Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Biomechanics is God’ Category

This is a video of Dutch women at an airport singing a song welcoming Muslim rapefugees to their homeland.

A reader helpfully noted that most of the women are middle-aged hags and depressed-looking hippie retreads who probably stink of patchouli and practice cat yoga. The one young girl in the video glances around wondering wtf is going on.

From the very beginning of this blog, there’s been a propelling theme carrying culture discussions: The sexual market in the West has changed, in many ways radically changed, over the past half century, and this has had profound impacts on how men and women relate. Technology has driven much of the change, but social patterns and government intrusion have also contributed to the reorganization of mate choice habits.

One outcome of the modern sexual market which was predicted here (although not stressed as much as it should have been, given the nature and primal urgency of current events) was the growth of the demographic of unmarried, unloved, childless, aging, bitter White spinsters who sacrificed their prime fertility years riding the cock carousel (or riding its close cousin, the social media attention whore carousel). The French author Houellebecq has also tackled this theme of a fractured, and fracturing, sexual market, most notably in his book The Elementary Particles.

When women reach a certain age, and the lustful leers of men have abandoned them for younger lure, they realize the best is not yet to be, and a nagging sorrow settles on their hearts. For aging women who don’t have the comfort of a husband or children or supportive family network, this sorrow is very near grief. Some women will respond to this insult to their femininity by turning inwardly, finding release through self-help books, gardening, or arts and crafts. Others will vent their rage at the world, despoiling the political sphere with nonsensical feminist boilerplate.

And then there are those spinsters who react to their dispossession and displacement from the sexual market – and the maternal market – by exacting revenge on their outer world (homogeneous White Europe) with a summoning of succubi from their inner world. These are the women in the video above: benumbed, loveless rejects throwing open their butthurt hearts to trashcanistan migrants, expressing through their imbecilic kumbaya chanting a dual longing for sexual and maternal satisfaction. Merkel falls into this category, but unfortunately her psychological spinster distress could mean the destruction of Germany.

Childlessness greatly exacerbates this state of despairs. A societal decline in fertility means fewer children to care for, watch after, and guide through life, either one’s own children or the children of relatives and even close friends. After an unkind dismissal from the sexual market robs women of their instinct to arouse desire in men, a kinderfrei society robs women again of their other awesome love and yearning: fulfillment of their maternal instinct.

And make no mistake, the spinster’s pain doesn’t require a woman to remain unmarried. Weak, enfeebled, sycophantic beta male husbands can trigger this crisis of femininity just as assuredly as unmarried solitude, for the resentful wife of a pathetic beta feels as isolated as the single woman with her cats.

The title of this post is half-glib. I don’t think spinsters are solely responsible for the West’s present insanity. But they are a piece of the puzzle worth putting into place. The only way stone cold patriots will defeat the evil descending on their lands is first through understanding the nature of their foes and the elements of their culture that breathe life into the evil.

Read Full Post »

Masculinity is invasive, femininity is invitational. Funny how the most fundamental biomechanical sex differences play out similarly in the bedroom and on the geopolitical world stage. A comment from Steve Sailer’s:

strutting military-age youths with smartphones, giving Germany’s surrender a weird sexual vibe that nobody yet has explained satisfactorily even in retrospect.

Is it really that hard to explain?

The sexual appeal of strutting military age young men would be to whom? To women, both young and old. If the appeal is sexual it can’t be to anyone else. It is to women.

Does that mean an invasion of these Muslims is appealing to women? The smart answer seems to be No. But if the sexual appeal is not to women, then there is no sexual appeal, but we know and we feel there is a sexual appeal. Therefore the correct answer has to be YES. And the smart answer has to be wrong.

The sexy men are invading because the women want it.

And it’s stupid but it’s not false.

When men make a mistake, they invade somewhere they should not have–due to male desires blinding their reason.

When women make a mistake, they invite someone they should not have–due to female desires blinding their reason.

The reason we have not yet seen an explanation is that we assume politics are based on male desires. And second, women do not understand their own desires, so they would be less able to articulate this than I am. What woman would say, “I know it is stupid, but I need to see if these sexy, strong foreigners might make better lovers and rulers.”

But that’s the answer.

Setting aside for the moment the theory that there is a Freudian undercurrent of debased sexuality that motivates Western White woman’s advocacy for the mass importation of third world refugees invaders, there is something real and profound to the general observation that invasion – the storming of beaches, the colonizing of foreign lands – is a male thing, and invitation – the throwing open of borders and homes to alien peoples, the coddling and sanctification of wretched refuse – is a female thing. And just as it is with intimate consummation, so to does Woman find her purpose opening her nation’s thighs (and sometimes her own thighs) to receive the impudent cock of a dusky totem.

Examining the “White women desire swarthy refugee cock” hypothesis, another commenter replies to the above quoted comment,

The people who crave the complete destruction of the european peoples like to say this – and it can be persuasive for people who look at alternative news sites because those sites focus on the military aged male aspect of the invasion – but the truth is the opposite and in plain sight when you look at the pictures used by the mainstream media to manipulate the public.

The pictures the MSM show are nearly always children and mothers in distress.

You’re right the deliberate destruction of the european peoples is being brought about because of western women but the reason is the media are deliberately manipulating their sympathy for the children.

Just look at any msm news since it started.

What was the major turning point in the media’s propaganda campaign – the dead kid on the beach.

There is certainly truth to this, but only so much. Plenty of European women have now seen video streams and photographs of young Muslim men crowding into Germany and elsewhere, and yet they still heartily support the resettlement of a large and growing fraction of the Muslim world into their homelands. I don’t believe media propaganda can anymore shoulder sole blame for influencing all these shitlib White women to take selfies holding signs saying “Welcome refugees!”. There is a deeper, darker psychological compulsion at work, and yes it could have a sexual dimension hitched to a social status whoring dimension.

Whatever the psychological motivation of refugee-loving White European women, it has to stop, or be stopped, soon. The survival of Western civilization is at stake.

Another commenter writes on the same topic,

Women are instinctively attuned to selective pressures, and when a woman sees foreign people flooding in and people seemingly powerless to stop it, her limbic system starts to presume that selective pressures favor some gene or genes in the former and starts to think about acquiring those genes for her own offspring, especially since those genes are going to confer immunities to diseases and pathologies that the foreign people are likely to bring along with them that the natives aren’t going to be immune to.

Women are aroused by male strength and dominance above all other considerations. If the wider culture and ruling classes are arranging society so that Muslim migrants have the run of the place, and the native White men are hindered from expressing their displeasure and acting on it, the native White women will begin to feel desirous of those migrants, feeling in their bones that these are the tribe leaders they are looking for. But this is heady, Heartistian id analysis that is far too dark for most people, so I don’t expect any public shaming campaign of women’s redirected desire to begin any time soon.

Read Full Post »

An anti-Game theme that occasionally surfaces in Dank Right blogs that lean towards the tradcon is the idea that learning successful methods and means to seduce women is somehow indicative of a *beep boop* sperg mentality which women hate, and that is why “Gamers” have trouble with women.

The premise is false along multiple fronts, but the major departure from reality is the belief that this tradcon caricature of PUAs, or the term I prefer, “self-improved casanovas”, is wholly alien to the natural born Naturals who “have a way with women”. This belief assumes the man who actively learns how to seduce women is an autistic reductionist, or a nerdy systematizer, who will never really get women because of his emotional limitations.

No doubt, Naturals work their magic with an intuitive gracefulness they have likely possessed since puberty, and maybe earlier. I’ve had the fortune to count a number of Naturals as friends. I’ve seen them in-field, and their crimson art is truly a majesty to behold. They seduce with an effortlessness and serene confidence that can only be acquired from years of successful beddings and other forms of positive feedback from women.

And the naturals I knew (and know) were/are not preternaturally handsome. They were average-looking men who seemed more handsome than they were because they projected their charm and masculinity through smirks, squints, and slickly smooth verbal sorcery.

So what about the Self-Improved Casanova (SIC) and his commonality with the Natural? What Game haters don’t seem to grasp is that Naturals behave around women EXACTLY THE SAME WAY as “reductionist spergs” do. The main difference is skillfulness of execution, but that is something that the latter will improve with practice. Another difference: Many Naturals don’t actually know why women react so well to what they do. Relying on intuition tends to dull one’s faculty of self-assessment.

Naturals perform intuitively the same pickup techniques and strategies that SICs perform with foreknowledge. That’s the only real distinction between them. In fact, much of what the Game-aware community knows about women’s sexual nature and about the male behaviors and traits women strongly respond to is gleaned from a collection of observations of Naturals interacting with women in the field.

The *beep boop* impression comes about because some people who encounter Game teachings are uncomfortable with the systematic analysis and breakdown of a human activity — romance — that historically has been thought of as magical, nebulous, and even divine. And, yes, many Game newbs are men who don’t have intuitive social grace, and while they are learning how to be better with women will tend to exhibit the *beep boop* quality until they get more comfortable applying what they’ve learned.

All of which is to say, Naturals and Game practitioners are a difference in degree, not kind.

***

It occurred to me to clarify that this post shouldn’t be read as a brazen assertion that any man can, with enough practice, become a Natural. That is false. By way of analogy, not every man can, with practice, become a pro baseball player. But he can become a better recreational baseball player than he would be without practice.

So it goes with seduction Systematizers emulating Naturals. If you are a born sperg, yours will be an uphill battle indeed. But if you apply yourself, you WILL get more dates, and with cuter girls than you would have gotten “just being yourself”. It works this way because the courtship behavior of Naturals (aka alpha males) is a code like any other human behavior that is open to cracking. Once cracked — that is, once you see the Vaytrix — emulation of the behaviors of Naturals will work to your non-Natural’s benefit.

Read Full Post »

Reader IHTG passed along this photographic progress report of a girl who, presumably, improved herself from a flatbread plain jane 5 (PJ5) to a lordotically pleasing HB8 by hitting the squat rack and improving her posture, (and by discovering the allure of the come-hither smile).

I say “presumably” because I don’t know the provenance of this photo. It’s possible, though unlikely, that she got Brazilian butt implants. Also, photoshop, but I don’t see any telltale giveaways.

However, what she has done to her body by improving so dramatically its ability to arouse men is something I have seen happen to women who hit the squat rack for a couple of years. Yes, a commitment to the king of exercises — the squat — will, without exception and at any age, carve a better ass out of a woman. The squat is truly a girl’s best friend. I have yet to see a girl at the gym who spent any significant time squatting with anything less than a temptingly tap-able turdcutter.

Oh, and don’t be a fatty, ladies. (sadly, it needs to be said)

***

PA protests,

I agree with the spirit of the post but that steatopygous ass is disgusting.

Yesterday coming up a subway escalator, I saw a perfect ass. It was intoxicating. Leggy girl in jeans. It looked a bit like this:

I agree (as would most White men) that the girl in this photo has a nicer body than the kardashianette above. Slender, tight, and pert without the gross hindquarter ostentation typical of the jungly women. I should probably clarify (for the record): Redhead with the bubble butt is more fuckable than Redhead with the flat ass. Butt Redhead with the 2014 vintage ass is just right. (You can see lots of pics of Redhead here on her Instawhore.)

Steatopygous primate asses are all the rape rage right now; likely this reflects a combination of Western negro worship and a shift in the sexual market to r-selection strategies which emphasize presentation, sluttery and good-to-go authenticity. A truly beautiful White European women’s figure tends to exhibit plumpness in the breasts and ass in balanced proportion, anchored on pleasingly wide birthing hips and retaining a decorous femininity that allures rather than assaults.

Read Full Post »

Mother Nature, in Her infinite and glorious wisdom, has not only provided for the defense of White women against mating out of the White race, She has additionally provided a back-up defense for those White women who mistakenly defy their hindbrain instincts to conceive with a Swarth. (h/t don)

Prematurity and Low Birth Weight as Potential Mediators of Higher Stillbirth Risk in Mixed Black/White Race Couples […]

Mixed race black and white couples face higher odds of prematurity and low birth weight, which appear to contribute to the substantially higher demonstrated risk for stillbirth. There are likely additional unmeasured factors that influence birth outcomes for mixed race couples.

It’s almost as if Nature knows something that shitlibs don’t. Fancy that!

Nature is sending us a message that no one tits-deep in the Equalist Narrative wants to hear: There are deeply instinctive, natural biomechanical processes bequeathed by Our Lord Above (and probably Below) to humanity that encourages discrimination against out-race mating (conception) and, should that barrier fail, against out-race live birth (replication). Nature is LITERALLY expelling stillborn mulattoes and quadroons from the womb chutes of White women.

Now that you know this ugliest of truths, ask yourselves, “Why are certain inimical (((groups))) pushing the White-Black miscegenation propaganda so hard?” The answer to that question rivals the ugliness of the question’s premise.

***

The Audacity of YUUGE issues a correction.

Low birth weight and stillborn risk were both found to go BB -> BW -> WW. This doesn’t necessarily suggest hybrid enfeeblement but it does suggest that “hybrid vigor” is bullshit (at least on these metrics). It shows that when it comes to characteristics that blacks are at higher risk of than whites are, mixed people fall in between blacks and whites. Stillbirth risk for mixed couples was found to be closer to the BB average than the WW average, but for premies/low birthweight mixed was closer to WW than to BB. In both cases, mixed falls in between BB and WW. The moral of the story is still the same–whites mixing with blacks is bad for whites. But it’s good or at least neutral for blacks, so it’s celebrated.

He’s right. Of course, it still means that White women who mudshark assume a higher risk of delivering premies/stillborns than they would have if they stuck to their own race. And they should be made aware of these risks by family, friends, and doctors. In so many colorful words. Heh.

I have a confession. This post was a sadistic troll of the usual cuckspects. The title, and the gusto with which the study findings were, ahem, flexibly presented, were deliberately provocative. As long as CH isn’t on anyone’s payroll, this blog is allowed the occasional prankster indulgence. I’m such a steenker!

Read Full Post »

This is a shibboleth-smashing study sure to give ugly feminists (but I repeat myself) and game-hating tradcons the hives.

Attachment Styles of Women-Younger Partners in Age-Gap Relationships.

Women have evolved to seek an older mate, however, research has shown negative opinions toward these relationships if the age-gap is significant. The most popular opinion is that women who date men that are 10 years or more their senior have an unhealthy relationship with their father. We investigated women-younger partners in age-gapped heterosexual romantic relationships to see if they differ in attachment styles when compared with women in similar-age relationships. We predicted that women in age-gap relationships will be predominantly securely attached, because it is evolutionary beneficial for women to seek older mates, and that there will be no significant difference in attachment styles between women in age-gap versus similar-age relationships. The common belief that the women who choose much older partners because of having “daddy issues” was unfounded in this study. There was no significant difference in attachment styles between the 2 groups, and 74% of the women in age-gap relationships were securely attached. Results are consistent with the limited literature on age-gap relationships regarding attachment style and relationship satisfaction. This study adds to the growing body of literature on attachment style and offers insight into the less-explored age-gap relationship dynamic.

There’s nothing psychologically unhealthy about an older man seeking a much younger woman or a younger woman loving a much older man. “Daddy issues” is just the butthurt bleat of envious beta males and bitterbitch aging females desperately trying to pathologize a natural expression of love and passion-inducing sexual polarity.

This is yet more laboratory proof from the whitecoats affirming the field observations of the common man; in this case, that women place less emphasis on men’s physical attributes than men do on women’s physical attributes, and more emphasis on other attractive male traits like personality, social status, resources, dominance, self-possession, confidence, and maturity.

So men, go ahead and fall in love with that barely legal beauty. You have less to worry about her motivations than you do about the jealousy and resentment you’ll provoke in everyone else who can’t stand to see you happy.

Read Full Post »

Why do women, particularly White women, have an instinctual racial bias against dating outside their race? Common sense tells us that a woman thinks with her hindbrain when choosing a mate, and one subconscious calculation she runs is how much her potential children with any man will resemble her. People, believe it or not, prefer to bear and raise children who look similar to themselves.

Now a study has uncovered that there is a biological basis for women’s racial bias against miscegenation. (h/t Dick Whitman)

Although a considerable body of research explores alterations in women’s mating-relevant preferences across the menstrual cycle, investigators have yet to examine the potential for the menstrual cycle to influence intergroup attitudes. We examined the effects of changes in conception risk across the menstrual cycle on intergroup bias and found that increased conception risk was positively associated with several measures of race bias. This association was particularly strong when perceived vulnerability to sexual coercion was high. Our findings highlight the potential for hypotheses informed by an evolutionary perspective to generate new knowledge about current social problems—an avenue that may lead to new predictions in the study of intergroup relations.

When women are at their most fertile, they are especially racist against outgroup men. Ovulation means Othering. (Would love to see this study controlled for race of woman, too. I bet ovulating White women are the most racist.)

It’s almost as if Nature doesn’t much care for the supposed benefits of “hybrid vigor” and prefers that kind mates with kind.

***

Wrong Side of History writes,

Wonder how much of a role birth control has played in the rise of mudsharking?

Good question! I bet it has played a role. Birth control coupled with relentless antiWhite cultural propaganda are possibly responsible for a YUUGE part of that 28% rise in interracial perversions. BC shuts down women’s ovulation, perhaps robbing them of their innate ability to discriminate in favor of men from their own race.

***

betamaxx oh-so-innocently asks,

But its not bad if she’s been with 20 white guys?

False premise. (For those new to the logic fallacy universe of devious haters/trolls, the false premise fallacy is often deployed by feminists and dindus, as these two groups seem to be the most certain that their shucking and jiving will go unnoticed by their betters.)

No one claimed it’s great if a White woman has slept with 20 White MEN, but there are levels of badness. The proper question to ask is whether 20 White cocks is not as bad, as bad, or worse than 1 black cock.

Commenter -A answers betamaxx,

Never has one been so transparent with their handle. No, when one must choose between twenty White men and nineteen White men and one nagger (or worse) it will always be the former that wins out. Chances are, if she is worth the arousal, those twenty men were not immediately consecutive and were at least bordering alpha. If she is not hot, who cares? Her only choice is mudbirthing anyway.

This is actually the basis for a life-affirming thought experiment.

How many White cock carousels can a White woman ride before it taints her as badly as riding one black cock?

Personally, if I found out a girl I was dating had JUST ONCE burned the coal, I would write her off as an investment vehicle for long-term love. (I would continue to plow her until the bloom fell off her rose, which you could say is a sort of karmic payback for her race denial treachery.) The risk-reward equation would be skewed uncomfortably toward the risk side. White women who ‘shark invariably have personality tics and temperaments that make them ill-suited to be loyal lovers and, if it’s your thing, doting mothers.

The equivalent number in White cocks sufficient to turn me off to her as an LTR prospect would reside somewhere in the 10-15 range. Which is to say, black cock is a White vagina pollutant 10-15 times more corrosive than White cock.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,464 other followers

%d bloggers like this: