively pursue her spouse sexually to help deal with powerful feelings of anxiety, stemming from her intuition or knowledge that her relationship is in jeopardy–fragile, teetering, or on the brink of collapse.

The woman’s apprehension about a possible break-up may derive from her partner’s broadly hinting that he wants out of the relationship or, in fact, from his directly informing her of his intentions to move out and file for divorce. Or it’s possible she might suspect that he’s having an affair; or (because of the vast emotional distance separating them) that he’s actually fallen in love with someone else and, on that account, secretly planning to desert her. In a panic about it all–especially if she still feels devoted to him, or there are children involved and she’s frantic to keep the family together at all costs–she may be desperate to initiate sex to feel less helpless, as well as to exert some control over (and hopefully alter) her husband’s errant, non-loving behavior toward her. [...]

As a consequence of her distress, or anguish, she’s strongly impelled to prompt a heated sexual encounter whereas previously she may have shown ambivalence, apathy, or even a marked antipathy toward making love with her partner. Withdrawn and quite possibly sexually shut down, in the bedroom she may take on the role of “aggressor”–or, probably a better term, “seductress.” [...]

Ironically, the sex that can emerge from the considerable trepidation and anxiety I’ve been describing can be unusually passionate. Though I’ve already characterized such sex as “fear-inspired,” the very intensity of this fear can transform itself into substantially heightened sexual arousal – such that the end result of lovemaking can be electrically charged (what noted sex therapist, David Schnarch, actually refers to as “wall socket sex”!). It’s as though, ironically, the woman’s pronounced fear of abandonment renders her capable of having more abandoned sex than she may have been capable of before.

As we say in the business —  Game. Set. Snatch.

Le Chateau ahead of the curve, again. A little bit of fear and dread will motivate a sexually retreating woman to joyfully spread for the sake of committed love. To put it in even more concise terms: Do the opposite of a beta male.

Dread is essentially a form of the scarcity principle, producing effects in the sexual market similar to the effects seen in the economic market when an in-demand good is in short supply. Not only will calculated doses of dread revitalize relationships, but it will also allow average men to date much hotter women than they would be expected to date by the dunderhead masses.

Maxim #55: A man can shoot way out of his league if he acts as if he is the one occupying the higher league.

Dread, or fear-inspired romance, is not a relationship cure-all. An average man can keep a level-headed hottie on a string for about six months using nothing but anxiety-inducing seduction techniques, but beyond the six month mark fissures will begin to erupt. Women’s hindbrains can fry from too much sustained anxiety, and past that point relationship management with a beautiful woman becomes more difficult, requiring more emotional investment from the man. Accepting this reality, the man will usually opt for gaudy beta displays of commitment, and as if on cue this will cause the hottie to reevaluate her relationship options.

Given the long-term risks of overuse, dread is still the winning move for the average man. Just as five minutes of alpha > five years of beta for women, six months of sex with a hot babe > ten years of sex with a plain jane for men.

The best news is that dread is exceptionally effective as a tool to coax hot sex from a woman if you are within an already established relationship, such as marriage. The trick to keeping the bedsheets stained with poos joos is the subtle application of intermittent dread, which releases your woman’s anxiety just long enough that she swings wildly between cuddly comfort and ravenous restlessness. Sustained dread is better when you’ve started dating a girl, and particularly the types of eye-catching girls who get propositioned on the daily.

The article is written in celebratory fashion by the AP reporter, Hope Yen, as is typical for the anti-white male establishment MSM. But, hearteningly, many of the commenters seem to get what this all portends for the land they call home.

Well fellow white folks. it was a hell of a run!

Minorities, I’m sure you’ll take this country to even greater heights in the next 200+ years than our founding fathers did! Best of luck!

(rummages manically through drawer for passport)

***

Minority majority? What the heck is that?

Hopefully affirmative action in 2043 will help a white brother out, but i suppose they will get rid of that in 2042.

***

The black population of America is only 13%. Even though they are encouraged to breed with welfare and child support programs, they are still a smaller percentage of the population than Hispanics that come illegally. We could easily stop them with a wall. A wall. Not anything technological. The Chinese built one 2000 years ago to keep the Mongols out. But 2000 years later, the greatest technologically advanced nation can’t do the same.

Hispanics can move to any of the countries Colombia, Argentina, Peru, Venezuela, Chile, Ecuador, Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay, Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama or Mexico and speak Spanish. They can be among the majority in any of these countries. But they insist on invading America. Why? If all of these other countries suck so badly, why do you want to turn American into the same?

It is bizarre that people want to change America so much, but expect it to remain the same great nation this is currently is.

***

…And the greatest foreshadowing story ever told…

Idiocracy

***

Look at it this way! Countries like China and India will be outsourcing their labor to the US!!!!

***

sweet … as a white male I’m looking forward to not paying taxes, getting welfare checks and living off those who have built wealth because they are getting these benefits now

only problem is by then I will have already worked myself to death

***

That is why we are slowly becoming a third world country. the question is who will support all these derelicts.

***

Another nail in the republican coffin.

You may be tempted to feel hopeful that whites are waking the fuck up about what amounts to a fifty year campaign of soft genocide against them, but the demographics are already baked in the cake. Absent mass deportations and a moratorium on further immigration (both of which CH supports but which are politically unfeasible given the government and media are stacked to the rafters with, what would have been called in quainter times, traitors), this population trajectory won’t change. The waking up needed to happen a long time ago. Now it is too late for anything but retreat and prostration.

Discrimination against fat strippers? Wow, just wow. I don’t even. I stopped reading at…

The inevitable logic of misfit liberals’ exaggerated sensitivity to harm and faaaaaiiiirness is that anything that hurts someone’s feelings somewhere, justified or not, and as long as that someone who hurts isn’t the ur-oppressor white male, will come to be seen as discrimination requiring legal correctives. And so we find ourselves wading through the rectal effluvium of America confronting smelly wildebeasts like the thing above LOUDLY and PROUDLY proclaiming that fat strippers who earn less money, or who don’t get sufficient stage time from their (blind) club managers, are being discriminated against by the patriarchy, or by men, or by whatever boogeyman term of fart happens to have lodged itself in their donut-drenched and -holed brains.

Never once will it occur to these rotund retards that fat strippers earn less because men don’t like to look at fatsos, and especially not at naked fatsos. If it does occur to them, they tax themselves mentally trying to locate and broadcast implausible alternatives to explain away their wretched public reception that absolves them of any personal responsibility for their loser lives.

This is what happens when the parasites, dweebs, cranks, monsters, degenerates and headcases get ahold of the narrative. They push and push until farcical “anti-discrimination” policies that not too long ago would have seemed unimaginable to sane people become the law of the land. Case in point: It’s now illegal to refuse to grant job interviews to ex-cons.

Progressivism isn’t about progress; it’s about progressive rationalization of increasingly stupid ideas. The whirlpool of useless human debris multiplies on the one end while CIA-funded orc-world psychopaths multiply and invade on the other. No wonder normal people who still trust their common sense and their powers of observation feel as if a dark force is gripping them by the throat.

Humans, like all animals, have no control over their sexual attraction, though they may exert control over the expression of that attraction. The forebrain exists to give the moral stamp of approval to the desires of the hindbrain, and what this study implies more than anything else is that no amount of social or cultural conditioning — the favored explanation of feminist termagants and equalist twats the world over — can alter the id-shaped sexual urges of the hindbrain; not even complete removal of large parts of the higher order brain can alter these primal urges. We are automatons underneath our advanced cortical embroidery.

2. But, wait! The SCIENCE VINDICATES CH stroke-a-thon doesn’t stop there. We have a long record advising men to either refrain from Facebook and other social media-type pick-ups, or to actively work to lower the self-esteems of girls on social media, because there is an exaggerated self-esteem boost that women experience on these websites thanks to the constant fawning of millions of ass-lapping betaboys with no game. Now a recent study has come out which shows that Facebook profiles raise users’ self-esteem and affect behavior. Additionally, self-esteem-boosted Facebook users feel less motivated to perform follow-up tasks. This is perfectly in line with CH game teachings that high self-esteem women (and alpha males) will comport themselves with an attitude of aloofness and entitlement that translates into behavior indicative of “being the chasee” in any heated sociosexual interaction.

3. Deep in the archives rests the seminal post “Defining the Alpha Female“.

Besides hotness, there is one other factor that influences female SMV (Sexual Market Value) rank — the maximum level of commitment she can extract from her best option.  Her personality, charm, sexiness, character, and nurturing ability will make the difference here.  The best option rule is essential – men who are below her first choice offer unwanted commitment while men who are too far above her are guaranteed to put less effort into the relationship.

All women want it all, but only hot babes can turn that desire into reality, and therefore only hot babes regularly behave in ways that suggest they have realistic expectations of getting it all. And what is “all” for women?: The most alpha man they can coax into a long-term monogamous commitment. Now science (there it is again!) comes along to provide ample evidence for the above CH observation (via reader chris):

[T]he findings provide partial support for the main hypotheses that low mate value women would have more pronounced changes in preferences across the menstrual cycle. When the implicit measure was examined, women low in mate value had weaker positive implicit associations with characteristics associated with high quality genetic material when they were in the less fertile part of their cycle and, alternatively, with women higher in mate value this reduction in positive associations during the less fertile part of their cycle did not occur. These results are congruent with the proposition that a mixed mating strategy (pursuing short-term relationships with high genetic quality males while maintaining long-term relationships with a lower genetic quality male) would be most adaptive for low mate value women who are unable to obtain mates that are high in both genetic quality and resources.

Hot (high SMV) women don’t go in for the cuckolding stuff because they are more able than uglier women to get everything they want in a man in one package. Less attractive women can’t, so they must resort to downlow tactics for a deliriously brief shot at non-omega male seed.

4. Study shows that women are attracted to men with “appetitive-aggression”, i.e., a lust for violence. Chicks dig jerks. Did you hear that? Neither did I. The feminists and nancyboys must be tongue-tied.

5. Why do women fall for serial killers? Blame their native wiring.

Consciously, most women would like their men to be kind, empathic, understanding, and respectful. But there’s something in their native wiring that makes a great many of them susceptible to “bad boys.” Possibly because, as the authors quote Angela Knight as reflecting (in a sentiment that echoes the conclusions of most evolutionary psychologists): “[Their] inner cavewoman knows Doormat Man would become Sabertooth Tiger Lunch in short order” (p .97).

Moreover, in responding to the question as to whether some men, such as “serial killers, violent offenders, and rapists,” might be too dominant for women to accept, Ogas and Gaddam note: “It turns out that killing people is an effective way to elicit the attention of many women: virtually every serial killer, including Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, and David Berkowitz, have received love letters from large numbers of female fans” (p. 98). [...]

It’s no coincidence that the whole genre of fictional romance is so hypnotically enticing to so many women that—surprise, surprise!—it actually outsells the pornography everywhere out there that’s expressly designed to appeal to the male brain (which, alas, focuses far more on female body parts than anything pertaining to “romance”). Women regularly purchase an astronomical amount of romance fiction (and, more and more, anonymously through the Web). And what this suggests is that while those who fall for serial killers may represent a pathological exaggeration of a female’s erotic mind, many women (at least secretly, or subliminally) can’t help but be drawn toward cold-blooded, controlling, “bad boys” whose dominance symbolizes quite the opposite of what in relationships they’re consciously seeking.

Sounds almost word-for-word what CH has been saying about female sexual nature. The whole article is great, and pretty much takes a steaming dump on the usual female rationalizations for the allure of the killer badboy.

6. Are the lovers of violent men really taken by surprise when they discover the demonic pasttimes of their alpha paramours? Feminists insist they are (what else are they gonna say?), but the facts show otherwise: What predators’ wives really know.

For too long many spouses of child molesters have hidden behind the pretense that they were unaware of the crimes going on in their homes. The myth that these women didn’t know of the depravity which played out under their roofs is just that: a myth. Reality tells a different story. The truth is sickening and may be shocking to some readers whereas other readers may have known this all along.

In my years of profiling violent crimes, I have found that in the majority of cases that I studied, the spouses knew about the child molestation which was carried out by their spouses. They knew because either the offenders told them or they witnessed the abuse! Of course the wives never admitted this once an investigation was opened; however, victims have often stated that the wives of their abusers were present when the attacks took place. As the victims called out for help, it was common for the wives to walk away and shut the door behind them. In other cases, the wives would see their spouses bringing children into their bedrooms but said nothing. Many victims tell their mothers that their fathers are molesting them, and they are not believed.

And how ’bout them female rationalization hamsters? First up, the Pleading Ignorance Hamster:

But never fear. These women are phenomenal at explaining themselves. First and foremost, they are adamant that they didn’t know what was going on. Amazingly, these women who were teachers, physician assistants, and charity fundraisers became stunningly stupid when it came to the sex abuse. Though considered intelligent, these women claim that they couldn’t put two and two together that their husbands were doing something wrong when there was an endless parade of young boys or girls going into the marital bedroom with their spouses.

When that hamster tires, the Poor Me Hamster relieves it:

If for some reason, the wives’ pathetic excuse of ignorance doesn’t fly, the women immediately run for the sympathy card. They can’t be held accountable for the actions of their sick spouses. After all, they have children to raise. What would their children do if they were put into prison? Many are church goers who vehemently apologize that they didn’t do more for the children (translation: I am sorry I got caught).

Some wives will fill their eyes with crocodile tears and cry of their own abuse in childhood. They will claim that they were too mixed up emotionally to step in and help the victims. How could anyone cast a nasty eye at them? They were victims as children, so how could anyone expect them to do anything to help anyone? “Poor me,” they whine.” I was hurt; feel sorry for me! Yes, I knew about the abuse and did nothing, but don’t you dare point a finger at me.” These are their words, and they will even go so far as to say that they were good parents, even if the victim was their own child.

After the Poor Me Hamster exits the stage, the Badboy Forgiveness Hamster swaggers in for the final aria:

For other women, there is a deviant bond which makes them feel close to their spouses. If a molester confesses his secrets to the wife, then she and he share a unique experience. To trust her enough to tell her means that he must love her. And if she loves him how could she turn him in? A type of magical thinking emerges where the females believe that they are in a very special relationship that will all turn out just fine.

There are many other identifiable hamsters, including the Gravy Train Hamster, the Social Stigma Hamster, the Excited Fearfulness Hamster, and the most twisted of them all, the Sexual Deviant Hamster:

Then there are the most sick of these women. These are the ones who not only know about the abuse but get sexual excitement from it. They enjoy it and use it in their sexual fantasies. I know of such cases where the wives had their husbands tell them every raw detail of the abuse as the couple was having sex.

The author (a woman) has a PSA for feminists who are working hard to create a femtopia where female accountability is reduced to zero:

This idea that spousal participation is not important has to change. When there is no price to be paid for their part in the abuse (keeping silent), the behavior will not ever change. Thus this perpetuates the cycle. More scrutiny needs to be placed on spouses of molesters if there is suspicion that they knew. If it can be proven that they knew of the abuse, they should be held accountable.

I have talked to women who knew of their husbands’ actions but did not come forward. It is absolutely sickening to listen to these women. They were some of the most self centered and self serving people I ever met, and they were not sorry. The only sorrow they felt was for themselves. [...]

Children deserve better protection, and one can only wonder how many could be spared being raped if only one of these spouses would simply open their mouths and tell the truth.

The problem is that a lot of these women love their psychopathic spouses. Love is the fuel that feeds their rationalizations and excuse-mongering. This sort of thing won’t change unless you could reconstruct the female brain to feel no love for malevolent men.

In related news, women have no trouble at all accusing beta nerds of quasi-rape for telling goofy dongle jokes.

7. “[I]ndividualism is not a consequence of modernization, but rather modernization is a consequence of individualism.” My question: Are highly individualistic peoples more prone to pathological altruism? Or is it just a white thang?

8. It’s their world now. And that means you must take measures to protect yourself. You can start by hiding your online activity from the Hivemind behemoth. It appears that the Firefox browser gets the best reviews from privacy advocates. None of these anonymizing services guarantees your privacy, but they do make it orders of magnitude more difficult for government snoops to identify you. And that can mean the difference between expressing yourself unmolested and a knock on the door at 2AM. Think it ridiculous? That’s what everyone says right before the gun barrel is trained on their heads.

Principles? Is that the name of a new coffee roast? PS Bushitler!