Archive for the ‘Self-aggrandizement’ Category

One of the WikiLeaks emails appears to reveal a direct link between Hillary’s campaign chief, John Podesta, and acts of Democrat voter fraud. (via an anonymous deplorable at /pol/):



So much corruption, collusion, and conflict of interest in the Democrat Party and the Clinton Machine. And of course Soros, a minion of Satan (both start with S and have five letters!), is the Lizard of Poz behind the curtain.

Trump is right to say he won’t automatically concede the election. The system IS rigged, and the rot goes all the way to the bone. The GloboHomoBezos alliance would LOVE if Trump cucked himself out and said something like “I will honor and respect the principles of this Constitutional Republic and lose gracefully no matter what evidence of voter fraud and election malfeasance may surface between now and then…”, because that would make their rigging job that much easier to pull off. But Trump is a fighter, and he has put the globigarchs on notice: their malevolence will be met with fierce resistance.


pps Cleveland is in the World Series. In the movie Major League, Ricky Vaughn led the hapless Cleveland Indians to a World Series.

Read Full Post »

This story, if it involved a Trump operative, would create a firestorm in the legacy media channels that would nuke Trump’s candidacy. But since it involves a Hillary campaign consultant, the leftoid media will try its hardest to suppress or ignore the scandal so that they can continue on their merry way hefting Hillary’s rotten husk across the finish line first.

And as scandals go, this one is YUGE. How does paying off surrogates to incite violence at Trump rallies sound to you? How about admission of a 50-year vote rigging effort by the Democrat Party?

From Part 2 of James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas Action undercover video series (here’s Part 1):

Voter Fraud:

Scott Foval, gaywad (proving that an undercover shitlord can exploit the gay man’s need for narcissistic feels): The DNC and its subsidiaries have been “busing people in…for 50 years….and we’re not going to stop now”.

“We did the exact same thing. Only, we manipulated the vote with money and action, not with laws.”

Incitement to Violence:

Foval: “We have mentally ill people that we pay to do shit. Make no mistake.”


Robert Creamer: “It doesn’t matter what the legal and ethics people say, we have to win this motherfucker.”

Creamer: “…there are a couple of different organizations that’s their big trick [getting around voter ID laws to register illegal aliens].”

Robert Creamer is a Hillary campaign operative who confessed on the Project Veritas video to inciting violence at Trump rallies. The interesting thing about Creamer is that he’s been an invited guest to the Obama White House 342 times.

What was so important about Creamer that Obama had to roll out the red carpet for him? Perhaps the two of them discussed election rigging and how to conceal it under layers of plausible deniability?

In a world that wasn’t clown world, that would qualify as a major scandal worth investigating by any reporter who still clings to the mission statement of his profession and yearns for a Pulitzer. But apparently legacy reporters are more interested in electing thecunt than in doing their jobs.

There is enough self-incriminating evidence in these two O’Keefe videos to justify an FBI investigation RIGHT NOW. Why aren’t they on top of this? Is the FBI, headed by Director Comey who refused to charge Hillary with breaking the law regarding her email private server use, more interested in electing Hillary than in doing his job?

Naturally, the leftoid hivemind media will play Chewbacca Defense and ignore this story until Nov 8, which in my view makes the media complicit in possibly the biggest crime of the last century.


WELP YouScrewed removed the video. Can social media oligarchs be thrown in jail for interfering with a national election?

Days of Broken Arrows suggests back-up plans to circumvent the Inner Party censors,

The video you posted in the Robert Creamer entry “has been removed by the user.” I assume that’s because of YouTube’s usual bullshit. From now on, I suggest people download these videos and post them to a site that doesn’t delete for political reasons, like DailyMotion or Vimeo.

You can download by using several tools, such as KeepVid, Video Download Helper (for Firefox), and Video Cache View. The first works best for YouTube.

Read Full Post »

As if we needed the verification of what is bleedingly obvious to anyone who’s listened to five seconds of Clinton News Network in the last year, a study done by the Center for Public Integrity (a righteous cause in an age of Zero Integrity) found that

…a review of campaign finance records showing that those listing their occupations as “journalist”, “reporter”, “news editor”, or “television news anchor”, have given over $380,000 to the Clinton campaign and less than $15,000 to the Trump campaign, a 96%-4% Clinton advantage over Trump among the line workers who create the Narrative’s news.

As Audacious E says, “Trump should continue to poison the well“. I agree. The ruling class loves it when the enemy plays by genteel rules of engagement that they themselves don’t abide. It makes picking clean the carcass of heritage America that much easier. But then the Trumpening happened — i.e., a heavy impudent scrote sack returned with a thudding vengeance to the American political scene — and our effete globohomobezos class felt a spike of fear they hadn’t felt in a long time.

If the elite double and triple down on their hatred of heritage America, it’ll just be a spike next time.


Zero Integrity Era update: A massive voter fraud investigation is underway in TX. And also in Indiana.

Read Full Post »

The timeline of the released 2005 recording of a private conversation Trump had with Billy Bush in which Trump bantered casually about picking up women, and the subsequent canned and coordinated nature of the responses from the usual GOP establishment cucks (the whole Party as of this writing), lead me to believe thecunt (“hillary clinton” for you new readers) was not the primary operative behind this ambush, (although I believe thecunt campaign worked closely with the GOPe to strategize an ideal time for release of the tape and their responses). It’s likely instead that the BUSH family orchestrated this tawdry distraction from their looting of heritage America. MPCer Hateful Heretic explains,

As I was out blowing my salary on hipster artisanal brunch with my wife, it became to me patently obvious this was a coordinated hit by the GOP, not the Clinton campaign, on the Donald. This is revenge for him calling Jeb Bush a f****t until he cried right on live TV.

Remember, the original plan was to have Jeb run against Hillary. All these people belong to the same social circle, and Democrat loyalists would have been most comfortable with Hillary, who is legitimately disliked by everyone, losing to another Bush. The reverse was the same as well. Hillary-level corruption is something the upper leadership of the GOP knows how to play ball with. As the GOP field expanded, Rubio became Plan B. The Democrats had no Plan B, which is why Bernie’s surprising popularity was met with such panic.

Now, if you believe that Jeb Bush’s cousin had this tape for 11 years, but no one in the family knew about it until yesterday, you’re a half-witted chromosomal aberration who needs a full-time caretaker to help you not piss all over the bathroom every time you’ve gotta go. Of course they knew about it. The original plan was to use this to knock out Trump when he was the last man standing against ¡Jeb!, but it became obvious within about six hours of the primaries actually getting underway that no one was going to vote for George’s uglier, dorkier brother. Li’l Marco imploded immediately afterward, meaning the Bushes’ Plan B also failed.

If you remember the end of the primary, there were a number of articles written about how the GOPe loathed Ted Cruz as much or even more than Donald Trump. By the time we were halfway through the primaries, it was obvious that Trump was the favorite to win with Cruz as a long-shot second. Neither of those two men are people the Bush-Chamber of Commerce complex had any interest in risking the presidency to. Even though Cruz had less of a shot than The Donald, Hillary Clinton is such a toxic, vile witch that neither man was certain to lose on his own. And while Cruz is a craven opportunist, he had a vested political interest in actually implementing at least some of Trump’s agenda that he had co-opted, such as actually securing the border. Plus, Cruz enjoys making leftists and centrists hate him.

No doubt the Bushes had dirt on Cruz, but everyone knows that nothing you have on Cruz is ever going to be as salacious as a good Trump story. That’s why, at the Convention, the GOP moved aggressively to shut down #NeverTrump rules shenanigans, particularly the bit about unbinding delegates, many of whom were Cruz loyalists. There was a risk that they might actually work, Cruz would steal the nomination, and then the Party would be unable to take him down in time to ensure a Clinton victory.

So they moved to block Ted Cruz’s hail Mary pass, ensured Trump’s nomination, and held onto this juicy piece. This has all the appearance of a coordinated hit. The guys expressing their shock and horror are guys who knew Denny Hastert was f**king boys, didn’t think Bawney Fwank’s homo brothel was a big deal, and rented vagina from Deborah Palfrey. Paul Ryan’s endorsement of Trump was half-hearted from the beginning, and Jeb had canned outrage cued up and ready to go. The Republicans rescinding their endorsements are the usual suspects whose voting record shows they would rather have Clinton than Trump in charge even if our guy was still on his first wife, never viewed a porno, and waited until marriage.

I don’t think Ted Cruz was in on it. Ted Cruz isn’t in on things. Cruz is just sitting there, looking like a retard, not knowing what’s going on. If he pulls his endorsement, he’s not going to be let into the GOP Klub 4 Kool Kidz.  If he doesn’t, his legions of Principled Suicide Cultists won’t forgive him. His career is over. I wouldn’t be surprised if the GOPe pushed him into this endorsement specifically so that he’d take maximum collateral damage when they dropped the tape.

The goal isn’t to take out Trump in some quixotic quest to win with a True Conservative in 2020. That’s #NeverTrump-level retardation, and the Bushes aren’t retards. The goal is to stop saboteurs from f**king up this global world order they think they’re just a few boatloads of Somali rapefugees away from perfecting, an order they want to be on top of regardless of which party wins.

There isn’t enough [REDACTED. HI NSA!] in the world for these scummy, back-stabbing GOPe cucks and their globohomo Bezosian paymasters. God willing Americans wake up soon to the malevolent machinations of the GOPe traitors, and swallow the Vengeance Pill so that they are steeled for the necessary job ahead. Please clap (for the gallows).

An alternative (or perhaps complementary) theory is that thecunt campaign first got hold of the tape and then informed the GOPe they were running with it, to which the GOPe happily cosigned seeing an opportunity to take down Trump. This theory assumes that yesterday’s WikiLeaks dump of thecunt’s Goldman Sachs speeches influenced the campaign’s timing of the tape release. They were probably aiming to release it closer to election day (to maximize its gotcha power) but WikiLeaks happened and they had to rush the release to distract from that very bad news for thecunt (and ofc the media shills are dutifully falling in line with this plan).

CH commenter hitrestart1 adds,

Ryan scheduled the rally with Trump only after he found out about the audio. He colluded with the Dems and media to ambush Trump with this audio, then publicly revoke the invitation in an effort to humiliate Trump.

I’d curse your soul if you had one, Ryan.

The good news is that no matter how much you corrupt traitors plot and collude you STILL can’t take Teflon Don out.


PS The Wall Street Journal for Endless H-1B Visas confirms that the “pussygrab” tape was an inside hit job by GOP establishment cucks looking to deep-six The Trumpening and siphon money from his campaign. This is clarifying. Better to have our enemies shooting us in the front than stabbing us in the back. It wonderfully focuses minds on the scum traitors who have outed themselves.

Read Full Post »

Answer: Marry a younger, hotter, tighter babe. You’ll never want to leave her. (“the best thing about high school girls….i get older and they all stay the same age”)

Less succinctly, a blogger by the handle Free Northerner put together a fact sheet compiled from CDC data to help men reduce the chance they’ll get ground up in the remorseless gears of the divorce industrial complex.

Looking at all this, it’s easy to see the two best determinates of her divorcing you are her education and whether she has had sex prior to marriage.

A bachelor’s degree is a 40-point decrease in the odds of divorce over a high school graduate.

A women having sex with one other partner is an instant 25-point increase in the odds of divorce, with another 10-point drop for a second partner, and another for a fifth. Related to this, her having sex before age 18 is another major risk factor. Marrying her before she’s 20 is also a risk factor, but not as great a one as her having had sex with someone else; if the choice is between a virgin under 20 and older non-virgin, the young virgin is less risky*. Do not marry a slut.

I don’t disagree with any of Free Northerner’s prescriptions for a divorce-free life, (except that the best defense is eternal bachelorhood). The data are clear, insofar as the data go.

The problem is that the data mask a deeper undercurrent that primarily influences divorce risk: spouse options.

Recall the infamous CH maxim:

Options = Instability.

A wife who feels like she can do better, or who has numerous suitors of equal or higher SMV than her husband, is a divorce-via-infidelity-and-boredom waiting to happen.

Similarly, a husband with lots of sexual market options will be greatly tempted to stray, or even abandon his wife, if his bang options on the extramarital market are better than his authorized intramarital outlet. The main difference between the two scenarios is that a husband with options is less likely to nuke his marriage than a wife with options, the husband preferring instead by the harem-building nature of his maleness to maintain marital appearances and a loyal wife at home while satisfying his carnal urges with side pieces.

Female sluttiness (measured by premarital cock count) and female education are the two biggest factors governing divorce risk for men, and both factors are emergent properties of the CH Options Theory of Divorce Odds.

Female sluttiness may not immediately strike the reader as necessarily an indication of female options, but it is in both direct and roundabout ways. First, remind yourself that the majority of women in the middle of the SMV belle curve have as a condition of their sex far more *sexual* options than do men. A 7 can spread her legs and have a thousand men lined up to take her to pound town. A male 7 has no such surfeit of options; he has to work for the few he gets. Even a male 10 unzipping in a roomful of horny broads won’t have as many willing participants as a female 7 would have unzipping at a closeted homosexual National Review loveboat cruise.

Given this inherent biological difference in the sexes, female sluttiness is therefore best understood as the interaction between a woman’s SMV and her sociosexuality (i.e., her willingness and urge to fuck around for the pleasure of it).

So, a woman has to have sufficiently high SMV to have the options to screw around AND she has to have a (probably inherited) disposition to want to avail herself of those options. The former — sufficient SMV — is the direct relation to the Options Theory, while the latter — aggressive sociosexuality — is the roundabout indication that a woman has options.

In short, if a sufficiently attractive woman is eager to fuck around, by definition she has options. I know it sounds like a tautology, but great truths are sometimes revealed by tautology. And the validity of the tautology is apparent by the nontransitiveness of it. If we try to apply it to men, it fails. A man of average SMV who is eager to fuck around does not necessarily have options. Unlike women, a man’s eagerness to wantonly fuck does not increase his available options as it would do for a woman.

The education variable — the other crucial risk factor for divorce — is really a proxy for female age at first marriage. The more education a woman obtains, the older she’ll be when she (finally) abandons the alpha fux highstyle for the beta bux homestyle. As we Crimson Pillers know, advancing age decreases women’s sexual market options exponentially. If female education lowers a man’s risk of divorce, it’s less to do with the woman’s erudition or grasp of the intricacies of patriarchal hegemony, or even her IQ and related impulse control. It’s mostly to do with the fact that overeducated women are older when they marry and thus have fewer men chasing after them, which certainly contributes to these age 28+ women magically discovering devoted marital bliss and avoiding justifications for divorce.

Vox adds to the debate an idea with which I have a rare disagreement,

It won’t show up in the statistics, but based on my observation, there is also a relative aspect to the divorce risk. For example, the statistics indicate that a woman with 15 prior sexual partners has a divorce risk of 70 percent, but how that applies to the specific marriage will vary greatly between the man who has had one prior sexual partner and the man who has had 100.

For the former, the knowledge that his wife has been with 15 other men is likely devastating. For the latter, that sounds like the summer after graduating from college and is of no concern to him. And given the way in which hypergamy works, it probably shouldn’t be, as it’s almost certain that she will, rightly, worry far more about his faithfulness than he does about hers. Rank and relativity are not easily accounted for, but they do matter.

Vox is right to figure that a woman married to a high notch count cad has more to worry about regarding his fidelity than he has regarding her fidelity. Where I disagree is his assertion that men who’ve bedded lots of women wouldn’t be disgusted with a slutty wife prospect with the same intensity that a relatively inexperienced man would be disgusted. In my meanderings through the tingle trenches, I’ve found the opposite to be true: womanizers who’ve sexed lots of ladies are MORE put off by a serious LTR prospect who has herself a history littered with discarded lovers.

Why? It sounds like a double standard. More precisely, it’s a different standard, and it exists because men who do well with women have the alpha jerkboy leverage to demand chastity from the women they intend to wife up, (said female chastity being much more relevant to a man’s Darwinian success owing to the fact that slutty women are bigger cuckold threats in a state of nature unoccluded by the distorting effects of birth control and abortion). And pushin’ come to cushion, almost all men will, if the option is available, prefer a wife with less sexual history baggage than the modren norm.

Ironically, Vox would be onto something if he had swapped the men in his example. It’s much more likely that a weak, sexually inexperienced beta male with few options would tolerate (happily or insincerely) a wife prospect with a double digit telegonic cock count. And in fact that’s pretty much what I see happening in real life: weak betas marrying older, former sluts who may still have a little gas left in their dilated crevasse for a rode hard trip.

*Free Northerner writes, “if the choice is between a virgin under 20 and older non-virgin, the young virgin is less risky”. I concur. The under-20 virgin objectively has more mate options based on her resting SMV, but like I wrote above a woman’s options are a function not just of her SMV but also of her willingness to indulge the sexual attention that her SMV brings her.

If you’re a man looking for wife, always bet on inexperienced youth over slutty maturity. More men may eye up your virginal blossom, but the wilting slut is more apt to allow interlopers to take a surreptitious sniff of her musky overripe aroma.

Read Full Post »

The sexual market is the one market to rule them all.

That’s a classic Chateau maxim. But reader Daffyduck thinks there may be evidence of a Current Year contradiction of the maxim.

My question to the proprietors is this: if the sexual market is the primary market, why do so many women (the vast majority of women where I live in the UK), do everything they can to lower their SMV? Tattoos, obesity, single mummery – all so ubiquitous now it’s close to impossible to find a woman that doesn’t have some dire self induced SMV cratering characteristic. Thank you.

On the face of it, this does strike one as a refutation of the primacy of the sexual market. But digging a little deeper into the mechanics of mate acquisition in postmodern Western societies, we find that the maxim holds as true as ever.

It’s a fact that obesity lowers every single fat chick’s SMV, often dramatically. 99.9% of men would choose a slender babe over a fat chick if they had the option to do so. (78.4% of black men)

Tattoos generally ding female SMV, although this self-induced body modification has mixed results depending on the woman sporting them. On hot babes, tattoos that don’t occupy much skinscape have a neutral to occasionally positive effect on their SMV. And don’t neglect the handicap principle, which postulates that prime nubility girls get tattoos as a way to advertise they have excess SMV to spare (The “Look at me, I’m so hot I can afford to defile my body and you’ll still love me” whore’s brag.)

Single mommery lowers female marital market value (similarly, their long-term relationship worth). As with tattoos on hot babes, single mommery won’t detract much from a woman’s SMV, but it will severely penalize a woman’s value as a long-term partner.

So as we can see, of the three SMV-altering inputs, only obesity reliably craters a woman’s SMV. Tattoos and single mommery are best avoided, but if a woman has a super tight bang-able body, most men won’t let a butterfly tat or a screaming sprog stop them (at least for the night. heh).

Here’s where we get to the grist explaining the source of Daffyduck’s confusion: Sexual markets are vulnerable to changes in the incentives for paternal investment. (Paternal investment itself is a crucial aspect of the sexual market.) As women become more economically self-sufficient and sexually liberated their mate acquisition algorithm begins to emphasize the targeting of men for sexual and romantic validation and to undervalue men who would make dependable resource providers.

Likewise, men who are less interested in commitment and family formation would seek out women primarily for sexual thrills rather than their maternal instinct or faithfulness.

If this is the operative sexual market, then tattoos and single mommery would not only have little effect on women’s SMVs, they may very well raise their SMVs by advertising a greater willingness to go all the way right away, (and to not make much of a fuss when she’s dumped post-chaste).

Now ask yourself, where do you see women with lots of garish tattoos and bastard spawn? The lower classes. And where do you see less dependable fly-by-night men? The lower classes. In the upper classes single mommery is still rare and tattoos, though more common than they once were, are tastefully inconspicuous. Obesity, too, is rarer among upper class women.

So it’s in the lower classes (now gradually expanding into the working and middle classes) where the sexual market has responded to the changing incentives and women have resorted to more “slut signaling” accoutrements like tattoos, skimpy trashy clothes, and yes even bastard spawn (a single mom is a slutty mom).

In the upper classes, paternal investment is still important, so we see less of this among the women who have kept to the traditional SMV norms of their sex: slenderness, clear skin, and childlessness.

Ok, you ask, if tats and single mommery are slut cues to men on the make, what about obesity? No man wants to boff a blob if he has a choice.

Female obesity does present a difficulty for the theory of sexual market primacy….until we realize that very very few women voluntarily choose to be fat (unlike the many who choose to get tats or bear the devil bastards of one night stands). Most fat women want to be thinner, so they know, whether they admit it to anyone or drown their egos in a vat of fat acceptance platitudes, that fatness kills their SMV dead.

Larger societal and chemical forces have conspired in modern societies to accelerate and amplify the gaining of many pounds of fat. Unless you’re careful and actively avoid sugars, grazing and processed foods (all of which increased exponentially sometime in the mid-20th century) then you will likely get fatter than your ideal peak performance weight. (Reminder: For women, peak SMV performance is a 17-23 BMI, 0.7 waist-to-hip ratio, and an age that is roughly half the age of gogrrl feminists looking to conceive their first and only autistic child.)

The relatively recent explosion (heh) of obesity among Westerners suggests that the existence of all these female fatties is not a refutation of sexual market primacy theory, but is rather evidence of a rapidly changing input variable that is causing immense (heh) volatility in the sexual market, as men respond by “dropping out” to amuse themselves with acceptable substitutes that are better than sleeping with a fat chick: porn, controlled substances, video games, and now even gainful unemployment.

So if you notice a lot of tattoos, obesity, and single mommery in the sexual market, you can deduce the following dynamics are in play:

  1. Men have less leverage and fewer mate options (due to sex ratio skew or female emancipation from needing to rely on men to provide for them).
  2. Women have utterly given up trying to find a husband and have settled for finding a cock notch or a sperm donor.
  3. Sluts are ascendant.
  4. Men are dropping out and tuning into substitutes for female companionship.
  5. Enormous upstream social forces are streaming down and wreaking havoc on the normal functioning of the sexual market.

None of the above redact the primacy of the sexual market. They are instead first responder symptoms of a sexual market in dire flux. In the final analysis, SMV remains king of human society, and any secondary markets (economic, social, political) that exert downstream pressures on the sexual market will eventually be reconfigured, even corrupted, by the unstoppable feedback loops unleashed by a primal sexual market convulsing from rapid transformation of the individual players and the higher order systems those players design.

Read Full Post »

I’ve since lost the link to the original Voxday post, but this comment by Cail Coreshev is a valid criticism of dual-income marriages that one doesn’t often read from more mainstream sociological pundits:

Good comment, but it’s too bad he threw in that sop to getting an “education” before marriage. The “she needs it for a financial backup just in case” attitude is a big part of the feminist narrative. It leads to women entering marriage with one foot out the door, trying it out for a while before deciding whether to go with the backup. By the time she gets that college degree “just in case,” she’s already burned through several of her most attractive, fertile years; and unless she’s unusually virtuous, has been on the carousel learning bad habits.

It makes logical sense to reduce your risks as much as possible, but taking risks together is one thing that bonds a couple. When people like my parents and grandparents started a life together, owning very little and highly dependent on each other to make ends meet, it bonded them in such a way that they couldn’t imagine having done anything else. If a man died and widowed a young mother with no skills outside the home, that sucked, but it was very rare, and that’s what family and community are for. But when a married couple are both financially stable and don’t particularly need each other, you don’t get that interdependence. Instead you get a lot of people wondering if they could be doing better elsewhere.

I’ve made similar points that working wives are 1) tempted to infidelity (physical or emotional) by close proximity to high status male bosses not their husbands in corporate environments, 2) men are less inclined to emotionally invest in, and therefore materially provide for, careerist women who are financially self-sufficient, and 3) marital egalitarianism kills sex lives dead.

There are many good reasons why the feminist idea of a successful marriage is a warped one. Humans are not (yet) an androgynous blob of asexually-reproducing drones. Women love men who come closest to the masculine ideal, and men love women who come closest to the feminine ideal. This means, in real life, women love powerful confident men who serve as the oak tree under which they can find shelter against the storms, and men love to shelter pretty, vulnerable, feminine women whose first instinct is to nurture rather than swim with the corporate sharks.

Cail’s theory that shared risk — and shared vulnerability —  helps bond couples is also worth pondering. It’s not hyperbole to say that women who depend on “having a backup in the event of a broken marriage” unwittingly encourage the breaking up of their marriages. Not a sermon, just a shiv.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: