Genes Mirror Geography, Nations And Cultures

Via:

Culture does not spring up out of the ground unseeded, like a summoned monolith. Human genetic disposition seeds the ground and creates culture, unleashing a macro feedback loop where culture and genes interact in perpetuity. Those “cultural judgments” [the leftoids] recoil from are actually subconscious reinforcements of ancient biological truths.

Chateau Heartiste, October, 2011.

Equalist leftoid race creationism is bringing the death of the West. It is a sick, suicidal ideology built on a foundation of rank lies. It must be defeated, or it will consume everything good, true, and beautiful in its path.

Read Full Post »

Study: Diversity + Proximity = War (With Addendum On The Perceptive Genius Of CH)

May as well get this out of way early:

*💋PREEN💋*

An April 2015 research paper concludes that the Heartiste formulation

DIVERSITY + PROXIMITY = WAR

is a fact, is true, is empirically sound, and is an accurate description of the way the world actually works, (instead of the way various open borders ‘toids insist the world works through the haze of their equalist acid trip).

The Nature of Conflict

This research establishes that the emergence, prevalence, recurrence, and severity of intrastate conflicts in the modern era reflect the long shadow of prehistory. Exploiting variations across national populations, it demonstrates that genetic diversity, as determined predominantly during the exodus of humans from Africa tens of thousands of years ago, has contributed significantly to the frequency, incidence, and onset of both overall and ethnic civil conflict over the last half-century, accounting for a large set of geographical and institutional correlates of conflict, as well as measures of economic development. Furthermore, the analysis establishes the significant contribution of genetic diversity to the intensity of social unrest and to the incidence of intragroup factional conflict. These findings arguably reflect the contribution of genetic diversity to the degree of fractionalization and polarization across ethnic, linguistic, and religious groups in the national population; the adverse influence of genetic diversity on interpersonal trust and cooperation; the contribution of genetic diversity to divergence in preferences for public goods and redistributive policies; and the potential impact of genetic diversity on economic inequality within a society.

Diversity can be interesting… when corralled into separate countries and appreciated remotely or incidentally, such as when traveling. But Diversity™ — that is, the trademarked industrialized concept of diversity that demands it be situated in jarringly close proximity to Whites in White homelands — is a recipe for war.

War in every sense of the word:

• social unrest
• polarization
• lowered trust and cooperation
• severed bonds of shared purpose
• loss of public solidarity and ability to compromise on nation-defining principles
• a corrosion of generosity toward fellow citizens
• the rise of a host-parasite paradigm
• massive economic inequality
• stress-related illnesses from having to constantly be on guard against getting screwed
• a hundredfold increase in DMV wait times
• the normalizing of government incompetence and heavy-handedness

The list of shit consequences that flow like raw sewage from the proximate antagonisms of human genetic Diversity™ reads like a San Francisco bathhouse health code violation rap sheet. The more you scrutinize the fine print, the uglier — and bloodier — it gets.

Not that this will change any hearts and minds that most need changing. What’s a little (or a lot of) ethnic and racial civil conflict as long as Bryan Caplan gets to whore for status among his spergitarian SWPL buddies and live in a $450,000 median home price bubble?

The time for convincing shitlibs of any of these abiding truths is over. They are, at this stage of national dissolution, immune to reason and logic and simple common sense. The finer arts of persuasion have had their day. A more… direct… method of persuasion may be all that’s left to stop the suicide spiral.

Read Full Post »

Chicks Don’t Dig Poindexters

CH has traditionally been agnostic on the burning question of whether chicks dig smart men because they’re smart or because male smartness is correlated with some other attractive male trait. It has been our contention that smarts alone do nothing for vagina tingles, unless the smarts are leveraged into wit, humor, and adult-themed teasing.

Smarts, too, will help a man better understand and apply the principles of Game. The sweet spot for male smarts is an above-average IQ that is coupled to a robust EQ. The biggest haters of game are either dumb “bros” who scoff at any idea that’s more mentally taxing than the philosophy found in beer commercials, or smart but socially maladroit spergs who lack the concrete field experience with women to accept that it’s possible to attract women without being a Hollywood star.

The Heartiste Dating Market Value Test for Men has a category devoted to IQ, and pussy-parting points are given to a man if he has an above-average intelligence, but deducted from him if he has a below-average or a well above-average IQ.

15.  What is your IQ?

Under 85:  -1 point
85 to 110:  0 points
110 to 130:  +1 point
130 to 145:  0 points
over 145:  -1 point

This scoring system reflects the reality any man who has lived a day in his life has observed: super smart men are often nerdy and weird, and that turns off women (or at best is considered a neutral attribute by women), while dumb men without compensating attractiveness traits will turn off women who aren’t dumb themselves.

And now here comes the confirmatory ♂SCIENCE♂ adding heft to the humble CH formula.

Human general intelligence (g) has been hypothesized to be an indicator of genomic mutation load and under sexual selection for indirect genetic benefits (‘good genes’ for the offspring), implying that high g should be sexually attractive. People clearly report preferences and assortatively mate for intelligence, but these effects can be due to direct phenotypic benefts of g and social homogamy.

I am on record stating that the “assortative mating” phenomenon of late 20th-early 21st century America isn’t driven so much by women preferring smart Ivy nerds (or by men preferring smart Ivy nerdgirls, as HBD nerd-triumphalists like to claim) as it is driven by simple convenience: people tend to date whomever is readily available within their social milieu, which one could call a “dating market bottleneck”.

Measured male g had no effect on female short-term attraction, but a small positive effect on long-term attraction, though only after extraversion and independently rated physical attractiveness were controlled.

Kneejerk nerd-defenders like LotB are chastened by this news.

The minor male attractiveness boost of intelligence to women thinking about the male subject as a long-term relationship prospect is caused by two factors:

1. the readout from an innate mate assessment algorithm women possess which informs them of the “dad” quality of potential suitors, and
2. the tendency of women to conflate intelligence with extraversion and looks. (We all know that social king with the wisecracking, uninhibited tongue who comes across smarter than he really is.)

Revenge of the nerds? Not quite:

Overall we found no support for intelligence being sexually attractive to women on first encounters, and limited support that it increases initial impression of the potential as a long-term romantic partner.

Someone alert the feminist industrial simplex: Women are shallow!

A commenter at Dr. Thompson’s sums it up pithily,

Mensa has no groupies.

A brief excursion into helix-gazing abstraction:

Taken together with very limited support for an association between g and mutation load in the currently available genomic data, these results cast doubt on the hypothesis that g is an indicator of genetic fitness under ‘good genes’ sexual selection.

I always thought that the best indicator of genetic fitness was, in women, their youth and beauty, and consequently their ability to induce my boner. (Women’s IQ plays little to no role in men’s sexual arousal. As no man ever said, “Dayum, that’s a fine-looking grad school degree you got, baby!”) It now appears men’s smarts play nearly as insignificant a role in female attraction.

Now, point of contention, I don’t actually think this is entirely true, based on the simple objection that the men I personally know (a large-ish number) who are good with HSMV women are also smarter than the average bear. But.. and this is a big but… those men are also socially savvy and self-confident, no doubt both of which traits are benefited by their respectable smarts. And they mostly hit on SWPL chicks who would probably not give the time of day to slow men who had trouble parsing their snark-heavy conversations.

No man reading this post should despair that he has a high IQ. There is no end to the ways in which being smart/alpha/sexy is better than being dumb/beta/scalzied. The study results merely suggest that smarts ALONE aren’t sufficient to attract women. You need something else, like charisma, humor, or… wait for it… POWER RAPE. As another commenter at Thompson’s put it,

Intelligence doesn’t need to be *inherently* attractive in order to make its possessors more attractive. Assuming ‘power’ is still “the ultimate aphrodisiac,” intelligence can be useful for getting it, showing it, faking it, and wresting it from unfavorable circumstances. Therefore, I don’t see this finding as necessarily dampening the hopes of shy intellectual men.

Precisely. A smart man has a leg up on a dumber man in one crucial respect in the sexual market: he has the brainpower to better understand women and therefore to sell himself to women more effectively.

PS There’s a not-so-hidden trove of dystopian nightmare material peeking through this study, for those who want to amuse themselves with supporting evidence for the Heartistian theory that unconstrained, liberated female sexuality (in conjunction with restricted, regulated male sexuality) necessarily leads to dysgenic reproductive patterns.

Read Full Post »

What A High Velocity, Head-On Impact With The Wall Looks Like

All women will hit The Wall someday (for the vast majority of women that day is no later than their 50th birthday.) Some women will hit it sooner, some later. Some women will approach The Wall cautiously, slowing down a bit as it nears; others will hit the gas and zoom straight at it when it looms, going out in a sudden blaze of wrinkles and sag. Some women will make glancing blows with The Wall, taking minor hits to their crumple zones that slowly add up over the years until their engine finally blows a gasket. Other women will make a last, valiant charge at The Wall when it appears on the battlefield horizon, living out the last moments of their futile resistance looking as good as possible before surrendering Christ-like to the inevitable.

But then there are those women — fewer in number but out-sized in their penchant for spectacular exits from the sexual market — who turn to face The Wall when still young and pretty and jam the accelerator to the floor, propelled by a jet engine and a metadeath wish, and slam into the immovable edifice with such speed and unswerving gusto that the wreckage left behind is used as PSAs for classrooms full of young women on the perils of hard living and waiting too long for marriage and children.

This is actress Jennifer Lien, who was recently arrested for exposing her post-Wall devastation to three kids.

That is a fifteen year separation folks. F-i-f-t-e-e-n years. She doesn’t just look like a different woman; she looks like a different species. Her destruction, at age 41, is complete.

Looking at that 1995 photo of lovely Ms Lien, I would have pursued and happily spelunked her secret sinkhole. In her 2010 photo, the thought of accidentally grazing her fat clammy forearm skin in a supermarket aisle fills me with revulsion.

That, ladies, is the incredible romance-killing power of The Wall. Respect it, and heed its warnings. The time for dawdling about in the feminist factories of urban sluttitude and swallowing the pain away with a cocktail of anti-depressants is shorter than you think. tick…. tock.

***

Reader Stationarity writes,

I read this article yesterday, and after I cleaned up the vomit, I wondered, could her tit flashing be some desperate post wall attempt at validation?

Half of women’s psychoses could be described as behavioral manifestations of a subconscious need to feel externally validated in their sexual worth. The other half is the cognitive dissonance created by rationalizing away this need as feminist empowerment.

Read Full Post »

A Cynic’s View Of Relationship Sex

There’s a sizable contingent of “red pillers” who believe that the male urge to have sex with a variety of women is, if you take their consternation at face value, unnatural. I never did get this line of attack against the degenerate poz. While I can’t fault the intention, the premise is based on a lie that feeds directly into feminist myth-making about the psychological sameness of the sexes.

This belief, and resulting admonition, that men are naturally monogamous and only desire poosy varietals when there’s something wrong with their mental state is not just wrong, it’s malignant, and will paradoxically cause a lot of men trouble within the confines of their monogamous relationships!

Reader superslaviswife echoes this CH sentiment and explains how the “cads are sickos” theory of the sexual market actually harms men’s ability to create and sustain monogamous relationships.

Something I do wonder about is the staleness of “the regular”. Many Beta males, as far as I have heard, are happy enough to get regular sex or sexual access, to see a naked woman daily, that the actual frequency, variety and duration of sexual sessions doesn’t matter to them. Here we get two problems:

1: Women need to see men as sexual beings constantly on the ready and on the prowl. You can’t be non-sexual 99% of the time and expect a woman to be aroused the remaining 1%. Even women with high sex drives who frequently initiate expect their man to reciprocate sexual cues, to signal he’s ready and warmed up. If we’re constantly slowly simmering, it takes a lot less to hit boiling point. This is why fostering affection doesn’t result in sex. At best it’s neutral. At worst it distracts us from being sexual. This is also why game is all about building tension: if you aren’t constantly sexual, the pot stops boiling and you could be anywhere from warm to needing to start over.

Women married to men with high libidos have to know that these men are also more likely to pursue additional outlets for their libidos.

2: If a man rejects sex from a woman too often, is rarely ready, wants sex once or twice a week because his T is too low and always wants a quick couple of minutes in the same position, ie, if he wants “just the regular please”, I can’t see how anyone would cope. From time to time, the regular will be needed. Maybe there isn’t much time, the other rooms aren’t available, you’re in a rough patch or a dry spell due to stress and just need to get the ball rolling again… But even then, when you know what’s going to happen you may as well open a book, to be honest. And if that’s your entire sex life, where’s the enjoyment? It’s reducing it to just a biological function, like buying macdonald’s instead of making a steak burger dinner.

This is a cynic’s view of relationship sex and durability, which means it has more truth value than the happy-clappy romantic view of sex.

Maxim #40: Men are strictly monogamous only insofar as their options for sexual variety are limited.

There are, of course, individual and race-based differences in the predilection for men to pursue multiple sex partners (concurrent or consecutive). But the general rule stands: Men, more than women, have strong NATURAL sexual urges to FUCK every pretty young woman they lay eyes upon. And men with OPTIONS will, often enough to put the lie to the “cads are sickos” theory, fulfill their non-monogamous desires.

The problem of stale relationship sex is intrinsic to differences in sexual desire between men and women. Over time, (usually about two years), a man will lose that groinal fire for his girlfriend or wife. This is inevitable, and coupled with the tendency of women to pack on the pounds and the nagger attitude after they have extracted commitment from a man, it should surprise no Realthinker that bed death isn’t solely a morbidly obese lesbian phenomenon.

The staleness of regular sex is compounded by further insults to relationship stability that are less physiological in nature than psychological. One, women, due to their hypergamous compulsions, will gradually lose attraction for their loyal and dependable male partners, unless those men initiate countermeasures to combat their women’s emotional and vaginal atomization. (Read “countermeasure”: GAME). It is a fact of LTRs and marriage that both men and women get complacent, which means men get BETA and SOFT and women get FAT and NAGGARDLY.

Two, if the character of the men that women are currently choosing to form long-term commitments is changing toward a SOFTER, EFFEMINATE, BETA NORM, than we will see more complaints from those women about their men’s ability to SATISFY them. And in fact I do think the character of Western men is changing to one that is less masculine and more supplicating.

My answer to this problem of stale “regular sex” is that men should not be penalized or admonished for desiring sex with many women (and sometimes fulfilling their desire), just as women are not and never have been penalized nor admonished for hypergamously desiring the best man they can get and for pushing him sooner rather than later into promises of lifelong commitment. This is a double standard — or if you prefer, a different standard — that is necessary to accommodate the differing psychologies and darwinian imperatives of men and women.

If a man is happy to be in a monogamous relationship for life with the woman he loves, then the anti-cad “red pillers” ought to get on board with the CH recommendation that these men would benefit themselves AND their women if they learned game aka the art and science of applied charisma, as a method of reinvigorating flagging relationships. But I doubt these particular anti-cad red piller types will ever see the light, because many of them nurse intense envy of men who bed desirable women and make no apology for it.

Read Full Post »

The Wall Meets Beta Bux

😆 “sweet and steady” is a shiv in the heart of niceguys.

You gotta marvel at how often the extremely anti-feminist sexual market theories of The Wall and Beta Bux are confirmed by blithely unaware liberal news organs.

Explanation for new CH readers:

The Wall is the point in a woman’s life when she is sexually worthless to the vast majority of men with options. As The Wall approaches, a woman’s sexual market value (SMV, i.e., her youth and beauty), exponentially decays to zero. Most women will have hit The Wall by age 50.

Beta Bux is one part of a woman’s dual mating strategy (the other part being “Alpha Fux”) to acquire, if possible, both the genetic contributions of sexy alpha males and the resource contributions of boring but dependable beta males. The fact that most women will not be able to fulfill their mating duality directives does not mean that these competing desires don’t exist within them, or that given the right contexts and sufficient deniability they won’t make a go at it.

Now that you know this about women, the above Twat makes sense. An urban, socially disconnected, cock carousel riding city slutter woke up to the reality of her disappearing looks on her 32nd birthday, and like magic she suddenly noticed that dull niceguy in her office who would make a fine steady paycheck to foot the bills for her future dreams of a family consisting of two SUVs, three cats, five iPads, and 1.2 kids.

I wonder if the yeoman efforts of humble outposts like CH to catalog and publicize the dark but necessary nature of women to an audience of dumbfounded beta males will ever have an impact on the willingness of these men to accept the aging slut’s terms of engagement? Will we have a WAKE UP BETA MALE moment equally as vital and timely as the coming WAKE UP WHITE MAN cultural cataclysm now reverberating its way through the West?

Read Full Post »

Two Minds

Friend, you ask, “What do women want?” You are confused, and this hobbles your field effectiveness.

Listen closely.

Chick logic is unfathomable when you are in your teens, but now as a man in your twenties you have no excuse!

Challenge.

Chicks dig a challenge. Like men dig a bikini bridge.

It’s a mark of personal growth to occasionally reexamine your beliefs to affirm their validity. Why do chicks dig a challenge? Sociobiology gives us our answer.

Girls want men with power because such men have their pickings in women. These alpha males can have sex with many women and thus have opportunities to have many more children. Consequently, any sons they conceive will be blessed with their fathers’ genetic gifts, and these sons will grow up and, like their charming mofo dads, also have their pickings in girls.

The sexually successful son, in a state of nature, is the reproductively successful son, and his children will spread his mother’s genes as well. The more procreatively prolific the son, the more widely his mother’s genes are distributed across the next generation. Her genes are spread much more widely than if, in her youth, she had instead bedded down with a herbalicious partner who gave her herbalicious sons who played video games while the alphas were banging babes in the school stairwells.

Here’s where the challenge part comes in. A man with power (and this can take many forms. e.g.: money, fame, status, charm, humor, musical talent, looks, physique, jerkboy charisma) knows he has options and never feels desperate to “lock in” any one woman. He calmly moves from babe to babe. It is his assured, unperturbed demeanor which acts as a sexiness signal to girls, and unsurprisingly girls quickly recognize this signal. Their subconscious lizard brain tells them “Hmm, this man is unusually composed around beautiful women. Look at how they try to impress him! He must enjoy the intimate pleasure of their company regularly.” Their conscious brain is saying “OMG, he’s sexy! I want to mount his meat pony!”

Returning to your confusion, the lesson is this: by throwing yourself at girls and bending over backwards to do things for them, you are unconsciously sending the signal that you don’t get many romantic chances with them and you must try-extra-hard  to impress the ones you do manage to get because you are afraid to lose them. You are the opposite of a challenge: you are a concession.

Now we come face to face with paradoxical chick logic.
Why, you may ask, do the movies show women catered to by chivalrous men while the female audience laps it up?
Why do women earnestly profess to like it when men open doors for them?
Why? why? why?, when I just got through telling you these actions will get you tossed in the buddy bin?

It’s easy to see how so many men get confused by the mixed signals between the cultural messages and their own dating reality.

Here, my friend, your answer is found. The clouds part! The fog lifts!
It is in a woman’s genetic interest to confuse men.
Unbeknownst to themselves, the inherent contradiction between women’s primal feelings and their publicly declared desires is actually a SCREEN to separate the wheat from the chafe. Think about it. If it were easy for men to spoof alpha male characteristics, many many more girls would be easy lays. But evolution has designed these female screens, or TESTS, to ensure that the men they fall hard for are AUTHENTIC alpha males.

An authentic alpha male — natural born or self-made — is never confused by the split personality of a woman. He knows the score (from inborn intuition or learned through experience), and when women know that he knows the score, they get WET AND BOTHERED. Like The Trumpening, the authentic alpha male PLOWS THROUGH these screens and tests and OWNS THE FRAME.

The beta male, poor sap, listens to women and gives them what they claim to want. He opens doors, compliments their beauty, keeps his hands to himself, sympathizes with their problems, and “takes it slow”. And that is why he fails.

This is why chick logic is so whack. Women really are of TWO MINDS.
And they can’t help it. It’s hardwired. They are completely unaware of their own internal contradictions.
Friend, now that you have this knowledge, use it.
Fulfill your destiny.
Go forth and…
spread the seed.

Read Full Post »