Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘The Id Monster’ Category

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 »

This is pithy. Commenter plumpjack describes the multivariate correlates of the Shitlord Era.

***BEHOLD THE SHITLORD ERA***

all attention-whoring, approval/validation-seeking, politically-correct, manipulative, disingenuous behavior is to be OPENLY MOCKED.

The Shitlord Era is one vast and ecumenical trolling company, for whom all high T men will work to serve an alternative narrative, in which all men will wield a share of the shiv. All cuckservatives derided, all shitlibs discredited, all circus freaks abused. And I have chosen you, Mr. Trump, to be the Shitlord Era’s avatar.

“I have seen the face of Realtalk.”

You may very well have.

Read Full Post »

Recall the aphorism, “Men invade, women invite“. I wrote not too long ago that Western White women are at the forefront of pushing open borders multikult annihilation.

Now, reader Passerby forwards a study (with commentary) which provides evidence of a deeply rooted, evolved sex-based psychological underpinning for women’s generally higher rate of enthusiasm for welcoming the mud world onto historically White shores.

Circle of Friends (women) or Members of a Group (men)? Sex Differences in Relational and Collective Attachment to Groups

http://gpi.sagepub.com/content/6/3/251.full.pdf

http://gpi.sagepub.com/content/8/2/159.full.pdf

In two studies, findings showed that the extent to which a woman was relationally attached (i.e. felt close to the other members of her group) was sufficient to explain the group’s importance to her. In contrast, men’s ratings of group importance depended upon the extent of both relational and collective attachment (i.e.attached to the group identity).

Men perceive the bigger picture. Women primarily perceive their feelz. Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing… until the scope of women’s influence extends beyond their immediate childcare-recruiting social group to the scale of a nation, with all that entails (e.g., border control).

One interesting consequence of women’s lack of interest in a group’s collective identity is that it may lead to important sex differences in group-related outcomes. For example, if women value a group based only on their attachment to individual members of that group, then their group membership may be less stable than men’s. Prentice et al. (1994) suggest that groups with strong common identity attachments may last longer because their existence is less contingent on good relations between current group members. It is possible that this extends to individual group membership as well. The importance that men place on a group’s identity may result in greater longevity and stability in the face of changing group membership. If common bonds dissolve, men may remain in a group for its sense of common identity, whereas the group would lose all value for women.

What is the practical meaning of this? Women care mostly about close people, their “circle” , and not about larger groups based on common identity. If her lover is from another group, then she will (most likely) no longer care about her original group (her ethnicity).

Women are more trusting of foreigners and friends who are not from their ethnicity. In contrast, men are less trusting of foreigners and friends who are not from their ethnicity.
Among children and adolescents, female play-groups tend to emphasize interpersonal interactions (relatives, friends), while male play-groups emphasize teams and large groups (tribes).

Basically, women are loyal only to close people who directly benefit them. Men, in comparison, are also loyal to people with common identity (their own tribe).

Loyalty is a mostly alien concept to women. They JUST DON’T GET IT.

Thus, we can expect any ethnic group with large female influence and female leadership to self destroy, as the female leadership will not care about preserving their own ethnicity or group cohesion, leading to the feminised group opening their borders, accepting anyone in, and eventually becoming a minority in their own country.

Mutter Merkel is a childless spinster. That alone should have disqualified her from running a country.

This could also be observed in the real world. All currently feminised groups have open borders policies and are becoming minorities in their own countries. Sweden, the most feminised country on the planet, took more refugees per capita than anyone else. In contrast, less feminised ethnic groups (Eastern Europeans, Muslims, Israeli Jews, East Asians) have closed borders and are more openly nationalist and xenophobic.

Like I’ve written before, feminization of culture and politics can be beneficial to the stability of a nation when it’s exploited during high T times to mitigate the worst excesses of rugged, expansionist, lassez faire, free-for-all masculinity. But those times are rare and brief. When societal feminization hits an inflection point of weepy vaginatude, and establishes itself deep into every institution’s nook and cranny, the result is Death of the Nation… invasion by migrant foreigners, gibsmedats are far as the eye can see, and glorification of the feminine vices at the expense of the masculine virtues.

The results of this study are interesting in that they somewhat contradict tangential studies of the online dating market which have found that women, especially White women, prefer to date same-race men. In fact, White women, if those OKCupid data analyses are to be believed, are the most racist group of prospective daters.

Maybe these conflicting findings can be reconciled by understanding that online dating market environments like OKCupid are evolutionarily atypical, aridly calculating simulacra of the real world contexts in which women sift through potential mates. Online, women have to fill in profile information explicitly asking for mate preferences, but in the hustle and bustle of the meat market women are buffeted by an extraordinary array of male mate value signals (Game) that affect their choices.

Online, a White woman, given time to mull it over in her head, will state a preference for White men, but offline (aka 99.99999999999999% of the time in which human interaction evolved) her choices will be susceptible to the frothy currents of social spindrift, and in that environment she’ll choose whichever intimate relations — native or migrant — best satisfy her immediate needs.

PS Women’s differently evolved group cohesion strategy partly explains why White wives vote more like their Republican husbands than like their Democrat single lady friends. Once married, a woman’s husband is her MOST INTIMATE relation, which means she will adopt her husband’s views as her own as her prime feminine directive subconsciously instructs her to do.

Read Full Post »

Lesbians are repulsive to look at. To gaze upon a lesbian is to scoop out one’s retinas as an offering to the sun god who will burn them to a crisp. Almost all of them are fat and ugly with bad skin and worse clothes. The “lipstick lesbian” is a trope of porn-addled dweebs; sure, they exist, (I’ve come across a few) but their numbers are vanishingly small set against the IMMENSE majority of lesbians who are the furthest thing from bangable any man could imagine.

The general impression of lesbiandom is blobbiness. Lesbian couples are two extra large pastry puffs meiotically becoming one super sized pastry puff. Or two circling gas giants gravitationally stripping each other of a pleasing personality.

Yet they Find, Meet, Attract, and Close…. looking as they do. Clearly, lesbians care not, or care very little, for appearance. Looks are somewhere below “can breathe without mechanical assistance” on the lesbian ledger of acceptable mate criteria.

Lesbians, then, tell us something true about straight women. Retention of crucial psychosexual characteristics of the heterosexual standard is common in both lesbians and gay men. Just as gay men behave sexually like straight men, except with damaged target designators and no female gold-plated pussy obstacles to outmaneuver, lesbians behave sexually like straight women with no need to arouse visually-oriented straight men.

In the heterosexual sex market, the opposite sex is like a check on each other, placing constraints on just how much a person can express his or her sexual nature. Women can’t let themselves go without risking solitude and men can’t satisfy their urge to sleep with thousands of women without achieving a high social or material status or a degree of skill in the crimson arts.

These opposite-sex constraints are missing or greatly mitigated among homosexuals. Gay male libido is just as visually-oriented as that of straight men’s, but is allowed to fully express because gay men are less protective of their cheap sperm than straight women are of their expensive eggs. Ugly gay men have it rough, but for most it’s a sexual circus with no safety net.

Think of straight women as boots on illegally parked straight men; a straight man with T levels above manlet metadeath would love to park in the tight space of every pretty girl he sees every day of his life. He can’t because the cooch collective has bolted the boot on his hot rod. If he manages to park in one of those spots, he’s staying there for a while. Gay men, otoh, are free to park their hivvy pork wherever they like and come and go as they please; very few gays will put the boot on gay boner. The gay male sexual market is a parking lot of receptive rectums*.

Lesbians, likewise, are essentially unconstrained straight female sexuality hypercharged, or rather hypocharged, to its inevitable conclusion in lesbian bed death (and tremendous levels of domestic violence). Dyke Fright is real because women, straight and homo alike, just don’t care as much about a sex partner’s looks as do straight and homo men about their sex partners’ looks.

Lesbian dishevelment and apparent apathy toward improving their appearance to please other lesbians is indirect proof that straight women place less emphasis on men’s looks than men place on women’s looks (and less than gay men place on other gay men’s looks). The difference between straight women and lesbians is that the former aren’t trying to find love with other women who will care as little about looks as they do.

scissister

*band name alert

PS Reader The Observer observes,

You can learn a lot by watching a lesbian work on her target paramour while out and about, too.

They push boundaries HARD. They know it works, and where the limits are, and walk right up to them. They understand the function of obligation in the female psyche.

Observe, and learn.

Obligation and submission are two powerful psychosexual undercurrents in the roiling sea of a woman’s soul. It’s a shame it goes so little remarked upon by mainstream social analysis. But that’s why the Chateau exists; a beacon of truth guiding the way through a dark wood. *heart bursts with vanity*

Read Full Post »

File the latest SCIENCE! study in the “Chicks dig jerks” binder (it’s bulging).

Women really DO love bad boys: Females are more likely to lust after people with criminal records than males, study finds

There has been a long history of people falling for inmates and criminals and now a study has found the phenomenon may be more common than thought.

According to a new study of prison guards and other correctional workers, the attraction is felt more by females than males, and hardly ever has a happy ending. […]

In a study published in the journal Déliquance, justice et autres questions de société, the researcher focused on more than 300 cases of the phenomenon in the US and European media over a ten-year period, from 2005 to 2015. […]

The study found women were more affected than men, with over 70 per cent of cases of sexual misconduct in US correctional system involving female staff, despite them making up less than half of the prison workforce. [ed: much less than half. in 2011, women were a quarter of total prison facility employment]

The usual Hivemind-approved rationalizations are given for why women LOVE LOVE LOVE incarcerated lowlifes (“emotional manipulation”, “forced intimacy”, “savior mentality”, etc), but really the answer is the most Occam-y of the hypothesis razors: dangerous men make women’s vaginas wet with arousal and their hearts flush with yearning.

Scathing ridicule aside, let’s keep something in perspective. Women fawning over hardened inmates and opening their pussies to criminal cock is an insult to the families of the victims of these killers. SHAME. SHAME. SHAME.

But that is female nature for you. Instead of ignoring that nature, or hand-waving it away under a shitstream of sophistry, we should all confront it and accept it as an unchangeable fact of life. Then, we as a nation need to have policies which recognize and synchronize with the reality of female sexual nature rather than attempt to defy it or mold it into something alien. So here’s an eminently reasonable suggestion that will be dutifully tut-tutted by our equalist overlords: ban women from working at male prisons.

Perhaps Trump can bring this up on his victory parade to the White House.

Read Full Post »

Longtime Chateau guests know I’m keen to *preen* when the pretext is right. But sometimes even an egregious preening can’t sufficiently convey the tumescence of my stroked ego when SCIENCE! lands a study in my lap that grinds me to completion.

A recurrent theme at CH is the personal observation that American women are becoming less feminine. As it so happens, CH was right! A new study finds that, hey, American women are becoming less feminine.

Masculine and Feminine Traits on the Bem Sex-Role Inventory, 1993–2012: a Cross-Temporal Meta-Analysis

The Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI) is one of Sandra Bem’s most notable contributions to feminist psychology, measuring an individual’s identification with traditionally masculine and feminine qualities. In a cross-temporal meta-analysis of U.S. college students’ scores on the BSRI (34 samples, N = 8,027), we examined changes in ratings on the Bem masculinity (M) and femininity (F) scales since the early 1990s. Additional analyses used data collected in a previous meta-analysis (Twenge 1997) to document changes since the BSRI’s inception in 1974. Our results reveal that women’s femininity scores have decreased significantly (d  = −.26) between 1993 and 2012, whereas their masculinity remained stable. No significant changes were observed for men. Expanded analyses of data from 1974 to 2012 (94 samples, N = 24,801) found that women’s M rose significantly (d  = .23), with no changes in women’s F, men’s M, and men’s F. Women’s androgyny scores showed a significant increase since 1974, but not since 1993. Men’s androgyny remained the same in both time periods. Our findings suggest that since the 1990s, U.S. college women have become less likely to endorse feminine traits as self-representative, potentially revealing a devaluation of traditional femininity. However, it is also possible that the scale items do not match modern gender stereotypes. Future research may need to update the BSRI to reflect current conceptions of gender.

This is yuge… (news, as well as study sample size.) The implications in the study’s findings about the transformation of the American sexual market are profound. If American women are becoming less feminine, then American men will find them less attractive, especially as long-term investment vehicles for marriage and family. And that is what the data show; the overall marriage rate is down and the age of first marriage is up, coinciding with the period during which women have lost their feminine charms.

Men are dropping out because women are leaning in. Way to go, feminist harpies!

In the big picture, female femininity has declined over the last generation or two because of feminist indoctrination and social signals encouraging and celebrating the abandonment of femininity.

In the bigger picture, widely and cheaply available birth control, abortion, obesity, processed food toxins, and female economic self-sufficiency have all conspired to denude women of their femininity and to impel women to adopt masculine posturing.

In the biggest picture, the loss of American women’s femininity is exactly what one would expect to see in a culture that is unmooring from its historical K-selected, predominantly White biomechanical foundation (patriarchal, high paternity certainty, slender women with low cock counts) and drifting toward an r-selected, increasingly nonWhite society (matriarchal, low paternity certainty, muscular and obese women with high cock counts) similar to the African sexual market norm, (where men more than anywhere else in the world are “dancing monkeys” for women and the women toil in the fields and bring home the bacon while crapping out kids from behind-the-bush trysts with multiple fathers).

When men’s sexuality is maximally restricted, and women’s sexuality is released of all constraints, the inevitable result is a dispiritingly corporate romantic market of supplicating male lackeys and aggro “slut positive” careergrrl chubsters whose very financial independence (government gibsmedats by any name) obviates the need to be more pleasing and feminine to attract beta male providers with tight resource sharing Game.

An unfeminine androgyne is the New World Woman, and she is letting men know they aren’t worth her effort to please, (and her unkempt vagina has seen lots of action DEAL WITH IT).

PS Would have loved to have seen this study controlled for race (if it hadn’t been). Mass invasion of nonWhites must certainly skew raw femininity/masculinity scores in one direction or another.

PPS Another SCIENCE!❤ CH knob job: Storytelling ability increases a man’s attractiveness as a long-term romantic partner.

Read Full Post »

File this latest salvo in the Diversity + Proximity = War reference list: a lovefact-filled article about the intersection of natural disasters with minority rule.

For the second time in a year, Houston — the fourth largest city in the US and the largest in Texas — is under water. While the rainfall was huge, the response was poor. No actual solutions are being discussed in the media. The reason for this blackout brings together troubling issues of race, population, environmentalism and industry.

AnalysisYouWillNeverHearOnNPR.txt

Contrary to most stereotypes of Texas, Houston is a diverse cosmopolitan city that is 75% non-white — and climbing. Most of these non-whites are Hispanics from Central America, Asians, Indians and African-Americans. The latter group is declining as it is pushed out of its traditional neighborhoods by gentrification and its replacement in traditional sources of income by Hispanics and Asians.

Typical SWPL secretly thinks, “Yay! Crime will go down with fewer blacks!” What typical SWPL never imagines: “There are more ways to feel like a stranger in your own land than by the number of muggings you have to tolerate.”

While gentrification gets a bad rap in New York, here it is beloved by minorities on an individual level and bemoaned on a collective level. Individuals do not mind getting $400,000 for a house they paid $50,000 for only a decade or two ago, but groups notice the “diversity tension” which is that they feel like aliens in their own communities. At a certain crucial threshold, the original group simply moves out en masse.

“Alien-ness” is a concept our leftoid anti-White genocidists ought to consider in terms beyond glowing approval. Every race on earth* — yes, even GoodWhite liberals — feels more comfortable living among its own kind.

*With the possible exception of blacks, who love moving into White-run cities for the gibs and then bitching about White racism. Perhaps it’s more accurate to say the people of every race on earth feel more warmth and harmony toward neighbors who look like themselves.

Affirmative action dominates the construction industry where it overlaps with government. Where the private sector is dependent on cheap Hispanic labor to make larger profits, the government agencies give preference to minority- and woman-owned businesses. As a result, public works projects frequently move slowly and involve high costs, as seen with union labor in the past.

In addition, minority standards of construction are more like those one would find in Mexico or Vietnam. The development industry has standardized nearly every form of construction as a result. Homes are made of standard wooden frames designed to fit a pattern, covered in insulation and sheetrock, and then filled with pre-fabricated fixtures, door frames, floors, cabinets, doors and wiring. These are designed to be idiot-proof and quick to install. This enables the industry to use unskilled labor as if it were skilled, saving costs.

“Idiot-proof” = “dull shoebox houses”. Funny how a push for race and sex Diversity™ has resulted in a notable lack of housing design diversity.

Most renovation and much of construction is done through the use of “day laborers,” or mostly Hispanic men who sit at the edges of the parking lots of Home Depot and Loewes and other home construction businesses. Trucks pull up, shout out an offer for the day’s work, and then pick up a half-dozen men to go do a job. These groups follow a kind of “buddy system” where if at least one member of the group has some experience, the rest go along with it and do what he says. A network of mostly white but also Asian and African-American “contractors” make a good living by hiring day laborers, paying them relatively little, and taking the profits which are widened by lower labor costs.

Consequently standards of construction have plummeted. Homes fall apart; doors hang at odd angles; mysterious fires are more frequent. Since government is now also minority-dominated, each group represents itself. If the workers at a home that falls down are Hispanic, and the government officials investigating are Hispanic, the event is more likely to be classified as mysterious instead of a solution found.

Corruption, malfeasance, incompetence, bribery, nepotism… these are the curses of Diversity shoved down the throat of White America (getting less White by the day). Sad! At least the lawyers will have plenty of work. (((heh)))

A whole second string of industry has sprung up with pale Asian and white experts who are called in at high cost to fix what the contractors and city inspectors missed.

When things go south, bring the White men out.

The result is that a city with little infrastructure has more than doubled its population, changed its character and abilities from that of a mostly English-German city to a mostly Hispanic-Asian one, and has paved itself in roads, parking lots and driveways. The resulting changes have been vast. Air currents now move far to the north of the concrete wasteland, changing weather patterns and resulting in hotter temperatures; here, summer begins in April and ends in mid-September. Water runoff has become a large problem but the public works are not up to the task, so it floods.

I bet (White) environmentalists are pissed about this assault on nature and good taste. What do they have to say?

Where have environmental groups been in this whole process? Environmental groups are staffed by trust fund kids from the dying white establishment and the diversity/affirmative action hires who accept the lower pay for shorter hours. This pairs people with no sense of reality with people who could care less about being effective. […]

Environmental groups have followed a strategy of trying to save species rather than trying to save land. […] As a result, the species there are overpopulated and dying off, and very little land is set aside for nature.

WELP

To fix the problems of Houston and its flooding would require interventions that are politically unsustainable. Some developments would have to be removed to make way for more open land, which would not be park land and so would anger local residents. These communities would likely be either traditional minority communities in the process of gentrification, at which point the remaining minority residents would be rallied to protest “racism,” or new communities which minority groups hope to move into to live the American Dream™. Any action to cut down on concrete and over-development would also anger the oil and development industries.

Low-High versus Middle. The story of 21st America. May God Emperor Trump save us all from the coming Sheeeeeiit Death.

In Houston, we see a microcosm of the problem in the West: incompetent and morally rotten whites exploiting the situation for personal gain, including the importation of cheap third-world labor to make those profits fatter, paired up with a community more like that of Mexico or Vietnam where people simply do not care and cannot fix these problems. For all it is like winning the lottery: money pouring through the door for easy work, so enjoy it and forget about tomorrow.

I bolded a part that deserves more emphasis in discussions about immigration and open borders. Fact is, many nonWhite migrants and invaders from the less pleasing nations of the world are habituated to extreme apathy by the lifestyles they were accustomed to in their homelands before they absconded to the US to make anchor baby great again. Vast regions of the world are populated by blissfully ignorant peasant stock and bootlicker strivers who, through habit or disposition, accept “the way things are” even when that way means living in squalor and watching on the sidelines as a nepotistic parade of crooks and con men loot their nation’s fisc.

So a hearty congratulations to America’s ruling class for diligently overseeing the importation of tens of millions of these apathetic cheap labor cogs and public teat sucklers! You’ve got your obedient indentured brown servants who will consume your cheap Chinese-made throwaway trinkets and nail-by-number plasticine death-trap houses while dutifully voting your oligarch lefty buddies into office for lifetime, and generational, terms of nation-destroying service. And you also enjoy the self-aggrandizing benefit of fewer and fewer salt of the earth Whites remaining who are the only group capable of successfully rebelling against your depredations and ousting you from power.

But that was the point all along. And that’s why a revolution looms, despite your best efforts to quash it under a mountain of hivemind equalist agit-prop with the help of your SJW useful toolbags.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,542 other followers

%d bloggers like this: