The 2014 Chart Of The Year

Public sector jobs and government stimulus are essentially a wealth confiscation and transfer from men to women:

The fantasy: War On Women.

The reality: War On Men.

Read Full Post »

Are Badboys The Answer To White Pathological Humanitarianism?

If you read Peter Frost (and others like him), you’ll be familiar with the theory that white pathological humanitarianism — i.e., white ethnomasochism (as commonly practiced by today’s SJWs) — is a psychological disposition of Northwest Europeans that evolved in the not-too-distant past under the twin environmental pressures of manorialism and non-kin marriage. Radical outbreeding essentially selected for people who were very trusting of outsiders. This high level of trust allowed Western Civilization as we know it to find purchase and flourish.

But, as Frost et al have hypothesized, a powerful altruistic impulse combined with an almost gullible trust in strangers has, over time, become corrupted in the people who possess these normally positive traits. The congenial indulgence granted to non-kin locals that worked so well in a largely racially homogeneous geographic region has turned inward and reconfigured into a self-flagellating penance for imagined sins against the world’s steaming masses. The Columbus Knights of the European Empire have turned to the dark side.

The fate of white Westerners whose blood runs with humanitarian fervor is sealed: Decline, and eventual overrun by less altruistic foreigners. This isn’t idle conjecture. Besides the obvious signs of cultural decay, there is theoretical evidence that ethnocentric groups will eventually out-compete and supplant humanitarian groups. White liberals are the four horses’ asses heralding their own extinction.

What I’m about to say will sound strange, and highly speculative. It is. Bear with me. Chicks who dig jerks may be the saviors of white NW European culture. While the mechanism is unclear at the moment, it is possible that the pathological altruism of whites — a once-healthy altruism pathologized by a changed environment — is such a sickly suicidal urge that, through some subtle feedback signal, it affects white women’s mate choice algorithm, increasing their desire for rule-breaking badboys with a low tolerance for kumbaya bullshit.

As a commenter at Frost’s remarked,

Thus, it makes me wonder whether we are seeing a display [pathological humanitarianism] that has simply become too costly – much like an over-long peacock tail. It may have been selected for in the past and conferred a mating benefit, but now it is simply dead weight and hard to shed.

It just remains to be seen whether the group has enough variability in the personality traits to adapt and survive – selecting for new traits that are beneficial for survival in the current culture. Perhaps that is why WASP women now appear more eager to mate with “bad boys” than “nice guys”? Maybe less inclusive personality characteristics are beginning to be selected for already…

When a race and its culture are pushed to the brink, its women will begin to favor men who, in myriad ways, offer the chance of resistance against their annihilation. If women are choosing jerks and rascals, it may be that on a level beyond their conscious appreciation they are helping to birth an army of selfish pricks capable of saving them from themselves.

Read Full Post »

The Era Of The Apex Alpha

Men throughout history have known that the top dog attracts women. They saw it when their wives made shiny eyes at the circus ringleader. They saw it when politicians came around to give stump speeches. They saw it in school when the athletic boy or the dangerous boy magically acquired a doting harem of admirers, like some Poon Piper.

So the fact of female hypergamy wasn’t a mystery to at least a large minority of men, even if those men couldn’t put to words what they were seeing. There had to always have been a sense among the common man that women feel an instinctive attraction to powerful men. But that sense was circumscribed by the limited availability of provocations which could stimulate unrestrained raw desire in women. There weren’t that many powerful men to go around in, say, 1850 America, and of those there were, the communication mediums to transmit their sexy power to potential throngs of adoring female fans didn’t exist in any meaningful form. If a powerful man passed through your small town, you were one of the few (un)fortunate local men to witness first-hand how women would veritably kneel before this exotic stranger from afar.

That all changed with the advent of rapid transportation, radio, TV, and stadium amplification.

Commenter Chairman of the Board excerpts,

“What Girls Want: Seventy Years of Pop Idols and Audiences”

“When former bobby-soxers remember Frankie of the bow-tie years, they emphasize that the Voice was seductive. Janice Booker saw her generation of bobby-soxers using Sinatra to express the beginnings of feelings otherwise inexpressible. Writes Booker, “[h]e was safe because he was unattainable; unattainable because he was a celebrity, and unavailable because he was married with children” (74). [ed: laughable. sinatra’s marriage wasn’t stoking sexual frenzy in his female fans.] Martha Lear recalls a feeling less proto-sexual and more actively sexual: “Whatever he stirred beneath our barely budding breasts, it wasn’t motherly. And the boys knew that and that was why none of them liked him, none except the phrasing aficionados… [T]he thing we had going with Frankie was sexy. It was exciting. It was terrific” (48).

In the highly restrictive prevailing sexual mores of the 1940s, girls’ options for exploring their sexuality were severely limited. Through movies, radio shows, and popular novels, girls were taught that sexual intercourse was for marriage only. Their own magazine, Seventeen, instructed girls to be extraordinarily careful about the liberties they allowed their dates to take; the magazine advised against necking and petting—and anything further down the line was definitely out of the question. Discouraged from loving in private, teenage girls did love in public—they loved their Frankie, fiercely, unashamedly, loudly. They made a spectacle out of themselves, they made a star out of Frank Sinatra, and they made a social space into which generations of girls following would continue to scream and faint.”

Right around mid-20th Century America, the era of the apex alpha male began, an era that could rightfully be called something new on the scene, for there were few comparable eras in human history, save for ancient empires ruled by khans on horse and emperors in palaces.

Reader PA writes about one mid-century American apex alpha,

Another bullet to DoBA’s list of [Charles] Manson’s accomplishments — the girls stayed loyal to him through their own murder trials. They didn’t plea bargain or confess for a sentencing deal.

I wonder… a decade earlier Presley set off a mass hysteria just by shaking his hips. The Beatles had girls scream-ovulating. Was there a … female hunger in apex-America that some musicians and sociopaths tapped into. Their success suggests a low hanging fruit effect. No rocker today makes girls scream quite like that.

Mid-century America — circa 1940-1970 — was the time of the “Great Compression”. Economic and social equality were high among whites; the American Beta Male was in the primacy of his rule. All that equality is a turn-off for women; it’s bad business for female desire. There must have been a craving among young women during that time period for a big cheese, a kingpin, an aristocrat, a head honcho, a cult leader, a proto-Obama… a man who stood shoulders above other men. A…. rock star.

If the sexes were reversed, that time in America, (if you’ll allow me a loose-fitting analogy), would look like a time of great equality among dumpy plain janes, and no stand-out beauties to inspire men to reach for greatness. It’s not a great analogy, because, well, it’s hard to imagine any culture in which men faint in the presence of a hard 10. Abject veneration of HSMV members of the opposite sex is primarily the wont of the female of the human species.

Imagine how the masses of mild-mannered, provider beta males experienced mid-century America: Their shock and confusion watching their best women literally throw themselves at pop culture icons, begging to give their sex away for free to unapologetic cads. This was something new, something beyond the conventional wisdom about female nature, and it must have royally fucked with the heads of men. What lesson did our mid-Century forefathers learn? It wasn’t an idealistic one. In twenty years, a Western civilization’s worth of pussy-propping pedestals got knocked over, never to stand upright again.

Commenter Arbiter writes,

this is something I often make a point of, and it’s one of those things that move people’s circles. Women screamed and fainted at Beatles concerts. Men never screamed and fainted at Madonna concerts.

Feminists say behavior is programmed by capitalist media, for whatever reason that would be. But what media ever told women to scream at concerts? None. What media ever told men not to do so? None. Feminists can at the most claim that women “are made to desire the men in the band”, but the screaming would be completely unnecessary for that purpose.

Those who claim media can mold raw sexual desire are either lying or old and so far removed from their youthful yearnings that they have forgotten what it’s like to experience a sudden rush of lust for, if a man, a cute girl or, if a woman, a socially popular man. No media was responsible for that first thermonuclear blast of lust when my stripling teenage eyes saw the red-headed girl’s pert tits and round ass in a whole new light. That was a fire that started deep inside, and has smoldered there since.

So it is with women. Their hypergamy isn’t a media creation; it’s God’s creation. The media at best can only poke and prod the dangerous beast from its slumber.

So what lessons did our mid-century beta males take to heart as they had to endure watching pathetically from a corner their women en masse essentially cuckolding them with their ids (and many with more than that). As the romantic insults piled higher, I bet America’s beta males — some of whom invented space exploration and high def porn — began to share a general outlook on life and on women.

We gotta install microwave ovens
Custom kitchens deliveries
We gotta move these refrigerators
We gotta move these colour TV’s

Now look at them yo-yo’s that’s the way you do it
You play the guitar on the MTV
That ain’t workin’ that’s the way you do it
Money for nothin’ and chicks for free

The Sexual Devolution of the late 60s was as much or more a reaction of men to the change in their women’s comportment as it was a protest by women against cultural restrictions on their sexuality. The Kraken was released from its subterranean prison in women’s hindbrains, and once surfaced it wrought psychological destruction on a mass scale. Profoundly disillusioned and not a little nauseated, salt-of-the-earth mid-century men must’ve thought, “And I’m supposed to slave away for something these yapping faggots are getting younger, hotter, tighter, and for free?!”

It’s an irony of human experience that the golden ages of great civilizations, the heights of their power, immediately precede their sudden and rapid collapses. It’s becoming clearer with time that America’s Golden Age was the 20th Century, a Golden Age which coincided with a Golden Boy Age, and that had our fatherly forebears the wisdom they would have more readily perceived the omens in two generations of their women prostrating themselves in worshipful sexual abandon at the feet of the apex alpha demigods of the day.

Read Full Post »

The Iconic SJW Face

It’s hard to choose one face that stands — or scrunches — above the rest as the iconic social justice warrior (SJW) face. But I believe I have found it.

This Harry Potter tranny was snapped at a Ferguson protest in Portland. Like most SJWs, she is a raving beauty. That knitted brow which will never unknot. Those beady, judgmental eyes. The boycut. The thin, sexless lips pressed into a perpetual Puritan’s scold.

The overall impression one gets is of that fat judge with the testicle chin in Pink Floyd’s ‘The Wall’.

All she(?)’s missing is the pitchfork and torchlit mob, and a witch to burn for heresy against the Church of Anti-Racism.

If only degenerate SJWs could see themselves the way others see them…. I doubt anything would change. Cult religions and their followers are immune to the emotions and sympathies that sway normal people.

Read Full Post »

Men Not At Work

Many readers forwarded this NYBetaTimes article about men dropping out of the workforce. The author listed several factors aggravating this War on Men trend.

Working, in America, is in decline. The share of prime-age men — those 25 to 54 years old — who are not working has more than tripled since the late 1960s, to 16 percent. More recently, since the turn of the century, the share of women without paying jobs has been rising, too. The United States, which had one of the highest employment rates among developed nations as recently as 2000, has fallen toward the bottom of the list.

Thank you, mass immigration and Wall Street wunderkinds!

Many men, in particular, have decided that low-wage work will not improve their lives, in part because deep changes in American society have made it easier for them to live without working. These changes include the availability of federal disability benefits; the decline of marriage, which means fewer men provide for children; and the rise of the Internet, which has reduced the isolation of unemployment.

All of these are doubtless contributing factors, but as with most Hivemind reporting on the topic of men dropping out, there is a studious avoidance to analyzing the role that women, and their marital worthiness, play in men’s choices. I will explain below.

Men today may feel less pressure to find jobs because they are less likely than previous generations to be providing for others. Only 28 percent of men without jobs — compared with 58 percent of women — said a child under 18 lived with them.

A misleading stat. Divorced women get custody of children, and men pay child support. So some number of these no-employment men living alone are indeed providing for others, just not in the way they would prefer.

A study published in October by scholars at the American Enterprise Institute and the Institute for Family Studies estimated that 37 percent of the decline in male employment since 1979 could be explained by this retreat from marriage and fatherhood.

Women initiate 70+% of all divorces. Who’s retreating from marriage and fatherhood, again?

“When the legal, entry-level economy isn’t providing a wage that allows someone a convincing and realistic option to become an adult — to go out and get married and form a household — it demoralizes them and shunts them into illegal economies,” said Philippe Bourgois, an anthropologist at the University of Pennsylvania who has studied the lives of young men in urban areas.

Yes, mass immigration and automation are certainly demoralizing to unemployed men who weren’t born with the capacity for abstract thinking and symbol manipulation, but you know what else is demoralizing to men? Fat women, single moms, and sluts looking to settle down after a lifetime cocking up.

There is also evidence that working has become more expensive. A recent analysis by the Brookings Institution found that prices since 1990 had climbed most quickly for labor-intensive services like child care, health care and education, increasing what might be described as the cost of working: getting a degree, staying healthy, hiring someone to watch the children.

Cost of getting a degree = runaway credentialism.
Cost of staying healthy = following the government low-fat guidelines.
Cost of hiring a nanny = embracing the DIOK (dual income, one kid) lifestyle.

Meanwhile, the price of food, clothing, computers and other goods has climbed more slowly.

Corn and porn.

So many conservative social commentators, like Ross Douthat, fail to account for feedback loops in the sexual market, and how that trickles up and affects the economic market. They have a blind spot about women, preferring to lay blame for all society’s woeful indicators at the feet of men, so that they may continue polishing the pedestal of their faire maidens.

But men react to opposite sex cues just as much as women do. Think of men as having two engines of motivation, one internal, one external. The internal engine is self-starting and self-perpetuating, and it evolved to confer upon men a shot at raising their status so that they could attract more and better women.

The external engine is context-dependent. Visual cues fuel it, and it puts out more power the more enticing visual cues are fed into it. This engine, too, is a product of evolution, but it is more easily short-circuited by negative environmental inputs that were rare in the millennia when evolution was working to perfect both engines.

Men’s (white men’s, at any rate) external engine of motivation looks around, surveys a landscape teeming with land whales, single moms, and sluts, and decides that, hey, working their asses off in a crappy, low-wage job for a shot at wifing up George Lucas’ pelican gullet is the dictionary definition of a raw deal. Throw in the growing ranks of single moms, even the thin fuckable ones, and the women who have amassed considerable premarital histories on the cock carousel and are therefore less likely to stay faithful or to avoid the divorce altar, and men’s motivation to perform for these female losers dwindles to nothing.

Now add the finishing ingredient — porn — and you have most of what you need to know about why marriage rates are falling and men are dropping out of the economy, particularly among the lower classes. (The upper classes have more stable marriages because getting married later in life circumscribes the availability of tempting extramarital options, especially for older wives. Plus, upper class women are generally thinner and hotter.)

Dropped-out men may not be consciously happy about their non-employment and increasing alienation from society, but subconsciously they are making very rational cost-benefit decisions based upon real world incentives and disincentives. In 2014 America, cheap online porn is more rewarding than an expensive fat wife, and disability insurance more rewarding than working at a paint shop for $9 an hour. Change those two inputs — make both American women and American wages more attractive — and you will begin to see men dropping back into contention.

Read Full Post »

Another Realtalker Burned At The Stake

A University president was fired by the school board for talking sense about personal responsibility and advising women on the effective means available to reduce their chances of sexual assault or romantic disappointment.

Jennings, who to no avail apologized for his comments before his firing,

Never apologize. It only incites the barbarians to pick through your bones.

still insists that his critics are taking the YouTube video out of context. But even the truncated version casts doubt on why he has been ridden out of town on a rail. The video excerpt begins with Jennings saying he’s going to let the women in on “a little secret”: “Men treat you, treat women the way women allow us to treat them. . . . We will use you up, if you allow us to use you up,” he said. “Well, guess what? When it comes time for us to make that final decision, we’re going to go down the hall and marry that girl with the long dress on. That’s one we’re going to take home to Mama. There is something about the way you carry yourself and respect yourself that commands and demands respect from us.” At this point, the video shows the female crowd clapping in agreement.

Slutty women get used like sluts. This was conventional, even trite, wisdom not that long ago, but today is apparently crimethink that can get you fired.

Then came the statement that clearly sank Jennings’s presidency (he may still have tenure as a professor): “I’m saying this because, first and foremost, don’t put yourself in a situation that would cause you to be trying to explain something that really needs no explanation, had you not put yourself in that situation.”

When the speech excerpt appeared on YouTube, it created an uproar. Marybeth Gasman, a University of Pennsylvania education professor, said it showed that “the president blames young women for being raped by saying that when they have sex with someone and regret the act, they then create a story [of rape] to explain it.”

Some women do this. Regret Rape is a real social phenomenon. But feminists and their enablers would rather light the torches and brandish the pitchforks against anyone who dares practice the sorcery of noticing the bad behavior of women.

Read Full Post »

The UVA False Rape Fabulists

As most CH readers know by now, a gaudy account of alleged gang rape at a University of Virginia fraternity (Rapegate) was exposed as a hoax, or, more charitably, as a freakin’ lie. Many feminists and lapdog betaboys were left shell-shocked by the sudden undermining of their religious belief.

This isn’t the first rape hoax. The Duke lacrosse stripper rape never happened. And more recently, Lena Dunham, SWPL heroine, was outed as a fabulist for concocting a story about a “Republican conservative” who raped her in college. In Dunham’s case, she named a man. Hopefully he will sue her to kingdom come.

What makes the current false rape accusation (FRA) craze so dissonant is that it’s happening in a social climate where actual reported rapes are in decline and at a 40-year low, at least among whites. It’s almost as if feminists WANT to gin up a rape culture because the current rape-less society they live in is unsatisfactory to them.

The Jane Jones hysteria demands explanation. What is motivating all these rape hoaxes? I have some theories.

1. “Rape-culture culture”, driven by white females, and particularly by academic white females of a highly ethnocentric minority tribe (Erdely, Merlan), and targeted primarily against the white fraternity brother archetype, is revealed hatred of a certain majority group’s men for being, well, what they are: The tribal bogeyman. Sexual desire for these men and warped shame for feeling that desire must underlie some of that irrational hatred.

2. Rapegate is the proxy mechanism by which underattractive white females get to express their true resentment of the sexual aggression of black men and the asexual indifference of white men. As iSteve commenter countenance writes,

Because “rape culture” is how white men in frat houses get the blame for black men raping white women.

White women do get real raped (and sometimes killed)… disproportionately by black men who look like this guy:

But of course, because race is the ultimate totem of intra-white status whoring, academic white females can’t come out and say “Hey, a lot of black guys are raping us.” So they release that anger through a convenient proxy: white frat bros. And why are white frat bros, mostly harmless even when drunk, the preferred alternative rape culture oppressor? Because they don’t give unattractive feminists the time of day. Thus, their expediency as punching bags for feminists is rooted in the latter’s resentment at being overlooked as sex objects by high mate value white men.

3. The sex ratio on college campuses — 60%+ women and rising — favors men in the dating market. Female students are thus put into a position, by virtue of their natural hypergamous instincts, of being one of the shared side dishes of a popular male student, of dating less desirable nerd betas, or of getting shut out of the dating market altogether. At the margins, this lopsided sex ratio and its consequences will cause some mentally unbalanced women (feminists) to act out like lunatics.

4. This is the darkest theory, and the one therefore favored by CH priests. Rape fantasy is a staple of subliterary erotica, aka female porn. A fair number of women are sexually and romantically aroused by violent men. Death rows are filled with the clutter of love letters and even marriage proposals from swooning women. Lurid rape hysteria really may be psychological projection of lurid sex fantasy in a world full of sexless betaboy drones. It’s a parsimonious explanation for Lena Dunham’s obsessing over a “Republican conservative” man having sex with her many years ago, and her current transmogrification of that consensual event into a latter day Regret Rape political stance. Five minutes of right-wing alpha. She just cannot get enough of that memory of real man cock. Manlet SJWs, limp-wristed male feminists, and slobbering white knights will never get this about rock-ribbed feminists: Most of them despise the company of the weak men they feel forced to endure. These feminist rape-mongers dream of being assertively taken by a strong man torqued with unstoppable lust. (Related: I have a theory that women secretly desire men of opposite political persuasion, and that the reason most couples align politically is largely a result of convenience sorting and arid subconscious calculations of child characteristics.)

***

Some sadistic thinkers dismiss feminism as a relevant social force. I disagree with them. For example, look at this latest feminist flop; will the rancid ideology finally pay a price? UVA is Peak Feminism, right? No wait, that was Duke lacrosse. No, it was Lena Dunham. Seems Peak Feminism has yet to arrive. Lesson: Feminists benefit from power elite shielding. Individual feminists may be mentally unhinged and emotionally scorched, but their insipid politics finds its way into government and private policies. Women in the military, Title IX, affirmative consent laws, and bans on paternity testing, to name a few. Feminist propaganda matters. It has real world consequences that victimize real men, in ways direct and indirect. The Hivemind masters — the Lords of Lies — protect feminists from their own malignancy and prevent them from suffering due punishment for their slander and caustic beliefs.

Everything rotten about 2014 America is exposed by rape and race hoaxes: Leftoid duplicity, media boosterism, anti-white male animus. CH is doing its part to help bring balance to the force, which has tilted for too long in the direction of the Snark Side. But we can only do so much. Others must step up. You can start here: A website devoted to exposing corruption among our journalistic, political, and academic elite. Call them out on their lies, record it for posterity, ruin their reputations, and hope that the righteous backlash has only begun to start.

Read Full Post »