America, Then And Now


Old Baseball American Players



Cheap Chalupas would label the young men in the top photo “brutes“, and the flabby hunchbacks plugged into the Gaytrix in the bottom photo “evolved men in touch with their feminine side”. But the men in the first photo presided over the creation and growth of a great nation, while the low T slobs in the second photo stand by as the country falls apart around them.

So much for “progress” as defined by the ethnic food appreciation cult known as tenured libertarianism. The cuntry needs more brutes if it is to survive, and Trump is the brutish shot across the Effete Elite’s bow delivering the message that nationhood-affirming brutishness is back in a yuge way, baby!


“I told him ‘jump on the grenade’, not ‘strap yourself to the ICBM and ride it to hell’.”

Is this a case of a rare, genuine fatty fucker feeding the belly and the ego of a blustering megabeast?

I considered this photo and the man who is part of it for submission to the next Beta of the Month contest, but three red flags have me convinced this is staged (and thus not up to the Chateau’s impeccable BOTM contest entry standards).

Before I give those clues away, try to find them yourselves.





Ok, here’s where the porkster failed in her mission to further a credible fat acceptance agit-prop.

  1. The feminist fatty hashtags are too “on the snout”. No woman, not even a bitter disguntled obesity, will oink repeatedly on Instagram about “beauty standards” and “body love” when she’s just received an engagement ring, fulfilling a fantasy that most women hold dear since girlhood. Powerful feelings of love, yes real love not “body love”, will supersede a normal fatty’s political agitation programming, and the hashtags will say instead #justengaged #lovehim #imgettingmarried etc.
  2. Whenever a woman starts a thought with “So”, particularly a “so” with three “o”s, it’s a good bet whatever follows is complete bullshit. “Sooo” is the shorter version of “No, but honest-to-God…”. Liars say this a lot.
  3. Finally, the dead giveaway… any fatty fucker worth his blubber-induced boner will know that his porky princess’s sausage links require the dashingly-dilated, goatse’d ring to make it past the second pig knuckle, where the fat really starts to accumulate. Look closely and you’ll see her ring propped indolently above her second finger goiter.

Conclusion: This is a gay BFF, or a brother, or a deeply respectful low-T male feminist friend, conspiring with a fatty fat to help her collect lard-warming feelz in the fake social media universe. Is it still beta? Yes. But it’s not the kind of guileless, inept betatude that normally qualifies a man for BOTM candidacy.

If I’m proven wrong, that won’t change much. A fatty who believes her stroke of luck wresting a marital promise from the equivalent of a human unicorn — the fatty fucker who isn’t also a rotund beast with no better options — means that the world is filled with men who would shower love on her if only “thin privilege” or the pastryarchy would stop “telling them” not to, is still a fatty laboring under delusions of glandular.

Every fatty — and I mean every one of them — would experience improved romantic prospects if they pushed away from the trough.

Given the recent news of a discovery suggesting that Neanderthals may have been more advanced than previously thought, it’s time to revisit the possibility that Neanderthals were out-competed by  proto-Sapien Cro-Magnons because the former were missing some valuable, survival trait other than intellectual horsepower.

We humans may have evolved to have tighter Game. Reader Feta explains:

I don’t know if this study has been discussed here before, but take a look if it has not:

“The Neanderthal correlation”

“No, I found that Neanderthals lacked genes linked to successful socialization and management skills. They could count perfectly well, but they couldn’t deal with groups. Socialization genes came from Sapiens”

Does this imply that alphas are the advanced “monkey” in the classic evolution pic? Betas/gammas usually are not bad with logic, but don’t fair well when it comes to “Sapiens characteristics” (i.e.,socialization)? If this is what the study says, then Game is an attempt to jump a great distance ahead in the evolutionary process.

Yes, that’s implied. When Neanderthals and Sapiens simultaneously occupied the same territories, it was the socially awkward beta nerdo Neanderthals who, despite their numeracy and great strength, succumbed to the Sapiens who had the tight Game (i.e., social skills) to form cooperative militias that could take out Neanderthals, monopolize their megafauna prey, and… wait for it… even bed Neanderthal women!

Game, far from being solely the primitive manipulations of sex-obsessed cads, was the next step in human evolution! Game can save species on the brink of extinction.

I like the coda to that article linked by Feta:

“You’re trying to tell me …” I said, but my mental censor blocked the idea.

“That human mathematical intelligence came from Neanderthals? That’s what the data say. The Cro-Magnons had the social skills. But that isn’t all.”

I stared at her. I couldn’t tell that to the research council.

As usual, she couldn’t read the warning look on my face. “The hybridization was successful in the Stone Age, but the environment has changed. I found that modern culture selects for socialization but against the Neanderthal traits for mathematics and intelligence,” she said, and looked down. “I don’t know how you’ll survive when our genes are gone.”

It’s possible then that Neanderthals picked up some beneficial “Game genes” from interbreeding with Cro-Magnons, but the intervention was too little too late to save them from the race annihilation we currently can see happening in Sweden, Britain, Germany and swaths of America.

Theory: too much sexual or cultural selection for Game genes will corrode the modern civilization that fewer Game genes helped create. When social savvy genes crowd out math and high impulse control genes… welp there go your highways, sewage treatment plants, and circuit boards.

A characteristic shitlib comment to a Washington Post-Op story about the alt-right’s adoption of Taylor Swift as an Aryan Goddess.

Using DNA, one can get hints of where one’s ancestors may have lived. The test conclusions are based on correlations with the location of modern populations and can help with the study of human migration patterns. The tests say nothing about “race”.

Forensic Anthropology can provide a guess as to ancestry (a term they have chosen to avoid reinforcing the idea of “race’) that is purely statistical and depends on knowledge of where the remains were found. This is often coupled with sociological concepts of “race”.

Caveat: This may be a too-clever-by-half troll of race creationist leftoids. But probably not. It reads like sincere shitlibbery.

What is it with lunatic libs and their pathological compulsion to deny the reality of race? “Red” and “blue” are social constructs to describe real world differences in colors, but that doesn’t mean the visible light spectrum is imaginary or a tool of the oppressive White patriarchy. All words are literally social constructs — labels created by social humans — to describe real world phenomena. Leftoids can call it “ancestry”, “population locations”, “human migration patterns” or “geography-based groups” that “correlate” with “sociological concepts of race”, but it’s all just legerdemain-slash-poopytalk meaning the same as race.

You hear the same semantic games when leftoids attempt to discredit race by pointing to the existence of mulattoes. “No clear dividing line” is piss-poor logic if the purpose is to disprove the concept of categories. There’s no clear dividing line between deserts and grasslands, and yet everyone can see that both terrains exist on earth as distinctive entities.

I have a suggestion for leftoids allergic to the socially constructed word “race”: try these perspicuous alternatives instead:

Whatever dissembling term you use, you aren’t fooling anyone but yourselves. Race is real, and so is your sophistry.

A man of some repute addressed an audience of women in 1933, warning against sexual amorphism and the close correlation of feminine men and masculine women with national decline.

Looking back over the past years of Germany’s decline, we come to the frightening, nearly terrifying, conclusion that the less German men were willing to act as men in purpose, the more women succumbed to the temptation to fill the role of the man. The feminization of men always leads to the masculinization of women. An age in which all great idea of virtue, of steadfastness, of hardness, and determination have been forgotten should not be surprised that the man gradually loses his leading role in life and politics and government to the woman.

…and that man was Joseph Goebbels. A bad bad man, but…….what he said was true, and downright prophetic as we scan the androgynous slop oozing over America’s fruity plains and as we heave under the onslaught of alien races welcomed into White homelands in no small measure by the contributions of our own women.

A thought: If you don’t want your nation to convulse with a bloody backlash of hypermasculinity, don’t allow your nation’s fate to be guided by the saccharine machinations of its women.


This womanizing whelp is learning the three Rs: reading, writing, and rakishness.

Reader Carlos decided to take my advice to the field, where he dropped the “How normal are you?” line as a rapport-boosting opener to seal the deal with a girl.




I’ll offer a suggestion here. Avoid dating any woman who use the word “male” in place of “man”, or even “guy”. This is a red flag that the woman you are talking with is a. a bitter cunt or b. a cunty feminist, and the Venn diagram on that is a perfect 100% overlap.

PS Notice all the “lol”s this chick scatters everywhere. She’s nervous, which means she’s experiencing rapid flushing of the genitals.

Qualifying women is a power keg of pussy ‘plosion. Women can’t resist a man who has the BALLS to hold to a tight set of standards and is willing to apply those standards where it counts: in-field, right to a woman’s face. Forget “hey I just noticed you and…” openers; hit ’em hard with “how normal are you?”, spoken matter-of-factly and without obvious affect, and watch as their eyes light up with faux indignation and their hamsters spin with myriad reasons to find out more about you. It’s pleasingly aggressive, intriguingly self-entitled, arousingly impudent, and daringly bold in a world full of timid, suck-up betas who “accept women for who they are”.

Newsflash: Women don’t want to be fully and unconditionally accepted for who they are by men. They want a man who will challenge them and make them work for his acceptance.

Maxim #45: Be less accepting of women, and women will be more accepting of you.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,541 other followers

%d bloggers like this: