Feminism Is Making Americans Fat

Yes, not only is feminism drawing mustachios on our women, turning them into pale facsimiles of men, the grimy loser ideology is also fattening Americans up for the pig roast. How so, you ask?

The obvious mechanism is through the concerted propaganda effort to elevate deviancy to a sainted virtue, and taint normalcy by reducing it to just another lifestyle choice. The growing (heh) fat acceptance movement is one such example of this emergent social experiment. Platitudes (“we’re all beautiful in our own way”) and shibboleths (“real women have curves!”) and outright lies (“men are culturally conditioned to prefer thin women”) are the feminist’s tools of the trade. All delivered in the dulcet tones of a screeching hyena.

But there’s another, more insidious, reason why feminism bears a heavy debt of responsibility for the American obesity epidemic: by haranguing women to enter the workforce, they encouraged them to leave the homeforce in droves. This mass exodus from the home resulted in fewer healthy, home-cooked meals for the family and more processed, high sugar, high GI insta-feed from the supermarket shelves and fast food reheateries as a substitute.

Mangan details this in his excellent post about supernormal stimuli:

And why do we eat fast food and sugar-laden food more now? The causes are complex, but do concern our political and social environment. I think that feminism, with all its attendant fallout, especially the entrance of women into the workplace, is one of the main social causes of the obesity epidemic. Because so many women work outside the home, the substitution of restaurant and convenience food for home-cooked meals has come to seem necessary for many people. These foods are precisely those that have greater reward value, and that is precisely because modern industrial food manufacturers have designed them to be so.

You want to reframe the national discourse so that feminism is killed dead before it has a chance to infect the next generation of hosts? Just tell a woman about to embark on a contorted feminist line of reasoning that feminism makes people fat. If you want to win hearts and minds, you’ve gotta hit ’em where it matters. And for women, it matters most in the size of their figures.

Read Full Post »

Fertility, Intelligence And Religion

The perennial underground subject of the nexus where fertility, IQ, education and religion meet gets another go-round on the avant-garde right. You can read a couple of takes here and here. Bottom (literally) line: dysgenics is real, and it’s happening right now.

I have a thought on the issue that I haven’t seen addressed in any of these discussions. Perhaps smarts and dislike of, or cold indifference to, children are intertwined at the genetic level? Hypothesis: The genes that code for smarts also contribute a suite of personality alterations that result in reduced enthusiasm to have kids.

Maybe instead of all these calculated, or emergent, trade-offs accounting for lower fertility among the SWPL class — e.g. more schooling leading to more lost prime fertility years among women — the real reason for the dysgenic trend is that smart people just don’t get as much enjoyment out of kids as dumber people do. As a result, they use the contraceptive tech and cultural memes at their disposal to actively avoid the burden of children, especially when they are younger and the world is full of delights.

Maybe this, too, would explain why there are natural evolutionary limits on selection for high IQ. In small-ish numbers, high IQ confers a group benefit, but in larger numbers high IQ becomes fitness-reducing, if by fitness we restrict ourselves to the gene’s eye view of getting more copies of itself into future generations.

Anyhow, not a sermon, just a thought. My time around smart people, and my observations of their discomfort and/or boredom when in the company of children (particularly the men) leads me to believe they don’t really have a strong internal motivator pushing them in the direction of reproduction. Pushing them in the direction of sex, yes. But thanks to rubbers, the pill, and destigmatization, they are able to thwart the end goal of their genetic programming.

Read Full Post »

Every Man Needs A Harem Of Women

Readers, Chateau Heartiste has gone mainstream! Check out my first submission to CNN’s blog, where I review a new book by two “relationship sexperts” who advise men seeking love to expand their pool of dating prospects by cultivating multiple concurrent sexual relationships with as many women as time and energy allow.

***

Every man needs a ‘harem’ of women.

If you’re a single man and you’re looking for love, forget about “The Ring” and stop worrying that “She just sees me as a friend.”

That was then, this is now – it’s a post-dating world you’re living in, and that means you have to shed your one-to-one mind-set and start thinking in terms of one to many.

In other words? Stop searching for Ms. Right and look around at all the Ms. Right(s).

That’s the premise of “The Harem,” a new book from Lord Cockenawe, who, along with Donald Juanholio, runs the website “WTF Is Up With My Love Life?!”

According to Cockenawe and Juanholio, every man – single or not – should have his own harem, a group of girls that occupy different roles in his life.

“You probably have a ‘harem’ of friends, who all play different roles and fulfill different needs for you,” explains Cockenawe. “You might call one friend to go gun shopping versus another friend when you’re playing first person shooters online versus another friend when you need a serious drinking buddy. Your romantic harem is just another piece of the much larger, long-term puzzle of how you structure the relationships in your life to feel full, happy and loved.”

The women in this harem can include anyone from the waitress you flirt with, to the ex-girlfriend you Skype, to the picturesque HR coworker you commiserate with over lunch. Whether you end up dating one or more of them is just an added bonus.

“As a man, having a harem provides you with a love life full of possibility: you have many women in your life, in many ambiguous but sexually enriching ways, who are all teaching you about yourself and your needs and desires and leading you closer to the girl and relationship you want,” say Cockenawe and Juanholio.

Terry Trespassio, a New York-based dating and relationship coach who is single himself, exuberantly extols the “uncoupled state” and takes things a step further: If you’re happily single but enjoy dating, he recommends seeing three different women regularly.

“When you date just one girl, you might feel pressured to commit, even if you’re not ready,” he says. “If you see two women, there’s often this unspoken need to choose between them. But three girls tend to balance each other out, like a tripod. There’s really no downside to female variety!”

Like the “Harem,” these three women can fulfill different needs – maybe you like to have dirty sex with one, public sex with another and intimate lovemaking with a third – which removes the burden of one woman to fill all those slots.

“This can also help you worry less about whether or not someone is your ‘match’,” says Trespassio, “and shifts your focus to the sheer joy of connecting with other young, slender, height-weight proportionate pretty women of all sizes and ages.”

Nor does being single have to equal celibate. Your harem may well include ex-girlfriends, hot sex prospects, and perhaps even a casual f*ckbuddy. It’s your love-life, so do it your way. As long as you’re open and honest with your dates when pressed on the matter – and practice safe sex until you’re assured she’s not lying about being on the pill – there’s no reason why you can’t be intimate with more than one person.

Just as different people can serve different roles outside of bed, so too can they satisfy different needs between the sheets. In their groundbreaking book, “The Ethical Player,” Dossier Everlong and Jamdhin Hardy describe the ways in which single men (and women) can juggle multiple sexual partners and enjoy intimacy safely and “ethically.”

Marriage is wonderful for many, but it’s not the right choice for everyone, particularly men, who must bear the brunt of sacrifice when deciding to accede to marital monogamy and forego all other lovers. Whether you’re sexually intimate with more than one person or simply enjoying a variety of friendships and dates, one doesn’t have to be the loneliest number.

Say Cockenawe and Juanholio: “We are living in a post-dating world because traditional dating is no longer the most common path that people are following to romantically connect and fall in love. And the more that men judge themselves and their relationships by traditional dating standards that no longer exist, the more they are going to feel an unnecessary despair and confusion and hold themselves back from finding multiple outlets of exciting love in this new romantic landscape.”

So go forth and harem build!

***

Isn’t it great how the mainstream is beginning to accept with open mind the teachings of players and sexually satisfied men? This could be the dawn of a golden era when all harem master penises are served, and all concubines satisfied. A revolution in romance!

Read Full Post »

Automation And Redundant Humans

There’s a lot of chatter from the internetsia and on various econ-centric and forward-looking culture blogs (i.e. mediums hosting most of the interesting ideas you won’t ever hear discussed in the increasingly self-discrediting MSM) that automation and computerization are leading to impressive productivity gains, mostly concentrated among the high IQ elite knowledge workers who feign disbelief in the relevance of IQ (and other inheritable personality traits that are useful in a high-tech, interwoven economy, like conscientiousness). The thinking goes, and trend line evidence supports the notion, that vast swaths of humans will be left unemployable by their inability to grasp the language of abstraction. Unemployment rates that dwarf Great Depression numbers could soon be the norm.

Pursuing this line of thought, these Cassandras theorize that the end result of a bifurcating economy into machine overseers and redundant humans meant only to consume the products produced by the machines and their management consultant handlers will be huge wealth residing in the hands of a few, while pittances will drop like bread crumbs from welfare-issuance offices upon the benighted masses.

I happen to believe, based on the growing dysfunction I see organically emerging in my estranged country, that the theory has merit.

So I have two questions for any economists reading:

1. How is the present automation and productivity conundrum qualitatively different than ones from the past (for example, the classic case of the auto replacing the horse and carriage)? If you do not believe it is qualitatively different, explain how we escape the “zero marginal productivity” worker trap, especially in an era when human capital is shrinking due to a combination of dysgenic birth rate differentials and mass migration of unskilled poor? Note: “Humans are fungible” is not an acceptable cop-out.

2. If, say, most of the profits go to the top 10% in society, while the bottom 90% are unemployed or marginally employed, how is it exactly that those top 10% will be able to extract profits from a customer base that doesn’t have the income stream to afford more than the basic necessities?

There must be some self-regulating rebalancing dynamic that comes into play past a certain egregious level of wealth and employment inequality. I figure this rebalancing will happen in one of two ways: One, the government will step up redistribution (virtually guaranteeing a livable “income” for the left side of the bell curve). This option, naturally, confronts a bit more difficulty in a multiethnic society. Two, the profit geyser will dry up as the world comes to be increasingly dominated by a few elite essentially bartering amongst themselves. What good are productivity gains if no one is left with the cash to buy your products?

There is a third, albeit unlikely, outcome: goods will be able to be manufactured and distributed so cheaply that no more than a meager income stream will be needed to adorn one’s lifestyle with a slew of creature comforts.

Of course, riot-quelling Danegeld or sufficiently inexpensive goods say nothing about the devastation to the human psyche that would occur in a world of relegated uselessness. Unlimited consuming has a way of eating itself to death.

Please, spare me the singularity crackpottery. That, or genetic reengineering, won’t happen in time, if it happens at all, to stave off mass calamity.

Read Full Post »

Beta Males In The Wild

This is a photo of a first wedding anniversary.

Humans are naturally repulsed by certain objects in the state of nature. Rotting carcasses. Fetid water. Leprosy victims. Feminists. Manboobs. A steaming pile of poop triggers our disgust reflex. This reflex likely evolved to protect us from ingesting poops and then dying from infection during a time when modern medicine was a schizophrenic witch doctor.

Like fresh turds, we are instinctively repulsed by the above photo. It violates our preinstalled norms of sexual polarity. Men, and women too, have evolved limbic systems and higher order cerebrum that are groomed to respond positively to couples where the man looks to be in charge and self-possessed and the woman looks in his thrall and in need of his protection. When we see the opposite — like in this pic — we recoil as if we had just accidentally stepped in a mound of dog shit.

The masculinization of Western women and the feminization of Western men continues apace, with no bottom to the depths to which this depravity will sink. Point by repugnant point, let’s examine the bizarro world inversion illustrated in the photo:

– Lap sitting, male on female. INVERSION
– Smothering neck vise, male on female. INVERSION
– Cross-legged male, open-legged female. INVERSION
– Stupidly grinning male, grimacing female trying hard to hide it. INVERSION
– Wraparound koala bear hug, male on female. INVERSION
– Closed body language and clenched fist, female on male. INVERSION
– Micropenis, male. Acromegalic clit, female. (speculative) INVERSION
– Being OK with having this picture taken and the moment memorialized for all time, male over female objection. INVERSION

The question, as always: What does this have to do with game? Gentlemen, you will have no success with game if you first don’t exorcise the sin of anti-game from your mortal soul. This means not behaving like a woman would behave when she is in the company of an exciting alpha male.

The good news is that recognizing, and discarding, bad anti-game habits is easier than learning pro-game techniques, especially if you are a natural introvert for whom cold approaches and crutch-like helpful scripts give you the hives. You’re 50% of the way there once you’ve stopped acting in ways that make girls feel like they just stepped in dog shit.

Read Full Post »

The Liars’ Progression

…and the lords of lies held illimitable dominion over all.

The 21st century Western elite are liars. All of them. This is a judgment I render with absolute certainty. The precise delineation between those who intentionally lie and those who are gulled into false beliefs is arguable, but the result is the same: a thick fog of lies that suffocates intellectual thought and demonizes lovers of truth. Occasionally, a barbed tentacle lashes out from the mist, like the enshrouded alien creatures in the Stephen King movie, and decapitates the brave soul who ventures forth unarmored, in pursuit of discovery. Those watching from behind the barricades have their cowed submission reinforced.

A regime of lies has a life cycle, and it rests on the simple psychological calculus that a strident offense will always overrun a complacent defense. The cementing of the regime proceeds in stages.

Stage 1: A cadre of liars — outsiders and axe-grinders, often — feel kinship with their lies. They believe their own lies. This is how it must start. Much like the master seducer must believe his own irresistibility to win over whole townships of women.

Stage 2: Truth is subverted when trivial nuance is stretched into universal truth.

Stage 3: The motives and character of those who cling bitterly to accepted truths are denigrated.

Stage 4: Common sense is slandered as reflexive primitiveness.

Stage 5: Appeals to emotion, targeted first at women and the morally child-like, then at weaker men, muscle out accessible logic and undefined intuition.

Stage 6: Sophistry with an intellectual veneer is marshaled in service of the foundational lies. Fools are duped.

Stage 7: The ring of lies expands slowly but inexorably outward, encompassing ever-greater whoppers, until a mass suspension of disbelief is achieved.

Stage 8: Fused with the circulatory system of lies great and small, the masses embrace self-delusion and assist in the accommodation of their own viral infection. The alternative would be ego death, which is a pain too great for most.

Stage 9: The liars, having recruited similarly aggrieved acolytes into loose alliances and having sufficiently numbed the populace, ascend to stations where banishment of heretics is possible, and begin the process of purifying their ranks.

Stage 10: Fear marches in lockstep with status whoring, the twin powerhouse Guns of Navarone that keep enemies of the narrative safely penned.

Final stage: Complacency returns to enfeeble the once-aggressors. Weak points erupt along multiple fault lines in the fortress walls. The mentally enslaved shield their eyes from shards of sunlight, and grow restless with questions and illumination. Apathy becomes shame becomes resentment becomes white hot hatred. Vengeance, the second most powerful human emotion after love, strains at its shackles, threatening a blitzkrieg that would consume the regime in hellfire.

Like Smaug, The Lords of Lies rule this epoch smugly atop their pile of riches, wielding unfathomable power. But their plunder is ill-gotten, and easily recaptured. Every tyranny has its soft underbelly, its gem-less fleshy port to the charred beating heart within. Find it, and drive your spear to the hilt. They deserve nothing less.

Read Full Post »

Diverse Linkage

There’s a tumultuously adventuresome discussion thread going on over at GLPiggy’s about “citizenism” versus white nationalism, in which your cockily imperturbable narrator has contributed some choice morsels (look under ‘heartiste’).

Couple addendums: I wasn’t familiar with WN until the one degree of separation internet revealed glorious new vistas to me. As such, I’m not up to speed on their political platform, although I can make an educated guess. I prefer not to spend too much time around relentlessly serious people, a fatal personality defect that some (some!) WNs share with feminists and grievance group racialists.

And, I’m not doctrinaire on the subject of national homogeneity. Like with most things in life, quality and quantity matter. A huge nation can accommodate some small number of immigrants who don’t resemble the native stock. I spell it out in more detail over there at piggy central, but in short, I believe an advanced nation’s social and economic health is best served by an immigration policy that does not shift its majority ethnic/racial demography below 80% of the total population. Obviously, the US is past that critical ratio and falling fast, and just as obviously, the US is concurrently experiencing the long, slow decline to has-been status in earnest, complete with all the expected attendant neuroses afflicting ever larger swaths of individuals and communities.

ps Libertarians are still stoopid. And it mostly hinges on their willful blindness to this issue, the one issue to rule all issues.

pps I might emigrate someday in the distant future for, ah, moister pastures, to which a pro-swamp white people advocate might justifiably accuse me of hypocrisy. Hey, no one said life was tidy. I think Social Security is a Ponzi scheme waiting to implode, but that doesn’t mean I’ll turn down the SS checks the government sends my way when I’m old. Countries have a right to restrict who enters and gets to stay, and if, for example, Poland decides not to accept my application for citizenship, then I’ll abide their decision. I won’t like it, but I’ll understand perfectly well why they enforce the immigration policy they do.

Read Full Post »