Archive for the ‘Comment Winners’ Category

Riffing on the infamous “spic-nig cycle” historical sweep analysis of Western Civ, an MPC poaster explains the “jihad-hashtag cycle“:

Remember: this is what ISIS does. It uses unprecedented western docility to export wogs to drive trucks into crowds of people so virtue signalling liberals can change their Facebook pictures until they’re too color-blind to tell which flag it is. It literally trains people in the cutting edge of improvised explosive devices to create more terrorist attacks to provide the necessary fuel for the jihad-hashtag cycle.

I guess I never really grasped the goal of Europe before. Why did Charlemagne convert the Saxons? Why did Palmerston preserve Belgium? The answer to these and all questions: to import Muslim terrorists to kill people in every city in Europe so that shitlibs can virtue signal until they gracelessly expire.

Haha it’s funny cuz it’s so very tragically true.

I’m coming around to poaster MMD’s idea that White citizens of the West need to treat their governments and media as hostile foreign elements, and to act with that in mind.

Eventually Europeans are going to have to start [REDACTED FOR WORDPRESS CENSORS] their own governments to make them more afraid of their own people than their imported MENA pets. At the upper echelons, they see events like the Manchester bombing as growing pains towards their greater goal, and the ability to punish crimethink is of course very useful in suppressing criticism of both the individual events and the greater goal itself.

I don’t know what else to call it but murderous intent when our ruling class psychopaths, idiots and losers, against the wishes of their subjects, insist on importing by the millions foreign invaders who make life miserable for the native Whites and ruin their carefully built and maintained societies. And if our elite are vindictive murderous scum, how exactly are we the people supposed to relate to them? The answer is crystalizing with each new Manchester and MS-13 gang rape: we relate to them as occupiers, fit only for the point of our shivs.

From VDare:

In the eyes of our governments, Islamic terrorism isn’t a problem, wanting to stop it is. We’re basically ruled by serial killers.

Modern post-industrial, post-Copybook Headings society selects for rule by psychopaths. Charles Murray calls it assortative mating; I call it psychopath tracking.


1917: I’ll see you in church this weekend friend 2017: I’ll see you at the Islamic terror bombing vigil this weekend friend

Weeping Whites who go to candlelight vigils after terror attacks have got to be feeling a morsel of shame at this point since the virtue sniveling practice has received so much brutal mockery from the Maul-Right. It would be interesting to track candlelight vigil attendance over the years; I’d bet we see smaller and smaller crowds, partly because it’s become lame to attend them and partly because there will be fewer Whites to attend, having been killed off by the muslim invaders.

Related, I wrote this on Gab (@heartiste):

I’ll repeat what I wrote about #LoveWins (because every week brings new reason to repeat it): Indiscriminate love is no love at all; it’s solicitation. The Left is a beaten street whore.

PS Reminder that muslim-Americans commit terror attacks at 5,000% the rate of non-muslims in America! Per capita is your friend, shitlibs!

Read Full Post »

Comment of the Week winner is Pill, with this compare and contrast of sex with a tightbody waifu and sex with a fatbody average american woman.

In my limited experience. My first bang was a chubby girl. Great curves, tits, hips. But she just had too much weight. And a belly at times almost looked egg like and pregnant. Her Vaj was average tightness for me. Nothing special. NEVER CAME while fucking her. I used condoms, but still. Never came in out 5 month relationship.

Had sex recently with an asian girl. Much better body, lanky with subtle curves. Nice butt. Zero tits. But her pussy was Tight. It hurt her just a little getting it in. (using condoms). 1st time fuck, never came. 2nd time, (changed to bigger condom that didnt constrict as much). First time ever I came while fucking a girl. Blew my load while inside her. Felt goodman.

Moral of story, looks matter. Condom matters (probably better feeling without one, duh) Tightness matters.

First girlfriend when she was on top. All I could feel was her weight crushing down on my pelvis, and I swear I forgot I even had a dick. I couldnt feel anything and would go limp. Lil, asian tight puss. Bouncin on me, and can feel every stroke squeeze my shaft.

I laughed very hard when I read this comment. Should I have? I feel shame that I was so easily amused, but this comment hit the G spot in my funny bone, ymmv.

By the by, if you can’t come with a girl after five months of sexing her, it’s time to abort emission.

Read Full Post »

Mr. Vain channels Gordon Gekko to deliver the Rude Word of Game,

The point is, gentleman, that game — for lack of a better word — is good.

Game is right.

Game works.

Game clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.

Game, in all of its forms — game for life, for money, for love, knowledge — has marked the upward surge of mankind.

And game– you mark my words — will not only save you, but that other malfunctioning place called the USA.

The funny thing is……..it’s true. All of it. Because Game is Balls. And Balls are Life. Life of mind. Life of body. Life of America. Life of White Western Civilization.

You aren’t just picking up women. You’re picking up America’s spirit. You aren’t just banging an over-entitled HB7. You’re banging the feminist cuntery out of America. You aren’t just helping women fall in love with you. You’re helping Americans fall in love with their heritage again.

Game on.

Read Full Post »

Les Saunders, Protestant swoops in to take the Comment of the Week with a vivid portrait of the Globalist Girl.

As I was doing my rounds today, something made me think about a girl, an intern that is, whom I had under my supervision a few years back.  The more I reflected on it, I came to the conclusion that she was (or still is, if her Twitter feed is anything to go by), the prototypical Globalist Girl (or Globohomoist Girl in this rampart of truth we call le Château) for she, like so many other young women I’m crossing paths with these days, lives and embodies the Globalist “spirit” or “ideal.”

This girl was attractive, I will give her that (and probably in part why she bobbed up from sub-conscious today), with a great body.  She was mixed race; White and some other indeterminate origin.  Being a Strong, Empowered, Woman, she landed a somewhat coveted paid internship in my organization while in the process of collecting a worthless degree in international relations/comparative politicks, a degree which, autrefois, might’ve had some caché, if not now for the saturation of such degrees being doled out, but is imperative for our upcoming cadre of Globalists.  At 24, she’s now more well-traveled than most people in our parents’ (boomers) generation, and certainly visited more countries than I had at that point in life.  Conference here, workshop there. Semester in some European capital, co-op in Asia, girls’ trip to Latin America, none of which incurring any personal expense to her, with either the university, the state, some organization, or even daddy picking up the tabs along the way.  Then flitting about from one short-term job to the next, always looking for the more exciting, unique thing. Not unlike their approach to men, either.

While being passionate about Global Warming, Social Justice, Fair Trade, and Feminism, you couldn’t miss her in the latest brands, the newest iPhag, the hippest overpriced restaurant, whilst clutching a Starbucks and retweeting Important Serious Articles by Soros, the Cuckonomist, Buzzfeed, and Justine Trudope.  Everything is “amazing” or “problematic”, the wage gap must be closed, #refugeesarewelcome, and abortions must be readily available.

Globalist Girls are in every Western country, they are forming sizeable majorities on university campuses, they are landing the internships, they are entering the institutions and companies, and they are voting away the freedom, prosperity, and culture which took us centuries to achieve.  The globe-trotting, the university indoctrination, and the alacrity with which they pursue globalist dreams has left them with allegiance to no country, no people, and certainly no race (and perhaps no man?)

Speaking of men, I also maintain that there is no Globalist Boy/Man equivalent to Globalist Girl and this, like so many of Globalism’s soulless programs and ancillary projects, is entirely by design.  Globalism, like previous Marxist programmes before it, needs foot soldiers – the useful idiots – to carry out its machinations. Soros and Zuckerberg can’t do it alone from their bunkers.  And women, being easily manipulated with feels campaigns, are just the ones to do it.

Globalist Girl is the canary in the coal-burner, a harbinger of the civilization-wrecking horror that’s coming down the pike. That was a keen observation of our shrikegeist by LS, P. Globalist Girl, you have inspired me (once again) to song.

Globalist Girl

Well she was a Globalist girl
Raised on Facebook Likes
She couldn’t stop screwing her way
Through a dreary nightlife
After all it was a safe sex world
With lots of cafes to drink at
Yeah, and if she had to raw
Dog it, she had one conception
She would never keep

Oh yeah, all right
Take a selfie baby
Fake a pose all night
She was a Globalist girl

Well Harry Potter gifs make her night
She sat alone in her cubicle
Yeah she could hear her eggs go dry
Out of love for anyone
Hashtag: Marriage out of reach
And for one desperate Tinder match
She swiped right on a PUA
God it’s so shameful
Grad school and three dose
Xanax Salon and Buzzfeed

Oh yeah, all right
Charge your sex toy baby
Check your phone all night
She was a Globalist girl


Read Full Post »

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

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

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

Read Full Post »

Responding to Triflewoman (infamous cross-platform, multiblog denier of sexual market realities), LOTB commenter “map” channels many CH themes and unloads one of the best short primers I’ve read that echoed my collected writings on the functioning of the modern sexual market.

There is no such thing as male hypergamy. Female hypergamy, though, is quite real. It was enabled by the sexual revolution, which divided the relationship market into the market for marriage and the market for sex. In the sexual market, women trade up…the result is that, at every level of attractiveness, there is a shortage of women. This shortage is generated by the belief that every woman who is a 5 can do better than a man who is a 5. And this is true…a woman who is a 5 can sleep with a man who is a 6,7, or 8. This happens due to the shortage of women in these categories as well, created by the female hypergamy of their corresponding women.

The problem with this is simple and dire: women confuse the market for sex with the market for marriage. The woman who is a 5 thinks that if she sleeps with a man who is a 6, 7 or 8, that she, too, is a 6, 7 or 8. The reality is she is not, so she will not be able to convert her easy sex life into a marriage with the men to which she is genuinely attracted. She, instead, will continually be pumped and dumped until she ages past her peak years of attractiveness and can no longer pull the attention of the men she genuinely loves, usually at around age 30. The vast majority of women have gambled away their 20’s on this very high risk strategy in hopes of finally getting a marriage with a high value man.

Traditional, monogamous marriage and morality short-circuited this problem. While biological hypergamy still existed, men did not date or marry beneath them and sex outside of wedlock was frowned upon, so there were few opportunities for women to carry on open affairs with lots of out-of-league men. Marrying young and having children young also sucked out their narcissism and they focused inward on their families instead of competing with other women. The system worked…which is why the Cultural Marxists did everything they could to attack it.

Unmarried women riding the carousel until they age past their peak years of attractiveness are some of the worst human beings you will ever meet. Their personalities harden because they need to filter out the men that they previously rejected, who are now the only men that will actually talk to them. To marry one of these shrews is a guaranteed divorce. These women should never be rewarded with marriage.

Why do we focus on television? Because television is how the people who run the country, the ruling class, communicate with the masses. It is nothing but propaganda, where what you watch is exactly the kind of world the elite want you to believe can be created. So, 50 Shades of Grey is about a billionaire who loves a woman who looks like a housekeeper. Sex and the City has 40 year old women sleeping with baseball players and marrying investment bankers. Big Little Lies has a woman marrying a beta-male provider while pining for her alpha male ex. See, woman? You, too, can have a life like this.

The reality is different. Billionaire alpha males marry models, like Donald Trump did. Most women will end up as crazy cat ladies after 13 years of riding the carousel. Look at Ashley Judd. Why is she so angry? Because her husband, a former race car driver, dumped her ass, married a far younger and hotter woman, and they just had their first kid. She knows there are no race car drivers or kids in her future, so we get to watch her act out that realization in public by demanding other women make the same mistakes she did. And she is a very successful and beautiful woman, who did not lock down her options when she had the chance. Imagine the results for the less gifted. It’s a society of Meg Griffins.

Cultural Marxism is about engineering this decline, by triggering female hypergamy and letting it run wild. Once that reproductive and youthful window closes, you will have this army of women permanently, because they have no choice but to be committed to this course of action, just to avoid the despair of their own circumstances. This even operates internationally, where NGO’s try to “educate” women in various third-world countries, like Nigeria. Boko Haram was created to fight this.

Whiskey and others [ed: that would be me, the original realtalker] make the claim that women are far more valuable than men and that is how all of this is enabled. They are partly correct. Women, in their prime youthful and child-bearing years, are more valuable than men, but that quickly inverts once women lose those years. The women who have missed those windows really have no idea the living hell that is coming for them in the decades to come. Childless, unattractive women, with bitter personalities, causing problems in a resource poor and declining civilization, will get burned at the stake, like the witches of Salem. Count on it.

The kinds of people that stubbornly deny these blatant truths about the sexes and the shared mating market which they inhabit, and worse invert the truth into a distorted funhouse mirror image lie that plays to their fantasy of how they wish the sexual market worked, typically fall into two camps:

  1. ugly women
  2. flawed women

Ugly women have every incentive to deny fundamental truths about SMV. They can’t fix their ugliness in the way men can improve their lots in life, so for them lying and wallowing in vapid platitudes is better than existential hopelessness. You can throw fat women and childless post-Wall women into this mix, too.

Flawed women — for example, the aging ex-stripper who’s still sexy enough for a night but would give men pause when she began demanding more commitment than that — aren’t at risk of existential hopelessness….yet….but they loathe any incursion of sexual market reality and any messengers bringing news of that baleful incursion because they prefer to maintain the illusion that their marital market worth is the equal of their sexual market worth.

So I deduce that Triflewoman is either an ugly woman or a skank approaching the Wall.

(A third category — envious, spiteful beta males bitterly hitched to fat sow wives — are also particularly prone to resentful denials of sexual market realities; the truth in their case is a depressing reminder of both their low romantic rank and their politely suppressed desire for something better. If Triflewoman is a Trifleman, he would fall in with this group of misfits. John Scalzi is a case study.)

As to map’s comment, there isn’t much with which I’d quibble. He (likely not a she) pretty much nailed the essential difference between the sexes (chicks dig power, men dig beauty, eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap, men are expendable, women are perishable) and the nature of the modern sexual market in relation to mating behavior and marriage. He makes a good point about postmodern society severing the ancient link between the sexual market and the marriage/monogamy/parenthood market, and an even better point about children focusing women’s attention and preventing female solipsism spirals (and leftist activism predicated on megadoses of feelz; one of the reasons why divorced and single Boomer hags with no or few kids are so obstreperously anti-Trump).

Consequently, we observe that an isolated and transactional sexual market — greased by urban anonymity and social media — prolongs the time and energy women spend on the cock carousel (or languishing in “I REFUSE TO SETTLE” insol hell). We similarly observe that prolonged childlessness is a female narcissism accelerant, and simultaneously jacks up women’s standards and carves away at their likeability and femininity (aka chasteness), resulting in a snatch-22 that reduces their chance of finding love at precisely the moment they think the most highly of themselves and place the greatest demands on potential mates.

It’s an open question whether our Masturbators of the Universe intentionally or accidentally unleashed forces (abortion, condoms, the Pill, penicillin, poz, female economic self-sufficiency aka the Six Sirens of the Sexual Apocalypse) that would sever at every level sex from marriage and children, and thus lead to the low fertility of the West and the poisoning of relationships that naturally percolates when women are surrounded by weak, deferential men and men are left with the prospect of marrying road-worn sluts who secretly still pine for the dazzling cads of their nightclub bathroom passion play memories, but it’s indisputable that the oligarchs and Bezosians and open border 1%ers prefer a deracinated, dehumanized world bazaar with women freed from the constraints of early marriage and motherhood to consume, capitulate, and clog the globohomo capitalist self-negate machine as happy little office cogs.

In my opinion, the current situation is unsustainable. Something’s gotta give. In a near-future post, I will explain how our postmodern sexual market dovetails with evidence that the West is careening toward idiocracy.

Read Full Post »

Da gbfm and yours truly are on the same lollzolzy page. From Le Chateau, circa 2008:

The result of all this government largesse is the substitution of handouts for husbands. When provider males who are predisposed to marry and support a family are worth less on the market than they used to be they are slowly replaced by playboys taking advantage of the sexual climate. Women who have their security needs met by Big Government (in combination with their own economic empowerment) begin to favor their desire for sexy, noncommital alpha males at the expense of their attraction for men who will foot the bills.

Prediction: As women’s financial status rises to levels at or above the available men in their social sphere, they will have great difficulty finding an acceptable long-term partner. The men, for their part, will turn away from emphasizing their ability to provide as they discover their mediocre-paying corporate jobs are no longer effective displays of mating value. They will instead emphasize the skills of “personality dominance”.

And here’s da gbfm, this week’s COTW winner, explaining the well-known connection between women and leftism:

hey hertaistetsts!! dA after much study nd reflectionsz like PLATO, da GBFM figured sometinsgz outs eiculicd logicalz!!

why do so many women vote for leftist governmentsz?

because leftist govenerments enforce da Alpha fux beta bucks system at gun point!!

obammasz tellz womenz “if you vote for me, you can ficky ficy and butthext all da thugsz, and i will criminalize white mensz for complimenting your hair in the workplace, and send da police state to grab and sconfisce da BETAs tax dollarsz zlzzlzloo and give them to you and your bastard chcildrenz, if yo vote for mez and da obammsz kangz lozlzoozolzozo”

So true it hurtslzlzlzllolz. Eunucho-tyranny.

more gbfm poetry,

once upon a time
teh great reformes said things like
“a chicken in every pot”
“A car in every garage”
“A family in every home”
todya the eneeoocn berenankerkieisi say, “lotsas cockas in every buttholeelllzlzolooloio lzozozl”

…and in every public bathroom.

PS There’s now a study which has confirmed (years late) both the Heartistian and GBFMian observations of the postmodern sexual/marital markets.

As predicted by a simple model of marital decision-making under uncertainty, we document that adverse shocks to the supply of ‘marriageable’ men reduce the prevalence of marriage and lower fertility but raise the fraction of children born to young and unwed mothers and living in in poor single-parent households. The falling marriage-market value of young men appears to be a quantitatively important contributor to the rising rate of out-of-wedlock childbearing and single-headed childrearing in the United States.

Two cardinal results help to weave these many empirical strands together. A first is that trade shocks faced by the U.S. manufacturing sector—which employs a disproportionate share of male workers—reduce the economic stature of men relative to women. Consistent with this pattern, shocks to male-intensive manufacturing industries are particularly destabilizing to marriage-markets. A second broad result, predicted by our model and strongly affirmed by the data, is that gender-specific shocks to labor-market outcomes have strikingly non-parallel impacts on marriage-market outcomes. Male-specific shocks reduce overall fertility, but reduce it by less among teens and unmarried mothers than among older and married mothers, thereby increasing the fraction of children born out of wedlock and living in poverty. Conversely, female-specific shocks have more modest effects on overall fertility but reduce the share of births to teens and unmarried mothers, thus raising in-wedlock births and reducing the fraction of children living in single-headed households. These patterns are consistent with our model in which a decline in the quality of male partners makes single motherhood a more attractive option to young mothers, while a decline in female earnings potential increases marriage rates conditional on fertility. Netting over the effects of secularly falling male earnings and improving women’s labor-market conditions during recent decades, our model predicts a reduction in both fertility and marriage, a rise in the fraction of children born out of wedlock, and an increase in the prevalence of children living in single-headed and poor households. These patterns are evident in the aggregate data and, moreover, hold as causal relationships within local labor markets when we isolate plausibly exogenous shocks to earnings opportunities overall and by gender.

Chateau Heartiste, January, 2008:

So why are women now the eager instigators of divorce? What changed in the culture? Four things, primarily: the pill, easy divorce, women’s economic independence, and rigged laws that make divorce a good financial prospect for women. The four sirens of the sexual apocalypse together have created the perfect sociological storm where a woman has every incentive in the world to ditch a husband to follow the whims of her heart once his usefulness has been exhausted.

Female economic independence is the default setting when labor shocks adversely affect the economic and job prospects of men. Single mommery and alpha fux follows from that. The Trump phenomena is as much about working and middle class men striking out against an unfair economic and immigration system deliberately arranged to leave them behind as it is about beta males expressing their subconscious displeasure with the regressive, death match sexual market that has inevitably taken form as they have lost a chunk of their SMV currency.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: