Globalism Destroys Human Diversity

Watch this video of a presentation Greg Cochran gave in 2014 about genetics and have some fun connecting the dots with our present predicaments:

Notable realtalk:

• 12:20 – “For populations to diverge, they have to be genetically isolated…if you have very much genetic mixing between groups it levels out differences. It’s very effective. For example, if you had a population that was under moderately strong selection for let’s say height, but then they intermarried to the extent of 2% per generation with another neighboring population that was not, they would only get a little bit taller and it would stop.”

FYI the current interracial marriage rate for White Americans hovers around 9%.

• 12:44 – “You need genetic isolation for differences to accumulate. The usual way is simply being far apart.”

Diversity + Proximity = Homogeneity. Tell a shitlib that, and watch xir’s head explode.

• 12:55 – “Once in a while, people have social rules that keep them from marrying other people who may be nearby, and that can allow [genetic isolation] also.”

Those wrong side of history social rules that shitlibs associate with “bigoted” America actually served the purpose of preserving human diversity (and in the case of Jim Crow, preserving White lives).

• 15:31 – “Adaptive transgenerational epigenetic inheritance…I don’t think it exists. But a lot of people would like it to exist. Well, I have a long list of things I would like to exist, but most of them don’t.”

The last lifeboat of the blank slate equalist crowd — epigenetics — sinks beneath the HateTsunami.

Read Full Post »

The Difference Between Fat Men And Fat Chicks

A commenter over at the Goodbye, America blog, Theodora, has a great insight about the major difference between fat men and fat chicks.

I think that one big difference between female obesity and male obesity is this: while the health and aesthetics problems are common to both sexes, female obesity is totalitarian. Fat men don’t demand to be called Big Beautiful Boys. They don’t lie themselves that they are voluptuous, gorgeous and curvy. They don’t want to change the standards of beauty existing since the beginning of humanity. They don’t shame and bully thin people (“eat a sandwich!:), they don’t ask to vanity change the sizes of clothes, they don’t ask to erase the word “fat” from public conversations. Fat men usually deal with their problems individually and in silence, while fat women want to change society, dictionaries, standards, reality and human nature to ease the burden of their fatness, acting as true Stalinists in the process.

That’s why the female obesity epidemic is more dangerous than a matter of health and aesthetics, and an affront not only to Beauty, but also to Truth, and well-deserving of the Shiv.

Theodora nailed it, and it’s something I’ve been saying here for a while: the real danger of fat acceptance — a malignant movement largely (heh) spearheaded by women — is the dishonest advocacy against all that is True and Beautiful and Sexy. The fat chick who knows she’s gross looking, and who wants to be thin to be attractive to men once again, is never a target of my shiv. I save my necessary sadism for those fat chicks who lie through their food-laced teeth trying to convince the world to believe 1. they have tons (heh) of men banging down their doors 2. that they don’t suffer any sexual market penalties for being land whales 3. that there’s nothing unhealthy or unappealing about fatness 4. that men prefer fatsos anyhow 5. that indeed fatness is objectively attractive 6. that not only that but fatness is MORE attractive than those stick figure thin girls men are tricked into desiring 7. that society told men to be disgusted by fat chicks and 7. that’s just, like, your opinion you awful no good body-shaming misogynist.

Fat men? They rarely, if ever, lie like fat chicks do about their condition. The shit stream of fat acceptance sophistry — eerily similar to the #SelfLoveWins degenerate freak parade sophistry that characterizes the equalist left — is mostly a female thing, and its effluvium  seems endless….until someone with balls finally calls them out on it and drops a steaming deus vult in their social media ego gratification circle diddle of miserable lying fatties pretending their custom-made reacharound wiping implements aren’t a testament to their great shame and self-abasing dehumanization.

There’s one other notable difference between fat men and fat chicks that helps explain why fat women feel compelled to engage in a quixotic quest to change the world so that their fatness is desirable to quality men:

Fat men really don’t suffer as large a penalty to their romantic fortunes. Male desire is predominately visual-oriented, which means fat chicks whose female forms are buried under layers of disfiguring blubber simply can’t arouse the same ardor in men that thin shapely women who can never be misidentified as a block of cheese can arouse.

Female desire is holistic, meaning that women subconsciously weigh (heh) more factors when judging men for romantic promise. Fatness doesn’t kill a man’s chances for love and romance with nearly the same brutally quick efficiency that  fatness kills a women’s chances for love. I’m not saying fatness is irrelevant to men’s SMV; I’m saying a fat man with compensating attractiveness traits can overcome the SMV handicap of his fatness, which is something that no funny, charming, wealthy, creative, or socially dominant fat woman can ever hope to do for herself.

I think fat women, deep down, know this about themselves. They know their fatness kills romance dead for them. This engenders a lot of resentment and spite in them, which they take out on thin women and men in general, for the equalist sin of having standards and discriminating taste. Because no sin in the Leftoid Equalism Fatty Gooniverse is worse than the sin of revealed judgmentalism. The post-West coddled fat chick would rather go to her early grave railing futilely against the God of Biomechanics than to lose weight and therefore admit to herself that her ugly life and uglier beliefs were a pack of lies all along….and those very bad fat-shaming men like yours truly were right.

Read Full Post »

Skinny Chick Insurance

It’s true for most non-r-selected men that female thinness trumps everything else about women’s attractiveness. As a consequence, fat chicks get nosex, nogsex, or dregsex. Them’s the breaks for the bulbous brigade.

It’s also more or less true that as a man’s sexual market options, real or perceived, shrink, his standards loosen to accommodate girls with “cushion for the pushin'”. (Or so he will try to convince himself.) This means, for example, that older men who haven’t any compensatory attractiveness traits will “unexpectedly” discover the latent fuckability of chubby younger women. (But never the fuckability of chubby older women. Even LSMV men have a floor to their mate criteria.)

If options = instability, then lack of options = floating standards.

So we may conclude that shrinking sexual market options from, say, rapidly advancing age or sudden bankruptcy, contribute to men’s willingness to rut with juvenile manatees. But there’s an additional factor at play here. I have gleaned from random conversations I’ve had over the years with buddies that we all agreed there was a time in our lives — middle school to high school — when we exclusively craved the skinny chicks with 0% conspicuous body fat, and wouldn’t look twice at any sweet sixteen girl who had a touch of mature woman plumpness round the hips ass and thighs. (In Lolita, Humbertx2 called these plumply ripe women older than the age of 12, “cows”.)

Then, as we entered our 20s and as our SMVs were rising, our whoreizons BROADened and the allure of egg-laden, exquisitely curvy, hourglass-shaped feminine women became more apparent than it had before. Note that exquisitely curvy doesn’t mean FAT. It means Gal Gadot. Or a randomly chosen Playboy Playmate of the Month.

I suggest this minor male hindbrain phenomenon is related to the subconscious fear in every man that the woman he eventually chooses to make honest will get fat on his watch. The Fear is mostly relevant when considering those women who are marriage material. It doesn’t factor as urgently in short term flings or one night stands, which is why less-than-super-skinny chicks with future porker potential don’t turn off horny men just looking for fun. However, when a man is seeking a life sex partner (so solly, that’s what the marital dotted line amounts to for men), he will shoot for a younger, skinnier woman safe in the knowledge that she will stay desirably thin and fuckable even if she puts on five or ten pounds over the years.

Commenter Days of Broken Arrows explores the same topic:

“If I’m being honest, though, and obviously I’m biased, I think that the skinniness fetish is more a modern thing promoted by the homo fashion industry…”

DoBA: Some of it is. But some of it is also a form of insurance that helps protect against the woman putting on so much weight after you get married that it seems like you’re with a man. I addressed this in a post that disappeared. But you notice this as you get older.

Too many wives of my old high school friends gained weight and cut off all their hair. They now look like drag queens. They’re so masculinized that you’d never guess what they looked like in college.

While marrying a thin woman doesn’t prevent this happening, it makes it a better bet than exchanging vows with a female who is already porking out.

Like I wrote above, when I was a stripling teenlord I wouldn’t notice any girl who had even an exxxtra half pound of fat on her. It was the slimmest babes who grew my meat flue. As I got older, I still was disgusted by fat chicks, but a pound or two in the right places no longer offended my senses with the same intensity. I think that DoBA’s theory is right, we (White) men are programmed to prefer especially skinny chicks when screening for an LTR girlfriend or wife because it’s insurance against them getting too fat when older.

This theory — Skinny Chick Insurance — is related to the concept of women’s “residual reproductive value” (you down with RRV?), which has been discussed at CH. In sum, men prefer younger-than-prime-fertility women and thinner-than-normal-weight-according-to-the-1950-MetLife-weight-tables women because those women give men access to their total fertility window and to the longest time they are at a sexy skinny weight. If a man invests in a woman, he wants that beauty rolling off the lot brand new and the interior smelling like patent virgin leather.

Read Full Post »

Baboon Got Back

For your consideration:

Human brains are specialized for face recognition; chimp brains are specialized for butt recognition (!) (via)

For social species such as primates, the recognition of conspecifics is crucial for their survival. As demonstrated by the ‘face inversion effect’, humans are experts in recognizing faces and unlike objects, recognize their identity by processing it configurally. The human face, with its distinct features such as eye-whites, eyebrows, red lips and cheeks signals emotions, intentions, health and sexual attraction and, as we will show here, shares important features with the primate behind. Chimpanzee females show a swelling and reddening of the anogenital region around the time of ovulation. This provides an important socio-sexual signal for group members, who can identify individuals by their behinds. We hypothesized that chimpanzees process behinds configurally in a way humans process faces. In four different delayed matching-to-sample tasks with upright and inverted body parts, we show that humans demonstrate a face, but not a behind inversion effect and that chimpanzees show a behind, but no clear face inversion effect. The findings suggest an evolutionary shift in socio-sexual signalling function from behinds to faces, two hairless, symmetrical and attractive body parts, which might have attuned the human brain to process faces, and the human face to become more behind-like.

I’ll leave it as an exercise for the commenter to draw the obvious illicit cross-species similarity.

PS The final sentence in that abstract is possibly the funniest nerd wording I’ve ever read coming out of a ¡SCIENCE! journal.

PPS Recently I saw a queenie with steatopygia so massive, protruding, and gravity-defying I had to do a double-take, during which I mused that not only could a brother (because who else would?) prop a forty on dat cantilevered azz, he could comfortably fit a whole goddamn case of forties on it.

***

jeangray07 observes,

There’s been an interesting trend on social media, especially Instagram, where big lips, big butts and darker skin are glorified, and “white girl” features like straight hair, natural proportions, and fair skin are mocked and stigmatized. It’s like there’s a massive push to eradicate time honed beauty ideals and install more primitive ones.

The de-gentilification anti-White project of the Ugly Mendacious Left has targeted its full spectrum psy ops weapons against every available sacredness of the White race. The first step in defeating this slithery enemy is to admit when its fangs are buried in your flesh. Only then can you know to suck out the venom.

Read Full Post »

Islam As Anti-Christianity

Lawrence Auster (RIP, a true shtetl of mettle mensch), discussed William Muir’s 1878 The Life of Mahomet and drew the apt comparison that Muhammed was essentially the opposite of Jesus, the anti-Jesus, and that this says everything you need to know about the type of people who are drawn to the message of Islam. (via)

I’ve just read the fascinating third chapter of William Muir’s 1878 The Life of Mahomet, “The Belief of Mahomet in His Own Inspiration.” In the great tradition of 19th century scholarship, Muir is an author who sees both the trees and the forest. He works closely from the original sources, presenting the facts about Mahomet (I’ll use Muir’s old-fashioned spelling here) as we have them from the Moslem tradition, while also offering his own critical assessment of those facts. He has a highly articulated point of view about Mahomet that seems to me exceptionally insightful.

Muir shows how Mahomet became convinced, or claimed, that his own thoughts were Allah speaking to him, so that every sentence in the Koran, every single word, is believed to come directly from Allah. While Muir doesn’t deny Mahomet’s spiritual experiences that led to the writing of the Koran, he calls Mahomet’s claim of divine authorship a forgery, since he was falsely claiming that Allah was the author of the Koran rather than himself. By placing this divine imprimatur on his own thoughts, he made them impervious to analysis. To this day, it is virtually impossible for Moslems to think critically about the contents of the Koran.

After pointing out that Mahomet himself occasionally worried that it was genii who were speaking to him rather than Allah, Muir does something rather brilliant. He demonstrates, step by step, that Jesus’ responses to the three temptations of Satan were the exact opposite of Mahomet’s behavior. Whereas Jesus refused to use his divine powers for his personal advantage or for power, Mahomet often used his (false) claim of direct divine authorship of the Koran for purely personal ends (such as his various murders and marriages), and, of course, to make his religious teaching into an earthly, conquering, political force. In other words, Mahomet yielded to the temptations that Jesus rejected. Therefore, Muir concludes (and he calls this a suggestion rather than a dogma), if Mahomet was indeed inspired by a supernatural being, it was not God but someone else.

In this connection, Andrew Bostom in his research for his book on Islam has discovered and shared with me a remarkable Persian illustration of Muhammad at the massacre of the Koreizites, a Jewish tribe of Medina. It’s a famous episode in Muslim history. Muhammad, whose face is veiled, is seen sitting with his lieutenants in a kind of plaza while the killings, which he has ordered, proceed in front of him. The illustration is highly significant because it shows Muhammad “at work,” as it were. This is what he did as Prophet and founder of a religion. Nothing could bring out more clearly the world of difference between Muhammad and Jesus. While Jesus, innocent of sin, allowed himself to be executed for the sins of mankind, Muhammad ordered the mass executions of innocent men.

Getting back to William Muir’s remarkable biography, he quotes and comments on many passages from the Koran, making that book somewhat accessible to me for the first time, since whenever I have tried to read it on my own, I’ve been quickly overcome by a combination of boredom and revulsion. It occurs to me that the primitiveness of the Koran, the endless reiteration of the theme, “Either you follow Allah, or you are a piece of garbage and you are going to burn in hell,” is like taking the judgmental aspect of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures at its most judgmental, reworking it into the crudest possible form, and making that into the basis of an entire religion. And perhaps that is the reason Islam, unlike Judaism and Christianity, was so successful in winning over the Arabs: it appealed to their simple, fierce, tribal mentality in a way that Judaism and Christianity could not.

Why are the world’s violent and primitive attracted to Islam? Executioner’s Summary: it’s Islam’s appeal to the base instincts. The sand people are on the whole a stupid, clannish, hot-headed, inbred lot who have populated the world in numbers well above their natural state of existence thanks to the oil money and exported Western technology, and so it is their religion appeases and amplifies their under-evolved natures and provides justification for their burgeoning populations to expand and conquer infidel lands. You’ll note, too, Islam’s appeal to prison blacks, for similar reason: dr. feelgood and Hulk SMASH for the brutishly dumb.

Christianity is the religion of the higher IQ, the more empathic, the bigger-souled, the guilt-based (inner morality); it’s a religion for a people whose impulse is to transcend their human failings and better themselves, rather than to embrace their will to filth and stamp a seal of approval on their avaricious barbarity. Now of course there are exceptions, but in the sweep of history the general observation holds up, and continues to hold up.

I’m of the opinion that a religion is less an influence on culture and society than it is a manifest revelation of the genetic foundation of the people who profess belief in it. Religion serves the God of Biomechanics, not the other way around, and over time a religion is amended and elaborated, or in the case of Islam distilled to its thuggish essence, to satisfy the soulful yearnings and emotional demands of its followers. Christianity, in other words, could never be felt the same way or interpreted with the same keenness outside of the social context of civilized White Europeans and their diaspora. The same is true for Islam, which must necessarily remain chained to the jungle hearts of its tropical and desert wasteland base of believers (who will never realize this until they force Armageddon upon the world).

Regrettably, Christianity, like its people, has “out-evolved” itself — it evolved to where it was always logically heading faster and more completely than it could counter-evolve defenses against exploitation of its core tenets — and now waits in a horribly weakened condition for enemies to burn its cathedrals and piss on the gravestones of its saints and heroes.

Those who think the White West can be unyoked from Christianity and not just survive but thrive are fools; Christianity can no more be excised from the West than charity, empathy, genius, poetry, and high trust can be cut out from Western societies without permanently altering the character of the people. Discarding Christianity is taking a hatchet to a part of the essence of European man and expecting him to walk off the operating table unchanged. Instead, what’s happened is de-Christianized European man lays naked and defenseless on his gurney, once lamenting and now begging the world’s demon spawn to put the final fading glimmers of his listless spirit to the breaking wheel.

Read Full Post »

Pro-White Hand Gestures Vs Anti-Goofball Female Id (it’s no contest)

I had to chuckle when I saw this photo in the CH combox (h/t a reader who shall remain anon):

The reader writes,

A liberal friend sent me this — ah ha! Racist hand-gestures!

I responded:

The funniest thing is Brittany Pettibone, who is very good looking as well somewhat articulate, cannot help but sit removed from the goofy guys with a mildly disgusted look on her face in a posture that is defending her lady-parts from the subpar sexual equipage of these dorks and signaling that none of these guys is her boyfriend.

One underlying psychological obstacle for those men who have lurid designs on the bodies, hearts and souls of alt-coquettes is, as commenter manwhoisthursday put it, the probable weirdness of chicks who conspicuously and publicly glom onto small insurgent political movements started by men, especially a movement that has as its central conceit a willingness to jettison female-friendly treacly and embrace the ugliest mantruths about humanity. I welcome the alliance of these thot little minxes, but their active participation is a red flag that the girl has, generously, a quirky personality and acts and thinks in ways that are unrepresentative for the female norm of behavior.

Because, and I suffer to say it, the single White woman norm of behavior in 2017 Weimerica is shitlib. Women are herd animals, and the herd has been stampeding in the shitlib direction for a long time now. So it’s sensible from the aspiring alt-cad’s POV to cast a wary eye at single White women who blatantly counter-signal the platitudes of the majority of their sex. If you want to take a crack at these outlier alt-chicks, I suggest you speak smoothly and carry a based stick.

To be fair to the alt-men in this photo, any mixed group social event that has one cute girl in the company of eight men is bound to elicit egg-guarding defensiveness and egg-gilding ego boostification in the outflanked and surrounded girl. BP’s closed body language and sit-offishness may therefore be less an indictment of the quality of the men at that table than a natural female instinct toward personal safety when the sex ratio is badly skewed.

If that’s the case, then one of these men needs to peel away from the sausage reich and coax BP into a mano-a-womano private location where her feminine power can more assertively flower. Godspeed, aspiring alt-womanizer, and remember that milk and OK hand signs may trigger shitlibs but only the Rude Word of Game can thaw a frosty thot.

Read Full Post »

Why Men Prefer Smaller Women

Women prefer to lay with taller men, generally. There is a visual dominance aspect to this preference that synchronizes with the female craving for men who are socially and psychologically dominating. In short (heh), women like the feeling they get when they literally and figuratively have to look up to men.

Less remarked upon is men’s preference for women smaller than themselves. Far from universal, it is nevertheless a common sight to see a taller/larger/fatter man with a shorter/smaller/thinner woman. Much more common than seeing the inverse.

It used to be thought that the latter was simply a consequence of the former; that is, women choose to be with bigger men than themselves and since women are the choosier sex men don’t choose smaller women so much as men end up with smaller women who have chosen them.

But what if the preference for sex-based size differentials goes both ways? What if men prefer smaller and thinner women as strongly as women prefer bigger men?

Reader Ironsides speculates that, if it exists, a male preference for smaller women is probably an evolved predilection that harkens back to a distant time — and which remains salient today — when size was the integral factor of tribal dominance.

[A smaller woman] also might instinctively indicate a person who won’t be constantly fighting the man for dominance. Instinct may not be fine-grained enough to distinguish a large, muscle-bound creature from a large, blubbery creature. It simply perceives enough bulk to indicate the mass necessary to challenge the male for leadership of the family/pack.

Kind of like how most guys won’t get in an LTR with a woman taller than they are — and how they often seem to be the subject of mockery or scorn when they do. See, for example, the view of Scalzi’s home life on this site.

Scalzied’s wife is not just taller than him, she’s bigger too. She looks like she could break Scalzi over her knee. And he’s the type of blobby shitlib goober who’d brag about that.

A large female may simply trigger a hard-wired “rival, not mate” reaction, even if the largeness is helpless blubber rather than muscle. Or at least, triggers a “what is it?” reaction from the instincts, which might be even more fundamentally unsettling than a straight-up “this is a rival” response.

So men have two good subconscious Darwinian reasons to reject fat chicks: fatties have lower fertility, and can be mistaken for dominance rivals. Or resource hogs (heh).

It’s an interesting supposition, but I think it goes even deeper than Ironside’s Fatties As Assumed Rival Theory (FaART), to the sexual dynamic always present between man and woman. Smaller women (relative to the man they’re with) appear more vulnerable and in need of protection. This female vulnerability adds a layer of pleasure to a man’s arousal, because men (White men at least) have evolved a wintry instinct to provide for a woman and any children they may have together. Big ol horsewomen don’t trigger that response in men. That’s why betafag low T losers like scalzi glom onto amazons….those kind of weak men prefer to be in the role of the vulnerable partner, mentally fapping to their own powerlessness.

All these calculations are subconscious (or fleetingly conscious). The grunt work to ensure our reproductive success on this earth is done by the tiny imbued survival and replication motors in our hindbrain architecture built and powered by our genes. On the poolside level of awareness, it’s all about the custard cannon. Men don’t like big-n-fat chicks because they look disgusting and sex with them feels gross. That’s really all the justification the God of Biomechanics needs to get His dirty work done.

Read Full Post »