• Home
  • Diversity + Proximity = War: The Reference List
  • Shit Cuckservatives Say
  • The Sixteen Commandments Of Poon
  • Alpha Assessment Submissions
  • Beta Of The Year Contest Submissions
  • Dating Market Value Test For Men
  • Dating Market Value Test For Women
  • About

Chateau Heartiste

Feeds:
Posts
Comments
« America The Beautiful, 2013
Contraceptives And Cuckoldry »

Choice Quotes From Michel Houellebecq

February 4, 2013 by CH

Michel Houellebecq is the patron prophet and Saint Shiv of Chateau Heartiste. He is a Frenchman novelist who grasps the essential corrosive nature of modern Western society, and who is unafraid to tell it like it is (in language poetic enough to disarm the outer defenses of the Cathedral). Here are a few choice quotes from his books which, I am sure you will agree, closely align with the CH message.

It’s a fact, I mused to myself, that in societies like ours sex truly represents a second system of differentiation, completely independent of money; and as a system of differentiation it functions just as mercilessly. The effects of these two systems are, furthermore, strictly equivalent. Just like unrestrained economic liberalism, and for similar reasons, sexual liberalism produces phenomena of absolute pauperization. Some men make love every day; others five or six times in their life, or never. Some make love with dozens of women, others with none. It’s what’s known as ” the law of the market”. In an economic system where unfair dismissal is prohibited, every person more or less manages to find their place. In a sexual system where adultery is prohibited, every person more or less manages to find their bed mate. In a totally liberal economic system certain people accumulate considerable fortunes; others stagnate in unemployment and misery. In a totally liberal sexual system certain people have a varied and exciting erotic life; others are reduced to masturbation and solitude…………

Love as a kind of innocence and as a capacity for illusion, as an aptitude for epitomizing the whole of the other sex in a single loved being rarely resists a year of sexual immorality, and never two. In reality the successive sexual experiences accumulated during adolescence undermine and rapidly destroy all possibility of projection of an emotional and romantic sort; progressively, and in fact extremely quickly, one becomes as capable of love as an old slag.

– Whatever, quoted in a review of the novels of Michel Houellebecq, “The Suicide of the West“.

The sexual market is not just differentiated from the money market; it is foundational of it. The money market is subordinate to the sexual market, though most times to the conscious observer it seems as if the money motive is all there is. But the exquisite perfidy of the sexual market relies in good part on its shadowy functioning. It works out of sight and mind because few can, or are willing to, discern its intricate workings, and even then, fully discerned and understood, it continues working. Its power is absolute.

Houellebecq here correctly identifies the winners and losers in the liberalized sexual market, and his hierarchy matches the writings uncovered on ancient CH scrolls:

Alpha males: biggest winners.
Alpha females: marginal winners.
Beta females: marginal losers.
Beta males: biggest losers.
Omega males and females: same as it ever was.

But the alpha male suffers a penalty of the soul for his embarrassing riches. As the commenter The Man Who Was… put it:

“Success with women is more disillusioning than failure.”

Houellebecq says much the same. The least romantic are those who have gorged on romance. Like economic prosperity, fulfillment of man’s deepest desires is the very success that suffocates his idealism, crushes his hope, and enervates his spirit.

The only known cure for a failing empire, like 2013 America, is economic and social collapse, to seed the ground for rebirth. Similarly, the only known cure for a bifurcated, winner-take-all sexual market, is collapse of equalism, that wrong-headed ideology which assumes the sexes are interchangeable. The collapse is inevitable, whether it happens all at once or slowly, because these forces, having been set in motion generations, perhaps millennia ago, perhaps even set in motion at the very beginnings of humanity, are incorruptible. One cannot manage or reason with the Gods of the Copybook Headings. The prime directive, will, once again, as it has done so many times before, shatter all illusions.

***

It is interesting to note that the “sexual revolution” was sometimes portrayed as a communal utopia, whereas in fact it was simply another stage in the historical rise of individualism. As the lovely word “household” suggests, the couple and the family would be the last bastion of primitive communism in liberal society. The sexual revolution was to destroy these intermediary communities, the last to separate the individual from the market. The destruction continues to this day.

– The Elementary Particles

The modern leftoid is not a Communist. He is a radical indivdualist. The nuclear family is the final defense against unfettered individualism. Hence, the need for its destruction. As long as there are functioning nuclear families, there is the possibility for in-groupism, tribal loyalty, and nationalism. And these are anathema to certain peoples. The Western man has at last been reduced to a gram of currency, rendered powerless, unable to perceive his growing powerlessness as his sinister baubles and superficial dopamine fixes become more entertaining, distracting, and enfeebling.

***

To increase desires to an unbearable level whilst making the fulfillment of them more and more inaccessible: this was the single principle upon which Western society was based.

– The Possibility of an Island

Modern Western society has been one giant compliance hoop, to borrow a term from the pick-up literature. Maybe a better way to describe modern Western society is as the mother of all cockteases. The Western man has been orbiting in the LJBF zone for decades, gratification and glory so tantalizingly near, a simulacrum of the moist pleasures of kingship held to his parched lips, yet at the same time all this has remained light years from his possessive clutch, cruelly mocking him from a guarded, viewable distance. As a reader comments:

Show men endless images of beautiful models and actresses and singers, show them endless images of beautiful, slim, women engaging in sex with enthusiasm, tell them that a world of uncommitted and marriageless sex is the norm — then, for reasons they don’t understand, slam the door in their face.

This is not a prescription for long term stability.

We are the front lines of a grand sociological experiment the fruits of which are just now beginning to ripen. There is no way to know the exact contours it will trace, because nothing of this precise nature on this gargantuan scale has befallen an entire civilization of our size, until now. But if past performance of similar civilizational devolutions is indicative of future returns, there is little cause for optimism. The omens are everywhere.

Share this:

  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

Related

Posted in Alpha, Culture, The Id Monster, Ugly Truths | 310 Comments

310 Responses

  1. on February 4, 2013 at 12:08 pm ArtyB

    “To increase desires to an unbearable level whilst making the fulfillment of them more and more inaccessible: this was the single principle upon which Western society was based.”

    I had another take on this quote: that Western society was at its best when there was tension between people’s desires and the ability to fulfill them. This tension was the energy which drove Western man to his greatest accomplishments. It was difficult to get nookie without marrying, and you wouldn’t marry a good woman until you did something with your life. So Western man accomplished much in the search for nookie.

    Now as the barriers between desire and fulfillment fall, and no responsibility is acknowledged except responsibility to people as individuals (rather than any social responsibility), there is no tension on the bowstring which would propel us to great heights. Why compose great artwork when you can fuck a girl for the cost of two tequila shots? Or just stay home and jerk off?

    LikeLike


    • on February 4, 2013 at 1:04 pm Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM)

      basically da elitez fiatz masterz have declared prima noctae on yer future wives so they can buttcock and deosulez themz zlzlzlzlzlzo

      LikeLike


      • on February 4, 2013 at 1:05 pm Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM)

        Bring Back Prima Noctes! Braveheart: “Grant them prima noctes. First night, when any common girl inhabiting their lands is married, our nobles shall have sexual rights to her on the night of her wedding.” lolzlz!

        “Longshanks: Nobles. Nobles are the key to the door of Scotland. Grant our nobles lands in the north. Give their nobles estates here in England, and make them too greedy to oppose us.
        Advisor: But sire, our nobles will be reluctant to uproot. New lands mean new taxes, and they are already taxed for the war in France.
        Longshanks: Are they? Are they? The trouble with Scotland is that it’s full of Scots. Perhaps the time has come to reinstitute an old custom. Grant them prima noctes. First night, when any common girl inhabiting their lands is married, our nobles shall have sexual rights to her on the night of her wedding. If we can’t get them out, we breed them out. That should fetch just the kind of lords we want to Scotland, taxes or no taxes.
        Advisor: A most excellent idea, sire.
        Longshanks: Is it? “

        –From Braveheart

        I wish they would bring Prima Noctes back!!

        Imagine just one other man having rights to your wife, for one night, before you got her.

        That would rock!!

        Today the master fiat class gives the first rights of your wife to an endless array of douchetards, starting in elementary school, commanding her to see lying, peacocking, manipulative, girly beta males as alphas, while seeing manly alphas as betas; as her mother exiled her true father long ago, under command of the fiat masters.

        From an early age they teach her that her ginatingles rule the world, not Jesus, nor Thor, nor Zeus, nor Moses. When she gets knocked up, they reward her with fiat dollars which Ben Benanke hand delivers in his helicopter.

        Today, when she kisses those kids and sends them off to school, she leaves traces of dozens of other men on their cheeks.

        Make no mistake–she is working for the Fed, and if you question any of this she will take your children away and the feminist police will search your home to determine how many assets of yours she will get. For again, all the Fed can do is create debt, and to convert this debt into physical wealth, they need men, like you, to work and labor for it. lozlzlzl!

        You know you tasted it when you kissed her a couple times on those early dates–that salty prima nocta form those who violated her orfices a few minutes before. And now she pwns u, the kids, and the home! And you have to pay 4 ur own cuckolding!!

        lozlzl!

        LikeLike


      • on February 4, 2013 at 1:43 pm Anonymous

        GBFM… never gets old.

        LikeLike


      • on February 4, 2013 at 1:51 pm Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM)

        lzozozozlzolz
        da gbfm never gets old
        like da dust-covered mba pussies of da americanz womenz
        who’s lives were sold to the lies they were told
        promised dat they coud have it all
        lotsa cockas in every orififce
        and yet somehow never fall
        zlzozlzoozozozozozozozozoz

        da reason dat da gbfm never goes down on pussy over 24 years old is dat i don’t have and can’t affordall the proper hazmat equipment which includes:

        1. six cans of industrial strength lysol
        2. diving mask and self contained breathing apparatus
        3. triple-layer, nuclear-grade hazmat suit
        4. $10,000,000 liability insurance policy
        5. two-way radio with backup
        6. flamethrower (some stds are snansstty nasty!)
        7. map, compass, and military-grade gps device
        8. last will and testamentz
        9. robotic arm operated form withing deep sea capsule
        10. multiple passports like da jason bournez lzozlzlzo

        LikeLike


      • on February 4, 2013 at 6:43 pm anonymous

        LOZZLOLZLOLZOLLLZOZOLOZLZOLzozlolzolzOLZOLZOLZOZL

        LikeLike


      • on February 4, 2013 at 1:51 pm Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM)

        lzozozozlzolz
        da gbfm never gets old
        like da dust-covered mba pussies of da americanz womenz
        who’s lives were sold to the lies they were told
        promised dat they coud have it all
        lotsa cockas in every orififce
        and yet somehow never fall
        zlzozlzoozozozozozozozozoz

        da reason dat da gbfm never goes down on pussy over 24 years old is dat i don’t have and can’t affordall the proper hazmat equipment which includes:

        1. six cans of industrial strength lysol
        2. diving mask and self contained breathing apparatus
        3. triple-layer, nuclear-grade hazmat suit
        4. $10,000,000 liability insurance policy
        5. two-way radio with backup
        6. flamethrower (some stds are snansstty nasty!)
        7. map, compass, and military-grade gps device
        8. last will and testamentz
        9. robotic arm operated form withing deep sea capsule
        10. multiple passports like da jason bournez lzozlzlzo

        LikeLike


      • on February 4, 2013 at 4:49 pm lol

        “From an early age they teach her that her ginatingles rule the world, not Jesus, nor Thor, nor Zeus, nor Moses.”

        Who told her that? The same people who told her your little cockas longings actually matter, and that your crappy grammar disguises your true identity when it doesnt at all?

        LikeLike


      • on February 4, 2013 at 4:55 pm Zombie Shane

        In reality the successive sexual experiences accumulated during adolescence undermine and rapidly destroy all possibility of projection of an emotional and romantic sort; progressively, and in fact extremely quickly, one becomes as capable of love as an old slag.

        “capable” = incapable?

        Or is the idea that an “old slag” is incapable of love?

        Apparently “slag” has about a bazillion different meanings in English – and I’m not particularly familiar with the term.

        LikeLike


      • on February 20, 2013 at 10:00 am Anonymous

        Slag is synonymous with slut in English slang.

        LikeLike


      • on February 5, 2013 at 3:40 pm yaser

        “I wish they would bring Prima Noctes back!!

        Imagine just one other man having rights to your wife, for one night, before you got her.

        That would rock!!

        Today the master fiat class gives the first rights of your wife to an endless array of… ”

        OMFG GBFM, that was the funnies thing i have read for the whole week… month ? year? idk, but it was awesome!

        LikeLike


      • on February 4, 2013 at 2:25 pm Firepower

        Houellebecq
        Shmouellebecq

        Never has anybody, fixated on puss
        ever changed the world – or ruled it.

        Especially a Frenchie: Today, they can’t even run immigrant muzz in Paris.

        England is NOT our future: France is.

        LikeLike


      • on February 5, 2013 at 11:48 am Obstinance Works

        Ghengis Khan, Solomon or not.

        LikeLike


      • on February 8, 2013 at 3:44 pm Firepower

        Got any examples
        NOT between ONE and
        THREE Millenia?

        LikeLike


  2. on February 4, 2013 at 12:12 pm Flavia

    I would say alpha females (if I think you define alpha female as I do: 9-10s with no major personality flaws) are actually the biggest losers. Here’s why:

    Why would an alpha male commit to what is traditionally his true partner, the alpha female, if he can go around easily banging a sea of slutty 7s and 8s with no commitment, or frankly hardly any effort. Alphas used to marry 9s and tens, because most respectable women did not sleep around (or at all), and the best way to ensure sex with a beautiful, sweet girl was to marry her, or at least get engaged. Now that most people sleep around, Alpha men, who are less picky than Alpha women have their pick of anything 9 and below- so why deal with the demands of a ten, when an 8 is literally going to blow you in the parking lot after you buy her two drinks? No commitment necessary. The prize for women has changed from marriage to the disgustingly masculine art of “notches”. You are the prize.

    So, Alpha females then outnumber commitment minded Alpha males (Sigmas, I believe they are called, yes? Very few and far between) and some- especially the entitled ones (and what 9 or 10 is not entitled)….wait around for what they think is their rightful partner who is to busy nailing chicks below his league. So the ones who don’t snatch the Sigmas must settle for a high beta (making them a LOSER in the SMP since they do “deserve” an Alpha), or wait around until their market value collapses with age and land a Beta or lower, losing even more.

    Tip to the ladies, especially high value ladies: Whatever you think you are “settling” for at 24, will be the gem of your life at 34. Take it. Alpha girls DO NOT benefit from the destruction of our traditional values.

    TL;DR- Sluts ruined it for beautiful girls.

    LikeLike


    • on February 4, 2013 at 12:17 pm M

      “Tip to the ladies, especially high value ladies: Whatever you think you are “settling” for at 24, will be the gem of your life at 34. Take it.”

      Seriously … How can someone you don’t respect at 24 become the gem of your life ten years later? Settling is not LOVE and you’re an idiot.

      LikeLike


      • on February 4, 2013 at 12:27 pm ArtyB

        I think you missed the point there, that the search for love from a good man will be frustrating, disappointing, and unsuccessful because of all the easy pussy out there. I know you have a great big intellect because you call people stupid so callously, but…

        LikeLike


      • on February 4, 2013 at 12:31 pm JironGhrad

        You obviously don’t understand, M. Society tells you at 24 that you have to be working and focusing on your career and “sowing your oats” and that leveraging your market value (at the highest it’s ever going to be) to get the best possible relationship is the wrong direction.

        Society is wrong, because the sexual market is like the stock market… sell when high; but women are declining value stocks and instead of selling the whole company at the highest value, they sell off little bits at a time until their stock is run into the ground and they have nothing but memories to show for it.

        LikeLike


      • on February 4, 2013 at 12:48 pm Flavia

        You and Arty got it. Everyone “settles”- you settle on a car, on a job, and yes, on a spouse. It now has a bad connotation- probably because feminists/media have fooled women into thinking (to change the Fight Club quote) …..”We all deserve to be with millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars. But we don’t. And we’re slowly learning that fact. And we’re very, very old.”

        Settling means you look at your options, realistically, and choose what is best available to you, at the best time to “buy.” Meaning, a woman should really be thinking about her (realistic) options in her early 20s, not still pining for the perfect man (WTF is that anyway?) in her 30s.

        In a way, M, you fool, you have missed the entire point. Loving someone truly and unconditionally, DESPITE their flaws (i.e. “settling”) is more of a testament to true love and devotion, than seeking, and even finding perfection.

        But maybe you’re right, maybe I shouldn’t have “settled” for my husband at 21, who is handsome, strong, a leader, smart, SWOL, honest, caring, faithful, hard-working, funny, etc etc, and should have tried to find someone JUST like him, 2 inches taller, with 100k more in the bank, and who can dance. What an idiot I’ve been indeed, thank you for letting me see the error of my ways.

        LikeLike


      • on February 4, 2013 at 12:50 pm JironGhrad

        The other point I’d raise to all those foolish women seeking the “perfect man”… if he’s so perfect, why the fuck would he want you, unless you’re perfect too?

        LikeLike


      • on February 4, 2013 at 12:53 pm Flavia

        Agreed. True love is total acceptance of the person…the good, and especially the bad.

        Women looking for the “perfect man” are usually not much of a prize themselves. Perhaps it is a defense mechanism? Reject them before they reject you?

        LikeLike


      • on February 4, 2013 at 1:08 pm Matthew King (King A)

        Brilliance all around, Flavia. You are unusually incisive. That quality is not coincidental to your restrained sexual history, and there is a reason why you stand out among women in that regard. A blossom in a field of manure.

        Make babies, especially daughters.

        Matt

        LikeLike


      • on February 4, 2013 at 1:10 pm M

        Looking for love is not the same as looking for perfection.

        LikeLike


      • on February 4, 2013 at 1:25 pm Arronski (@Arronski)

        Yup (in response to Flavia) – I’ve often felt like it’s easier to get an 8 than a 6. Probably because 8s are feminine and don’t bring a bunch of ego-defense mechanisms to the interaction.

        LikeLike


      • on February 4, 2013 at 4:38 pm Flavia

        Thanks, Matt. I’m working on it 😀

        LikeLike


      • on February 4, 2013 at 6:50 pm Matthew King (King A)

        Need some help? Hubby shooting blanks?

        LikeLike


      • on February 5, 2013 at 9:44 am Flavia

        LOL, NO HELP! I’m knocked up.

        LikeLike


      • on February 5, 2013 at 12:43 pm Matthew King (King A)

        May you have them three-at-a-time then.

        You are adding to your legend: to think so clearly not just as a woman but a pregnant woman? I wouldn’t have believed it possible.

        The rare attention whore deserves the attention, Firepower.

        What’s more, I make no apologies for buttering up a woman with a biscuit in the oven. Flavia is not the first. Betas beware the shameless cuckolder. Got to stay on your toes at all times, you don’t magically get nine months off the hypergamy watch. Especially when Eve’s curse really kicks in at the last trimester and they get inexplicably restless between the thighs. God is a prankster.

        Matt

        LikeLike


      • on February 4, 2013 at 1:22 pm jlw

        “Settling means you look at your options, realistically, and choose what is best available to you, at the best time to “buy.””

        And sometimes that best option is to not accept what you are left with and instead settle for nothing. Remember: beggars can be choosers – they can always settle for nothing.

        LikeLike


      • on February 4, 2013 at 1:28 pm M

        For me, settling for a guy you don’t love is morally repulsive because by doing so you steal him the chance for being truly loved and respected by a woman.

        LikeLike


      • on February 5, 2013 at 3:29 am heh

        Which is why you are still a virgin at 40 maya.

        LikeLike


      • on February 4, 2013 at 12:50 pm Flavia

        True love is acceptance of the good and the bad, fool.

        LikeLike


      • on February 4, 2013 at 1:13 pm M

        Yeah, OK. But if you want to start loving someone you first have to feel some sexual chemistry, don’t you think?

        LikeLike


      • on February 4, 2013 at 1:29 pm Flavia

        I think we may have different ideas of what settling is. For women, settling can be seen as not finding exactly what the media has told you that you deserve, i.e. a male unicorn. But of course there needs to be love, sexual chemistry, etc. I am mostly speaking about demanding women with a notebook full of “musts” or neckbeards who point out a 7s pointy elbows.

        LikeLike


      • on February 4, 2013 at 2:04 pm M

        OK, sorry for calling you an idiot. Hope you will forgive me. Anyway, I think most sane men and women are not looking for perfection. Love and respect is enough. But for many, even this is extremely difficult to find. Pretty women have no idea about how uglier/older women feel.

        LikeLike


      • on February 4, 2013 at 2:12 pm Flavia

        I guess not.

        …..and it’s ok, I am surely an idiot about many things.

        LikeLike


      • on February 4, 2013 at 3:22 pm JironGhrad

        @M “Pretty women have no idea about how uglier/older women feel.”

        The point that some of us are making is that they WILL. Because let’s face it, beauty is only skin deep, but cock-carousel-riding, bitch-cuntery lasts a lifetime. And a business that squanders the best assets that they have in 10 years of wasteful, careless mismanagement (riding that carousel) is not going to make that company sound (with a committed significant-other of any value) once those assets are all used up (and with most of those marginal women… 10 years is being very generous).

        LikeLike


      • on February 4, 2013 at 6:04 pm Anon

        Being called an idiot by Maya is a badge of honor.

        LikeLike


      • on February 4, 2013 at 6:30 pm anotheronetakesthepill

        “For me, settling for a guy you don’t love is morally repulsive because by doing so you steal him the chance for being truly loved and respected by a woman.”

        Oh. Of course, you leave someone and you do it for HIS benefit …

        behold the amazing hamster!

        LikeLike


      • on February 6, 2013 at 5:00 pm DarkTriad

        “Seriously … How can someone you don’t respect at 24 become the gem of your life ten years later?”

        You’ve got to learn to get over your self esteem issues.. Meaning, don’t have way more self esteem than is warranted. It will be easier to repsect your equals then,

        LikeLike


    • on February 4, 2013 at 1:11 pm Blessent

      Houellebecq dramatically illustrates Flavia’s point in his novel The Elementary Particles (aka Atomised) with his character Annabelle.

      LikeLike


    • on February 4, 2013 at 1:15 pm Lara

      There are still a lot of high value men willing to commit. I would say get them before age 30, otherwise they start thinking they’re better than you.

      LikeLike


      • on February 4, 2013 at 1:23 pm Hugh G. Rection

        Which quite possibly, they are.

        LikeLike


      • on February 4, 2013 at 6:30 pm JironGhrad

        I think you mean “most probably”. Just saying.

        LikeLike


      • on February 4, 2013 at 1:50 pm Anon

        Any marriage where the bride is more than 25 yo is a scam.

        LikeLike


      • on February 4, 2013 at 9:06 pm Big Ern

        That’s brilliant, belongs on a plaque

        LikeLike


      • on February 4, 2013 at 10:07 pm Antifeminist One

        The Chinese have done that already:
        http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/10/13/feminism-chinese-style/

        God bless them.

        LikeLike


    • on February 4, 2013 at 1:17 pm Lara

      Or be willing to look for a much older man, which is okay, too.

      LikeLike


      • on February 4, 2013 at 1:23 pm M

        Sure, we should look for hot pensioners looking for free geriatric care.

        LikeLike


      • on February 4, 2013 at 1:30 pm Kate

        lol- that’s the spirit! Now here’s some more positivity from one of the tweeted articles: “According to the study, female dating value drops into the negative range at age 47.” At least you’re not in the negative values yet 🙂

        There are also some divorced men who have a better understanding of commitment than some “never marrieds”: especially, if you are an improvement on the looks/attitude of the ex-wife.

        LikeLike


      • on February 4, 2013 at 2:19 pm Stuki

        On average, to sync up SMV decline rates between partners, hence minimizing the tensions that stem from long periods of one being an 8 while the other a 4, women should look for someone approx 15 years older than them. A women at 22 marrying a man at 22, if both are 8ths at the time, will hit 47 (being a zero per article!), while a guy who is an 8 at 22, is likely still an 8 at 47, after having been a 9 or 10 at some point in between. In a world where kids are taught to pity and ridicule anyone even remotely decent and altruistic, the odds of an 8 hanging onto a 0 are not particularly good.

        As a bonus, this 15 year “rule” also ensures husband is unlikely to require geriatric care while mom is busy raising kids (mom fertile to 40 -> dad sires youngest kid at 55; kids out of house when he’s 70-75 -> mom gets a few years of going spin crazy from being “useless” and having noone to care for -> mom takes care of dad -> dad dies, mom gets to live out the rest of her life drawing down whatever money dad left, being proud of her family and babbling about woman stuff with her also widowed friends). If the age difference is much more than 15 years, having to raise children while daddy is bedridden does become a realistic concern, unless daddy is rich enough to have a staff, which isn’t all that uncommon amongst those who marry 20+ year younger women.

        Just being practical. Sorry if that makes me less than exciting.

        LikeLike


      • on February 4, 2013 at 3:17 pm popups

        I haven’t had much luck with older men (15+) After reading all of the comments in the manosphere from older men saying they’d prefer a young wife…. I thought it would be much easier than this.
        They all think I’m some toy and don’t believe I’d want anything serious.

        I’m 22 😦 Would like to meet a 38-40 year old, but the ones I find are mostly divorced and bitter.

        suggestions?

        LikeLike


      • on February 4, 2013 at 8:39 pm zombie@shane.com

        I’m 22 Would like to meet a 38-40 year old, but the ones I find are mostly divorced and bitter.

        BITTER = BETA!!!

        A divorced guy, at that age, who still hasn’t figured “it” out [i.e. that women want cheerful, upbeat, self-motivated, masculine men – not slouching, shuffling, morose, beta-herbling losers], is a guy whom you want to avoid at all costs.

        If I were you, then I’d be surfing the big conservative evangelical [possibly even “mega”] churches in town, looking for the guys who own their own businesses [i.e. are “self-employed”] or who have been entrusted with some pretty significant responsiblities by their bosses [on the order of “regional” or “state” director of this or that].

        When you meet such a guy, give him a firm handshake, gaze longingly in his eyes, and quickly work into the conversation that you LOVE kids, that you want six or eight or ten kids of your own, and that [if necessary] you would be a great step-mom.

        In fact, a really outstanding method for weaseling your way into his life would be to start off as his kids’ baby-sitter, and then just to let things flow naturally from there.

        If he has kids, and if his kids bond well with you, and if you’re hot, then it shouldn’t be very long [no more than a week or two] before he’s banging the ever-loving daylights out of you.

        LikeLike


      • on February 4, 2013 at 9:30 pm Big Ern

        popups, I would say, keep trying. Eventually you’ll meet an OK one, I’d think. Good luck.

        LikeLike


      • on February 5, 2013 at 2:16 pm Stuki

        Do you act like a toy?

        If so, why would anyone risk betting that some plaything will suddenly morph into a full fledged woman, to be trusted with rearing ones children?

        Otherwise, if you are a decent looking 22 year old, seriously looking to be the loving and devoted wife to a man in his prime marrying years, and still can’t find anyone, you must travel in some sorry circles. Or, perhaps, American women have collectively become so completely and utterly useless for anything but pump and dumps that every guy looking for more have already left the sinking ship for greener pastures abroad?

        LikeLike


      • on February 6, 2013 at 8:22 pm itsme

        just be yourself.

        LikeLike


      • on February 4, 2013 at 4:45 pm Strauss

        22 + 15 = 37

        LikeLike


      • on February 4, 2013 at 8:21 pm itsme

        math is hard for girls.

        LikeLike


      • on February 5, 2013 at 11:56 am Obstinance Works

        Girls are stupid.

        LikeLike


      • on February 5, 2013 at 2:15 pm MarcoP

        M, you’ve got some gall calling other people idiots. Your stupidity and cuntbitchyness are beyond belief.

        LikeLike


      • on February 4, 2013 at 1:39 pm Flavia

        Yes, but with a much older man you get into the issue of exes, and stepkids, and blended families, which is certainly far from the ideal.

        I think you’re right about before 30…because after 30 they get the “OMG I RODE THE CAROUSEL AND IM 29 NEED TO GET MARRIED ASAP” wave of girls. But I think smart guys are cottoning on to being the last musical chair….

        LikeLike


    • on February 4, 2013 at 2:28 pm Firepower

      daaayum
      look at ALL the attention!
      Imagine how much you’d get
      – with a really smokin’ hot avatar

      LikeLike


    • on February 5, 2013 at 2:19 pm Cyrus

      There is not a single 9/10 I’ve been with that did NOT have a major personality flaw.

      Now honestly I haven’t been with enough of these gems to speak for all of them. I like your definition, but by your definition, there’s no alpha females anymore.

      Alpha females are something that is scarcely discussed on CH, one day I hope to handle them better than I have in the past.

      There’s two types of “alpha females” I’ve seen, and very rarely does a group of females even have an alpha in their midst –

      1. is the girl significantly hotter than her friends, she makes all of the decisions, the world is her movie and her friends are her supporting cast. Her friends secretly despise her. On weekends where she’s horny (and she’s always horny, dat dere high testosterone), she will bail from her friends to get fucked while her follower hens rush to follow suit – and all of the men who get laid by the followers that night have the alpha female to thank.

      You’ll notice that if an alpha female is actually into you, her friends will NOT cockblock. Such a travesty of trampling on an alpha female’s game is a risk too big for the beta follower girls to take. Dare I say it, if she has a “falling out” with her alpha female, she takes a huge blow to her SMV and mate selection, because alpha females of this type generally surround themselves with the most desirable men.

      And, if she does have a falling out with her alpha female, the chance that this girl actually “befriends” (lol @ the word “friend” used with girls) another alpha female, even with a population of 6.8 billion is slim to NONE.

      While an alpha male is generally 1 in 5 to 1 in 10 males, an alpha female is more like 1 in 1000. Most “friendgroups” of girls lack an alpha female.

      An alpha female in my mind who follows this first definition essentially sees men the same way men see women – as a sex object in the most utilitarian way possible.

      2. The other type includes all sorts of crazies like HPD’s, daddy’s-girls, princesses. You could plot on a mathematical curve the hotness of a girl and the amount of shit men will put up with. These lucky few alpha females are at the asymptote of this graph – and because of this, they say and do whatever they want.

      This is, unfortunately, the type of 9/10 girl I attract as well. They tend to grow dependent rather quickly, and unlike the former group of alpha females they have a hard time making and keeping friends because they have no restraint on what they say – very few (if any) men put them in their place.

      Whether a 1 or a 2, I still think alpha females end up as marginal winners…..most of the time. Marginal winners is a key, because if one of these alpha females comes across an alpha male who makes her head spin, and she doesn’t end up with him as a mate, she’ll be ruined for other guys and she herself will end up being a loser as well.

      LikeLike


    • on February 5, 2013 at 2:47 pm Anon

      “Sluts ruined it for beautiful girls” – depends on how you see it.. i see this moral decline as like a fire. some see fire as a destructive force, but i see it as the force that purifies and refines gold, melting away impurities. Weak females getting caught up in the fire of moral decline seeking “notches” will melt away, but the true gold will remain. Depends on whether a male decides to lower his standards of value and sweep up the fool’s gold, or raise his standards and only accept the pure gold.

      of course, the best way to sift through the two types of gold is to get your hands dirty, getting to know the properties and characteristics of both, so you know what youre dealing with in the future… not just sit back and hope “the right gold” falls in your lap.

      my TL;DR response: sluts are fun, and raise my standards of truly good women.

      LikeLike


      • on February 5, 2013 at 3:23 pm Flavia

        I do see where this Libertarian argument is coming from, but it does not respect the crushing power that media and academia have on our society. Most manboobs and sluts are “good” people, potentially great and moral people who are just acting in what they perceive is their best interest.

        Compounded that with the fact that most human beings can’t really behave properly when “free” – hence why we get feral without “noblesse oblige” and a shame/rule based society.

        The “good people should know better” argument is valid after a certain amount of ‘g’ – but I certainly cannot hold 95 IQ proles who actually have faith media and institutions to the same rigor.

        Like that Tool song, right? “What you need is someone strong to guide you.”

        LikeLike


      • on February 6, 2013 at 2:24 pm Lily

        “some see fire as a destructive force, but i see it as the force that purifies and refines gold, melting away impurities. Weak females getting caught up in the fire of moral decline seeking “notches” will melt away, but the true gold will remain.”

        I love this analogy. It’s very true, and it’s true for everything else in this current society.

        This culture is the fire, filed with many temptations and wrong behaviors. Only people with strong moral fiber and strong convictions will remain unaffected at the end of the day. Same with the chicks. If they allow the culture to sweep them up, they will be swept away. We already see those girls with no husbands and no children, with unsatisfying lives, moping around and enviously looking at their happily married counterparts.

        LikeLike


    • on February 5, 2013 at 3:53 pm yaser

      I love this this site. I love the Internet. I love you guys. no homo. (just to piss feminists off)

      LikeLike


  3. on February 4, 2013 at 12:12 pm M

    Like economic prosperity, fulfillment of man’s deepest desires is the very success that suffocates his idealism, crushes his hope, and enervates his spirit.

    I don’t get that … Meaningless casual sex is the “fulfillment of man’s deepest desires”? I thought sex with a beautiful, young and feminine girl is …

    LikeLike


    • on February 4, 2013 at 1:34 pm universe

      One take. Although I may have missed the essence.
      Corruptions can occur when monumental successes are attained. What else is left to do at the pinnacle, except more firm idealism.
      Absence of deeper or more stringent ideals could result in the commencement of being at odds with protecting, for its own sake, what was once strenously accumulated or for acquiring more. Or the sense of it. Detraction from character.

      Extra acquisition of sex with pinnacle seeking beautiful girls is a side-show.
      Enticing but limiting.

      LikeLike


  4. on February 4, 2013 at 12:29 pm Nick

    The question is do we sit poolside, fight what looks to be a hopeless battle or escape to places where women are still feminine, thin and desirable. Having just spent six months in Eastern Europe my impression of women in Northern California is even worse than before. Thy’re simply not worth the effort, when more beautiful and inspiring women from my ancestral homeland are far more desirable and loyal. Though social and economic collapse is probably the only “cure” to the ills of the West, I don’t care to be a front-row spectator.

    @Flavia – beautiful girls, encouraged by feminists, ruined it for themselves by becoming sluts

    LikeLike


    • on February 4, 2013 at 12:57 pm Flavia

      I’d only change “themselves” to “all girls.” Every girl isn’t a slut, but there are enough sluts to make chaste girls somewhat superfluous- especially if they are looking to date around their age range.

      LikeLike


      • on February 5, 2013 at 6:47 pm Lily

        “there are enough sluts to make chaste girls somewhat superfluous- especially if they are looking to date around their age range.”

        That’s the whole point. Chaste girls have it so hard because men don’t appreciate or want virgins when they can get girls throwing themselves at men without needing a commitment. Sluts hurt all women, especially ones looking for husbands.

        LikeLike


    • on February 4, 2013 at 1:03 pm Matthew King (King A)

      Men fight. It is not “hopeless.” It only seems that way when you obsess over negative indicators.

      LikeLike


      • on February 4, 2013 at 2:18 pm Unending Improvement

        I’d argue there is no “Poosy Paradise”, and thinking there is is a recipe for failure.

        LikeLike


      • on February 4, 2013 at 2:22 pm Dr. Zoidberg

        My biggest gripe/criticism of the whole manosphere is the defeatism and lack of unwillingness to fight for what they claim to believe. All the talk of giving up, going expat, etc. just shows that no matter how much “game” you learn, chicks you bang, weights you life, you are still a little beta at heart too afraid to stand up and actually take a punch and fight.

        LikeLike


      • on February 4, 2013 at 10:42 pm Modern Primitive

        Sun Tzu said “fight only those battles which you can win.”

        LikeLike


      • on February 5, 2013 at 12:51 pm Matthew King (King A)

        We can’t win against a gaggle of fat feminists, 25% minorities, and their herbly SWPL enablers? You need better recon, son.

        “I have not yet begun to fight.” — John Paul Jones on the deck of the entangled but ultimately victorious USS Bonnehome Richard

        “I may sink, but I’ll be damned if I strike.” — ibid.

        LikeLike


      • on February 5, 2013 at 2:51 pm the fauvist

        Why do you group non-white men in with feminists? These issues apply to non-white men as much as they apply to white men.

        LikeLike


      • on February 5, 2013 at 9:46 pm Anon

        @The Fauvist: How do you think feminists got power in the first place? And why should we forgive?

        LikeLike


      • on February 6, 2013 at 12:37 am Matthew King (King A)

        I didn’t “group non-white men in with feminists.” They grouped themselves in. “Issues” smissues. It’s a tribal thing. Because Whitey’s on The Moon.

        No matter, they all go in the hopper.

        At the same time, any that sheds his blood with me, shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile, this day shall gentle his condition. Ladies too.

        LikeLike


      • on February 8, 2013 at 1:18 am Lily

        “Ladies too”

        Are you sure you want to include the ladies? I mean, you’re playing right into the hands of the attention whores/cunts/bitches/sluts/vaginas that you’re trying to expose on this blog??? It’s like all this work for nothin’. Better cut your loses while you still can, before any clucking Hen gets the wrong idea.

        LikeLike


      • on February 8, 2013 at 3:22 pm Matthew King (King A)

        I don’t “expose” attention whores. (Isn’t that a contradiction in terms?) I feed them until they are addicted/dependent. Then they are at their most mindfuckable. Like you, my precious flower.

        I mean, I mean … Why do you have to be such a bitch! Won’t you leave already?

        LikeLike


      • on February 8, 2013 at 3:50 pm Lily

        You obviously don’t know bitches if you equate me with one.

        LikeLike


      • on February 8, 2013 at 8:01 pm Matthew King (King A)

        I know who you are. You feel it necessary at times to play the bitch, but it doesn’t suit you, does it?

        LikeLike


      • on February 8, 2013 at 8:37 pm Lily

        You’re finally getting it. No, you’re right; it doesn’t really suit me because I am not a bitch. Sometimes, I wish I were like some of those bitches, but I don’t do bitch very well 🙂

        LikeLike


      • on February 9, 2013 at 3:01 pm Matthew King (King A)

        I do understand you. I do. Come here.

        LikeLike


      • on February 9, 2013 at 3:57 pm Lily

        I don’t think you truly understand. I don’t do bitch very well because I don’t have issues with men. I am not resentful and taking it out on them. I like men, period.

        However, a man like you scares me. What will you do if I came to you? Do I need to bring my bodyguard?

        LikeLike


      • on February 9, 2013 at 5:05 pm Matthew King (King A)

        Truly, I do understand.

        What would I do if you came to me? I would treat you the way a princess deserves to be treated.

        As long as you follow The Nine Rules.

        Nothing to be “scare[d]” of, love! I would fulfill your every wish. I would listen to how your day was while I gave you one of my expert foot rubs, famous in four counties. I would cook my patented feline casserole with sage and feed you forkful by forkful. I would flirt harmlessly with your mom. I’d help your dad repair the gutter and change the oil. I would give you my life, my soul, my every waking moment.

        As long as you follow The Nine Rules.

        Matt

        LikeLike


      • on February 9, 2013 at 6:06 pm Lily

        Intrigued. Please, elaborate. What are The Nine Rules I must follow?

        LikeLike


      • on February 10, 2013 at 4:15 pm Matthew King (King A)

        1. Hygiene. “Nothing could be more revolting than a dirty woman, and a husband who tires of her is not to blame” (J.-J. Rousseau).

        Your body is mine to defile. Not the world’s. Your pussy has to smell and taste like a peach at all times of the day. I am not speaking metaphorically. It has to literally taste like ripe fruit.

        LikeLike


      • on February 4, 2013 at 10:52 pm Antifeminist One

        I hear you. If you want to fight, half of this damn battle seems to be getting enough people to see reality and act upon it. How many have you given the red pill – and agreed with everything, only then to give up before trying?

        You have to distinguish bravery from foolishness. Can it be saved or is it so far gone, the only wise option left is to ride the clam-carousel till it all falls apart, then rebuild out of the ashes?

        Failing that, there’s always expat.

        LikeLike


      • on February 5, 2013 at 2:53 am the fauvist

        I get that, and I’m not unsympathetic to it, but by the time a lot of guys get to the manosphere they’ve been punched in the face their whole lives and just want it to stop. To them finding an oasis is preferable to trying to till the desert.

        LikeLike


    • on February 4, 2013 at 10:22 pm Antifeminist One

      Flavia – Respectfully, I’d contend that. Currently in western(ised) countries, it’s safest for men to assume that all desirable girls to be sluts under the right (minimal) conditions.

      Nick – Very individual question. Do you see your country as worth the effort required to save it? And if so, for how much longer?

      LikeLike


      • on February 5, 2013 at 9:57 am Flavia

        @Antifem,

        Yeah, I do agree. There is a lot of pressure to put out because enough girls have skewed the market, so that if one girl is hard to get, there are plenty others that are not. So therefore, many girls who may not otherwise be sluts (or serial “daters”) rationalize that they might as well put out to “keep a guy”.

        Media of course, does not help, as this type of behavior is encouraged. The portrayal of virgins, even in high school shows, is a testament to that.

        LikeLike


  5. on February 4, 2013 at 12:30 pm Longtorso

    There is one big difference: w/ capitalism; wealth is not a zero sum game. Wealth can be created. I can’t create my own vagina.

    LikeLike


    • on February 4, 2013 at 1:47 pm gunslingergregi

      sure you can you can breed vaginas just like domesticated animals
      or buy one

      LikeLike


  6. on February 4, 2013 at 12:41 pm Mohammed the purple

    http://nationalinterest.org/article/spenglers-ominous-prophecy-7878?page=show

    LikeLike


    • on February 4, 2013 at 1:37 pm gunslingergregi

      interesting i guess except that nobody can predict with the new/old technology that one culture can erradicate all other cultures so perfectly
      so kind of a new era really in that you can exterminate everyone before you go into the night

      LikeLike


  7. on February 4, 2013 at 12:54 pm Matthew King (King A)

    Très French. La sexe, la sexe, toujours la sexe.

    There can be no open market or free enterprise without regulation. “Confirm thy soul in self-control, / Thy liberty in law.”

    The sexual revolution did not open the market to freewheeling competition the way the western economic revolution did. A market can only function when there are agreed-upon fundamentals, such as the value of money, the restriction of monopoly, and the protection against fraud.

    What’s called sexual “liberation” was actually the annihilation of all rules regulating against a war of all against all. When you remove every restriction, you don’t get liberty; you get the state of nature. We are experiencing the law of the jungle, might makes right, in the sexual marketplace, not freedom. There is a difference.

    A free-enterprise sexuality is regulated by custom and employs shame, ritual, tradition, and even law, such as those against adultery and sodomy. That regulation makes the free exchange of goods functional and sustainable against our chaotic instincts, just as the SEC and traditions of ethical exchange allow us to operate with maximum freedom against an inevitable bazaar of grifters. There is a reason why it’s called “game.” Players “game” the system (or lack thereof) to their sexual advantage.

    Houellebecq is a nihilist by nationality and socialist by default. The French revolution was the nasty, brutish, and short version of the British and American because they didn’t have the Anglosphere’s ethos of self-regulation (see: Himmelfarb, The Roads to Modernity). He believes in the inevitability of chaos, that we can’t tame our sexual instinct any more than we can tame our desire for wealth. Everything is a power-play. To him, free-enterprise economics is a fancy name to conceal institutional theft (the rich oppressing the poor), just as a disciplined sexuality is a fancy name to conceal institutional rape (the alpha oppressing the omega).

    Suffice it to say, there’s more to the story than a French hedonist’s drug-addled musings on L’existentialisme at the café, particularly since their applied philosophy led to the bloodbath (and more important, the impotence) of the French Revolution. Le sigh.

    Matt

    LikeLike


    • on February 4, 2013 at 1:06 pm Mule Chewing Briars

      Hunh.

      The Revolution germinates in the cradle of the Filioque and extends to its outer periphery, where it finally encounters the resistance of Orthodox Reaction, which bitch-slaps the Revolution back to Paris and dismantles it for 40+ years.

      Unfortunately, the Revolution was able to penetrate far enough to plant its seed, which bore bitter fruit 100 years later. Removing “He who now restrains” became Job One for the remainder of the 19th Century.

      LikeLike


      • on February 4, 2013 at 6:31 pm Matthew King (King A)

        I don’t understand the connection between the Filioque and the French Revolution. Why did it have to happen in Paris, but not London or Boston?

        You’re an orthodox Christian? It sounds like you have an alternative theory of the development of modernism/Enlightenment, and I’d like to hear it. You and The Karamazov Idea should have a cup of coffee.

        Matt

        LikeLike


    • on February 4, 2013 at 2:14 pm Revo Luzione

      “Houellebecq is a nihilist by nationality and socialist by default.”

      Not quite. He disavowed French socialism, denouncing the excessive size of its government and intrusiveness of the French state. It’s a sign of Matt’s HDB (read: lazy intellectual communialist) tendency to group people simply by their nationality, rather than by one’s actions & words.

      Tossing the nihilist appellation towards Houellenbecq is somewhat appropriate, however not totally accurate. It’s ironic that most men who fully grasp the nature of the sexual marketplace typically enjoy the personal and sexual capital to exploit market inefficiencies, or, colloquially, to wreck a lot of pussy, and generally consume substances in rock-star quantities. That alone does not make one a nihilist. Knowledge is power, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

      An earnest examination of Houellenbecq does seem to paint him as more Epicurean than truly nihilistic. This is a subtle but important distinction. Personally, I find nihilism to be too self-defeating in the long run to be viable, too self-destructive to be truly useful over time, and thus practice Epicurean enjoyment but also moderation.

      Epicureanism represents a middle path, for it does correctly value the evolutionary adaptation of pleasure as an important signal of biological efficiency. Yet Epicureans also note that there are limits to physical pleasure, and also value knowledge, wisdom, accurate perception of self and world, etc.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicureanism

      LikeLike


      • on February 4, 2013 at 6:23 pm Matthew King (King A)

        Houellebecq’s life and works do not interest me. I know little about him, and I was responding to the “choice quotes” provided above. The rest is exaggeration for effect. (So you can stow your resentful mutterings about who I really am and what conclusions you think you can glean about my beliefs.)

        This is socialist:

        In a totally liberal economic system certain people accumulate considerable fortunes; others stagnate in unemployment and misery. In a totally liberal sexual system certain people have a varied and exciting erotic life; others are reduced to masturbation and solitude…

        His words above are expressive of a very French sexual nihilism. The comparison of sexual and economic markets is inapt. His presumption that a “totally liberal” system requires no rules is the libertine’s presumption. Economically, that makes a free exchange impossible — because trading goods is not a biological urge.

        On the other hand, sexuality is an instinct, and therefore an exchange will still happen, but not in the ordered alphas vs. masturbators way he posits in the absence of rules. He draws his libertine conclusion out of economic Marxist assumptions: that liberalism necessarily leads to the oppression of certain classes.

        Without broad regulation, there is no such thing as free enterprise, only caveat emptor bartering at the most primitive level. Similarly, a sexual pandemonium (you can’t even call it a marketplace) that admits no rules, as Houellebecq’s presumption requires, is the design of the sexual revolution and “liberation,” and is nothing but the brutish state of nature.

        And before you think alphas will thrive in such a scenario, consider that ten mangy hyenas can take down a solitary lion. Manipulation, disguise, broken promises, illusion rule the sexual exchange, which is why the PUA’s who call themselves “alpha” by virtue of their pick-up flimflammery is a joke. They adopt the appearance of the strong and dominant only to “game” a woman into thinking them more virile than they are, which works because all protections against hypergamy have been stripped away in the name of “liberation.”

        Yes, ancient Epicureanism is a step up from worshiping the nihil, but its degenerate modern version is indistinguishable from 20th century postivism, materialism, and hedonism, which are anti-life. The Epicureans did the best they could to dignify pleasure as a life-centering principle, but in the last analysis it leads to a fundamental superficiality that must devolve into crass hedonism or nihilism.

        Where are the stoics today? Or the pagans, the Epicureans, the Platonists? They exist, but they have been conquered by, and subsumed into, the framework of the Cross. The anti-Christian holdouts in the West are scattered and diffuse, essentially unserious enemies who play at rebellion because they took a Comparative Religions class.

        Matt

        LikeLike


      • on February 4, 2013 at 11:44 pm Revo Luzione

        The Houllebecq block quote is simply an observation. Making an observation about the nature of sexuality vis a vie economics does not a make him a socialist. That’s a category error. The ubiquity of such an error demonstrates why Machiavelli is known, mistakenly, for advocating what he saw, but really, he was simply making observations.

        Further, what you’re describing as “liberal” really means anarchy, granted the anarchist left. But wait, hold up, Matt is really a neocon statist? Let us hear him speak:

        “Without broad regulation, there is no such thing as free enterprise, only caveat emptor bartering at the most primitive level.”

        Yep. Neocon, through & through. Or Neoliberal. Either way, a statist control freek, as is appropriate to the bible-thumper that he is.

        A long time ago, the cross held sway over the pagans and various other heathens, but that ship sailed ages ago. The church is in irrevocable decline, becoming less relevant by the day and year.

        LikeLike


      • on February 5, 2013 at 10:33 am Greg Eliot

        A long time ago, the cross held sway over the pagans and various other heathens, but that ship sailed ages ago. The church is in irrevocable decline, becoming less relevant by the day and year.

        Appearances can be deceiving:


        Timothy 3

        1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

        2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

        3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

        4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

        5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

        LikeLike


      • on February 5, 2013 at 12:55 pm Matthew King (King A)

        Making an observation about the nature of sexuality vis a vie [sic] economics does not a make him a socialist.

        Right. But this does:

        In a totally liberal economic system certain people accumulate considerable fortunes; others stagnate in unemployment and misery.

        It assumes the zero-sum Marxist fallacy of a “totally liberal economic system.” To then transfer that socialist assumption to the SMP is the true “category error.”

        Matt

        LikeLike


      • on February 5, 2013 at 12:05 am avd

        “They adopt the appearance of the strong and dominant only to “game” a woman into thinking them more virile than they are, which works because all protections against hypergamy have been stripped away in the name of “liberation.””

        Fact.

        LikeLike


      • on February 5, 2013 at 1:22 am Revo Luzione

        One may not don the guise of strong and dominant without becoming, at least to some degree, strong and dominant. In other words, dominance can’t be faked. It’s a social skill set, not a mask. Game is simply learning and applying those behaviors. That little supposed factoid reeks of game denialism.

        LikeLike


      • on February 5, 2013 at 8:02 am aleister

        Since you’re just stating your opinion and not facts, I’m gonna state my opninion: you seem very butthurt of what Matt said about fake alphas.
        Alphas get a lot of women, not all men whp get a lot of women are alphas. Comprende?

        LikeLike


      • on February 5, 2013 at 10:47 am TheBestMan

        No i think his point is that one of the biggest checks on hypergamy is other men. more of a director actually. It’s easy to act “alpha” via text message, email or in an anonymous club/world. But alpha is actually just the top position AMONG men. The only reason many of these so called “alphas” have success with women is because they are not being competed directly by other men, thus game works for them on an isolated woman. This does not an alpha or dominant male make. In fact gaming an isolated woman is no better in alpha terms then a beta raping an isolated woman. It’s the same tactic except the beta is probably being more alpha because he’s not leaving anything up to the woman, he’s TAKING the sex.

        Most men suffer from what we call status anxiety, they are SCARED. Scared about their status among men….not scared of a woman. WOMEN ARE NOT A GOOD OR POWERFUL THING. She can only be better than them through another man, and this is what they fear subconsciously….is another man going to have a problem with this?

        It’s one thing to ACT better than a woman, it’s another thing to act better than a man, it’s another thing to be better than other men all the time, it’s another thing to deal with a REAL threat to your status.

        If only it was so easy for a male lion to dominate a pride of females, it’d be a right laugh right? The Lion King is not sure of his status because his females look up to him, he’s sure of his status because of all the other princes he had to defeat to get that status, and they look up to. The females are a side thought, with no competition they are certainly his.

        Alpha is about leading/defeating other men, simple as that. Relying on only your technique with women to be a good man, is like a beta relying on being a rapist to be a good man. except the beta rapist is probably MORE alpha.

        Game only works where the competition is limited or non-existant, whether its by physical location, economic or cultural forces. In all other circumstances, actually being the best/strongest/most capable/most feared is what counts.

        Don’t be sure of your status because women look up to you….because women only look up to you because you are sure of your status. You are not good or powerful because you can dominate a woman, you can dominate. Base your sense of worth on something a little firmer, at the very least base it on a belief that you are in fact, better than other men.

        LikeLike


  8. on February 4, 2013 at 12:56 pm thwack

    attention all white people:

    You and your big lips may now convert to Islam.

    LikeLike


    • on February 4, 2013 at 1:05 pm Anonymous

      And they went up over the breadth of the earth, and encircled the camp of the saints, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

      LikeLike


    • on February 4, 2013 at 10:58 pm Antifeminist One

      Islam and Sharia Law is the beast in messiah’s clothing.

      LikeLike


      • on February 7, 2013 at 7:01 pm Mr. C

        Islam’s battle to “Save the World”

        http://howardbloombooks.com/the-lucifer-principle/islams-war-to-save-the-world/

        LikeLike


    • on February 4, 2013 at 11:08 pm Lily

      Why do Blacks have such an affinity for Islam and Sharia law?

      LikeLike


      • on February 5, 2013 at 11:20 am thwack

        Because white supremacy has failed us.

        LikeLike


      • on February 5, 2013 at 11:28 am Obstinance Works

        Because they are brutal, repetative, stupid religions. I’d rather lick the asses of 1000 wild hyenas before I become Muslim. Blacks can be Christians too you know.

        LikeLike


      • on February 5, 2013 at 11:31 am Racer-X

        Possibly because many are rabidly-desperate to be anything un-white,

        so much that they embrace something they don’t understand,

        operated by those many cognitive-valence-shells above their own,

        all with the promise that Sharia==Religious Cover for eternal ‘smack by bitch up’ return of the ghetto pimp-hand?

        (which in some ways, with the post-60s behavior of women, one can hardly blame someone trying to reinstate some, any, sense of order, rules, shame,…)

        (but that doesn’t mean you have to walk down the street, minding your own business, when all of a sudden: Oops, STALIN!
        -no collect 200 rubles, go straight to gulag, no soup for you,…)

        LikeLike


      • on February 5, 2013 at 11:44 am Obstinance Works

        Perhaps because it fits them like a glove and at least they have clothes on, in reference to their origins.

        LikeLike


      • on February 5, 2013 at 12:55 pm thwack

        Im not a Muslim, but there are some cool things about Islam that I find attractive:

        1. STOP, and pray 5 times a day.

        Black people need to be reminded of our intent because we are easily distracted; I know cause Im one of em.

        2. Get on your knees.

        This physical position during prayer is very helpful in reminding you of your inferior position reletive to your Creator. Black people need this because we have huge egos; I know because Im one of em.

        3. Say your prayers into your hands then rub your hands over yourself.

        There is something about this act that I really like. Its as if it makes the words you speak into physical entities that you then attach to your body. Pretty cool.

        To sum up; niggers need help, and if you don’t help them, be silent while they seek it from Allah.

        LikeLike


      • on February 6, 2013 at 12:40 am Matthew King (King A)

        What, the Son of God wasn’t “help[ful]” enough for them?

        LikeLike


      • on February 6, 2013 at 2:28 pm Lily

        “This physical position during prayer is very helpful in reminding you of your inferior position reletive to your Creator. “

        You have a point about Islam’s subjugation of the individual. After all, what does Islam mean? It means to submit or to surrender. The problem is that Islam for some reason has a tendency to embolden its converts, especially Blacks, and they use Islam’s anti-Christianity stance to to hate whitty even more. What do you think is going on in the maximum-security prisons? The feelings you described, but in more scary fervent levels.

        LikeLike


      • on February 7, 2013 at 1:46 pm Matthew King (King A)

        This physical position during prayer is very helpful in reminding you of your inferior position reletive to your Creator.

        Bent over? Ass in the air?

        I kneel like a knight and bow my head before my Lord and God. I don’t assume the cornhole position. I deserve to be treated like a worm, but my Lord and my God will not stand for such self-abasement and indignity from his creatures.

        Islam is translated as “submission.” He who does not submit to the Creator of all things (but sin and death) is certainly a fool. Indeed, not only are we inferior, but infinitely so.

        Lucky for you, sinner, that is not the whole story. He sent his Son to die delivering the Glad Tidings:

        No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you.

        — John 15:15

        Or, in St. Athenasius’s blasphemous sounding but rock-solid formulation, “God became man so that man might become God.”

        I’d be interested to hear yaser’s take on this.

        Matt

        LikeLike


      • on February 7, 2013 at 3:56 pm Lily

        “I deserve to be treated like a worm, but my Lord and my God will not stand for such self-abasement and indignity from his creatures.”

        All kidding aside, this is a very Judeo-Christian idea, which is not found in any other religion, namely that we’re all sinners and deserve to be treated like warms, but because our creator is merciful and because he loves us (his creatures),and because he created us in his image, he isn’t interested in degrading us. Rather, he wants to see us dignified when we communicate with him via prayer, like befitting children speaking with their father.

        Indeed, our Constitution is based on this very religious dogma. And even if one doesn’t believe in the creator, he can still benefit from this saintly view of his creatures. We have to believe that God Himself bestowed our rights and liberties upon us if our rights are unalienable.

        “That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…”

        This is challenged everyday by the left.

        LikeLike


      • on February 8, 2013 at 3:21 pm Obstinance Works

        The Humility Of Jesus trumps all.

        LikeLike


      • on February 8, 2013 at 3:23 pm Obstinance Works

        In public, I mostly pray with my head and eyes lifted to Heaven.

        LikeLike


      • on February 8, 2013 at 7:58 pm Matthew King (King A)

        In public, I mostly pray with my head and eyes lifted to Heaven.

        I “bow [my] head and pray for God’s blessing” whenever I am in petition, except at the consecration (“My Lord and my God!”) and the sursum corda (“Lift up your hearts!”) of the Anaphora in the order of mass, where heaven and earth intersect and we are permitted to gaze in awe.

        Until we learn the posture of holy gratitude, we are imposters. We did not create ourselves, nor can we survive without grace. So fall to the ground and pray for dignity, which is sure to come: “God our Savior .. desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim 2:3-4).

        From there, “all things” become “possible.” And our pathetic, disconnected, solitary braggadocio becomes real. “Let him who boasts, boast of the Lord. … I can do all things in him who strengthens me.”

        Matt

        LikeLike


      • on February 6, 2013 at 2:29 pm Lily

        “Perhaps because it fits them like a glove.”

        My father says the same thing; he says Islam suits them.

        LikeLike


      • on February 6, 2013 at 2:35 pm Lily

        @Racer-X

        Yeah, I think you’re right. Unfortunately, Blacks don’t have anything they believe in, no ideology, other than jealousy if whitty. Africa never had a religion other than some voodoo-related mambo jumbo, so Blacks were never that much into our Judeo-Christian culture, and we see this in their laidback approach to marriage. Blacks were never into marriage, not even back on the plantation. Of course, you always have the devout Black preacher who indeed tells them they have to marry, but they hardly listen to him, because Christianity as a whole is somewhat lax. So when Islam comes along with its absolutism and gives them structure, which they never had in the Hood or the plantation, and makes the men feel like they rule the roost and the women like they are protected from debauchery and out of wedlock pregnancy, it’s very seductive to them. You see them on TV talk shows sometimes, and you hear the sense of purpose in their tone, never mind that they are spewing Islamic garbage about sharia law. It’s obvious that Islam promises them the antithesis of the Hood or prison. A very toxic form of Islam is taught in the prisons of America. One of these days we’ll have to face an army of them if we don’t watch it. Nation of Islam is not a fringe group any longer. They are becoming a real threat.

        LikeLike


      • on February 8, 2013 at 3:25 pm Obstinance Works

        Blacks came out of slavery and darkness because the white men removed them from Africa and they took on Jesus Christ. Then liberalism put them back on the plantation.

        LikeLike


      • on February 8, 2013 at 4:19 pm Lily

        Liberalism didn’t put them on the plantation. Necessity and greed did. You can’t blame liberalism for everything. Anyway, the liberalism of today didn’t exist back in the 1700’s.

        And even if they took on Jesus Christ, their tradition has always been no religion, which is why it’s always reflected in their loose family structure.

        Therefore, Islam gives them what Christianity never could, rigid structure and absolutism. That’s why Islam has been successful in converting most of the world’s pagans.

        LikeLike


    • on February 10, 2013 at 12:30 am oogenhand

      It would mean larger white families.

      LikeLike


  9. on February 4, 2013 at 1:04 pm Alec Leamas

    Sexual liberation really should have stayed with the uglies that pioneered it – which is to say, irrelevant to the wider society. See, for example, Dunham, Lena.

    LikeLike


  10. on February 4, 2013 at 1:35 pm BetaForLife

    ‘slag’ is a strong word,i understand.

    LikeLike


  11. on February 4, 2013 at 1:38 pm Johnycomelately

    Holy cow, that was some post, will take a while to digest.

    I think that sound you just heard was a million libtards brains popping at the cognitive dissonance created by the post.

    LikeLike


  12. on February 4, 2013 at 1:52 pm Revo Luzione

    Thanks for putting Houllebecq in the Chateau’s HID spotlight. His work deserves to be a core text for the masculine curriculum developing in the school of the sphere.

    Another core tenet is evolving for alpha movers and makers: the ability to focus at length to create (or destroy) and advance one’s own ends:

    “The Western man has at last been reduced to a gram of currency, rendered powerless, unable to perceive his growing powerlessness as his sinister baubles and superficial dopamine fixes become more entertaining, distracting, and enfeebling.”

    As highly curious, novelty-seeking beings, apex alphas can be particulary susceptible to distraction and dissipation. Focus, men, focus. Concentration of physical and mental powers are needed to prepare for the post-collapse realities. To seed the ground, as it was said.

    Great prose and turns of phrase all around, which only enhances the message.

    Also, in case anyone missed the God of the Copybook Headings source, it’s a reference to a prescient work by Rudyard Kipling.

    http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_copybook.htm

    LikeLike


    • on February 4, 2013 at 2:13 pm Greg Eliot

      GBFM is the Kipling of our time… with commensurate latitude given for the ADHD treatment maladies of this, our Age.

      LikeLike


      • on February 4, 2013 at 5:46 pm Matthew King (King A)

        The yiddlers and house goys had a premature funeral celebration in your absence.

        LikeLike


      • on February 4, 2013 at 10:35 pm Lily

        Celebrating are you at the sight of your master? Missing his dick?

        LikeLike


      • on February 5, 2013 at 8:04 am aleister

        Why does everything has to be about dick with you?

        LikeLike


      • on February 6, 2013 at 4:26 pm Lily

        Because dick makes the world womb go round.

        [Heartiste: ftfy.]

        LikeLike


      • on February 8, 2013 at 1:42 am Lily

        Speaking from experience? Lot’s of experience? 🙂

        I think Maya might want to get the full scoop on that 😉

        LikeLike


      • on February 5, 2013 at 10:07 am Greg Eliot

        For the record, Matthew King is the superior mind of our two.

        LikeLike


      • on February 5, 2013 at 11:25 am thwack

        Matt King is a blast; I keep his posts on speed dial for when ever I need to smite a heathen and don’t have a jaw bone of an ass handy.

        Good stuff

        LikeLike


      • on February 5, 2013 at 3:25 pm Greg Eliot

        Good stuff indeed…

        I keep Lily on speed dial so that the jawbone of an ass is always handy… and self-propelled.

        LikeLike


      • on February 6, 2013 at 4:27 pm Lily

        In other words, he tops.

        LikeLike


      • on February 5, 2013 at 1:03 pm Matthew King (King A)

        No, but I miss the way your pussy gently weeps against my quad when you’re in a “fighting” clinch with me.

        LikeLike


      • on February 5, 2013 at 10:01 am Greg Eliot

        Rumours of my death were greatly exaggerated.

        But I do have a new outlook about the chateau…

        … as the lesson from this very Kipling opus evinces, namely:

        Anything can be said… just don’t say it outright. 😉

        LikeLike


      • on February 5, 2013 at 11:40 am Lara

        It’s more fun when you merely suggest, rather than say it outright.

        LikeLike


      • on February 6, 2013 at 4:28 pm Lily

        “Anything can be said… just don’t say it outright.”

        What a feeble mind!!!!

        LikeLike


      • on February 7, 2013 at 1:54 pm Matthew King (King A)

        Fool. You just denounced the essence of poetry. And you dare to apply the word “feeble” to others?

        Give me an hour with your body and you will never attempt that bluff again. You will understand what feeble means, the word bludgeoned into your flesh.

        LikeLike


      • on February 7, 2013 at 3:19 pm Lily

        Only an hour? I need a whole night!

        LikeLike


      • on February 7, 2013 at 7:15 pm Matthew King (King A)

        Your constitution would not survive it. Have to ease the patient into the regimen.

        LikeLike


      • on February 8, 2013 at 1:45 am Lily

        I’m not worried; I’ll bring my bodyguard. Next!

        LikeLike


      • on February 8, 2013 at 3:27 pm Matthew King (King A)

        Is that what you call Miss Whiskers? A “bodyguard”? I’ll abuse that pussy too.

        LikeLike


      • on February 8, 2013 at 3:54 pm Lily

        I’ve no doubt you will. You seem very well versed in abuse. Not sure about pussy though.

        LikeLike


    • on February 4, 2013 at 7:42 pm Enskipp

      Ian Ironwood had a GREAT post on creating and destroying –

      http://theredpillroom.blogspot.com/2012/04/our-masculine-power.html

      LikeLike


  13. on February 4, 2013 at 2:15 pm Kate

    I know this song!!!

    “A few times I’ve been around that track
    So it’s not just gonna happen like that
    Cause I ain’t no Houellebecq Girl,
    I ain’t no Houellebecq Girl”

    [Heartiste: Mahvelous, skaling.]

    LikeLike


    • on February 4, 2013 at 2:19 pm Greg Eliot

      Again with the poor puns? What Gaul!

      LikeLike


    • on February 4, 2013 at 5:43 pm Matthew King (King A)

      No doubt. I know just what you’re saying.

      LikeLike


      • on February 4, 2013 at 10:37 pm Lily

        Now, you’re behind his every comment ravishing him senseless. You guys take turns, eh?

        LikeLike


      • on February 5, 2013 at 10:09 am Greg Eliot

        Greg for the win, Matthew for the place, and Lily for the show.

        LikeLike


      • on February 5, 2013 at 1:08 pm Matthew King (King A)

        Hey, Lils. I like your latest identity. Very minimalist and recherché. Like a Chanel LBD. I am inexplicably charmed despite my best efforts.

        1) I was replying to Kate’s witty comment, not Greg’s

        2) The reference whistled right through that empty cavern of a skull you have. That’s okay, there’s always the Google Machine to temporarily fill the vacuity.

        Matt

        LikeLike


      • on February 5, 2013 at 4:00 pm Anonymous

        Just amazing, how she invariably finds a way to reach yet even greater heights of cluelessness.

        LikeLike


      • on February 6, 2013 at 4:30 pm Lily

        No, no, I know you were replying to Kate. I just meant that wherever Eliot is, that’s where I find you, and wherever you are, that’s where I find him. So romantic; you’re inspirable. A true love affair.

        Bosom buddies;
        Lovey dovey;
        Honey bunny;

        I’m inspired by your love.

        LikeLike


      • on February 7, 2013 at 1:58 pm Matthew King (King A)

        You realize we see through your public fantasizing, don’t you? You know we can translate from the bitchese here, right? That’s what this entire forum is about.

        LikeLike


      • on February 7, 2013 at 3:24 pm Lily

        Bitch? I’m drunk with jealousy

        LikeLike


      • on February 7, 2013 at 7:21 pm Matthew King (King A)

        No, you’re just drunk — full stop. I can’t make heads or tails out of your slurred witticisms. “Jealousy”?

        The question is, are you drunk enough to finally end this interminable foreplay frottage and get to the hot wet main event already? I’ll even shine it up for your aesthetic pleasure.

        I’ll email you mine if you email me yours.

        LikeLike


      • on February 8, 2013 at 1:53 am Lily

        “I can’t make heads or tails out of your slurred witticisms.”

        You mean my mixed signals??? 😉

        LikeLike


      • on February 8, 2013 at 3:32 pm Matthew King (King A)

        Your signals aren’t mixed at all. Your attempt to conceal them is. Sweet feminine schizophrenia. It comes with the snatch.

        Just give yourself over already. I’m beginning to bore of the tussle. Can we get down to business already?

        LikeLike


      • on February 8, 2013 at 3:48 pm Lily

        And what business would that be?

        LikeLike


      • on February 8, 2013 at 8:04 pm Matthew King (King A)

        The business of addressing me as “sir” or “dad.”

        LikeLike


      • on February 8, 2013 at 8:39 pm Lily

        Aha…….that kind of b’ness. Wow! I had no idea the direction this is going. 😳

        LikeLike


  14. on February 4, 2013 at 2:25 pm thorodinfrey

    @Heartiste: “The modern leftoid is not a Communist. He is a radical indivdualist. The nuclear family is the final defense against unfettered individualism.”

    I disagree. The modern leftoid wants to subjugate everything, including both family and individual, to the all-powerful state. This is the reason they want to destroy the family. Thy just can’t stand any loyalties to a lesser unit than the National Government. But loyalty to the UN is OK.

    Nor is is true that free markets produce pauperization. If anything, government intervention including union support, welfare, and de facto or de jure minimum wages cause pauoerization.

    Thor

    LikeLike


    • on February 5, 2013 at 4:55 am slumlord

      Facepalm.

      The free market ideologues assumes that everyone has the ability to play, furthermore they also assume that once the rich have amassed a greater share of wealth (and by implication political power) the rich will behave in a free market manner. What happens in reality is that the rich collude to exclude other players through all sorts of means. The problem with too much capitalism is that it eventually leads to too few capitalists. The fact is that in the golden age of the free market, the late 19th Century, human wealth grew immensely but so did the number of the relativepoor. These aggrieved masses took on the ideology of socialism and nearly tore the temple down.

      LikeLike


    • on February 5, 2013 at 6:31 pm Lily

      @Thor

      “I disagree. The modern leftoid wants to subjugate everything, including both family and individual, to the all-powerful state. This is the reason they want to destroy the family. Thy just can’t stand any loyalties to a lesser unit than the National Government. But loyalty to the UN is OK.”

      Spot on!

      “Nor is is true that free markets produce pauperization. If anything, government intervention including union support, welfare, and de facto or de jure minimum wages cause pauoerization.”

      Hell yeah! Gov’t intervention in the economy and the personal business of its citizens is the root of all evil. The gov’t shouldn’t be in the business of picking and choosing whom to help – who is going to be a winner and who a loser. Gov’t picking winners and losers is not Constitutional.

      @ slumlord

      Who’s talking about too much capitalism? What we have today is not capitalism. We have crony capitalism – a close relationship between business people and gov’t officials. That means Thor is right. It’s gov’t meddling, and gov’t picking winners and losers. Affirmative action is one broader example of this, as well as the more narrow example of union support or corporate bailout. The gov’t should stay out and let everyone fend for themselves when it comes to the economy, UNLESS there is a danger of very egregious misconduct that could endanger the public. All other meddling should be stopped.

      LikeLike


    • on February 5, 2013 at 6:43 pm Lily

      Also, all this meddling leads to more regulation and more laws we have to deal with. Why? Because let’s say public consumer groups want legislation to help workers (like the minimum wage, which I am not against BTW) then business wants to counteract that with its own interests. It might not be directly related to the minimum wage legislation, but it’s a tit for tat type of a thing. So the consumer groups and the corporations are constantly lobbying the gov’t to outdo each other, as well as undue each other’s lobbying. And who is stuck in the middle? The citizen who is overburdened with all of this legislation. Fuck that shit, who needs it? Again, it’s why Thor is right – the best thing would be for the gov’t to stay out of the way and let market forces work naturally.

      LikeLike


  15. on February 4, 2013 at 2:37 pm Chris from Dublin

    Today, those who work hard, are social, are honest and are kind are victimised in favour of those who are lazy, anti-social, crooked and cruel. It costs to be good, today.

    Remember a post in the Chateau some time ago about a hard-working, retired American couple who realised that they were better off defying the system and fighting the banks … ? This is, as the Chateau called it, the “fuck-it” moment.
    This is true – when such people cross the “fuck-it” threshold, the show is over. Such people are the linchpin of our society – lose their support and the revolution is only around the corner.

    “The West” which is really Britain, North America (that is, Canada and the US) and other former British colonies like Australia etc. is heading for collapse. This is because the days when the West was the industrial motor of the world ended more than fifty years ago but also because our governments and states are more bloated and rapacious than ever, and assume that a spigot of money to subsidise their hare-brained bullshit will flow evermore. Look at documents, film clips and cuttings from the 1940’s and 1950’s – this was when the West was at its height. Studying these artefacts shows how unregulated the West was then, in comparison to now. Today, red tape, excessive tax and repressive law that rewards the deliquent make it worth no entrepreneur’s while to start up something new. So what do entrepreneurs do? They go to other places where their skills will be rewarded.

    Look around – nothing is being made, today. India and China are where the real production lines now exist. This collapse really happened in Autumn 2008 and the West is still in denial over it. In the US, basket-case companies like General Motors are being propped up – why? To ensure that when the inevitable happens, it’ll kick in with even greater vengeance?

    The West mirrors Orwell’s dystopian vision in Nineteen Eighty Four – an élite and a lower class combine and conspire to screw a terrified middle-class, off whose ever decreasing labours the high and low still feast. As Orwell predicted, the final days of capitalism would see vast swathes of the population surviving, while completely unproductive, on “state charity” (his words).

    The terror of the middle classes today is imposed upon them in the language of political correctness, the bastard spawn of socialism. As in Orwell, the entire dialogue is set to bully and trick the middle classes into thinking that it should always be like this and that, indeed, this is for their good. It is
    surprising how many still believe it, too.

    Nineteen Eighty Four is different though, because the élite are the most talented people in the society – this is a structural policy whereby the most industrious and competent are deliberately let rise into the upper echelons of the party. They are very hard-working and shrewd rulers and administrators. They have analysed what it takes to prevent another revolution – and, in part, this includes allowing the able underclasses to promote. Their children are not guaranteed any succession, there is no inheritance laws (because in Nineteen Eighty Four all property is owned by the State) – everything has to be based on ability.

    Look at the dross governing Europe and America …

    The coming collapse is exciting because it is a once in a lifetime chance to get rid of the mediocrities who are choking the talent and the drive which was the cardinal feature of the West. Bring it.

    LikeLike


    • on February 7, 2013 at 7:09 pm Mr. C

      Terence McKenna put it well with “Culture is not your friend”
      The audio isn’t great and he’s a hippie but he makes some very salient points.

      LikeLike


  16. on February 4, 2013 at 2:41 pm Mike

    Insightful post, however as an earlier commenter pointed out, capitalism creates wealth through voluntary exchange. Though the US does not have capitalism now, we had a decent version of it going earlier in our history, and that’s why the very poor in this country have more luxuries than kings did a couple hundred years ago.

    Unlike capitalism, the sexual market is largely zero-sum. Beautiful pussy cannot be created, and neither can natural alpha males.

    LikeLike


    • on February 4, 2013 at 3:15 pm tractal

      Don’t overplay the distinction, though. Wealth is primarily a means towards social status, and only incidentally valuable in itself. All in all a lower class person today commands far more real wealth than a person living 70 years ago, but that material advance is not accompanied by a proportionate improvement in quality of life. Status is essential to human happiness, and status of course is also zero sum.

      Notice how the poor spend their money. Nikes. And not for nothing.

      LikeLike


  17. on February 4, 2013 at 3:15 pm anon

    Heartiste, are you ever going to do a post on this whole no-porn no-fap internet craze? Can pornography and masturbation really lead to sexual dysfunction and increased inhibition around women or is this just the latest way of chastising and attempting to restrain masculine sexuality?

    LikeLike


    • on February 5, 2013 at 1:14 pm Robert

      I doubt he does a lot of fapping, but I have, and will attest to the benefits of eliminating porn and bishop-strangling from your habits. Not least in the fact that women seem to pick up on the difference in your bearing.

      LikeLike


  18. on February 4, 2013 at 3:32 pm Tyrone

    My problem with Houellebecq is that he identifies the problem but fails to see that the remedy lies within ourselves by seeing beyond sex and its role in our life. This cncept is easier to grasp if one is a Christian and sees that we are still controlled by a higher power and that the purpose of life is to evolve as spiritual beings first and foremost. Matt has this one nailed down. Just like I will get fat and destroy myself if I eat all the chocolate I can find, I will destroy myself if all I think and care about is sex with a new woman. The point of love is to see that there is more to life than simply sex and the gratification of produces. It is nothing more than a means to an end, not an end in itself.

    LikeLike


    • on February 5, 2013 at 10:11 am Greg Eliot

      Excellent point, worthy post.

      LikeLike


    • on February 8, 2013 at 5:03 pm Afonso Henriques

      That is as an individual.

      The rest of society doesn’t care for you as an individual.

      The real problem is society, not the individuals who live in it.

      And don’t even try to tell me that if you can do it, all can do it, and thus, paradise is upon to come.

      LikeLike


  19. on February 4, 2013 at 3:33 pm Wigz

    “Man, I see in Fight Club the strongest and smartest men who have ever lived. I see all this potential, and I see it squandered. Goddammit, an entire generation pumping gas, waiting tables, slaves with white collars. Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don’t need. We’re the middle children of history, man; no purpose or place. We have no Great War, no Great Depression. Our Great War is a spiritual war. Our Great Depression is our lives. We’ve all been raised by television to believe that one day we’d all be millionaires and movie gods and rock stars. But we won’t; and we’re slowly learning that fact. And we’re very, very pissed off.”

    TD

    Men tried to make the system work, they gave women a chance to become more free and they used that freedom to just spit in their faces to chase assholes.

    Women got conned into thinking they could have it all: the hot young billionaire Mr. Grey who fucks like a god. They were stupid enough to believing that they could be sluts while they were young and that we would not notice and still respect them and marry them. They thought we would not wisen up and learn game. They thought they could string us along forever, but they found it was them who got strung along by alphas.

    LikeLike


  20. on February 4, 2013 at 3:47 pm Michael

    Ah, to think that the esteemed French author (and he really IS estimable, with a very realistic view of Islam too) could simply have spelled his name … Wellbeck.

    LikeLike


  21. on February 4, 2013 at 4:40 pm caballero

    I read “The Elementary Particles” (also published as “Atomised”), but I didn’t care for it much.

    One of my favorite passages from literature that is in synch with this blog comes from Richard Powers’ “The Gold Bug Variations” (1991), page 33:

    “I have it on authority that Franklin, confirmed Platonist from way back, seeing women who better approximated his rage for perfection, felt, above anything, distress. When led into Penn Station by a breathtaking madonna only to have her turn and reveal a mulish forehead or mousy nose, his utter relief was like a life sentence commuted to death at the last minute. A hopelessly plain face freed him of responsibility, while agonizingly perfect physiognomy attached his cortex like an opiate, haunted his sleep for weeks, whispered to him of missed chances that might at last have lifted the confines of the mundane.”

    LikeLike


  22. on February 4, 2013 at 4:55 pm chi-town

    “Alpha females: marginal winners.”

    I cannot agree. Alpha females can no longer monopolize their alpha men in a liberated sexual market place. It is the more mundane woman that benefits.

    LikeLike


  23. on February 4, 2013 at 5:00 pm Ecce Hetero

    “There is no way to know the exact contours it will trace, because nothing of this precise nature on this gargantuan scale has befallen an entire civilization of our size”

    Weimar.

    LikeLike


  24. on February 4, 2013 at 5:05 pm James

    Very interesting post.

    “in societies like ours sex truly represents a second system of differentiation, completely independent of money”

    It is interesting that left-leaning femcunts want strict controls over the money economy, but complete liberalisation of the sexual economy. Whereas supporters of market economics tend to have traditional views on marriage. What is going on here? Is it simply male versus female, or is there more to it than that?

    “The only known cure for a failing empire, like 2013 America, is economic and social collapse, to seed the ground for rebirth.”

    True, but in the collapse America will be eclipsed by Asia; and subsequent rebirth will take a long, long, time.

    “As the lovely word ‘household’ suggests, the couple and the family would be the last bastion of primitive communism in liberal society.”

    Absolutely right. The family is the only place where we attempt to follow the socialist idea “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”. Yet cultural Marxists aim to destroy the family. Perhaps this is because the family has no room for a revolutionary vanguard. Cultural Marxists are interested in a redistribution of wealth, but only if it occurs between social classes, and is managed by a cadre of professional Marxists.

    “There is no way to know the exact contours it will trace, because nothing of this precise nature on this gargantuan scale has befallen an entire civilization of our size, until now.”

    Over at Dalrock, commenters drew attention to two remarkable books: “The Fate of Empires” by Sir John Glubb, and “Sex and Culture” by J. D. Unwin. The liberation of women, which we usually imagine to be unique to 20th-century Western culture, has in fact happened in about a dozen powerful countries, in some cases as long as 4,000 years ago. Such “reforms” seem to be an inevitable consequence of multiple generations of prosperity, and are followed soon afterwards by conquest by a less “progressive” country.

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/01/18/the-feminine-imperative-revisited/

    “I’ll be poolside” is not only a rational response to female empowerment, but a harbinger of societal collapse.

    With the possible exception (see Glubb) of the transition from the Roman Republic to the Empire, there is no precedent for rebirth on a timescale shorter than centuries.

    LikeLike


    • on February 4, 2013 at 9:42 pm Johnycomelately

      Insightful post.

      LikeLike


    • on February 5, 2013 at 10:14 am Greg Eliot

      +11

      Yup, yeah, and uh-huh.

      LikeLike


  25. on February 4, 2013 at 5:16 pm Jan

    I’ve read 3 novels by Houellebecq during Holiday season this year and this is my first visit on this website site after 6 or more months. As a basically sexless computer programmer I can identify with his characters very well and his stories do move me a lot. I make more dough then everyone else I know, but I just dont see any girl attracted to me as an animal (I blame this my lack of alpha presence), or to paraphrase Houellebecq, I dont see myself ever becoming a subject in someones erotic fantasies. Paying a hooker doesnt feel right when someone gets the thing for free, although I could afford that every second day 🙂

    I see it reocurring from time to time and it amazes me how someone living in Western Europe and reading blogs like this would suggest relocating to Eastern Europe to solve their dating/quest for true love problems. I can’t understand how naive one has to be to believe EE girls are more pure and more able to love truly than some girl from North America or Germany. I remember all the coolest kids in my class started f ucking at 14-15, the girls at that age would date local drug dealers and other petty criminals outside the school (and it was not the worst school, more likely the uppery half). Then someone’s got unwanted kids and married at 18, others went for a 4 year long cock fest at college, went abroad to suck all kinds of foreign dicks via student exchange programmes, got fat got married. In all this I don’t see how would someone want to date an Eastern European girl who’s probably tasted 50 mooshroom tips (all kindz of sizes and colors) in her mouth by the age of 24. As someone who’s spent his life in the UK or the US, you might get “mesmerized” by seeing very few fatties walking down them EE streets, but all this has a dark side these girls will not want you to see 🙂

    LikeLike


    • on February 5, 2013 at 12:31 am Tyrone

      How do you know this if you don’t get any pussy?

      LikeLike


    • on February 7, 2013 at 11:11 am solser

      I’m just like you, only without any income or prospect of any income!

      LikeLike


  26. on February 4, 2013 at 5:28 pm youngreact

    Yet another woman can’t help but corroborate Heartiste-ian sexuality:

    http://www.slate.com/articles/life/dear_prudence/2013/02/dear_prudence_my_6_year_old_daughter_can_t_stop_playing_with_herself.2.html

    “I am married to a kind, generous, attractive, wonderful man. The problem? I am not attracted to him. Actually, I am sometimes turned-off by him. I have battled these feelings since before we even got married. I think I married him because he is such a wonderful person, and I thought I would be blowing it if I passed on the opportunity to spend my life with someone who treats me so well. He knows that I have issues with attraction to him. Right now, I consider us great roommates and friends, but not lovers. The turn-offs? First, in the time that I have known him, he has become increasingly involved with transcendental meditation, spending hours a day on it, and traveling all over the country for extended conferences. He’s so sensitive that he won’t even kill a bug that’s indoors—he picks it up and puts it outside. How can I even think about leaving someone who is so good to me? Who does that? Help—I have a 90 percent perfect marriage, but that 10percent that’s missing is killing me. Wanting 10percent more.”

    LikeLike


    • on February 5, 2013 at 5:51 am anotheronetakesthepill

      Did you read the answer?

      “You’ve got your percentages reversed. A marriage in which one partner is not attracted to the other and is actually contemptuous of the other’s deeply held views sounds unsalvageable. Of course he treats you wonderfully—he treats cockroaches like precious jewels. But you’re treating him like an ego boost not a husband. I think you should let him find another gentle soul who after meditating with him and shooing out the bugs, wants to get him into bed for hours of tantric sex.”

      Dump him. Do it for him. Save his life.

      The tingles, the tingles everywhere and once lost move onto new guy. Sickening!

      LikeLike


      • on February 5, 2013 at 1:08 pm Anonymous

        Yeah, figures… fuck him over, find some guy who treats you like crap and tell him how much better off he is over the phone while your new stud ass-pounds you silly. Thank you, Prudence.

        LikeLike


  27. on February 4, 2013 at 5:37 pm Jack

    The modern “leftoid” IS a communist in the economic sphere and a capitalist in the sexual sphere. By contrast, the traditional conservative is a communist in the sexual sphere and a capitalist in the economic sphere. This guy sounds like a fascist – a communist in both the sexual AND the economic sphere, demanding total totalitarian control over both the money market (where people “can’t be dismissed unfairly”) and the sexual market (where “adultery is prohibited”). In other words, he is a typical fascist tyrant.

    Game is, of course, the answer. Instead of hating the “sex creators,” you should learn to become one of them by working hard, hitting the gym, and so forth. This post seems to imply that that is futile, that game is futile, and that the alphas are tricking the betas with false hope just like the rich are tricking the poor with false hope, which implies that being an alpha or beta is genetic and set in stone. A very anti-game mindset indeed.

    As a libertarian, I’d rather make myself attractive and fuck the women who want me, instead of go back to the conservative system in which every beta got laid due to economic necessities on the part of the female. Why would anyone want to go back to that? So every beta can have his own prostitute who fucks him out of necessity even though she isn’t attracted to him? I’d rather the sex be genuine on the part of the female, which is why becoming a “sex creator” is better than tearing down the current system and replacing it with conservative sexual socialism, in which sex is rationed so that everyone gets laid but everyone gets only one. I won’t do that any more than I’ll stand in line for 3 hours for just one loaf of bread in the old Soviet Union.

    Fuck that! Liberal sexual individualism combined with conservative economic individualism is the answer. Fuck collectivism!

    LikeLike


    • on February 4, 2013 at 9:39 pm Longtimenosee

      The problem is that every first world society has been built by taking the burden off of the beta male from having to find a female and having him redirect his energy toward being productive toward society instead. Polygamous societies tend to be pretty violent. Other than that, I agree that the old system sucked and was boring as well. Its much more fun to improve yourself and become attractive to females instead of being handed a female because you have a boring 9-5 job.

      LikeLike


      • on February 5, 2013 at 11:38 am thwack

        Very interesting analysis LTNS. I just watched a WW1 documentary where white people spent 5 years slaughtering the shit out of each other. That was some extreme hatred. They were using everything they had to kill each other including nonwhite people.

        In one scene they showed church bells being collected to be melted down into munitions.

        Saw some women hanging from trees too.

        Does this event alter your analysis?

        LikeLike


      • on February 5, 2013 at 11:46 am Obstinance Works

        Sounds like an upscale version of Africa.

        LikeLike


      • on February 5, 2013 at 1:11 pm Matthew King (King A)

        LOL

        LikeLike


      • on February 5, 2013 at 3:11 pm Greg Eliot

        Church bells are harder to melt down than rubber tires.

        LikeLike


      • on February 6, 2013 at 9:45 am Obstinance Works

        lolz

        LikeLike


      • on February 5, 2013 at 9:59 pm Anon

        Its all in the percentages. Fewer white men died in industrialized war than primitive tribesmen die butchering each other to be the alpha.

        LikeLike


    • on February 5, 2013 at 5:03 am slumlord

      As a libertarian, I’d rather make myself attractive and fuck the women who want me, instead of go back to the conservative system in which every beta got laid due to economic necessities on the part of the female

      You just can’t see how fucking deep in the matrix you really are.

      You are the disease affecting the West. You are its vehicle of transmission. You are Houellebecq’s elementary particle.

      Because in the end it’s all about you and fuck everyone else. But what happens when everyone assumes your asinine philosophy is that no one gives a fuck about anyone.

      Thus love dies.

      LikeLike


      • on February 5, 2013 at 11:59 am Jack

        LOL! Forgive me if the thought of turning every woman into a golddigging whore out of necessity disgusts me. Love dies? Love can only exist from a position of strength, not weakness due to a need to eat and not be homeless. In the totalitarian system which you wish to go back to, you’ll never know if your woman has any true feelings or lust for you, or if she just coldly calculated that you have the thickest wallet!

        It is precisely under your philosophy that love, spiritual intimacy, and everything genuine dies, as it is sacrificed by the female on the alter of physical/economic survival.

        Picture it: A society of nothing but ruthless golddiggers! That’s what you want! That is sick. True lust/love can only be genuine, and can only be genuinely verified, if the economic survival needs of both the man and the woman are satisfied in a non-sexual and gender neutral manner in some other way, hence the gender neutral economy.

        So you’d prefer both “game” and “sexual liberation” be done away with in favor of an “economic puritanism” in which a woman starts looking for a male slave on her 18th birthday whom she’s not attracted to, and fucks him for the rest of her life out of necessity? Then you sir, are the greatest enemy of love, lust, pua game, freedom, and happiness. Fuck your puritannical Christian theocracy!

        LikeLike


      • on February 5, 2013 at 6:55 pm slumlord

        Stick to crayons because you’ve missed the point completely. Man sluttery kills love just as effectively as straightforward female sluttery, regardless of economic conditions.(Btw, I’ve said nothing about female economic dependance. Did you pull that out of your arse?) Houellebecq can see the parallels between sexual libertarianism and capitalism but he is not so stupid to conflate the two, unlike yourself.

        Love means taking others into account. The libertarian “me first” attitude fucks everyone over in the end. The only way society works is by recognising that you have both rights and duties to each other. Duties in turn, limit liberty in some way which is anathema to the libertarian philosophy.

        I know this is a hard idea to grasp, especially to a person who can hold only one idea in his head at a time, but too much liberty destroys itself in the end. Society, which can only exist in recognition of the rights of common interests, is torn asunder by a philosophy which only recognises the rights of the individual. The center cannot hold because all the libertarians are pulling it apart.

        Love is all about doing good. That means doing good to yourself, others and society. It means taking others into account and hence self limiting your own liberty. The reason why the west is dying because no one loves anymore: It’s everyone for themselves.

        LikeLike


      • on February 6, 2013 at 1:09 pm Jack

        There’s a difference between “me first” and “me only.” I support the former. I believe that you won’t take care of anyone else if you don’t take care of yourself first. My goal in life is to be happy and to experience happiness as often and as consistently as possible. Happiness is contagious. The happier I am, the more others want to be around me, the more productive I can be from a position of strength, the more I will contribute to society. I have no incentive to contribute to society if I am miserble. In fact, misery would motivate me to steal from, or hurt, society. Personal happiness is the foundation of productivity.

        All duties to others must be voluntary if they are to be enthusiastic. Forced altruism is DOA. The only way to motivate people to help other people is by assuring them that they are not required to, and make them happy and fulfilled with their own lives first. Then, from that position of strength, giving something back to your community and reaching out/helping people will give you more satisfaction than anything else you’ve ever done. But you can’t make people do it with the barrel of a gun.

        Just what do you wish to criminalize or compel that a libertarian like myself wishes to keep legal and not compel?

        And I’m actually an enthusiastic proponant of both male and female “sluttery,” as I believe that it ultimately brings the two genders closer together in a state of symbiosis. I’ve always believed in more sex, not less. I’m also a believer in open relationships creating the most loving homes in which to raise children, as distinguished from the “forced monogamy/cheating/betrayal” model that tears families apart today.

        Again, we love life to the extent that it is voluntary. We hate it to the extent that it is compulsory. Give people freedom and happiness and they’ll surprise you.

        You may tear me a new asshole now. 🙂

        LikeLike


      • on February 10, 2013 at 9:09 pm MegaConnect

        Me first and me only are the same. Only one can be the first in importance to anyone. Granted you need to take care of yourself for the other person if that is true. But to do that you must also recognize the other person’s being and their needs as well. Your libertarianism borders strongly on solipsism, in which you believe that everyone else is happy because you are.

        Not all duties are voluntary. You are forced to do some tasks out of technical necessity or by certain already established principles which libertarians have to return to (right to and enforcement of a fair contract). That is the trivial case. It wont be done by the barrel of anybody’s gun. It will be done by the growling of your stomach as you starve.

        In fact, that is the best way to teach people, that the only way they must live is through avoidance of starvation.

        “First of all, what is it really all about? What is it you object to? You want to abolish Government?”
        “To abolish God!” said Gregory, opening the eyes of a fanatic. “We do not only want to upset a few despotisms and police regulations; that sort of anarchism does exist, but it is a mere branch of the Nonconformists. We dig deeper and we blow you higher. We wish to deny all those arbitrary distinctions of vice and virtue, honour and treachery, upon which mere rebels base themselves. The silly sentimentalists of the French Revolution talked of the Rights of Man! We hate Rights as we hate Wrongs. We have abolished Right and Wrong.”
        “And Right and Left,” said Syme with a simple eagerness, “I hope you will abolish them too. They are much more troublesome to me.”

        -The Man Who Was Thursday

        On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
        (Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
        Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
        And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “The Wages of Sin is Death.”

        -The Gods of the Copybook Headings

        You asked for it

        LikeLike


      • on February 6, 2013 at 3:06 pm Lily

        @slumlord

        You have many good points in theory, but you want the government to play referee – makes sure everyone stays in line and plays fair (level the playing field as Obama and his cohorts like to say). However, that doesn’t work because the government ends up meddling in individuals’ rights, as well as picking winners at the detriment of the losers. That shouldn’t be the role of government. Government should act as a parent who loves all his/her children equally, not pick favorites.

        LikeLike


      • on February 6, 2013 at 3:17 pm Lily

        @Jack

        You said:

        “There’s a difference between “me first” and “me only.” I support the former. I believe that you won’t take care of anyone else if you don’t take care of yourself first. My goal in life is to be happy and to experience happiness as often and as consistently as possible. Happiness is contagious. The happier I am, the more others want to be around me, the more productive I can be from a position of strength, the more I will contribute to society. I have no incentive to contribute to society if I am miserble. In fact, misery would motivate me to steal from, or hurt, society. Personal happiness is the foundation of productivity.

        All duties to others must be voluntary if they are to be enthusiastic. Forced altruism is DOA. The only way to motivate people to help other people is by assuring them that they are not required to, and make them happy and fulfilled with their own lives first. Then, from that position of strength, giving something back to your community and reaching out/helping people will give you more satisfaction than anything else you’ve ever done. But you can’t make people do it with the barrel of a gun.

        Just what do you wish to criminalize or compel that a libertarian like myself wishes to keep legal and not compel?”

        This part of your comment is the most perfect comment on this thread, bar none. But when you get to the part where you want to apply it to male/female sluttery, it’s where it falls. I don’t think sluttery leads to happiness, especially female sluttery. Female sluttery destroys marriages and ruins kids’ lives. The adultery and divorce rates for sluts is higher than it is for good girls or virgins.

        On the other hand, male sluttery is good only up to a point, and too much of it also leads to pessimism and lack of happiness with marriage, and sex in general, because such men tend to look for new thrills, as the same pussy loses its interest for them eventually. Of course, some men can control the new-pussy urge because they’re cognizant of the destructive force this has on the marriage, but most of the time a man immersed in too much pussy might not be able to settle down for long. So too much of something isn’t all that good in the end.

        So yes, I agree that giving people economic freedom is the root of pursued happiness, but too much sexual freedom leads to the degeneracy of a culture. The two are not interchangeable.

        LikeLike


      • on February 6, 2013 at 10:31 am Lara

        @Jack
        “Love can only exist from a position of strength, not weakness due to a need to eat and not be homeless.”

        Maybe for a man, but a woman will love more from a position of weakness.

        LikeLike


      • on February 6, 2013 at 12:48 pm Jack

        I don’t trust any artificial safety nets. Otherwise, even after the woman’s feelings go away, she’ll be incentivized to keep the relationship going in order to not lose my money or her lifestyle. This will force her to lie to me, cheat on me, and live in hypocrisy. When love is allowed to rest on an artificial life support system, it vanishes with the resting. Love can only be kept alive if it is free from artificial sustenance. As long as it is purely voluntary, with no incentive other than the attraction and emotional intimacy itself, it is at its strongest and allowed to be the most creative and spontaneous.

        Otherwise, the woman eventually feels like she’s trapped in a cage and wants to get out but doesn’t want to lose the money. So she cheats. Fuck that! In order to maintain the relationship’s integrity, neither party can be dependent on the other. I also prefer open relationships because sexual competition provides incentive to not take each other for granted and always be sweet and loving to one another as a result of knowing that you can lose each other at any time. Thus your love is reaffirmed daily.

        LikeLike


      • on February 6, 2013 at 4:22 pm Lily

        “Love can only be kept alive if it is free from artificial sustenance. As long as it is purely voluntary, with no incentive other than the attraction and emotional intimacy itself, it is at its strongest and allowed to be the most creative and spontaneous.“

        I’m sorry to say this, but you’re being overly idealistic. Such idealism doesn’t work. Marriage is often a contract – sometimes overtly discussed like in the case of J-ish and Islamic marriages, and sometimes it’s just implied like we have here in the west. But whether it’s overt or implied, it’s a contact – a deal between two people. That’s why love is conditional, not unconditional as liberals think. I am not calling you a liberal, but in this case your understanding of marriage is very right out of sleeping beauty. You think it’s formed in a vacuum without past/present/future and conditions. I bet the moment she has a serious issue or some troubles, you’re out of there too. You appear to be into no loyalty. You’re just there for the moment and for the sake of the passion. Nothing else. Aspect of life can’t survive on passion alone, as passion burns out and dissipates like steam.

        “I don’t trust any artificial safety nets. Otherwise, even after the woman’s feelings go away, she’ll be incentivized to keep the relationship going in order to not lose my money or her lifestyle. This will force her to lie to me, cheat on me, and live in hypocrisy. When love is allowed to rest on an artificial life support system, it vanishes with the resting.”

        You are conflating women with men. Women and men are not the same, and they are not equal. The woman will always have other needs, not solely based on passion for the man. The man on the other hand, doesn’t need a woman for anything other than sex/passion/love. A woman needs him for so many other reasons, and that is precisely what forms the romance between the two. If a woman acted like the man and only had sexual needs for him, where is the dominant/submissive, the protector/protected, the provider/provided-for dynamic and sexual polarity? Modern sexual mores have destroyed traditional romantic love and replaced it with this nonsense you’re describing.

        “Otherwise, the woman eventually feels like she’s trapped in a cage and wants to get out but doesn’t want to lose the money. So she cheats.”

        Bullshit. Women don’t stay in marriages where they don’t respect the man and turned on by his masculinity. If she cheats, she lost her sexual addiction to you, and money has nothing to do with keeping her around. Once she cheats, she out of your life, even if she hasn’t left physically yet. She won’t be a good little girl for the money. Women can’t behave like this no matter how much they try, because they can’t control their urge. The only time girls were able to control their sexual urge successfully was when sex out of marriage was frowned upon, so in the interest of catching men they kept their legs closed. A woman’s very need to find a man who will make her his is so strong, it is even stronger than the sexual urge. Now that such stigma has been removed and the government is becoming the protector of women, no leg closure is to be found anywhere in sight.

        “Fuck that! In order to maintain the relationship’s integrity, neither party can be dependent on the other. “

        Copout. Looking for an easy way to justify having an open relationship. As far as I’m concerned, if a man told me he doesn’t mind sharing me, I’d run the opposite direction. A woman doesn’t need this kind of “love.”

        LikeLike


      • on February 6, 2013 at 11:18 am gunslingergregi

        look around jack you see anyone in love, lust or happy?

        LikeLike


      • on February 6, 2013 at 12:55 pm Jack

        Plenty of people! Especially myself, as well as couples I know in open relationships and open marriages. The reason the people you know are unhappy is because they believe in money having a gender and strict monogamy. All of these things lead to dependence and imprisonment to each other out of necessity. Love gets put in a compulsory cage and is suffocated, replaced with hate and vindictiveness. Those poor sheep!

        We hate life to the extent that it is mandatory. We love life to the extent that it is voluntary. Forced love is “rape,” (if you’ll excuse the feminist term). So it’s no wonder everyone you know who follows the traditional model is miserable. It doesn’t work.

        LikeLike


  28. on February 4, 2013 at 5:41 pm The Man Who Was . . .

    Shouldn’t this be:

    Alpha males: biggest winners.
    Alpha females: marginal losers (can’t extract commitment from alpha males anymore, always afraid of being usurped).
    Beta females: marginal winners (can now choose between pump and dumps from alphas or commitment from betas).
    Beta males: biggest losers.

    LikeLike


    • on February 4, 2013 at 8:13 pm anon

      Wat. How would alpha females be worse off than betas females? That makes no sense. You say they have trouble securing commitment from alpha males. Which implies they can secure pump and dumps from them, and obviously they can secure commitment from betas. So it seems like alpha females have everything beta females have, plus the now small chance of landing commitment from a rare alpha or natural, maybe a miniscule chance but one fewer beta females have. So how on earth could that be worse?

      LikeLike


      • on February 5, 2013 at 4:30 am Mark II

        He’s not saying they have it worse in absolute terms. He’s saying their stock has decreased slightly while the beta females’ has increased slightly; that doesn’t mean they’ve passed each other.

        LikeLike


  29. on February 4, 2013 at 5:43 pm The Man Who Was . . .

    The mating market place is even more ruthless than the market market. The mating market is zero-sum, while in the market market a rising tide can lift all boats.

    LikeLike


    • on February 4, 2013 at 6:47 pm Matthew King (King A)

      No, the difference is the sexual market is driven by biological necessity and instinct, whereas the economic market is driven by the counterintuitive efficiencies (investing rather than hoarding) of wealth creation.

      This is the third time in this thread that the sexual market has been referred to as “zero sum.” How’s that? A rising sluttishness raises all dicks. Unless you have a moral objection to sloppy seconds (or hundredths). A PUA banging a chick a couple times before moving on to the next slot doesn’t preclude betas banging her before or after.

      No, a well-regulated SMP, being necessary to the functioning of a free state, attempts to make it zero sum by enforcing traditions of marriage and against adultery. The marriage market is zero sum, not the sexual market. Especially a contracepted sexual market. Plenty of easy quim to go around for YaReally’s students to imagine themselves 5’5″ kings of the world.

      Matt

      LikeLike


      • on February 4, 2013 at 6:58 pm The Man Who Was . . .

        You are such a complete dumbfuck. The sexual marketplace is zero sum because you can’t increase the supply of women, so if some guy takes two some other guy has to do without. In the market market, a businessman can actually create new wealth for everyone. His gain is not necessarily my loss.

        Now back to the retard cave with you.

        LikeLike


      • on February 4, 2013 at 7:26 pm gunslingergregi

        but you can increase the supply of woman just like you can increase the supply of chickens just cause people don’t talk about it doesn’t mean it can’t be done.

        plus
        ”””No, a well-regulated SMP, being necessary to the functioning of a free state, attempts to make it zero sum by enforcing traditions of marriage and against adultery. The marriage market is zero sum, not the sexual market. Especially a contracepted sexual market. Plenty of easy quim to go around for YaReally’s students to imagine themselves 5’5″ kings of the world.

        Matt
        ””””’
        and that is true the same piece of pussy can satisfy a shitload of men pass it all around and have a lot of variety

        LikeLike


      • on February 4, 2013 at 8:59 pm The Man Who Was . . .

        The real problem is serial monogamy, not outright whoredom.

        LikeLike


      • on February 5, 2013 at 12:13 am gunslingergregi

        yea i took a whore off the market it had far reaching effects
        all the other chicks basically quit doing it lol
        i don’t know what the fuck

        LikeLike


      • on February 4, 2013 at 11:27 pm Hayek's Staff

        gunslingergregi notes the important concept of pussy velocity, which is at an all time high. Also, that on the margins, supply can increase. Hence pussy, even prime pussy, has been devalued. This devaluation has lead to a lot of cock inflation, semen malinvestment, and ultimately deflation. Yet the elasticity of modern pussy is still to low to accomodate the vast supply of valueless omega and lower beta dick.

        LikeLike


      • on February 6, 2013 at 12:43 am Matthew King (King A)

        Awesome.

        LikeLike


      • on February 6, 2013 at 12:59 am gunslingergregi

        well the other bitchs got jealous of mine they all wanted to be cinderella and shit but only one got to be
        when we would break up the other chicks would come over and want to be permanent but i wasen’t with that with them and they would cry and shit and not be seen again it was wierd as fuck
        they all seem to have dumped the pimp types and got with other dudes

        LikeLike


      • on February 5, 2013 at 4:28 am anonymous

        LOL right, because today’s loose women never get passed from one guy to the next, nor are they ever getting fucked by more than one guy at the same time. No sir.

        Matt King is a “complete dumbfuck”? Right. Come on little buddy, why shatter your credibility with such a delusional statement?

        LikeLike


      • on February 5, 2013 at 10:17 am Greg Eliot

        The sexual marketplace is zero sum because you can’t increase the supply of women, so if some guy takes two some other guy has to do without.

        The point is, the guy taking two (or more) is only doing it temporarily.

        LikeLike


      • on February 5, 2013 at 11:48 am Obstinance Works

        Yes, the flock grows.

        LikeLike


      • on February 6, 2013 at 12:52 am gunslingergregi

        well it could be permanent if i wanted it so

        LikeLike


      • on February 5, 2013 at 1:18 pm Matthew King (King A)

        You have to put your personal resentments to the side. You are full of sharp observations but are stymied from taking them to the next level through a little antithesis. Instead you get stuck on past resentments and become unable to function (like a blushing little girl who just got negged).

        How does “some guy take[] two [women]” off the market in this day and age? Culturally supported polygamous marriage? Some dude’s one-night stand “is not necessarily my loss” either, unless, as I said, we “enforc[e] traditions of marriage and against adultery,” not to mention divorce.

        Now out of the retard cave with you. The light will blind at first, brother.

        Matt

        LikeLike


      • on February 6, 2013 at 9:47 am YaReally

        “How does “some guy take[] two [women]” off the market in this day and age?”

        Give ’em the herp or the AIDS! lol

        LikeLike


      • on February 6, 2013 at 1:42 pm Matthew King (King A)

        That’s funny, and I did laugh out loud, but I’m not going to use the acronym for fear of pushing you into overdose.

        LikeLike


      • on February 6, 2013 at 2:46 pm YaReally

        ❤

        LikeLike


      • on February 7, 2013 at 1:55 pm Matthew King (King A)

        :*

        LikeLike


      • on February 7, 2013 at 4:11 pm YaReally

        Aw man, I think you just gave me the AIDS! 😦

        LikeLike


  30. on February 4, 2013 at 5:45 pm The Man Who Was . . .

    The modern leftoid is not a Communist. He is a radical indivdualist.

    “Though the path hasn’t always been straight, one can discern over the course of the twentieth century an overarching ambition in the Nordic countries not to socialize the economy but to liberate the individual citizen from all forms of subordination and dependency within the family and in civil society: the poor from charity, the workers from their employers, wives from their husbands, children from parents – and vice versa when the parents become elderly…legislation has made the Nordic countries into the least family-dependent and most individualized societies on the face of the earth. To be sure, the family remains a central social institution in the Nordic countries, but it too is infused with the same moral logic stressing autonomy and equality. The ideal family is made up of adults who work and are not financially dependent on the other, and children who are encouraged to be as independent as early as possible.”

    And:

    “[A]uthentic relationships of love and friendship are only possible between individuals who do not depend on each other or stand in unequal power relations. Thus autonomy, equality and (statist) individualism are inextricably linked to each other.”

    Taken from a joint report from all the Nordic governments:
    http://www.globalutmaning.se/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Davos-The-nordic-way-final.pdf

    LikeLike


    • on February 4, 2013 at 5:50 pm The Man Who Was . . .

      “Unlike pre-modern societies in which one lived in small scale units, whose inhabitants functioned as an extended family, the individual now exists in large units characterized by atomization and formality. Family and friends notwithstanding, his relations with others are contractual and exist in formal settings. Those he encounters in public during his daily routine are strangers. Conservatives and libertarians may balk at the assertion that this is an individualist society, citing the existence of income redistribution as an example of our purported collectivism; however, those operating said system are unknown to the citizenry, and their activities occur unseen. Not one person receiving government assistance knows or even sees the tax providers contributing it. The inverse is the same.”

      http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/untimely-observations/liberal-hegemony-part-2/

      LikeLike


  31. on February 4, 2013 at 5:53 pm The Man Who Was . . .

    For some reason this reminded me of Roosh. Houellebecq is a prophet.

    “My European ancestors had worked hard for several centuries; they had undertaken to dominate and then to transform the world, and to a certain extent they had succeeded. They had done so out of economic interest, a taste for work, but also because they believed in the superiority of their civilization: they had invented the dream , progress, Utopia, the future. This consciousness of a civilizing mission had evaporated during the course of the twentieth century. Europeans, at least some of them, went on working, and sometimes working hard, but they did so for gain or out of a neurotic attachment to their task; the innocent consciousness of their natural right to dominate the world, and to direct its future, had disappeared. Due to accumulated effort Europe remained a rich continent; those qualities of intelligence and relentlessness that my ancestors had shown, I had clearly lost A well-heeled European, I could obtain at trifling cost, jn other countries, food, services and women; a decadent European conscious of my approaching death and having subscribed utterly to egocentrism, I saw no reason to do without them. I was aware, however, that such a situation was hardly tenable, that people like me were incapable of ensuring the survival of a society, or were even unworthy to live. Changes would come, were already coming, but I couldn’t feel myself genuinely concerned; my only genuine motivation was to get myself out of this shitheap as quickly as possible.”

    – Michel Houellebecq, Platform

    LikeLike


  32. on February 4, 2013 at 6:00 pm Jack

    Also, this man is confusing “liberal” with “individualist.” That’s only true in the sexual arena. In the economic arena, the liberal is a collectivist and the conservative is the individualist. He is arguing that being an individualist is bad in both the economic and sexual sphere, thus endorsing communism in both spheres, while implying the futility of both economic game and sexual pua game. This man is despicable!

    LikeLike


    • on February 4, 2013 at 6:25 pm The Man Who Was . . .

      No, it is you who are confused:
      https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2013/02/04/choice-quotes-from-michel-houellebecq/#comment-408427
      https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2013/02/04/choice-quotes-from-michel-houellebecq/#comment-408429

      LikeLike


    • on February 4, 2013 at 8:51 pm Dcrmnt

      “the liberal is a collectivist” only in America you moron. You’re the one who’s confused.
      Liberal = Libertarian or “Neo-Liberal” for most of the world. There’s ‘social liberalism’ too, but even explicitly ‘social liberal’ parties are to the right of Social-Democratic/Labour parties.

      Furthermore, in Europe the conservatives are mostly ‘Christian Democrats’ who are well to the left of Anglo-American conservatives on economics.

      LikeLike


      • on February 5, 2013 at 9:21 am aleister

        All of Europe in now liberal/socialist. That’s why the eastern europeans love to go to to WE and cash those fat unemplyment checks.

        LikeLike


      • on February 5, 2013 at 9:45 am Dcrmnt

        hurrrr durrr teh socialisms!

        LikeLike


  33. on February 4, 2013 at 6:32 pm Ronin

    Reminds me of the snippets I caught of this one film about Kinsey on TCM

    This old doctor yells at the guy playing the Kinsey character something like,

    “Do you have even the Slightest Idea of the forces you are unleashing by publishing this thing, and the consequences it will unleash out through generations?!!!”

    The movie was released in 1962 and is called, “The Chapman Report”.
    -Worth watching, even if just for the old guy’s tirade.

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0055841/

    LikeLike


  34. on February 4, 2013 at 6:50 pm rek5

    Write a book, Heartiste. Just do it.

    LikeLike


  35. on February 4, 2013 at 7:13 pm Tyrone

    No one ever said it better.

    “We can choose to be hard men, who rule over others, or soft men, who are ruled by others.” – Cyrus the Great

    LikeLike


  36. on February 4, 2013 at 7:16 pm AlphaBeta

    look at this article trying to shame alpha male behavior:

    http://tigerbeatdown.com/2013/02/04/notbuyingit-the-problem-is-far-bigger-than-audis-braverywins/

    LikeLike


    • on February 4, 2013 at 8:12 pm Unending Improvement

      Oh Jesus H. Fucking Christ.

      LikeLike


  37. on February 4, 2013 at 7:24 pm Anonymous

    Thought you’d enjoy the photo
    http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/04/opinion/frum-marriage/index.html?hpt=hp_c4

    LikeLike


    • on February 4, 2013 at 11:27 pm Antifeminist One

      Yes, restore the sanctity in marriage by using a file photo with fat chicks, interracials, and taken of all places – in Vegas.

      Trayvon can keep that womanatee, she’s so fat she’s beyond saving. Makes you wonder if she might’ve been at least a 6 if she never got fat to begin with?

      LikeLike


  38. on February 4, 2013 at 7:52 pm Choice Quotes From Michel Houellebecq « PUA Central

    […] It’s a fact, I mused to myself, that in societies like ours sex truly represents a second system of differentiation, completely independent of money; and as a system of differentiation it functions just as mercilessly. The effects of these two systems are, furthermore, strictly equivalent. Just like unrestrained economic liberalism, and for similar reasons, sexual liberalism produces phenomena of absolute pauperization. Some men make love every day; others five or six times in their life, or never. Some make love with dozens of women, others with none. It’s what’s known as ” the law of the market”. In an economic system where unfair dismissal is prohibited, every person more or less manages to find their place. In a sexual system where adultery is prohibited, every person more or less manages Source: Chateau Heartiste   […]

    LikeLike


  39. on February 4, 2013 at 8:39 pm SOBL1

    To fully understand how out of touch the cathedral is. Read the NY Times review of Houellebecq’s “The Elementary Particles” or the 2000 NY TImes Magazine special on him. They do not see the decay around them because this world is the world fo their making yet he sees it as pathetic and sliding into oblivion. Houellebecq was writing this 15 years ago. The other bit that the left hates about him is how he skewers the ’60s counterculture as nothing new. Nothing they did was original, yet they always want to think that the ’60s was some renaissance of freedom.

    He’s also the only Western writer who has discussed the menace of Islam, the terrible policy of importing Muslims into Western Europe, and the West’s fatal fear of dealing with Islam with strength. French lefties tried to silence him for even daring to be critical of Islam because he is reflecting views that many of his fellow Frenchmen have but are not in line with the elite that control France. When in doubt, the reviews and interviewers inevitably smear him as a pornographer despite consistently showing scenes of people engaging in passionate sex filled with love for one another. As he has stated many times, we are surrounded by sex but have lost all feeling of what love, passion and romance are. The Elementary Particles and Platform will remain in my bookshelf forever.

    LikeLike


  40. on February 4, 2013 at 9:25 pm munch

    Come off it. There is nothing about unfettered capitalism (freedom) that leads to some people getting all the money. Sure it leads to mega-rich, but one person’s gain does not come at the expense of another. When the USA had the most freedom the wealth of everyone in the US increased the most. We did not go from minor player in 1825 to major world power in 1900 without the last of us benefiting.

    LikeLike


    • on February 5, 2013 at 1:31 am Revo Luzione

      Long term, yes, you’re correct, but in the shorter term, in our adult lifespans, the income gap has grown like a fatty working in a candy store.

      Since 1970, the median income, adjusted for inflation, has dropped by 35%, as has the average American’s net worth. Productivity has never been higher, meanwhile wages have stagnated as cost of living rises, leaving a net loss in its wake.

      Meanwhile, the income of the banker class has expanded many times. We’re getting rolled by the bankers. The investment class has been the sole beneficiary of the rise in productivity.

      In the long term, these trends suck for the working class, but it may be of benefit on the whole, because we’re seeing the slow death of corporate consumerism.

      LikeLike


      • on February 5, 2013 at 2:34 am Jason

        +1

        LikeLike


      • on February 6, 2013 at 2:42 pm Lily

        “Since 1970, the median income, adjusted for inflation, has dropped by 35%, as has the average American’s net worth.”

        This is happening not because Capitalism is bad for people, but because of government meddling and forming crony capitalism.

        “Meanwhile, the income of the banker class has expanded many times. We’re getting rolled by the bankers. The investment class has been the sole beneficiary of the rise in productivity.”

        That’s the direct proof of what crony capitalism is – it’s the equivalent of affirmative action for businesses, such as banks.

        “In the long term, these trends suck for the working class, but it may be of benefit on the whole, because we’re seeing the slow death of corporate consumerism.”

        And why is corporate consumerism bad? Companies provide lots of jobs. In addition, if people want to spend money on goods and services, who are you to wish for it to stop? I don’t get this anti-business mindset. It’s not just clueless idiotic professors who are always anti-business. It’s also regular folks who figure if they are not benefitting directly from companies’ success, then they want to see those companies go under. Why?

        LikeLike


    • on February 5, 2013 at 10:06 pm Anon

      Unfortunately you are discounting having a virgin continent and discovering the awesome power of the hydrocarbon in that. It wasn’t soley pure capitalism that made America a better place for everyone. It was High resources + relatively low population + high trust/social capital.

      Unfettered capitalism in todays world, with 5 Billion plus cheap laborers, resources in ever diminishing quantities, and the destruction of our relatively high trust society(else why the hell would anyone be here of all places?) is going to turn out a little differently.

      LikeLike


  41. on February 4, 2013 at 9:28 pm On to the Next Manifesto « Grit Artisan

    […] The liberal side of the coin can be found in Heartiste’s recent post : […]

    LikeLike


  42. on February 4, 2013 at 9:30 pm feministx

    “We are the front lines of a grand sociological experiment the fruits of which are just now beginning to ripen. There is no way to know the exact contours it will trace, because nothing of this precise nature on this gargantuan scale has befallen an entire civilization of our size, until now. But if past performance of similar civilizational devolutions is indicative of future returns, there is little cause for optimism. The omens are everywhere.”

    What is wrong with you people?

    [Heartiste: Elephantine penis.]

    Why do you insist on believing that some bad thing is going to occur because of sexually libertine behavior?

    [Why insist otherwise?]

    Heartiste, you must have been raised with some Christian values or something being that you hold on to such a guilt complex over behavior that you revel in.

    [You misread me completely. I feel no guilt for my sexual predations. Like others of your ilk, you fall into embarrassing promulgation of the dichotomy fallacy, the fallacy which asserts in this case under discussion that it is impossible for a man to both enjoy the sexual looseness of his times and simultaneously decry its effects on the broader society. Or: The sophisticated brain is a wondrous thing!]

    Fuck a bunch of women. No, civilization will not fall apart. No, an apocalypse will not occur.

    [But frogs will slowly boil.]

    Before when we had a patriarchial order, things were horrible.

    {The past is not necessarily the product of rose-colored glasses. The past may have been as good as the bards tell of it.]

    We know this. There was war after war over whose invisible sky man was more righteous, endless famine and plagues.

    [Not all progress is forward, not all change is good.]

    Now we live in a modern world. We do not die from smallpox.

    [Strains of STDs are becoming immune to treatment.]

    We do not enslave people.

    [We enslave thoughts.]

    We do not get stuck with a spouse we simply cannot get rid of.

    [That was a bad thing? Have you seen the single moms and their glue-huffing bastards? You know, there is such a concept as an overcorrective.]

    We are better off now and getting better by the day.

    [Pollyanna wept.]

    Fuck one beautiful woman and then fuck another.

    [Someone’s getting left out of the fun.]

    There is no price to pay.

    [Sure there is. The sexual market is zero sum. Don’t be so willfully ignorant. It suits dumber women. Do you want to be lumped in with dumber women?]

    There will be no day of reckoning in the far future when people of walmart become all the people there are.

    [Cataclysms can change on a dime.]

    Fuck as many beautiful women as you can find, and watch as humanity conquers telomere shortening and cancer and fossil fueled vehicles.

    [All those things are great, but that doesn’t mean the shit that’s going down around us isn’t really happening.]

    We will enter an era of greatness and prosperity and leisure like never seen before.

    [I agree, but only for the 1%. There will be a great culling in our future to enable that era of prosperity to flourish.]

    LikeLike


    • on February 5, 2013 at 2:21 pm Anon

      At 1.5 child per woman, a population shrinks to 10% of its original size in 3 generations.

      The natality rates in the West are slightly over 2 kids per woman but they are skewed because of immigration.
      Add this to the fact that most white women are following your femcunt road toward spinsterhood and History’s garbage bin, and there you go:
      “The Wages of Sin is Death”.
      It sounds poetic and theoretical now but give it another hundred years.

      LikeLike


  43. on February 4, 2013 at 9:38 pm Big Ern

    Fuck this. I’m going cowboy, riding the range and chewing tobacco. Who’s with me??

    LikeLike


    • on February 6, 2013 at 12:45 am Matthew King (King A)

      CGTOW

      LikeLike


  44. on February 4, 2013 at 9:57 pm maldek

    “Women looking for the “perfect man” are usually not much of a prize themselves. Perhaps it is a defense mechanism? Reject them before they reject you?”

    Flavia you got it. It is an excuse to cover their own failure.
    Instead of saying “I was unable to keep that great (8) guy” she will say something like “He was almost perfect, but he couldnt dance. I will rather wait for my perfect 10”

    LikeLike


  45. on February 4, 2013 at 11:17 pm gunslingergregi

    yea i am getting that allready it is because of something i did that was assholish or something not because i told her to leave
    former chick like i need to bring my mom when i get my stuff cause she afriad
    i’m like you used to talk about committing suicid a lot before you ain’t for a long time i made you love life
    her i never said you didn’t
    she tried to flip script i didn’t let her demonize me he he he

    LikeLike


  46. on February 4, 2013 at 11:19 pm gunslingergregi

    the hampster is an amazing thing to behold

    LikeLike


  47. on February 4, 2013 at 11:43 pm gunslingergregi

    me you were still with me in van though and wanted to have sex with me and none of that stuff was a big deal to you until i told you to leave then you come up with shit that didn’t matter so much before that
    (yea thats right a woman wanted to have sex and that didn’t fuck with what i was trying to do my mission to not feel like shit) we didn’t fuck
    man she must be pissed

    thing was she was crying in house about how i was gonna say the kids couldn’t come over again while they were here and i had issues with there dad being on the phone with one in my house
    she may have actually wanted me to say that to take the descision out of her hands that is a posibility i am thinking of now and she would of gone along with it
    but i think it would make me lose a piece of my soul doing some shit like that
    allready had my current wife do that kind of and i didn’t ask her to
    but to ask a woman to do that and have her do it doesn’t feel right
    allthough her not being with me she prob won’t have the kids with her anyway cause she gonna be back on drugs

    me really though i want to remember the good stuff we had like i said before when we seperated i love ya still and always will just life is hard sometimes when we have other people we are responsible for and can’t just do whatever we want.

    LikeLike


  48. on February 4, 2013 at 11:46 pm gunslingergregi

    any advice tell her to give up kids?
    taking her to clinic in morning
    she basically said i had the power to say kids can’t come back but man that would take some huge balls i don’t think i posess is it wrong to do or am i in the right to save the chicks life
    or being selfish not taking on 3 kids he he he

    LikeLike


  49. on February 4, 2013 at 11:58 pm gunslingergregi

    yea in van she grabbed my cock i said no plus night before kids upstairs she came down in nehlige and wanted to fuck i didn’t then either
    maybe seeing 4 kids that ain’t yours kills the mood
    hell hath no fury like a woman spurned i guess i’m in trouble he he he

    LikeLike


    • on February 5, 2013 at 1:47 am gunslingergregi

      yea she cried when i wouldn’t fuck her after she put on the neglige or however it is spelled
      but i was going through all this shit in my mind
      told her it was just fucking wierd thinking about taking on that much responsibility
      my chest hurt from the shit at the time thinking of it and not wanting to add some kind of unfairness to the world

      LikeLike


  50. on February 5, 2013 at 12:01 am gunslingergregi

    look at my hampster go
    i like to think of it as planning though or calculating a move
    trying to see how the shit fits with the morals i still try to have in some areas
    just i ain’t really dealt with so much shit so it is first time go for most things dealing with this chick

    LikeLike


  51. on February 5, 2013 at 12:11 am Rum

    The best fuck I ever knew was with a completlty reptilian female. I mean, she was cold to the touch. Like some kind of lizard.

    LikeLike


    • on February 6, 2013 at 1:09 am gunslingergregi

      yea i think her original plan was killing me and getting my house after marriage he he he
      thats kind of hot think she may have done it before helping other chicks
      she is like almost pure evil but yet hot like fucking the devil and living to tell about it

      LikeLike


  52. on February 5, 2013 at 12:26 am gunslingergregi

    need a chick to come to house tomorow and make sure she packs her shit
    i feel weak any volunteers

    LikeLike


  53. on February 5, 2013 at 12:37 am gunslingergregi

    you know what is insane is that the state and other woman have no problem cutting masses of men off from their kids and back it up with police and guns.

    LikeLike


  54. on February 5, 2013 at 12:38 am gunslingergregi

    and take the mens money wild shit

    LikeLike


  55. on February 5, 2013 at 12:40 am gunslingergregi

    my chick has got 6 kids that don’t live with her and does not pay child support for any of them even though she had dudes in the past pay child support for them lolzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    LikeLike


  56. on February 5, 2013 at 1:08 am Retrenched

    “Show men endless images of beautiful models and actresses and singers, show them endless images of beautiful, slim, women engaging in sex with enthusiasm, tell them that a world of uncommitted and marriageless sex is the norm — then, for reasons they don’t understand, slam the door in their face.”

    It’s a paradox really — the sluttier the average girl becomes, the harder it becomes for the average guy to find an average girl who wants him for anything other than validation, emotional support or killing spiders. That’s because average girls who slut it up can easily get sexual attention from above average level guys, at least for a little while. So they’re free to dismiss their SMV peers as romantic prospects… at least until the wall approaches.

    And when that happens, average guys have to “date down” to “below average” girls to get any action at all, which leaves the “below average” guys with no one left to pair off with.

    Omega males living in the post sexual revolution west are like starving men chained to the walls of a five star restaurant, forced to watch others enjoy meals they can never hope to eat themselves. Everywhere they see sexual images — TV, movies, magazine covers, Internet, billboards, even video games… sex seems to be everywhere, except in their bedrooms.

    “This is not a prescription for long term stability.”

    Nope.

    LikeLike


    • on February 5, 2013 at 1:22 am Retrenched

      *SMV should be SMP.

      LikeLike


  57. on February 5, 2013 at 1:41 am gunslingergregi

    is this natural angst or is it because i am brainwashed to believe the woman should have her kids
    or it is somehow normal to raise another dudes kids when it is not

    LikeLike


  58. on February 5, 2013 at 1:59 am gunslingergregi

    sometimes i wish i really didn’t give a fuck at all or at least was dumb enough not to have enough forward thinking to fuck myself out of being selfish and enjoying myself instead of worrying about bullshit

    LikeLike


  59. on February 5, 2013 at 2:04 am gunslingergregi

    course thats not true either it works out i guess otherwise i might have been dumb enough to believe i would make 4 grand back when i was without loot moving drugs and would prob be in jail for a while so yea i guess it might be bad but also good
    h i need help bro i know the shits in the archives but ahh yea

    LikeLike


  60. on February 5, 2013 at 2:33 am gunslingergregi

    prob hit the point of diminishing returns anyway prob need a diferent chick to have fun with

    LikeLike


  61. on February 5, 2013 at 4:23 am John Rambo

    A woman is whining because her daughter’s husband has taken her children away from her, and is requesting people to please help her.

    I pointed out that TENS OF MILLIONS of MEN have had their children kidnapped by women, and the women REFUSED to help the men. So why should we help you women? And the reaction? The usual male-shaming language and man-hating feminist bullshit. How surprising.

    Here’s the full convo. To see my replies, scroll down to User ID 20438149

    http://www.crimesagainstfathers.com/australia/Forums/tabid/82/forumid/109/threadid/5401/scope/posts/Default.aspx

    LikeLike


  62. on February 5, 2013 at 4:51 am Anonymous

    With International Womens Day coming up on March 8, let’s remember that much of the world celebrates that with men buying frying pans and irons for the women in their lives and there are billboards with ads showing the women happy about these gifts.

    Men are supposed to give women flowers on that day.

    Yet the western (Marxist) world thinks of the day as an opportunity to march angrily for “equality” and reflect on “violence against women”.

    Please do a post around just before that day that journalists will find who are searching for posts about the subject at the time. Your thoughts might go mainstream if you do this.

    LikeLike


  63. on February 5, 2013 at 9:31 am Joe Blow

    I hadn’t thought of libertinism quite this way. If leftism is radical individualism, then the welfare state is just a method of enabling the lucky few to take what they want, while divorcing themselves from consequences. In an adultery-prohibiting society, there are consequences to adultery, just as in a state that frowns on robber barons, there are consequences that come with attempting to become a robber baron.

    That long term + short term unemployment is in the mid-teens, and middle income households are bleeding wealth, while the stock market is hitting record heights, tells me we are in a new gilded age, The problem with this one is that the robber barons and trusts are in bed with the politicians; cheaply loaned government money and huge spending based on debt is fueling the new monied class. This minting of coin devalues everything that is materially important to the middle class – the value of a home, the value of a wage, the value of a 401(k).

    What is most sad about this is that the New Monied Class’s focus on increasing wealth by robbing the middle class is only working because our women – 70% of them – are in bed with the state on this, thinking only about short term social benefits, and not about long term damages, the poverty they are bequeathing to our kids.

    LikeLike


  64. on February 5, 2013 at 11:34 am Obstinance Works

    Edit

    Thoughts Of A Crazy Typist.

    by Reinald Vallejo on Saturday, October 24, 2009 at 7:09pm ·

    …

    Attacking Pawns strategies position statistically proposition visionary complementary

    no i’m not on illicit drugs, just heavy doses of potent caffeine and
    prolific neurosis, not livered cirrhosis osmosis
    trance and focus
    this is your greatest even though they, The Hate Us, my imp pressy o sense like habeas corpus without the dread corpses is sucking the

    life out of my battery via broken ignition
    switch and now
    for you
    in a ditch

    beyond your guard 4
    abstract poetry avant guarde

    patterns and similarities…

    an elephant never forgets
    to eat
    your value
    and now my tire
    is flat
    no more travel to day Time 2 HIT the Hey!
    i’m knot ssss AAA wing that it is evillage privy ledge
    The WORD NAZI has nut struck so struts
    all is a mindbender fen-for-yourselves-der

    loses some of it’s elasticity with out tragedy
    it so gray
    so very vary gray
    how will humanity become greater than >>>>>> technologically
    the hand is mightier than the vector renderer
    ugliness has just as much meaning as beauty ====
    conflict breads creativity
    a reflection of you
    what should not have been instead of the maybe and might is right
    and left is left so true
    contempt combat birth is now life and dead the yingyang of the sane
    the plain mundane of the insane, just saying
    I found the color eye wanted and now she is gone
    my inhibitions are grown and old now grave nothing left to save
    claquity claque clique
    it’s like ending on the high notes and lows too
    we communicate ideas in front ways when in different venues
    balance in everything son, so why am i tripping on it?
    he’s whacked? no he’s just a cool cruel cat
    we must react to God
    why do we find cartoon sexy? it’s the secondary traits that make us eye rate
    she a trinity volcano
    give of your blast to the master
    i love the cooking
    i want to say sing see everything and nothing both at the same sane insane time in timing
    so the tie me is correct-o-men-dough
    in an angry rush, in a babbling brush
    is paint
    can’t fit a round peg into a square hole
    Iím an artist; I can drawl very well, it’s deep
    use borstal in a long-term sentence
    ————-
    Imagery

    Beauty is such a womanly thing so sensual and weak to the brash
    A man is there to shout it’s argument down but he cannot bare, like a sweating pregnant
    to look at what it calmly declares

    Saved

    Let’s be clear of a woman and what she is not
    she is not a weary wasted warrior wanting your water
    she is not a tough tourniquet to be tortured and torn
    nor is she a priceless princess prancing and preeminent
    She is only a child with the mind of a rat
    a very cunning rat a very fragile child
    as she grows old her emotions are broken over again like shards of glass
    you can crush them with something hard, but if you are soft
    oh man who is a fool, if they are soft, you can only cry
    as she ages she will know just what will fill that whole in your soul
    and that is why you do not give it to her, because she will go in and out
    of it like the silly manwhore you are

    —–

    The Knowing of Myself

    You want me to describe to you the highs I have had over the span of my life. You want to feel the rhythmic understanding of self-reflection and inflection of my center catalysts.

    I brought about my own heaven in the walls of my hellish body.
    The highs of life came natural to me when I fled from the chemicals that took away my balance: My Nirvana

    As a Natural, I could sense things; I could follow what they were telling me. Events were screaming messages to me. My emotions became short and sweet, not long and mind-blowing. I could think when I was caressed by the wandering seduction of discovery’s whisper. Value in my entire being was increased and not destroyed like some unimportant firelight burning in the back yard of an empty suburban street.

    I found in my greatest moments of victory that I was more than this empty mass of undiscovered pride. I found that pride was for my humiliations and humiliations where for my pride. I was to be the nothing staring out at the world, but yet finding everything. The Nothing who was aware of Everything.

    How would you know desire if you were never hungry? How would you know God if you were always right? How would you miss your own home sweet home if you never wandered out in the cold and hungry night?

    No longer are events to me just events. No longer do I ride their waves, because I have flat-lined, but when I ascend to Nirvana, my entire being is now there. When I descend to life’s hells, likewise I am altogether there, but I am there because I am brave to be there, knowing, yes knowing that is where the fire is melting my outer essence and so my inner essence will be more purely realistic. I can touch reality just that much more, so I can feel oh that so much better.

    I don’t have to dance, but I can, so I sit. Do not cause me to rise unless you are prepared to handle this fire which glows through my eyes. This is just a warning or maybe this is your Greatest Seduction. Either way I will have you, all of you. If you are pure, you will find all of me in time, if not, you will never have any of me again.
    ——
    She Fucked Me Up

    You are cinematic to the courtsey of my momentary obsessision
    so compact and violent that I only need a few seconds with you to
    be over it
    So I look at you and now you can understand
    I’m not worried about me and not about you either.
    I’m just not worried.

    —
    the unexpected

    how many men have had a moment like this
    how many times have the so called weak been blown away by the
    changing winds of the so called brave
    how many times has a man been called something
    anything yes
    anything except
    the exception
    so where was your reputation when a refudiation of the reservation
    of your so called occupation granted
    yet untold
    you know nothing of the river
    that flows deep beneath the underneath the understanding the distance landing
    of a languishing heart was given a start

    he had crowds, yes he had crowds in the darkness
    and breezes of truth in the starkness of a melody played so low
    and yet this was a stretch
    this was youth in its finest hour
    another shower
    another place far beneath the stars and the wars of what was yours
    nothing could be done to further the distance

    he never forgot who you were

    WHITE QUEEN

    because you were my queen it, was you
    on the chessboard
    that is why i was angry when you would not listen to the subtle tide
    and now that it rolls underneath everything we are
    this mountain ascending into the clasp of eternity

    He is a brilliant master and you are his disaster
    now and forever after

    —–
    Does anyone remember laughter?

    There is not enough darkness in the whole world to extinguish the light of a small candle.

    LikeLike


  65. on February 5, 2013 at 11:52 am thwack

    OK, let me QB this:

    If game was a chess board, Heartiste would be my King, Matt would be my Bishop, Greg would be my Knight, Corvinus would be my Rook (although there are a few other contenders for this position)

    For Queen, right now it’s a toss up between Nicole and Kate.

    I would bring back the position of “Jester” for myself, since every court needs at least one person not afraid to tell the King the truth.

    *Rumble young man rumble*

    huuuaaaagh!

    LikeLike


    • on February 5, 2013 at 12:08 pm Obstinance Works

      Nice.

      LikeLike


    • on February 5, 2013 at 12:09 pm Obstinance Works

      But who are the pawns?

      LikeLike


    • on February 5, 2013 at 12:53 pm Kate

      Sweet 🙂

      LikeLike


    • on February 5, 2013 at 3:22 pm Greg Eliot

      And Lily would be a checker.

      LLOOZOZOZOZLZLZLZLLZOZOZOZOZOLZLZLZL

      LikeLike


      • on February 8, 2013 at 3:35 am Lily

        Are kiddies allowed into the Chateau now?

        LikeLike


    • on February 5, 2013 at 3:57 pm thwack

      Slip line training for the fellas because its important to stay pretty as a girl while you shake up the world.

      LikeLike


    • on February 5, 2013 at 5:15 pm Greg Eliot

      …Greg would be my Knight…

      A white knight on the opposite side of the board? The L you say!

      LikeLike


  66. on February 5, 2013 at 11:55 am peterike

    “The private and public acts were separate and so defined the individual in all his parts. The front door is the symbol for both, and like a good symbol it has its literal meaning.

    “What went on behind the door was domestic and intimate. Before it lay the world, and the division the threshold made was known to all and respected. Beyond the door decorum demanded circumspection and regard. Our grandfathers knew that to confuse the two was to return to chaos, that frightening view just behind Paradise. Not to know the difference between the public thing, the res publica, and the intimate is to surrender that delicate balance of order which alone makes the state a servant and not the people the servant of the state.” — Andrew Lytle, “A Wake for the Living”

    LikeLike


  67. on February 5, 2013 at 2:40 pm j

    Equalists wasting more of my tax money: http://swampland.time.com/2013/02/05/down-the-manhole-state-officials-grapple-with-gender-neutral-language/

    LikeLike


  68. on February 5, 2013 at 2:52 pm Den sexuella marknaden « Yasers hörna

    […] Love as a kind of innocence and as a capacity for illusion, as an aptitude for epitomizing the whole of the other sex in a single loved being rarely resists a year of sexual immorality, and never two. In reality the successive sexual experiences accumulated during adolescence undermine and rapidly destroy all possibility of projection of an emotional and romantic sort; progressively, and in fact extremely quickly, one becomes as capable of love as an old slag. [källa] […]

    LikeLike


  69. on February 5, 2013 at 3:31 pm yaser

    Awesome post, Heartiste. Will quote plenty to my site.

    LikeLike


  70. on February 5, 2013 at 4:58 pm J the Good Man

    Alright guys: let’s complain about women being whores and the west falling: our solution is to fuck them senselessly, not focus on our work, and forget about having children/making a household/being responsible for helping society (through craft) get back on track!

    Power to the WNs! The Red Pillers! The MRM! The Manosphere!

    LikeLike


    • on February 5, 2013 at 5:55 pm yaser

      wtf are you talking about? I’m married with two children, and trying to start two (2) companies at the same time. Not to say that i have a blog were i collect my impressive amount of thoughts so my children can read them later on.

      Not everybody here is the same.

      Knowing how to game women, and caring for male male and hating feminsts does not make you a fornicator by default.

      In other news:

      http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/photoshop/9/2/0/165920_slide.jpg?v=1

      (disclaimer: I do not approve of him)

      LikeLike


  71. on February 5, 2013 at 5:55 pm yaser

    *for male RIGHTS and

    LikeLike


  72. on February 9, 2013 at 12:34 pm Randoms « Foseti

    […] – Heartiste on Houellebecq. […]

    LikeLike


  73. on February 10, 2013 at 10:50 am gregory cochran

    The modern leftoid is not a Communist.

    NOT EXACTLY.

    Communism is dead, but cultural marxism has triumphed in the West. The purpose of cultural marxism is to pave the way for communism, meaning that the US will eventually become a communist state barring a culturual restoration.

    Narcissism is just the gateway drug to cultural marxism.The bait of sex, drugs, status, etc. is just a means to destroy traditional virtue and prepare the way for another commie homicidal gangster state.

    Cultural Maxism has replaced Christianity. SWPL hipsters are its disciples.

    LikeLike



Comments are closed.

  • Copyright © 2018. Chateau Heartiste. All rights reserved. Comments are a lunchroom food fight and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Chateau Heartiste proprietors or contributors.
  • Visit the Goodbye, America photojournal website.

    Then cleanse your visual palate with a visit to the Welcome Back, America photojournal website.

  • Pages

    • About
    • Alpha Assessment Submissions
    • Beta Of The Year Contest Submissions
    • Dating Market Value Test For Men
    • Dating Market Value Test For Women
    • Diversity + Proximity = War: The Reference List
    • Shit Cuckservatives Say
    • The Sixteen Commandments Of Poon
  • Twitter Updates

    Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.

  • Recent Comments

    Publius on Battlebrows As Portent Of Soci…
    Publius on Battlebrows As Portent Of Soci…
    Greg Eliot on Battlebrows As Portent Of Soci…
    Publius on Battlebrows As Portent Of Soci…
    Carlos Danger on Battlebrows As Portent Of Soci…
    Amon Ra on Battlebrows As Portent Of Soci…
    mendo on Battlebrows As Portent Of Soci…
    Greg Eliot on Battlebrows As Portent Of Soci…
    streetsweeper on Battlebrows As Portent Of Soci…
    Captain Obvious on Battlebrows As Portent Of Soci…
  • Top Posts

    • Battlebrows As Portent Of Sociopath America
    • Women's Sports Will Be Killed Off By Invasive Trannies
    • Red Tsunami?
    • Oy, There It Is
    • Shitlib Logic Trap!
    • Globohomo's Next Target: "Sexual Racism"
    • The Sixteen Commandments Of Poon
    • There's Something [Very Special] About That Migrant Caravan Truck
    • How To Get A Girl To Send Nudes Of Herself
    • The NPC Song: "Feel"
  • Categories

  • Game

    • 60 Years of Challenge
    • Alpha Game
    • Cajun
    • Krauser PUA
    • Rational Male
    • Roosh V
    • Tenmagnet
    • Treatise of Love
  • MAGA MEN

    • Alternative Right
    • AmRen
    • Anonymous Conservative
    • Audacious Epigone
    • Dusk in Autumn
    • Education Realist
    • Evo and Proud
    • Gene Expression
    • Hail To You
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • Lion of the Blogosphere
    • My Posting Career
    • OneSTDV
    • PA World and Times
    • Page For Men
    • Parapundit
    • Rogue Health and Fitness
    • Steve Sailer
    • The Anti-Gnostic
    • The Kakistocracy
    • The Red Pill Review
    • The Spearhead
    • Unqualified Reservations
    • Vox Popoli
    • West Hunter
    • Whiskey's Place
  • Syllogism and Synthesis

    • Alias Clio
    • Arts & Letters Daily
    • Deconstructing Leftism
    • Elysium Revisited
    • Feminine Beauty
    • hbd chick
    • Human Biological Diversity
    • Library of Hate
    • Overcoming Bias
    • Stuff White People Like

WPThemes.


loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
%d bloggers like this: