Archive for the ‘Sluts’ Category

Krystal Ball, a “trickle down media whore“, was on MyGyn Kylly’s show last night to menstruate about Trump’s private “pussygrab” locker room talk and how it’s insulting to men (yeah right…maybe to her limp noodle of a husband).

And what does Krystal Ball do during her private time? Why, suck dildos at a BDSM Christmas party!

That last pic is great. There’s Krystal Ball getting groped by the tart in the plaid skirt and having her vagina selfied. This is a woman who deserves to be “championed” and “revered”, right Cuckryan?

Lemme clue in any white knight betacucks who may be reading and wondering if ALL LIBERAL WOMEN ARE LIKE THAT.

Short answer: yes.

I’ve been to probably close to a thousand of these urban SWPL shitlib parties over the years, coast to coast and north to south, just like the one Krystal is at in those pics (except with more friends), and shitlib women are a sloot parade waiting for their marching orders. The hypocrisy of the typical urban slut is boundless, and effortless. They’ll feign OUTRAGE in the morning over some bawdy grabbadocio from a man whom the Politburo media has deemed the next Hitler, then that very same night spread their pussy lips for a selfie stick and suck down nose dildos.

These shitlib sluts have no shame, no integrity, and no self-awareness. It’s womanish herd mentality all the way down.

Every Amendment after the 10th was a mistake. They all have to go back. America wouldn’t be circling the drain today if the Constitutional tinkering had stopped at the Bill of Rights.


This won’t surprise anyone. Krystal Ball’s house eunuch husband:


What a fucking load of low T! Nice lean-in and desperation elbow clawing, once and future cuckold. Yeah no wonder she thinks men are “insulted” by Trump’s masculine banter. Her husband probably menstruated on the spot!


More pics of shitlib slut Krystal Ball. Here she is whoring for Israel. (All these personal details seem to go together, ya know?)


And here she’s virtue signaling hard for her black lover.


Ok, I don’t know for certain that she mudsharked with this dude, but I’d bet good money on it. Look at her face. That’s a slut eye-thousand black cock stare combo for the ages!


Tangentially related: On Lew Rockwell’s site, a great article about the RNC-DNC collusion.

Btw, this whole pussygrab story is such bullshit on stilts. I thought shitlibs were big fans of “context” and “nuance”? Point of fact: Trump didn’t say he grabs pussy without consent. He said women will “let you grab pussy” if you’re rich and famous. Which is goddamned motherfucking true. But women don’t want to face their sexual nature so starkly revealed. Freaks in the sheets, hypocritical schoolmarms on the streets.


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 Wages Of Sluttery

Sluts pay a price for their sluttery. The price isn’t always immediately or conspicuously evident, (which allows women to plausibly claim that their sluttery isn’t hurting them right now), but it is paid eventually.

Case in point: Alicia “Miss Piggy” Machado, the Venezuelan and former Miss Universe woman of color and weight who was exploited by thecunt as a cudgel against Trump, but who later was discovered to have a closet full of so many skeletons that it’s all the media could do to cover-up for Machado and keep breathing air into thecunt’s attempted Trump-targeting “killshot“.

Humorously, one of those skeletons involved Machado in a Spanish reality TV show in 2005 in which she was filmed having sex with one of the participants.

The broadcast showed Acaso on top of her, with Machado whispering in Spanish about his manhood.

“Oh your d***, my love, what a tasty d***! Your d*** is divine,'” she moans while they romp.

All fun and games, except at the time Machado was engaged to Phillies baseball star Bobby Abreu, who quickly canceled the engagement after clips of her ride on the cock carousel went online.

Abreu made the smart choice — after all, sluts are more likely than chaste girls to cheat in marriage — and this anecdote is very telling of the price that sluts, even beautiful sluts, will pay. Men viscerally know, even if they can’t articulate their feelings, that sluts are both an expedited fun time and a long, slow descent into betrayal should one make the mistake of committing to a slut.

Evolution has seen fit to give men the skill of identifying and exploiting sluts for sexual pleasure without commitment. This is a behavioral trait that evolved from the necessity of paternity assurance to a man’s reproductive fitness. Marrying a slut and getting cuckolded by her later is the equivalent of never finding a woman to bear your children. It’s metadeath.

And so men are naturally leery of investing too much in sluts….even sexy sluts who are former Miss Universes. Now a beta schlub may have promptly “forgiven” and “supported” Machado after her cheating whore sex tape leaked because beta schlubs don’t have many sexual market options; they have to put up with a lot of female shit if they want access, however limited and unenthusiastically reciprocated, to prime pussy.

But an alpha male of Abreu’s stature (and as a pro baseball player he is that despite his unhandsome face) has plenty of options among sexy women. When Narco Kingpin Baby Momma Machado cheated on him, these options allowed him to easily and quickly cut her out of his life.

What does this matter to sluts? It matters this way: Most women want the best quality man they can get. Women who slut it up hurt their chances of getting that high quality man. A slut can assuage her ego by shacking up with a dickless betaboy willing to put up with her sordid past and skanky lifestyle, but deep in her heart she’ll know she lost out on a better man because better men want nothing to do with her kind beyond a perfunctory pump and dump.

This realization will burn a hole in a slut’s soul until the day she dies (of genital herpes complications).

The mythologizing into existence of a “slut-shaming culture”, like its “rape culture” cousin, may in fact be the political manifestation of a suppressed desire by women for a change in the dating market that reduces the necessity for signaling prompt sexual availability, (and related to the latter, a suppressed desire to be ravished by dominant sexy men). This hidden motivation goes to the nature of a woman’s romantic goals, which isn’t to serve as the town sperm receptacle but to leverage her body and youth for one high value man who forswears all other women for her alone.

Interestingly, the opacity and social disconnection of the anonymous urban sexual market conspires against women’s ability to achieve their prime directive by incentivizing sluttery as a relatively sustainable, if Sisyphean, long-term strategy. An atomized, class-stratified, mass scale society loses the natural checks and balances of extended or close family, childhood friends, and neighbors to shame a woman away from the slut life. The dedicated slut can swim these sexually liberated, sperm-saturated waters for a long time, because anonymity and hyper-individualism cloak her sexual history from beta males less experienced at identifying the behavioral and attitudinal tics of the slutty girl.

But it’s a self-defeating sexual market “advantage” that women can expect to enjoy in post-America. In the end, sluttiness outs. The beta male discovers this in divorce; the alpha male through the pre-release of an unauthorized sex tape or gleaned from a wisdom gained in the dating trenches. Even a Miss Universe found out the hard way what she would lose when her sluttiness was insufficiently shamed.

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 »

A reader worthy of wielding the obsidian Chateau shiv sends a screen cap of his Tinder response to a single mom-by-choice. The lols are strong (and frequent) in this one. (Reader’s Twatter handle is @FUSigma.)

How to teach cause-and-effect to Millennial Tinderellas & impose sanctions on single mommery:

(It’s especially effective if it’s done immediately, so that the reason is obvious.)



A few thoughts:

First, this reader’s Game, however little of it he revealed here, is tight. He promptly starts off with a qualifying question, to which the single-mom-by-choice eagerly feels the urge to defend her skankly honor. The quickest seductions occur when the woman is thrown back in the defensive crouch. In fact, the line “So how normal are you?” could legitimately serve as an effective, all-purpose opener. Don’t even bother with the “hi”, just stroll up and drop that hamster nuke at ground zero. It’ll get laughs from the cool, self-confident (read: thin and cute) women, and that’s practically the same as foreplay.

Second, I commend the sly follow-up leading question; not “are you divorced?” (which can trigger an offended rebuttal), but “how long have you been divorced?” This is assume-the-slut Game, and she couldn’t resist correcting his assumption.

Third, this woman is weaponized American Whore, marinated in decades of feminist cunt indoctrination. Her answer — “I’ve never been married lol” — indicates a confidence with, or an obliviousness to, how she’ll be received by men for admitting she shat out a bastard with a fly-by-night jerkboy. She thinks men will praise her. And why does she think men will praise her shitty life choices? Because she probably has experience on Tinder stringing along thirsty beta and omega pre-op Millennial males to treat her nicely and boost her ego major, in return for a fraction of the sex she lavished in one night on her sperm donor.

Fourth, notice all the “lol”s Alayna scatters throughout her banter. This is a tell-tale verbal tic that hints at the desperation and self-doubt lurking underneath her tough skank facade. Insincere LOLs are an attempt to coax intimacy, and a conversational bonding, that doesn’t yet exist. Beta males do it all the time (which is why  they fail). The scattershot LOL is also a ploy to distract someone from keying in on the LOLyer’s personal flaws (which in this case is the single mommery and Samsonite sprog).

Finally, my opinion is that the best message shiv to deliver single moms-by-choice is the pump-and-dump. Leading her on to get what you want out of her — a quick and dirty no muss no fuss lay while avoiding tripping over her kid’s toys on the way to the bedroom, and then ghosting — will leave bloodier stigmata on her soul than the curt “Unmatch”. The problem is that very few men can pull off this cold-hearted maneuver without getting physiologically attached to the pussy and returning repeatedly to that over-used well, because very few men are alpha males accustomed to living with the knowledge of endless sexual market options. Therefore, an alternative special lesson to teach the feminist-brainwashed squadrons of stupidly proud single moms is what FUSigma did here: the rhetorical pump-and-dump.

Read Full Post »

It’s generally advisable to avoid ever apologizing for any infraction of social or courtship etiquette — particularly if the rules of the etiquette which would constrain you were established by your enemies — if it’s women’s hearts you want to hoard (and men’s loyalty you want to mobilize). However, even alphas with unimpeachable state control occasionally must pay tribute to the strategic, if half-assed, mea culpa. Along the serpentine path to incredible power, extreme circumstances will present which vociferously demand at least a feint in the direction of quasi-apology.

Which is why I give a pass to Trump for his “apology” to Megyn Kelly. (The sneer quotes are very apt, you’ll soon see.)

A reader forwarded this video clip from the interview between Megyn “blood coming out of her wherever” Kelly and Donald God Emperor Trump. She has cornered him into explaining his multiple “retweets” of various tweets that contained references to her, Megyn, as a bimbo. Watch and learn from a Master Charismatic how to say “my bad” like a badboy rogue.

GREAT example of Trump’s charisma in the exchange from 6:12 – 6:25 from interview w/ crazy Megyn.

When a woman wants an apology, don’t give it to her. If she craves it and NEEDS it, give her a simulacrum of an apology, and deliver it with a cheeky grin. Which is what Trump did here. And, unsurprisingly, Megyn’s mile-wide smile right after that charming BROADside testified to the effectiveness of Trump’s coy concession.

By way of making a stark alpha male-beta male comparison, try to imagine ¡Jeb! Bush in the same situation. (Suspend your disbelief for this flight of fancy.) Megyn has put the pressure on Jeb to account for his retweets of Jeb fans referring to her as a bimbo. How do you think Jeb would have replied?

Megyn: “You retweet…bimbo.”

Yeb: “Did I say that?”

Megyn: “Many times.”

Yeb: “I am really sorry. That’s not who I am. It was the heat of the moment, and I got carried away. Geez, my wife — and let me remind everyone how much I respect and love my wife, she’s my hero — my wife would never tolerate such abusive misogynistic language, and she’d never let me hear the end of it if I did anything that looked like I might be approving of it, even if someone else said it……..”

Megyno: *no smile, vagina snapped shut tighter than a clam at low tide, resentment welling* “You sicken me, chauvinist pig.”


Update: A readers points out another fine example of Trump’s tight Game in his interview with Megyn.

At 6.35 Trump says, “You’ve had a life that’s not been that easy”

How perfect is this? If you told a woman she had an easy life she’d take it as patronizing; if you told a woman she had a hard life she’d think you were saying she was from the ghetto.

you’ve had a life that’s not been that easy

Look at her face after that! The alpha knows when to misdirect and make it about her again so she can do what women do best at: talk about themselves.

Ambiguity, backhanded compliments (negs), frame control…. these are the tactics of the successful seducer.

Read Full Post »

Tattoos are everywhere. I believe more women than men now sport the under-skin ink. While I personally am not put off that much by small, inconspicuous tats on attractive women, what I see parading around lately are women who have disfigured themselves under sheets of blotchy doodles. Why? Why would women — particularly White women whose alabaster skin is a bucket of boner bait no other race of women can simulate — deliberately uglify themselves? Worse, deliberately advertise their sluttiness? (Tattoos are a major slut tell.)

Reader Ang Aamer offers a possible explanation, and it relates to the rapid browning of America,

White girls getting numerous tattoos always struck me as the girls trying to look more like their less white boyfriends. Almost maiming the beauty to fit in more.

I would bet the 40 year old does not feel that she can have any control over her daughter. Because she remembers when she was that age and that she herself was uncontrollable.

Which is why you don’t control the behavior of your offspring you control the environment. If daughter were brought up in an area where South Americans were rare she might hook up with a white bad boy and at least have a daughter with better looks to perhaps break the cycle… Blue eyes could do that. Or even better live in an area without public transportation so the not-whites can’t make it out to court your white daughter … but that’s me.

I will say this pointedly to any fathers out there. Go to your daughter’s school and LOOK at the student body. That is the gene pool of your potential Grandchildren. It takes like 2 minutes to go to the local high school website and look at the graduating class picture. COUNT the colors and do the math. If there is a high probability of you getting a diversity package delivered by the Stork… MOVE.

Reader PA adds,

The rare high-end mudsharks (ones who consort with Talented Tenth or high functioning coloreds and remain members of White society), generally keep normal grooming habits.

The much more common low-end mixers, ones who assimilate into the male’s usually ghetto society, will NEVER keep their hair long and pretty.

Even if in many cases that’s their sole physically attractive feature. It’s usually the Mudshark Facelift, with hair pulled up tight to a bun on top of her head.

As I figure, they do that to avoid antagonizing the black females they socialize with. Also, it’s slovenliness — laziness about grooming — which is congruent with their other defects of character.

But I hadn’t considered your more transcendent point about self-maiming before.

Tattoos in the current year could be seen as a sort of “maimgeld”: the tribute that White women pay in self-disfigurement to a growing Diversitopia they live in that both covets the White women’s exquisite natural looks and hates it to the verge of eliminationist rage. So all these negative body modifications by Whites could be construed as an effort to blend invisibly into the muddying waters of late stage America.

Self-maiming (to alleviate the envy felt by the lesser races of women) and slut signaling (to attract the attention of alpha males on the prowl for easy r-selected sex) are the two big subconscious reasons tattoos have become such a cultural marker for White women.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: