Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Hope And Change

Story. Swole White shitlord men — the loyal core of Trump’s Army — chased mystery meat antifa loser phagggots down like the street curs they are, and administered beautiful beatings. What we are seeing are the first musclefrog salvos of White men taking back their nation.

This is what real hope and change looks like; not that raggedy weak-sauce hope and change the gay mulatto tepidly ejaculated whenever he wanted to snark in tacitly ominous platitudes about his beloved brown hordes repealing and replacing Heritage White America.

The times, they’re changing. And it’s antifa and the rest of the anti-White loser misfits who are on the wrong side of history.

Joshua Sinistar walks off with the COTW by accessing his id-ware to sand-blast the pretty lies from politics,

Whilst the poindexters and moneyball probability numbers crunchers argue over trifles and split hairs, let me show you the Big Picture. Don’t miss the Forest for the Trees boys. Watch and learn. What this shows clearly is ideology is all hey squirrel, smoke and mirrors. Like Proposition Nation and Civic Nationalism, its all bullshit – all of it.
What we see here is not ideology or viewpoints. Its not capitalism or socialism. Its not Free Trade or Isolationism. No -isms are involved. ITS ALL INTERESTS. Whether its single people have no kids to worry about, or races sticking together to destroy US, ITS ALL INTEREST. No ideology, or economics past personal gains.
There you have it. Conservatism and every other -ism is a MEANINGLESS DIVERSION AND DISTINCTION. ITS ALL INTEREST. IS IT GOOD FOR ME AND MINE. The more kids, the more stake in the future. More White kids means more soldiers willing to fight OUR ENEMIES for their KIDS.

I would add it goes even deeper than interests, to sexual status. What’s good for me and mine is also good for the reproductive fitness of me and mine. The lesson is a simple one: while cucks and libs thumb-suck over ideology and moral purity, their future is surrendered to remorseless warriors with less inclination to lofty intellectual calisthenics.

The Drudge Report is the number two news source online, after MSN. That’s a lot of eyeballs. As an aggregator of right-of-center news stories, Drudge is an indispensable alternative to the leftoid legacy media (LLM), but he’s just a ripple in their ocean of Narrative dominance. We need twenty more Drudges on various platforms to come close to evening the playing field.

That full spectrum LLM dominance isn’t stopping shitlib media from acts of sabotage to reduce Drudge’s influence. I’ve noticed lately when I click on a Right-leaning headline at Drudge, it leads to a story that, just under the header, is full of liberal boilerplate news reporting. What libs are doing is enticing Drudge to link to their articles with Right-sounding headlines, then tricking ensnared Drudge readers to read their libshit effluvium.

Drudge is responsible for protecting his brand. He probably has a skeleton staff that rapidly scans headlines of news stories and links to the ones that appeal most to his readership, without bothering to read further and vet the stories for Realtalk as opposed to Shitlibsnark. Maybe Drudge could institute a flagging system that allows his readers to warn others if any of his site’s links lead to articles with misleading headlines that are nothing more than leftoid narrative enforcement.

Feminism is a disease that afflicts everyone, including women, but the twisted ideology’s truly innocent victims are boys. Reader Passer By links to a Carlos Slim Personal Blog article on the “decline of men”. He comments,

Btw, just learned about some interesting studies, posted at the (((NYT)))

Basically they argue that single motherhood weakened mostly the male children, because the sisters in such one parent families perform better in life than the brothers. In normal families, there is no difference or brothers perform better.

In other words, the lack of father harms more the male child than the female child. Therefore if you want to weaken men, push for single motherhood. No wonder jews try to destroy the family in the West, while simultaneously strengthening the family in Israel. There is deliberate push to decrease male influence in western society because jews feel threatened by white males, and by their innate nationalism.

So the next time a woman tells you that there aren’t enough good men, you can answer her: there aren’t enough good men because they were raised by women.

That’s a great truth Passer By wrote. There aren’t enough good men because they were raised by women. Trigger the shit out of any feminist or mangina lackey you come across on twatmedia with that stone cold shiv, and link to the relevant study.

From the CSPB article,

In a 2016 paper, David Autor, an economist at M.I.T., and four co-authors, measured academic and economic outcomes of brothers and sisters in Florida born in the decade between 1992 and 2002.

For boys and girls raised in two-parent households, there were only modest differences between the sexes in terms of success at school, and boys tended to earn more than their sisters in early adulthood.

Among children raised in single-parent households, however, boys performed significantly less well than their sisters in school, and their employment rate as young adults was lower. “Relative to their sisters,” Autor and his collaborators wrote, “boys born to disadvantaged families” — with disadvantage measured here by mother’s marital status and education — “have higher rates of disciplinary problems, lower achievement scores, and fewer high-school completions.”

When the children in the study reached early adulthood, the same pattern emerged in employment:

Employment rates of young women are nearly invariant to family marital status, while the employment rates of young adult men from non-married families are eight to ten percentage points below those from married families at all income levels.

Autor and his co-authors conclude that family structure “is more consequential for the skills development and labor market outcomes of boys than girls.”

This study is more interesting than the run-of-the-mill research recapitulating the detrimental effects of single mommery (a major cause celebre of mainstream feminism), because its structure seems to obviate any potential genetic influence into sex-differentiated life outcomes. That is, if genetics were the cause, then the sisters of brothers in single mom broken families would have similarly poor outcomes and behavioral problems. But instead what the researchers found was that single mommery disproportionately affected the life outcomes of boys, leaving their sisters largely untouched (at least as measured by SES outcome and delinquency rate) by the single mommery postindustrial complex.

This isn’t to say genetics aren’t a factor in the shitshow that is single mommery, but it does suggest environmental pressures inherent to single mommery are at least partly to blame for making life harder on boys.

It’s just more evidence that feminism has been, and continues to be, a Hate Machine dedicated to churning out Big Lies about the sexes and about their roles in society, with the express purpose of handicapping boys and men and lavishing extreme favoritism and government largesse on girls and women.

It’s silly to argue feminism is a symptom, rather than a cause, of a broken society when its agenda has directly contributed to so much social disruption, antagonism, distrust, resentment, and national decline. This is like arguing Marxism, Freudianism, Communism, SCALE, and GloboHomoism are symptoms of some deeper, underlying, corrupting force that bedevils the West. Large, society-spanning movements are as much cause as symptom of social degeneration. We’re splitting vellus hairs here.

If one wants to argue for a First Cause of the West’s decline, the most promising culprit would be Hajnalianism, but for some reason those who find SCALE objectionable rarely tackle the subject of inherited empathobesity.

Feminism as a distinctive movement really got started as a vanity project of masculinized or otherwise oddball women who were for various reasons uncomfortable in the world of women. Its leaders — and one shouldn’t neglect to mention the preponderance of feminist leaders were and are Jewish women and their co-tribal male suckups — were able to leverage their gripes to a wider audience of women who had become frustrated and flustered and, in plenty of cases, enthused, by the postindustrial revolution shocks to the social system that, critically, severed fecundity from sex and community from individual.

There was never a feminist movement that had its origins in widespread complaints about male discrimination against working women. That is a myth. Pre-20th Century Western women worked plenty, either on the home or off it. Wives working as apprentices to their husbands’ businesses was fairly common in Medieval Europe.

What feminism has been, and what it remains today, is a propaganda howitzer to mow down the natural order and replace it with an inverted dystopia in which the defining feature is the removal of all constraints on female sexuality and the maximization of restrictions on male sexuality. As in any social movement, the breath of its life emerges first from the sticky goo of the sexual market.

Lies have consequences, and the Big Lies of Feminism and Antiracism have destroyer-of-worlds consequences. They must be fought with a vengeance.

Cordelia Fine, feminist, esq., wrote a book titled “Testosterone Rex”, which she padded with lie atop lie to bamboozle her readers into believing that there are no innate psychological differences between the sexes.

Greg Cochran decided to review the book, and a good thing too, because his destruction of Fine’s thesis is total and complete, and should in a sane world discredit her so badly that the media and academia stop providing her a public platform to propagandize her Femcunt Equalism lies.

She does not want her readers to believe that men and women have different natures – apparently because such differences, or belief in their existence, would prevent social equality of the sexes. Personally, I think the more important question is whether it’s true. But I would say that, wouldn’t I?

Rather than talk much about differences between the sexes, which would do her case no good at all, she talks about testosterone’s role in creating such differences. Testosterone is a strawman theory, here. Sex differences might be caused, in part or in whole, by biological factors other than testosterone: would disproving an incorrect testosterone-based theory make the differences go away? On the other hand, it might confuse people enough to reduce or eliminate belief in such differences. People are fairly easy to confuse.

***

There are psychological differences as well. Boys prefer rough-and-tumble play, girls prefer ‘intimate theatrical play’. Boys and girls have different toy preferences: boys like trucks, while girls prefer dolls. Interestingly, we see similar sex differences in play in other young primates, such as vervet and rhesus monkeys. Young chimpettes are known to carry a stick around, sticks that seem to be stand-ins for future babies – like dolls. Since other primates that are not exposed to anything resembling human socialization [they can’t talk] show similar play preference patterns, socialization is unlikely to be the driver of those patterns in humans, no matter how much Fine would like that to be the case.

***

Men are far more violent than women, far more likely to commit murder [and suicide], in every society. Obviously, if we see it everywhere and everywhen, the cause must be … climate change.!

***

Men take more risks, especially after puberty. Fine attempts to talk this away, as she often does. Her argumentative approach sometimes has a certain mad charm, as when she mentions her baby son rolling across the room to a power drill, juggling knives, and trying to plunge a running hair dryer into the cake mix. I guess that no truly educated person could believe in anything so obvious, so… She also steps up to ” No true Scotsman “. She defines what must be the only correct definition of a risk-prone personality – someone that tends to embrace every possible risk – and if those correlations aren’t perfect, how could there be such a thing as a risk-prone person?

***

Almost all men are sexually interested in women, and the overwhelming majority of women are sexually attracted to men. I’ve heard that there are parallels in the animal kingdom. When you think about it, it makes a twisted kind of sense. Isn’t that a psychological difference? [ed: heh]

***

Fine’s fruit fly chapter is completely pointless. This lawyerly rhetorical technique, criticizing an early experiment in order to snipe at a well-established contemporary theory, was also used by S.J. Gould in The Mismeasure of Man, when he argued that Samuel Morton had skewed his measurements of skulls to fit his preconceptions. Which was untrue – but it wouldn’t have mattered a rat’s ass if Morton had screwed up, because the art has advanced very far since Morton’s time. Today we use MRI and CAT scanners to image skulls to millimetric precision.

***

Fine takes a stab at showing that there’s isn’t much point [in terms of extra evolutionary fitness] in men getting extra mates. She comes up with an unphysical and absurd example – mentioning how unlikely it would be for 100 one-night stands to generate an extra 100 babies. That’s totally irrelevant: all it shows is that she’s innumerate. Here’s the practical example: suppose some dude has a wife and a girlfriend next door. Suppose he has intercourse 50 times with each of them over a year – both are probably going to have a kid, while with just the wife , he would have had one. 2 > 1. Am I getting too abstract here? By the way, if sexual selection doesn’t really happen, what could explain men’s huge strength advantage? Eating Wheaties?

Cochran’s flaying of Fine goes on like this for a while. Fine (and Fine-ism) must traffic in an endless procession of lies if it is to have any reason for existence. These necessary lies make them easy targets for unruly realtalkers like Cochran. One might say, for masculine truthtellers.

Feminism (aka Sex Denialism) is one of the two pillars — the other being Antiracism — supporting the greatest lie ever told to Man: Equalism, the religious belief that man is interchangeable with woman and the races interchangeable with one another. Both pillars must be attacked and reduced to smoldering rubble if the White West is to have an opening to revitalize and become great again.

Live not by lies. Which means, live not by feminism and antiracism.

PS I highly encourage CH readers to spam Cochran’s review at Fine’s Amazon link to her Book of Lies. As usual, the reviews are all from agrrocunts and mincing phaggot male feminists giving it five stars. All it would take is one brutal predatory shiv of a bad review, like Cochran’s, to send that rabbit warren scurrying in all directions.

In a fascinating research project, British archaeologists reconstructed the face of a 13th Century laborer from a skeleton excavated in Cambridge.

Physiognomy of the dead is real. The dude even has that alpha smirk.

He was just slightly over 40 years old when he died. His skeleton showed signs of considerable wear-and-tear, so he likely lead a tough and hard working life. His tooth enamel stopped growing during two occasions in his youth, suggesting he likely lived through bouts of famine or sickness when he was young. The archaeologists found traces of blunt force trauma inflicted to the back of his head, which healed over before he died. The researchers aren’t sure what he did for a living, but they think he was a working-class person who specialised in some kind of trade.

Context 958 ate a diverse diet rich in meat or fish, according to an analysis of weathering patterns on his teeth. His profession may have provided him with more access to such foods than the average person at the time. His presence at the charitable hospital suggests he fell on hard times, with no one to take care of him.

Men are expendable, women are perishable. Also, mass scaled society and its attendant disruptions of the link between affordable family formation, fertility, and old age care were evident in Medieval England.

This man looks more alpha than most American men do today. Was he representative of his time? As a poor laborer, I’d guess yes. He didn’t have the wealth or occupational status that would have set him apart physically as well as socially from the masses. His eau de alphatude was likely the norm for his era.

My hunch is that the Good Life has been Very Bad for modern man’s masculinity. We already know testosterone levels are down over the past three generations. Soft hands and crabbed faphands are the mark of modern man, a far cry from the bear mitts of Olde Alpha man. All you have to do is look around at Millennials with their furries and anime and ennui and uptalking and vocal frying and safe spaces and lackey feminism to suspect that a physiognomic, hormonal, physical, and mental degeneration of modren man is rapidly metastasizing.

And perhaps now we have a clue to why modren White woman has taken up the masculinity slack and revolted against her own men.

Physiognomy is real. Which means bitchiognomy is real. You can judge a woman by her cover. As tomjones says,

In my experience, pretty girls have the best face/body AND the best personalities.
Ugly hideous bitches have ugly hideous personalities or okay personalities. I think there is a connection between the physical beauty of the person and the beauty of the soul. Ugly ones still hope that an attractive man will get them pregnant. Then, they can trap the guy.

The Bitchy Hottie is another one of those pervasive sexual market myths that likely has its origins in the seared and stung egos of striver beta males who received polite rejections from hotties and later, reeling from the plugged up poison of their blue ball hallucinations, post hoc rationalized their loss as a victory over a bitch. Genuinely bitchy feminists are also likely candidates for fueling this myth, given that God’s miscreations have an incentive to blaspheme the good nature of Nature’s winning hands.

Yes, it’s a big myth that hot girls are bitches. Some are, sure, (I’ve dealt with a few sassy strumpets), but on the whole pretty girls are nicer than ugly girls. If a woman is treated well her whole life because she’s pretty, she’ll tend to think the world is a great place overflowing with kindness and love. Many betas confuse hot girl rejection for bitchiness, when in reality most hot girls reject men in exceedingly polite terms. It’s the fugs and marginal girls who are nasty bitches when they reject the betas they think aren’t in their league.

Here’s a handy dandy hierarchy of what I’ve observed is the “Bitchiness Quotient” of women at various SMVs along the belle curve:

A BQ of zero means the girl is nearly always exceedingly nice without being cloying. A BQ of 10 means the girl is a fat feminist writer for Salon. (“HB” = Hot Babe. “PJ” = Plain Jane. “UG” = Ugly Girl.)

VHB10 -> BQ 0
HB9 -> BQ 0-1
HB8 -> BQ 1-2
PJ7 -> BQ 3-4
PJ6 -> BQ 5-7
PJ5 -> BQ 6-10
PJ4 -> BQ 4-10
UG3 -> BQ 1-8
UG2 -> BQ 1-4
UG1 -> BQ 0-3
VUG0 -> BQ 0-1

I hope the CH readers have noticed the patterns in the above HB-BQ correlations. First, there’s a general leaning among hot babes and ugly girls toward niceness over bitchiness. Hot babe niceness is explained above (i.e., it’s easy and fun to be nice when the world loves you). Ugly girl niceness is a result of low self-esteem. When you are beaten down by life and have lost all confidence in yourself as a romantic catch, you’ll be nice to people more out of necessity than good will.

UG niceness is similar to the Niceguy’s deference; neither one feels as though they have social elbow room to fly their hate flag or even show mild disapproval when slighted. Neither one would dare express their true feelings to another person or a group if they believed there was even a tiny chance their words would be misconstrued as anything less than fulsome praise or abject supplication. This is the prison low value people live in; a cramped world in which all thoughts are checked to avoid the omnipresent threat, always nearer for them than for their betters, of social expulsion.

However, one difference between the insta-personalities of HBs and UGs is the variance. HBs are rarely unpleasant. In contrast, UGs on the boundary between ugliness and mediocrity span the niceness gamut; not a few are repulsive bitches, having turned to the snark side by an Inner Palpatine coaxing them to embrace their pariah status. Smart, overeducated UGs are the most prominent, and worst, example of this breed. They survive by banding together, so you will rarely deal with them mano-a-monster.

The BQ sour spot is the middle of the female beauty curve, smack dab in Plain Jane country. The 4s, 5s, 6s, and sometimes 7s are the girls who were born into bitchiness, molded by it, and have emerged from the other side skilled at lashing out in the general direction of any approaching man. Plain Janes have enormous chips on their shoulders from endlessly straddling that labial wedge between cute-enough-for-betas and not-cute-enough-for-alphas. The pressure of this wedge is exacerbated by the entitled self-assurance of the omega and beta males who hit on them without their consent, and by the evasiveness of the alpha males who toy with them with their consent.

Plain Janes are as likely, if not more likely, to be bitches as to be half-hearted nicegirls, and when they’re bitches they aim to be the biggest bitches on earth. The Plain Jane is occasionally nice, but then only to men well out of her league, for whom she nurses an unreasonable expectation of reciprocated desire, partly inflamed by the paternal kindness of these men toward her. To all others, including hot women, the Plain Jane is an annoying cockblock too full of herself, unless she has been blessed with a predisposition for circumstance-immune niceness.

High BQ PJs often wind up childless spinsters by their mid-30s because they couldn’t suffer the indignity of settling, especially if they have wasted their prime nubility years on a quixotic quest to ensnare alpha cock beyond the pump and dump statute of relegation. HBs don’t settle (much), and the UG’s gratitude for any man, however lowly, who shows her love overrides her distaste for settling.

Aging beauties are another demo that has a high BQ. Totally understandable, if still noxious. The 21-year-old HB8 who by inevitability of age has degraded to a PJ6 as early as her 30th birthday is right down there with the overeducated UG0 in quickness to resort to repellent bitchiness for no apparent reason. The cunty cougar and odious spinster aren’t stereotypes for nothing.

Ya know, patriarchy would solve all these problems that bedevil mediocre women.

%d bloggers like this: