Gotta Love The Washington Uterus

In a story about the Secret Service agents and the Colombian whore with the fake tits, I was thrown by this jarring editorial commentary that was inserted after a quote attributed to one of the agents:

“I was really checking [Sarah Palin] out, if you know what i mean?” [Secret Service agent] Chaney wrote in the comments section after friends had marveled at the photo. He is married and has an adult son.

I’m not seeing the relevance of his marital or fatherhood status to the story. Is it the “””reporters'””” contention that staring at Sarah Palin’s ass (a fine one, for a middle-aged woman) would be Ok if the agent admitting to it was single and childless?

You’ve really gotta wonder what planet these Columbia J-school grads live on. Planet Stupidity aka Feminism? Yes. You’d have to be delusional, evil or thoroughly brainwashed to think that a man’s sexual desire and attraction for hot bodied women somehow disappears after he gets married and his kid grows up. If women really think that married men stop checking out other attractive women, then I’ve got a bridge to sell them to fatopia, where fat chicks are beloved by men everywhere.

This kind of mass delusion among the elite is what happens when you ensconce them from cradle to grave in a gooey bath of feelgood platitudes, post-rationality sophistry and calculating ignorance. Nuke the beast from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure it’s dead.

A man and a woman contributed to that Washington Uterus article. I could understand a woman writing that line, deep in thrall to her rationalization hamster. Of course, an ounce of journalistic integrity should stay her hamster’s paw, but the world has changed and integrity is now a passé virtue. I doubt one bit many of the media propagandists care about their bias. War has a way of enfeebling the moral conscience.

But if the man wrote it? Such a creature would have to be a vaginaman of cavernous magnitude. Vaginaman, beta orbiter hero of feminists! Villain of clear thought and hurty feelings! He can smite logic with a mighty slap of his flappy labia. Swallow testicles in one foul orgasmic up-suck. Helicopter his engorged bitch tits like two signal flares pointing the way downward to bizarro enlightenment. He enters a slut walk, and exits…

Read Full Post »

The Psychology Of Feminists And Manboobs

Preface: I wanted to title this post “Monsters in our midst”, but thought that would be overkill.

Why do normal people feel a natural disgust for feminists and manginas? Make no mistake, normal women are as repulsed as normal men are by shrieking feminists and wimpy manboy pudgeballs. In public, well-adjusted people may mouth the PC platitudes that feminists and doughboys relentlessly cudgel into squishy groupthink minds, but in private the cool people generally shun the orc hordes and leave them to mingle with their own emotionally and often physically disfigured kind. This social outcast status is what fuels their eternal hatred for truth and beauty.

Feminism, whether dressed in ostensibly male or female cloak, strikes the hearts of healthy, self-confident people as inherently absurd and manipulative. Those who bother to closely examine the ideology find a minefield of lies and dissembling messengers. This naturally leads to questioning if there is something “off” in the aggregate with those who most vociferously preach the feminist word and harangue the heretics.

I have a theory that is perhaps the most politically incorrect thing you will read at the Chateau. The 800 pound bulldyke in the room that “””progressives””” of all stripes don’t want you to notice is that a lot of their radical regressivist shock troopers are comprised of biologically faulty men and women who are at the extremes of effeminacy and masculinization respectively. If it came to be widely understood and socially acceptable to acknowledge that, due to hormonal imbalance, genetic glitches, or gross environmental insult, 90% of radical femcunts are lesbians or manjawed atrocities, and 90% of manboobs are closet cases or soft, pillowy micropeens, the general population would be less likely to seriously entertain their insipid drivel. The mask would have slipped, revealing the feminist death underneath.

Think about the revulsion you feel when you see a grossly obese person. It’s instinctive, like the way you would recoil from a pile of dog shit. This revulsion is near universal. But why do we feel disgust for fat people? Hordes of obese have only been with us recently in evolutionary history. Instead of seeking an explanation in a “fat revulsion” gene, it’s better to think of our natural disgust for fat people as having its origin in a more general “abnormality” or aberration template deeply wired into our hindbrains.

This abnormality template — you could call it the monster mechanism — is easily triggered by the sight of anything which seriously deviates from its category’s normal phenotype range, provoking fear and disgust in the observer. You can find indirect confirmation of the monster mechanism hypothesis in the fact that it is limited to objects which exist in the state of nature, and therefore would have been around during the millennia humans evolved. For example, if you deform something that does not exist in the state of nature — a car, say — you may make it look really weird, but it won’t inspire visceral terror and revulsion.

But if you deform a human being by adding eyeballs, limbs or hundreds of pounds of fat, you get a nightmare creature that will make small children, who have not yet learned the proper polite restraint, cry. Similarly, masculinizing a woman or feminizing a man turns each into a monstrous aberration, the degree of perceived monstrosity and primally induced disgust proportional to the deviation from the normal sex phenotype.

Your typical outrage feminist and limp-wristed manboob flirts dangerously close to the monster threshold. Humans recoil from manjawed, mustachioed, beady-eyed, actively aggressive women and chipmunk-cheeked, bitch tittied, curvaceously plush, passive-aggressive men as if they were the human equivalent of dog shit. The farther your feminist or manboob deviates from the normal human template, in physical and psychological form, the more monstrous it becomes to the average person.

Now imagine you stomp through life as one of these howling feminists or putrid nancyboys, like Grendel disturbed by the sights and sounds of normalcy all around him. You sense, in your darkest secret thoughts, that most people are repulsed by you, want to have nothing to do with you, would be embarrassed to be seen with you. How do you think that would affect your mental state? First, you would seek out others like you. Monstrosity loves company. Then, you would lash out at anything normal, elevating the wicked and deviant while eroding confidence in the good and beautiful, twisting cherished moral standards that work adequately to sustain a normal population into bizarre, exaggerated facsimiles manufactured solely to do the bidding of your freak cohort.

Finally, you would attempt to do to the Other what you have felt from the Other your whole life — cast them into the icy wastelands. Due to a combination of hate-driven relentless energy as a perpetual outsider, plus elite co-conspiracy, you succeed… temporarily, always temporarily… at convincing large numbers of normals to blankly imbibe your warped truth. No one who is anyone would bother questioning your motivations, because that would be… unseemly.

And the Lords of Lies held dominion over all.

But that is changing now. The reflexive indulgence granted the monsters among us has lost its justification. Too many bleeding wounds from too many overzealous bites has rattled the slumber of the sleepers. A greater force than any sophistic monster in the world is about to bite back, viciously, lethally. Truth, as it always does, will claim ultimate victory.

Read Full Post »

Ugly Women Are More Likely To Be Careerist Feminists

Chalk up another scientific confirmation of Heartiste theory: ugly women who can’t attract a desirable man switch strategies from finding a provider male to collecting the resources themselves, (and then rationalizing their life choice using the rubric of feminism).

A controversial study has concluded that the real reason women pursue careers is because they fear they are too unattractive to get married.

The research team, made up of three women and two men, said that when men are thin on the ground, ‘women are more likely to choose briefcase over baby’.

And the plainer a woman is, they claim, the more she is driven to succeed in the workplace.

Central to their argument was the idea that women have evolved to become homemakers and men, providers.

They said this means that when men are scarce in a particular area, women, and particularly less attractive ladies, may decide they need to provide for themselves with a well-paid career. […]

After collecting data from across the U.S., they found that as the number of eligible men in a state decreased, the proportion of women in highly paid careers rose.

In addition, the women who became mothers in those states did so at an older age and had fewer children. […]

The final experiment tested the researchers’ suspicion that less attractive women would be more interested in careers because they might find it difficult to secure a partner.

The 87 young women were given mocked-up newspaper articles describing the sex ratio in nearby university campuses and were asked about their views on family and career.

They were also asked how attractive they believed themselves to be to men.

Those women who saw themselves as being less desirable than average were highly likely to be career-orientated.

Here’s a picture of Hilary Rosen, the über feminist who said stay-at-home mother Ann Romney never worked a day in her life:

Hot babes usually put marriage before career, and tend to have happier love and family lives. This is why ugly feminists with multiple degrees insult stay-at-home moms so vociferously; ugly women feel, on a deep visceral level, that their ugliness is the real reason why they don’t have the things that better looking women have, so they pretend they never really wanted those things or that the women who want those things are somehow lesser women, inexperienced, provincial puppets of an imagined patriarchy who don’t understand the joys of climbing the corporate ladder. These feminists are, of course, engaged in a heated, scorched id campaign of lying to themselves.

This all ties back to the growing dystopia of single momhood and men dropping out of sexual market contention. When women work or collect government largesse, their economic independence renders men in their income bracket less desirable as mates, because women are naturally hypergamous and prefer the company of higher status, more powerful men. A vicious negative feedback loop ensues, wherein men deem that efforts to make a pittance are no longer effective at securing women’s sexual interest, and women with fewer mate options pursue careers as a substitute for the loss of acceptably higher status beta provider males. Throw in obesity disfiguring large swaths of young womanhood, the divorce industrial complex creating perverse incentives for women in loveless marriages, and a skewed sex ratio with too many men living into their prime reproductive years, and you’ve got a recipe for total societal breakdown, unprecedented antagonism between the sexes, and a playing field ripe for men to plunder using the charismatic arts known as game.

In a future post I will explain why intelligent men need to learn game and start marrying and having kids with dumber but hotter chicks in order to save Western civilization. Not joking.

Read Full Post »

Science Proves Race Is Not A Social Construct

I’ve never understood how this leftie assertion “race is a social construct” got off the ground — I mean, I have two eyes, I can see what people look like — but for whatever reason all sorts of brainwashed numbskulls cling to the meme like a life raft. How do you argue effectively against people who so brazenly defy common sense and observable reality? At some sufficiently degenerate mental nadir it becomes impossible to engage such a person rationally. You just mock them and hope they shrink away in shame.

Mockery’s great, I love it, use it a lot in my daily life. But once in a while it’s pleasing to throw an icy cold splash of scientific debunking on false beliefs. If the perpetrator of the false belief is not insane, actual science proving the contrary might give him pause about spreading his lies. But better than that, and more probable, it will win over weak-minded conformists and status whores who are gullible to the liar’s feelgood, twisted logic, thus ostracizing him from normal people.

On that premise, here’s a loaded study — loaded with implications — about a new DNA test that can ID a person’s race.

Frudakis’ test is called DNAWitness. It examines DNA from 176 locations along the genome. Particular sequences at these points are found primarily in people of African heritage, others mainly in people of Indo-European, Native American, or South Asian descent. No one sequence can perfectly identify a person’s origin. But by looking at scores of markers, Frudakis says he can predict ancestry with a tiny margin of error. […]

But the real [reason it isn’t popular with police]? DNAWitness touches on race and racial profiling — a subject with such a tortured history that people can’t countenance the existence of the technology, even if they don’t understand how it works.

“Once we start talking about predicting racial background from genetics, it’s not much of a leap to talking about how people perform based on their DNA — why they committed that rape or stole that car or scored higher on that IQ test,” says Troy Duster, former president of the American Sociological Association.

Aaaaaaaaand…. meme CEDED motherfucker. You can’t find DNA markers of social constructs, but you sure can of biological reality. The fear here, naturally considering the PC crushing potential unlocked by such technology, is exactly what Troy Duster, former president of the American Sociological ASSociation *cough* dissembling shitsacks *cough* suggests: that the tech will be able to find genetic markers that correspond with certain behaviors and attributes. And at that point, the whole house of equalist cards carefully built up over the last, oh, 150 years, comes tumbling down.

The fear exists because those professing it know, deep in their squirrelly little hearts, that the propaganda they cherish and espouse is wrong, has always been wrong, and soon everyone will know of its wrongness. I think what they really fear is blowback. Or perhaps hopelessness. Or sinecures. Or all of that, plus the loss of a status cudgel to wield against their close cousin lessers.

Tony Clayton, a black man and a prosecutor who tried one of the Baton Rouge murder cases, concedes the benefits of the test: “Had it not been for Frudakis, we would still be looking for the white guy in the white pickup.” Nevertheless, Clayton says he dislikes anything that implies we don’t all “bleed the same blood.” He adds, “If I could push a button and make this technology disappear, I would.”

I bet a lot of members of the current ruling regime are thinking the same thing. Which is why they shouldn’t be in power, any longer.

ps hi Cheap Chalupas!

Read Full Post »

Word Is Getting Out

I was enjoying a punchy bowel movement in a public restroom when I overhead a conversation a man was having on the phone with a woman who was either a friend or the pretense of a friend he wanted to fuck. Droning and masturbatory, my ears perked up when he turned the subject to that Story of O meager rip-off and sadomasochism book by a female author which is currently all the rage among well-heeled urban ladies who fancy themselves feminists. One-way snippets follow.

“Did you hear about this Fifty Shades of Grey book? …Yeah, it’s about a woman who falls for a controlling, dominant guy. He’s even kind of violent. Knocks her around and stuff.”

“It’s a little disconcerting. Are women like this? Do women really go in for this sort of thing?” [laughs]

“I don’t get it, but this is all women are talking about. It makes me think that they want to be submissive. Submissive to a man.”

“I mean, I have to ask… I’m asking you because you’re a woman, and I haven’t slept with you. [chuckles self-consciously] Not that I meant to say I wanted to… or if I would I wouldn’t come right out and say it… but I figure you would tell me the truth since we’re not sleeping together.”

“Have you read this book?… Wow… You too?… You think you know people….”

“Are these degrading things he puts her through… are they exciting for women? I’ll never have a conversation again without thinking she really wants to be tied up and… yeah, women want submission… it’s nuts.”

“Is that what you like?”

I do no fairness to this eavesdropped rambling exegesis on the book that has the yoga and credentialist crowd in titters and tingles, which went on breathlessly for a heady fifteen minutes. (My grass-fed beef movement was extraordinary even for a deucing champion like myself, so fifteen minutes on the throne was not putting me out.) From the sound of his ardor, the man on the phone could hardly believe there existed this secret garden of women’s desires, and having stumbled into it clumsily tried to utilize the subject as a hook for a possible tryst with the woman on the other end of the line. Also from the sound of it, she didn’t bite.

I think this book is something of a watershed cultural moment for the SWPL class, filled floor to rafters with masculinized careerist broads and cloying beta males. Word is getting out among even the mule-headed beta males that women are, most of them and especially those feminist shrikes who’d like you to think otherwise, engines of depraved sexuality who really want to belong to a dominant man — belong in the biblical and servitude sense — and that no indignity is off the table for them should the right badass come along and give them what they truly crave.

Pulp romance and sex novels like Fifty Shades of Grey are the female equivalent of male visual pornography; let there be no doubt, these books are female porn, as salacious and titillating for women as close-up jackhammering is for men. If you decry the one, you must decry the other if you have any interest in being perceived as fair-minded and consistent. But will you ever hear a media darling feminist call out these books for what they really are? Of course not. For what they really are is a technicolor ringside seat spectating into the soul of woman. Fantasy is a reflection of real world desire, and as much as it is true men would hardly hesitate to fulfill in real life a fantasy about intimately plowing a Victoria’s Secret model, it is equally true women wouldn’t hesitate to be the defiled bedroom slave of a charmingly sociopathic, powerful alpha male.

Think about this revelation for more than a Twitter’s length moment. These pulpy romance books targeted at female audiences are all implausibly similar; you will never encounter a plot line that deviates much from the universal script except in the most trivial details. There is a badboy. There is an indignation, or a series of indignations, to which the female “protagonist” consents or endures, and enjoys despite her conscious declaration to the contrary. There is a niceguy the woman feels bad about not loving. There are societal expectations that add drama to the proceedings. There is sexual surrender preceded by interminable verbal foreplay (the “close-up” for the female reader). And there are pages upon pages of delirious, exquisite hamstering.

Feminists rush to claim that these sordid female fantasies are just that: fantasy. But then why is it these books of female porn never showcase a woman having a torrid affair with an attentive, polite beta male who does the dishes and shows up for dates on time? If these desires were outcroppings of the realm of fantasy alone, severed from real desirous thoughts that can be acted upon, then reason dictates women in all their glorious individuality  — nawalt, don’t you know! — would fantasize in the fantasy-dedicated lobes of their brains about a random assortment of scenarios and male archetypes. Yet the thematic universality persists.

The conclusion is obvious: women fantasize about the types of men they do (like the slavemaster from Fifty Shades) because, like men watching porn, it gets them off. And what one dreams about — or reads or watches — to get oneself off is thrillingly close to the same thing that gets one off in earthbound life where flesh meets actual flesh.

It’s a good thing beta males are being exposed to this raw look at female nature in ever greater numbers. From the mouths of (aging) babes. Chalk one up for the information superhighway and its unsupervised off-ramps kicking a peg from under the princess pedestal. Perhaps with this new, unsettling knowledge, more betas will train themselves to become alpha and in turn make more women happier and sexually fulfilled. Or perhaps this cadre of illuminated betas will drop out, resigned to their hopelessness and cynicism, and slowly, inexorably withdraw the funds and the mental fuel that prop up the de facto polygyny society in which they play little part except as mop-up crew after the main attraction has ended.

Either way, the rouge has washed off this whore. The illusion is shattering. No one wants to be a dupe. My prediction is that women will regret having thrown the doors wide open on their whipped and gagged ids, invigorating hordes of disaffected or romantically noncommittal beta males in consequence. The losers in this game will rightly wonder what it has gotten them. And the heretics will say some roars were better left stifled.

In the meatime, as always…

I’ll be poolside.

Read Full Post »

Charles Murray’s One-Sided Shaming

Charles Murray addresses critics of his book “Coming Apart: The State of a Politically Acceptable Bell Curve” who complain that he didn’t focus enough on economic factors driving the disintegration of lower class whites. He presents data in this Open Borders Journal article that shows working class men have been dropping out of the job market even during good times.

It is true that unionized jobs at the major manufacturers provided generous wages in 1960. But they didn’t drive the overall wage level in the working class. In the 1960 census, the mean annual earnings of white males ages 30 to 49 who were in working-class occupations (expressed in 2010 dollars) was $33,302. In 2010, the parallel figure from the Current Population Survey was $36,966—more than $3,000 higher than the 1960 mean, using the identical definition of working-class occupations.

This occurred despite the decline of private-sector unions, globalization, and all the other changes in the labor market. What’s more, this figure doesn’t include additional income from the Earned Income Tax Credit, a benefit now enjoyed by those making the low end of working-class wages.

If the pay level in 1960 represented a family wage, there was still a family wage in 2010. And yet, just 48% of working-class whites ages 30 to 49 were married in 2010, down from 84% in 1960.

I don’t have an argument with his economic numbers, although I think he probably understates the role automation, immigration and skill prerequisite inflation have had in the gutting of working class men’s job prospects and ability to merge seamlessly into functional family formation.

Murray is closer to the truth than a lot of his critics are when he blames cultural factors and bad policy for the dysfunction of the left side of the bell curve. Here he is on that:

If changes in the labor market don’t explain the development of the new lower class, what does? My own explanation is no secret. In my 1984 book “Losing Ground,” I put the blame on our growing welfare state and the perverse incentives that it created. I also have argued that the increasing economic independence of women, who flooded into the labor market in the 1970s and 1980s, played an important role.

Simplifying somewhat, here’s my reading of the relevant causes: Whether because of support from the state or earned income, women became much better able to support a child without a husband over the period of 1960 to 2010. As women needed men less, the social status that working-class men enjoyed if they supported families began to disappear. The sexual revolution exacerbated the situation, making it easy for [ed: alpha] men to get sex without bothering to get married. In such circumstances, it is not surprising that male fecklessness bloomed, especially in the working class.

Right-o! The Chateau has been beating a similar drum for quite a while now, so it’s nice to hear a quasi-mainstream pundit embrace the same sordid maxims bolted to the oaken doors, Luther-like, at Chez Heartiste. But then, just when you think the ugly truth has seeped into every corpuscle of the respectable class, a huge backpedal slams the brakes on enlightenment.

The prerequisite for any eventual policy solution consists of a simple cultural change: It must once again be taken for granted that a male in the prime of life who isn’t even looking for work is behaving badly. There can be exceptions for those who are genuinely unable to work or are house husbands. But reasonably healthy working-age males who aren’t working or even looking for work, who live off their girlfriends, families or the state, must once again be openly regarded by their fellow citizens as lazy, irresponsible and unmanly. Whatever their social class, they are, for want of a better word, bums.

To bring about this cultural change, we must change the language that we use whenever the topic of feckless men comes up. Don’t call them “demoralized.” Call them whatever derogatory word you prefer. Equally important: Start treating the men who aren’t feckless with respect. Recognize that the guy who works on your lawn every week is morally superior in this regard to your neighbor’s college-educated son who won’t take a “demeaning” job. Be willing to say so.

This sounds like a familiar refrain. Say it with me, folks. It’s time for men to…. wait for it…. hold…. hoooooold….. HOOOOOOOOLLD…..

Man up!

Bill Bennett would be proud.

How absolutely brave… brave, I say!… of Murray to apportion most of the blame for the current state of affairs to men. Or, in this case, white men. This will surely win him lots of enemies amongst the feminists and social elites whose cocktail party invitations he haughtily throws in the trash in righteous, principled fury.

Look, I have no problem with shaming men who don’t want to work, or who can’t muster the motivation to at least try to find work. It’s not like the existence of self-destructive male bums is unheard of. But Murray DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS his proposed shaming solution with his explanation for the bleak male employment scenario just a few paragraphs above in the very same article! Once more:

Simplifying somewhat, here’s my reading of the relevant causes: Whether because of support from the state or earned income, women became much better able to support a child without a husband over the period of 1960 to 2010. As women needed men less, the social status that working-class men enjoyed if they supported families began to disappear.

Where, pray tell, in that explanation does it follow that men are primarily to blame for their poor employment numbers? Doesn’t the exact opposite conclusion — that women’s mate choices are to blame for men dropping out — seem more obvious? Shouldn’t it be the case then, that single working women on the fast track to single motherhood and alpha cock carouseling are the ones deserving of shame?

Murray, like most pundits, is deathly afraid of confronting female hypergamy. For to confront it in full, with all the consequences that entails, would mean arousing the ire of every dim-witted, aggressively stupid feminist, mangina and talk show snarktard with a sympathetic media at its instant disposal. To confront female hypergamy would be to confront the very foundational rationale for the sexual revolution and the fifty year program to equalize social and economic outcomes between men and women.

I have spent time in SWPL-land and in proleville, and I can tell you the forces shaping our ongoing dysgenia are spearheaded by women’s sexual market choices. It isn’t a conscious campaign of male disenfranchisement; it’s an emergent one. Men, like men always do, are simply reacting to the conditions set on the ground by women.

Murray sees this, but doesn’t run with it. Women’s improved employment numbers, education and earning power (some of it contributed by government largesse) has had the effect of SHRINKING their acceptable dating pool. Material resources and occupational status are one way women judge men’s mate worthiness (not the only way, but the one way that viscerally matters to most beta males), and the innate female sexual disposition to be attracted — ANIMALISTICALLY ATTRACTED — to men with higher status and more resources than themselves necessarily means that financially independent women and government-assisted women are going to find fewer men in their social milieu attractive.

Result? Men slowly discover that the effort to win women’s attention via employment is not rewarding them the way it did for their dads and granddads, and that now only herculean efforts to make considerably more than women will give them an edge in the mating market. The male fecklessness that Murray lambasts is actually a rational male response to a changing sexual market where the rewards of female sexuality go disproportionately to charming, aloof jerks over meager beta providers.

And make no mistake, the jerks are exactly to whom women, particularly lower class women, are dispensing their favors. When earning power and employment as a male attractiveness criteria has been subconsciously debased by women who don’t need male provisions, then women will shift their sexual adaptation algorithm to sexy cads for their thrills and romantic chills.

Knowing this, it makes more sense to shame women equally as vigorously as one shames men for social and family breakdown. In fact, as I have argued, if a prosperous, civilized, self-reliant society is your goal it actually makes sense to shame women MORE than men, because women are the gatekeepers of sex, and as such their combined sexual marketplace decisions carry more import in the direction the culture takes.

So to Murray, I would say this: rewrite your program of shaming so that it better reflects reality, the VERY REALITY you yourself identified. In descending order of lethality, your death star powered shaming ray should designate the following targets:

Shame women who actively try to have bastard hellion spawn out of wedlock. “Oh, the child won’t have a father around?” BACKTURN

Shame women with kids from multiple fathers. “Half sister?” BACKTURN

Shame women who get fat and thus make themselves unattractive to men and artificially tighten the dating market. “Those jeans are a little small on you.” BACKTURN

Shame women who date jerks. “Oh, so the guy you’re seeing has no job and gave you Skittles for your birthday?” BACKTURN

Shame sluts. “Nice tramp stamp. Just the thing to make a guy want to marry you.” BACKTURN

Shame eat, pray, love SWPL divorcees. “Was it worth destroying your kids’ emotional health for a romp with Alfonso?” BACKTURN

Shame Samantha types whose weekly highlight is Sunday brunch mimosas. “In real life, Samantha dies alone with her cats nibbling on her flesh for sustenance.” BACKTURN

Shame aging single cougars. “You should really consider settling for a nice, reliable man. You’re not getting any younger, you know.” BACKTURN

Shame “empowered”, overeducated women who wave their degrees around men like it matters. “You’ve just made it harder on yourself to find love.” BACKTURN

Only after you’ve shamed the above basket cases should you move on to shaming jobless, video gaming and porn watching men.

Although it would go a long way toward fixing the problem with lower class men and women’s reluctance to marry them, I don’t see women being persuaded out of the job market any time soon. Never mind the feminists, the whole consumerist regime depends on women working and spending their discretionary cash on useless baubles. The culture will sooner devolve into a dystopian hellscape than women will quit their HR jobs en masse and give up a portion of their frivolous spendthrift ways.

Not to say something can’t be done. We can start with stopping the encouragement and advocacy of women’s economic advancement. There’s no need to kick women out of the cubicle. Just stop affirmative action for women, stop special programs for women (Title IX), stop pushing them down career paths, and stop making them feel like victims of an imaginary patriarchy. Little steps like this will add up in a big way.

Oh, and ruthlessly mock feminist ideology whenever you get the chance. Bonus: it’s fun for the whole family!

Murray ends on this note:

It is condescending to treat people who have less education or money as less morally accountable than we are. We should stop making excuses for them that we wouldn’t make for ourselves. Respect those who deserve respect, and look down on those who deserve looking down on.

I’m a big proponent of non-judgmentalism, but as a metaphysical riddle, isn’t disrespect going to necessarily disproportionately fall on the losers in life? Do these losers really “deserve” their disrespect? There is plenty of evidence that positive character traits like ambition, conscientiousness, diligence, future time orientation, lawfulness and yes, even morality, are genetically influenced and that some people have more of these beneficial genes than other people. The working class likely has a higher concentration of deleterious genes (deleterious in the context of a modern economy) than does the SWPL class.

As a practical matter, though, Murray is right. You can’t have a well-oiled, functioning, K-selected society if you’re not willing to call out the losers for their dumb choices because you think they can’t help themselves, they were born that way. This is really the grand bargain that the fortunate have to make with their moral worldview. “Do as I say, even if you can’t do it as easily as I do.”

Read Full Post »

Linkage Disequilibrium

Paging Bryan “Fuck the rest of the country who wasn’t born with my genetically superior IQ, good taste, and exquisitely manicured principles” Caplan: Switzerland is not a diversity utopia.

Research group finds creating boundaries key to reducing ethnic violence

History is filled with examples of ethnic violence, the type that erupts when people with differing cultures attempt to live side by side. The Middle East comes to mind, as does Northern Ireland or Yugoslavia. What’s not so common are studies done that show what sorts of things actually work to prevent problems when people of dissimilar backgrounds live next door to one another. Thus, a new study done by Yaneer Bar-Yam and his team at the New England Complex Systems Institute, appears to be particularly relevant. He and his colleagues, describe in their paper on the preprint server arXiv, how a study they’ve done of the ethnically diverse country of Switzerland, shows that political and geographical boundaries have served to keep the peace between the different groups.

Libertardians: so smart ensconced in their fantasy bubbles aka homogeneous fiefdoms. Outside of them… eh, not so much. (I think at this point given the evidence of their own words it’s safe to say a significant proportion of mainstream libertarians are just sophisticated liberal anti-white bigots.)

***

Since I’m in a charitable mood, here’s a post by Caplan that pretty much nails the truth dead center. A reader writes:

I’d also note that lower class men can be pretty ornery and don’t necessarily make good employees in today’s economy, while lower class women tend to be comparatively docile and co-operative, so they are more able to get and keep jobs.

Yes. Female economic independence pushing their hypergamy into hyperdrive isn’t the only factor leading to the enervation of the working man. The modern economy is filled with jobs that are feminized in nature, and often require navigation of labyrinthine office politics that working class men with neither the inclination nor the social savvy find appealing. Men are built for focused single-tasking, and women for superficial multi-tasking. The West is currently tilted in the direction of a multi-tasking economy, for which remuneration flows disproportionately to those with the best social, political and client/customer juggling skills.

For those who scoff “adapt or die”, well, ok. But just remember that sometimes there’s a LOT of dying to go along with the adapting. Government policy can ameliorate or worsen the dying. Lately, it seems government is more interested in accomplishing the latter… for the target designated group.

***

Excellent post at the blog ‘Just Be a Man About It’, which documents evidence of female hypergamy, hookup culture, beta male supplication, alpha male aloofness, women’s love for alpha males and loathing of beta males, and sexual and relationship dynamics in a modern hunter-gatherer !Kung tribe. If you see parallels between the !Kung sexual market and your own, you are not mistaken. Just a friendly reminder that the concepts behind game and female desire, as discussed extensively here at the Chateau, are rooted in ancient biological forces that continue to shape who we are today. Take it in, and be enlightened.

(Note: Broad racial differences in mating predilection have probably evolved in the last 10,000 years. These differences do not rest on a presupposition that universal preferences don’t exist.)

***

As if sugar, refined carbs, cheaper junk food, prolonged cubicle farm sitting, and lack of walkable communities due to vibrancy weren’t enough, now there’s evidence that CO2 may be responsible for the explosion (heh) of obesity in the world over the last fifty years (via Mangan’s).

Coinciding with the sharp increase in the prevalence of human obesity over the last 50 years, weight gain has also been observed in animals. A recent study found that 24 populations of 8 different species, including laboratory animals that had been fed the same diets for decades, all displayed significant weight gain.3 This suggests that a shared environmental factor, favouring weight gain, may be involved in the regulation of energy balance. Such a factor has yet to be identified.

Even our pets are getting fatter. If pet food hasn’t changed, then something in the environment is causing Fifi to bloat up. Lack of exercise? Maybe. But cats are usually pretty good at self-regulating their weight, and they’re getting fatter too. Infectious parasite? A guy like Greg Cochrane, who has argued that homosexuality may be the result of a parasite in the mother, would be open to this argument. Proof would be if wild animals are getting fatter, too. Whatever it is, the cause(s) of the obesity epidemic is clearly environmental. Fifty years is simply not enough time for an obesity gene or genes to trickle through the general population and produce the rate of change in fatness that we observe.

The good news is that CO2-influenced levels of blood acidity can be mediated by spending less time indoors (where CO2 levels are higher) and getting more outdoors exercise. Also, you might want to limit your intake of beer. The carbonation may be responsible for the localized effect of the famed beer gut.

You know what’s the worst consequence of obesity? All those fat chicks skew the dating market. In fat America, thin chicks have bunker hardened egos because they know they’re in demand. In regions of the world were thinness is the rule and not the exception, the women have more manageable, i.e. feminine, egos. If it takes curbing global warming (a phenomenon I am not yet convinced is mostly human-caused or amenable to fixing) to make women more pleasant to be around, then sign me up for a fusion-powered DeLorean.

***

The commenter Severn delivers some righteous subversion at the Atlantic in a McArdle article about Europe’s demographic and financial woes.

Every aspiring economist should learn this on day 1 of Econ 101: Humans are not fungible. Repeat after me: humans are not fungible. Once more for the cheap seats: humans are not fungible.

Really, it would save so much energy spent bloviating in sophistic tantrums with no purpose other than to avoid confronting the goddamned obvious if the elite stopped being afraid of their own shadows. And it’d save us all a lot of money and psychic distress, too.

***

Facial symmetry experiment. Left sides and right sides of people’s faces were combined to show how different we would look if we were facially symmetrical on either our right or left sides. Below, the true portrait of a man(?) (L), his face adjusted for left side symmetry (C), and his face adjusted for right side symmetry (R).

A cursory glance at all the mock-up photos reveals something peculiar. The faces made symmetrical with one side are decidedly masculine-looking, and the faces made symmetrical with the other side are feminine. Could it be that a battle royale occurs in the womb where the masculine and feminine essences are locked in struggle for control of the destiny of the face and, presumably, the associated personality and character of the adult-to-be? Groovy, man.

***

Compare and contrast: Japan vs Haiti. Photos of Japan’s progress six months after its devastating earthquake and tsunami. Photo gallery of Haiti two years after its killer earthquake. Earthquake aid to Japan far less than aid to Haiti. A report on progress in Haiti.

Word of the day: fungible.

Related, Japan’s so-called lost decades of economic stagnation may be a myth.

***

More evidence that the modern, grain-centric diet is bad for us: white rice linked with type 2 diabetes. I’m not ready to go all-in on the paleolithic diet. Although the epidemiological momentum seems to be against grains and sugar, I’ve been reading too many conflicting studies recently for me to take a strong stand either way. For instance, here’s a study showing that red meat consumption is associated with increased risk of death (rebuttal here). Furthermore, some races may be better disposed to certain diets than other races. The bottom line is that calorie amount still matters, and calorie *type* matters as well. I split the difference by minimizing my consumption of refined grains, vegetable oils, red meat, sweets, carbonated drinks and fatty cheese and maximizing my intake of omega-3 heavy fish, (occasional) grass-fed lean beef, olive oil, dark green veggies, bitter tasting foods, nuts and whole grains.

***

Even educated chicks dig jerks. A female prison psychologist had a secret long-term relationship with a gang rapist. Yes, feminists, one of your own fell in love with a dude who rapes women for a living.

She also allegedly visited the prisoner – known as “H” – more than 20 times using her new identity, and wore an Islamic head scarf and sunglasses during her visits.

The Department of Corrective Services has been investigating the precise status of the pair’s relationship, including the possibility they have married, which remains unconfirmed.

The Sunday Telegraph can reveal the forensic psychologist first met “H” when she began counselling the long-term inmate during a sex rehab program at Parklea Prison.

He is serving 14 years and six months for the horrific and systematic pack rapes of young women in Sydney’s southwest in August 2000, lead by the depraved brothers Bilal and Mohammed Skaf.

Aren’t you gals the least bit embarrassed by your sex’s notorious sexual preferences? Of course you are. That’s why you never hear a feminist confront this female behavior without first resorting to some lame, contrived “patriarchy” boogeyman.

When the day comes that feminists decide to wrestle with female sexual nature honestly and openly is the day that feminism dies as an expedient ideology. It’s already dead as a coherent ideology.

Read Full Post »