Feeds:
Posts
Comments

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.

It’s Happening

Via. This is the first pro-white, pro-European video I’ve seen that didn’t flirt with subtext. The message is loud and clear and unmistakable. Now the fight can commence on fair terms.

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.

Toddler Game

Too funny. Even funnier: There are some gems of game to be mined from this humor. A reader writes,

It’s titled “Things You Can’t Do When You’re Not a Toddler”. I say it’s Things You Do When You Don’t Give a Fuck.

I’m going to walk up to girls and announce that I sleep in a big boy bed.

The “big boy bed” line is gold, and would work if your delivery is stone-faced. Other examples of “Toddler Game” that can be modified for adult-sized game.

- Walking naked in front of a girl you just started dating. (“I need these moments of freedom.”)
– “I’m 35-and-a-half.” Good all-purpose answer to girls asking your age.
– Hiding behind a pant leg or a chair when a girl asks you a personal question.
– Swapping a girl’s glasses and examining them with focused intent.
– Throwing stuff on the ground.

CH has covered this territory before. Children are great real life naturals at game. You’ll get a better education in how to tease women by watching little boys interact with little girls. We forget these life lessons as adulthood robs us of our wonderment and carefree attitude. Chicks dig the free and easy boy inside.

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.

…don’t do these “perfect responses”. Self-deprecation and tacit acknowledgment of one’s rejection may amuse an audience of Buzzfeeding drones, but it won’t make ginas jingle.

Ironically, one of the “perfect” text responses to a wordless antagonist unintentionally reveals the seductive power of “radio silence game”.

A little digging suggests the author of this particular text is a girl. Sarcastic nuance to the contrary notwithstanding, not texting back for hours does appear to be very adorable to chicks, because there she is sending out a distress signal for her silent suitor. Interest confirmed. (When a girl loses interest, or never had interest, she’s not thinking of you hours later.) If this guy were to reply “lol” right now, she’d be ready all over again to slip into her pretty panties and dream of his objectifying gaze.

So what do you do when a girl doesn’t text you back (say, after you’ve sent out a feeler text for a meet-up)?

  1. She will not reply. Don’t bother setting up a date. Her interest level isn’t strong enough. You’ve just saved an hour of your time and $20 for drinks.
  2. She will reply a few hours later, or the next day. She’s on the fence and probably dating other guys. Use your discretion to decide whether to give her the chance to enjoy the pleasure of your real live company on a date. If you’re juggling a lot of girls and getting laid already, you may want to skip these wafflers.
  3. She will reply within ten minutes. She’s into you. Take her on a date and bring a condom.

If a girl doesn’t text you back within a reasonable window of time (two days, max), don’t bother trying to reopen the lines of communication. Her interest level is zero and she’s hoping you forgot you met her.

That said, there is a case to be made for attempting something on a long shot. It’s not like texting is any serious expenditure of your time or effort. So, for example, let’s say you’ve heard nothing from a girl you texted three days ago about meeting up. A last ditch text that might bring her fold back into your fold is this favorite of mine:

“made you look”

It’s funny, it’s non-needy, and it’s low expectation. (Don’t forget insouciantly unpunctuated, your liege.) Most intransigent girls will respond to the above.

Another one I sometimes use on disappearing act girls:

“hey carrie, drinks thur at [x], 8pm”

The bite in this broadcast happens to be the fact that “carrie” is not the name of the girl I’m texting. She reads it, wonders who Carrie is, and feels compelled to respond in some manner. Her response could be positive or negative, and it doesn’t matter, because *any* response from a girl is better than no response. A talking girl you can work with; a silent girl is unreachable. She might therefore reply,

“I’m not Carrie”

…to which I would say “close?” and wait to see if she chomps on the stinky bait.

Texting has really opened up a world of experimental game possibilities because of its low barrier to entry (pun intended). Phone calls are emotionally draining for many men and require focus on multiple attractiveness cues, like vocal tone. Plus, girls are readier to ignore phone calls than they are texts, for similar reasons as men are to avoid making phone calls: There are more mate value variables of which to be cognizant in a phone call than there are in text.

JavaScript Male

Skittles Man has his antithesis: Meet JavaScript Male*.

Commenter Reservoir Tip writes,

The female reception of this piece, even here at CH, has been incredibly elementary.

I imagine the beta man-boob response is no different.

Reminds me of a funny story, actually.

Recently I was on Facebook (I know I shouldn’t have one, but Tinder) and a girl friend of mine asked via status update whether she should get a pixie cut or grow her hair out.

I told her, “pixie cut and I’m personally kicking your ass.”

To which her feminist friends and a former friend of mine turned hardcore cultural Marxist manboob replied, “omg Reservoir Tip’s opinion is stupid. Why are you even concerned about societal standards of beauty?” (LOL)

Then the manboob, who I assume is somewhat into the girl, posts something for the beta hall of fame.

“I wrote you a java script to help you figure out which style is going to work best for you” and of course, he posts the script.

As if she has any idea what the hell to do with it. Neutered man-booby goonery at its finest. I could practically feel his anticipation for her thanks and whatever attention she would afford him.

“Oh I know how to win her over! I’ll write her some java script! That’ll get her attention!”

“I’LL WRITE HER SOME JAVA SCRIPT!”

“JAVA SCRIPT”

*I can’t bring myself to call him JavaScript Man, because the term “man” carries positive character associations. Low T beta losers who behave in ways more typical of women and betray a lifetime spent struggling with testes nestled somewhere up near their diaphragms are best described as “male”, acknowledging the fact that they possess some rudimentary form of biological maleness, however actively it’s suppressed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,967 other followers

%d bloggers like this: