Diversity + Proximity = Rootlessness

One oft-ignored or unremarked upon consequence of proximal Diversity™ is the feedback loop it establishes with rootlessness. Rootlessness — aka social atomization — can enter a dissolution spiral when racial diversity passes a numerical threshold in which its social impacts are widely perceived and even more widely denied by anyone caught within its vibrancy perimeter.

White homeownership is probably the best economic indicator of the social connectedness that has defined Heritage America until 1965; most people buy homes for the long haul, so they expect to spend many years living side by side with neighbors they hope to tolerate, if not warmly befriend. If neighborhood churn is too high and demographic transitions from White to non-White are the norm across America rather than isolated trends, there will be a White generational retreat from home-buying because no one wants to invest in a neighborhood that may turn to shit in ten years time. Occurring alongside this retreat will be an increase in the numbers of Whites willing to roam the country and temporarily settle far away from friends and family for the promise of affordable rents and glimmers of a past homeland unfractured by racial shock waves.

So what happens in a Diversitopia is an increase in the White rate of renting and in the years spent renting before buying, negative trends which an obstinately pro-diversity, open borders government will try (and fail: cf 2008 housing crash) to artificially reverse. Juvenilia, urban coccooning, ideological cuckery, and arrested psychological development can be seen as ego-stroking accommodations to expanding diversity and the disincentive it creates to home-buying. If age of first home purchase and age of first marriage and first child are delayed, then a suite of emotionally regressive adaptations to the changed reality will help Whites rationalize their lowering living standards.

As the native White share of America’s total population dips below 50% in the coming decades, expect the juvenalization trend to accelerate.

Read Full Post »

Chicks Dig Violent Porn

Recently, researchers have discovered what yer ‘umble proprietor of this scandalous Chateau was telling you long long time: chicks dig violent, rape-y, dominating sex because it is in the nature of women to feel incredibly aroused submitting to a powerful, even sadistic, man, and this feeling is universal among women.

Credentialist (((cipher))), 2017:

The popular feminist narrative would have you believe that porn is largely consumed by men, and that depictions of violent — or at least rough — sex would be a primarily male-dominated interest.

This is untrue, states researcher Seth Stephens-Davidowitz, who says that porn featuring violence against women is significantly more popular among women compared to men. […]

“The rate at which women watch violent porn is roughly the same in every part of the world. It isn’t correlated with how women are treated,” he stated.

Perspicacious Heartiste, 2010:

Romance novels, read almost entirely by women, are flush full of rape fantasies. If fantasy (or as I like to call it, “hyperreality”) didn’t reflect reality then we would hear and read of fantasies by women featuring beta males, short dweebs, nerdos, fatsos, and charmless stutterers in the role of desired man. But we don’t. Women’s fantasies, like men’s fantasies, provide a window into a wished-for reality where all options are available, all choice catered to, all desires quenched. Rape fantasy, despite the protestations to the contrary of the “fantasy is different than reality” crowd, is as much a reflection of real female desire as any other form of sexual fantasy.

Women fantasize about a lot of things that no one argues don’t reflect reality if that reality were an option. What fantasizing woman wouldn’t truly want to be a princess who gets swept off her feet by a prince living in a castle? What single woman who dreams it wouldn’t sleep with Johnny Depp in real life if he propositioned her? These are common fantasies of women which they never argue aren’t reflections of how they wish reality were. So why should we grant a plenary indulgence to rape fantasies? How is it that rape fantasy is the one glaring exception to the reality-reflection rule? Men also fantasize about stuff like threesomes with supermodels, but no one in their right mind would argue that men don’t actually want threesomes with supermodels in reality, if having them were possible. (Wives or girlfriends, don’t bother asking your partners. You won’t get an honest answer.) […]

Rape fantasy reflects a deep, inborn, uncompromising sexual desire by women to be rendered helpless, almost childlike, by a more powerful man. It is the submissive scrawling of their hindbrains, a message in a novel sailing forth from the female limbic labyrinth. And from submission to a dominant male force is born the strongest love.

I loved that he was so powerful I was nothing.
– O

Does this mean women would be sexually turned on by real life rape? It is a question not so easily dismissed when we begin to examine closely the sexual fantasies of women. Dismissed it is, though, because no one — man or woman — wants to creak open the vault door that houses such primeval female decadence. For if women do harbor secret desires for dark seductions, then what is left of the pretext to chivalry? Women benefit from some amount of cultural pedestalization. *Societies* benefit. There is no room in a healthy, functioning society for mischievous inquisitors to lay bare the true soul of woman.

If you want to read the raw uncut ugly truths about women before they’re regurgitated in opaque chunks by big data nerds and media whores years later, you read at Chateau Heartiste. Accept no substitute.

Read Full Post »

Chicks Dig Criminals: The Study

This study was published in 2014, so maybe it’s already been discussed at the Chateau, but if it hasn’t this post will rectify that oversight. (If it has, it’s worth revisiting.)

Criminal offending as part of an alternative reproductive strategy: investigating evolutionary hypotheses using Swedish total population data

Criminality is highly costly to victims and their relatives, but often also to offenders. From an evolutionary viewpoint, criminal behavior may persist despite adverse consequences by providing offenders with fitness benefits as part of a successful alternative mating strategy. Specifically, criminal behavior may have evolved as a reproductive strategy based on low parental investment reflected in low commitment in reproductive relationships. We linked data from nationwide total population registers in Sweden to test if criminality is associated with reproductive success. Further, we used several different measures related to monogamy to determine the relation between criminal behavior and alternative mating tactics. Convicted criminal offenders had more children than individuals never convicted of a criminal offense.

DANGER AHEAD

Criminal offenders also had more reproductive partners, were less often married, more likely to get remarried if ever married,

Because of criminal jerkboy impulsiveness, or because criminal jerkboys have more women begging them for marriage?

and had more often contracted a sexually transmitted disease than non-offenders. Importantly, the increased reproductive success of criminals was explained by a fertility increase from having children with several different partners.

So criminal jerkboys have to prove themselves worthy of more women’s pussies than do law-abiding betaboys, and it appears the criminal jerkboys have won that pussy-approval contest.

We conclude that criminality appears to be adaptive in a contemporary industrialized country, and that this association can be explained by antisocial behavior being part of an adaptive alternative reproductive strategy.

The killer line, right there. (heh)

Basically, what this research has rediscovered:

Hard men create good times.
Good times create weak men.
Weak men create hard times.
Hard times create hard men.

Why does the industrialized modern gynarchy improve the reproductive fitness of criminal jerkboys? An old CH post based on nothing but a clear-eyed LAYman’s view from the dating trenches offered an explanation: compassion creates more cads.

Bleeding heart compassion has cursed blessed the country with layers of safety nets that subvert the natural cleansing of losers from contributing to the next generation. The result of all this government largesse is the substitution of handouts for husbands. When provider males who are predisposed to marry and support a family are worth less on the market than they used to be they are slowly replaced by playboys taking advantage of the sexual climate. Women who have their security needs met by Big Government (in combination with their own economic empowerment) begin to favor their desire for sexy, noncommital alpha males at the expense of their attraction for men who will foot the bills.

Prediction: As women’s financial status rises to levels at or above the available men in their social sphere, they will have great difficulty finding an acceptable long-term partner. The men, for their part, will turn away from emphasizing their ability to provide as they discover their mediocre-paying corporate jobs are no longer effective displays of mating value. They will instead emphasize the skills of “personality dominance”.

Sex skew plays a role as well. If the natural culling of expendable men — from fetal development onward — is thwarted by human intervention and technological hazard mitigation, then perishable women have more sexual market options, which can mean that criminal cads offering something different and exciting from among the masses of mediocre betas find their star rising with economically independent women. Men navigating an unfavorable mate market saturated with male competition that concomitantly devalues beta provider traits will be under immense pressure to emphasize a caddish attitude toward women and a charming, physical presence over a dependable, agreeable personality.

Of course, mass Dirt World open borders immigration of primarily reproductive-aged swarths will exacerbate an already stressed and fracturing sexual market in the West. Women will begin to appreciate the very special charms of the native criminal jerkboy when waves upon waves of foreign jerkboys are crashing her homeland’s shores and pissing in her brunchtime mimosa.

Not that me telling you this will change anything, but I at least get the pleasure of saying I told ya so when the fires lick the gates of our encircled ruling class.

Read Full Post »

Is This The Reason Men Adore Virgins (And Abhor Skanks)?

The greatest disconnect between whom a man claims to love and whom he really loves is that produced when asking him his thoughts on the superiority of the virgin bride. You’ll hear variations of the following from him:

“Hey man, I don’t care who’s she’s slept with as long as I’m her last dick.”

“Nah don’t matter, as long as she’s spreading for me.”

“How can I ask a girl to be a virgin when I have so many notch counts?”

“I want an experienced woman, not a dead fish.”

“What’s the diff? Pussy is pussy.”

These are all male hamster rationalization droppings, intended to conceal a deep truth that most men are uncomfortable revealing to themselves, let alone to any women they’re sizing up for long-term commitment. Men prefer virgins, and the preference is universal. The gynarchic West may have made it inconvenient to satisfy that male preference, or to even announce that preference out loud without threat of job loss and social pariah status, but that doesn’t mean the preference has been abolished. The primal code isn’t trifled with.

The CH explanation for this innate male preference to be the sole pumper of a virgin (and the numberless dumper of a slut) has been to invoke the paternity certainty clause: Men don’t get pregnant and bear children, so they have to be sure the women they choose to make honest are the sort to stay sexually faithful and guarantee any children of their unions are in fact fused tissues of their own seed.

And ¡SCIENCE! has been bearing this maxim out: Slutty women are a bad bet for marriage. The likelihood of marital disruption is greater if you have hitched your sunk opportunity costs and roughhoused wallet to a veteran cock carousel rider. Cheating is a surefire way to disrupt marital harmony.

Over eons of mutually co-evolving love and romance and righteous dickings, the virgin bride was prized by men (and prized as a condition to retain by women) because men could be near-certain that a child with a virgin would be his (and virgin women could be as nearly certain the love of an alpha male was theirs). Bedding down in legal limbo with a slut whose snatch has scarfed up a scud missile’s length of schlong is asking for a cucked effacing, a divorce raping, or a dignity scraping. The slut may put out sooner, but she’ll make you pay for it later.

Tantalizingly, ¡SCIENCE! may have stumbled on another, related, reason to explain why men prefer virgins.

Male Microchimerism in the Human Female Brain

In humans, naturally acquired microchimerism has been observed in many tissues and organs. Fetal microchimerism, however, has not been investigated in the human brain. Microchimerism of fetal as well as maternal origin has recently been reported in the mouse brain. In this study, we quantified male DNA in the human female brain as a marker for microchimerism of fetal origin (i.e. acquisition of male DNA by a woman while bearing a male fetus). Targeting the Y-chromosome-specific DYS14 gene, we performed real-time quantitative PCR in autopsied brain from women without clinical or pathologic evidence of neurologic disease (n = 26), or women who had Alzheimer’s disease (n = 33). We report that 63% of the females (37 of 59) tested harbored male microchimerism in the brain. Male microchimerism was present in multiple brain regions. Results also suggested lower prevalence (p = 0.03) and concentration (p = 0.06) of male microchimerism in the brains of women with Alzheimer’s disease than the brains of women without neurologic disease. In conclusion, male microchimerism is frequent and widely distributed in the human female brain.

63% of women tested had male DNA in their brains. The primary culprit in this study appears to be male fetuses, but prior studies have found male DNA infusion from other sources, and though it’s speculative at this point the possibility exists that one source of male microchimerism is sexual intercourse.

In conclusion, data suggest that male microchimerism in young girls may originate from an older brother either full born or from a discontinued pregnancy or from transfusion during pregnancy. We speculate that sexual intercourse may be important but other sources of male cells likely exist in young girls.

If sex implants tiny cargo holds of male DNA into a woman’s body — a big if at this stage of research — then it’s plausible that the male preference for virgins ensues from a subconscious desire of men to avoid having children with a skank whose vagina has hosted a spunk parade that could festoon his precious DNA-carrying vessel with the spermtastic spangles of past dangles.

The gbfm summary:

lotsa cockas, bastard totsas.

***

FYI chimerism is one of the leading theories to explain the persistence of low levels of homosexuality despite the huge reproductive hit the condition incurs in those afflicted (pathogens and genetic susceptibility are the other contending theories). The chimerism theory states that early in pregnancy the winning fetus absorbs genetic material from the losing fetus (which is never born), and in some cases this will mean female fetus DNA embeds in the male fetus’s brain, somehow altering the sexual orientation of his brain architecture. Just putting it out there.

Read Full Post »

Would Psychopaths Thrive In A Diversitopia?

Psychopathy and Diversity™: are the two like oil and water or match and fuel leak? The answer to this question isn’t so clear. There are two competing forces that complicate analysis.

1. Psychopaths exploit high trust societies, preying on dupes. Diversity erodes social trust and makes everyone warier of each other, reducing the number of dupes to scam.
2. Psychopaths are skilled at manipulating the natural antagonisms between people and groups for their personal benefit. Diversity increases the number of groups fighting for resources and representation and thus enlarges the field of play for psychopaths.

FYI I define Diversitopia in any Western nation as majority-minority White plus Other. The US is currently sitting at 63% White, and the true number is worse than that, because there’s a big uncounted demographic market of beaner illegals and a fertility bulge of minority births cresting on the horizon that dwarfs the White birth rate.

Psychopaths would have a rich vein of culture rot to excavate in a Diversitopia because there would be so many tribes to play off one another. But, psychos would have a counter-current to swim against in the form of society-wide lowered trust that would increase the difficulty of finding gullible marks. It’s hard to tease out which way the psycho winds would blow, but my impression is that they are currently thriving in the interregnum between wide-eyed Joke Whites still clinging to their pathological altruism and virtue sniveling and squinty Woke Whites casting suspicion in every direction. Soon, though, psychos may find it tough to extract any more nuggets of self-aggrandizement from a dying America.

PS It’s useful to distinguish generic psychopaths from ashkepaths. The latter is a supercharged subspecies of Genus Psycho and undoubtedly thrive in Diversitopias….at least until they’re ejected from their 6 gorillionth host nation. So if you’re waiting passively for Diversity™ to sufficiently crater trust levels in the body politic and deprive ashkepaths of their nutrition, you’ll wait a long time.

Read Full Post »

This Is Why Libchicks HATE HATE HATE Trump

The topic of this post could easily bloom into an oceanic algae field of effortful analysis, but I intend to keep this particular foray succinct.

Libchicks HATE HATE HATE Meaty Intruder Trump because he is iconic maleness.

It’s Trump’s unapologetic masculinity — and by association the happy masculinity of his supporters — that gets under the speckled hides of the Femcunt Fuggernaut.

The general direction of Western Civ over the last decades has been away from masculinity and toward androgyny. Femininity is under attack as well, but so far has avoided the kind of vitriolic (((propaganda))) that’s been leveled against all forms and expressions and attitudes of masculinity.

Trump is a direct rebuke to the anti-masculinity and anti-male agenda. Precisely, the anti-White male agenda. He is the distillation in one man of everything that drives bitterbitches crazy with hatelust.

He speaks his mind.
He never grovels for approval.
He refuses to regurgitate the symbolic catchwords of feminist and antiracism cant.
He loves women with sexually explicit vigor and remorseless objectification.
He has a child with a much younger, beautiful model wife.
He has multiple children by former wives he has continually traded up for fresher pussy.
He uses his wealth, charm, and power to seduce women.
He tacitly reminds women that they are complicit in his seduction, welcoming his advances when they are young and not in the employ of hillary clinton’s shadow orgs.
He holds a mirror up to women’s rapacious, animalistic sexual natures.
He is a chad who loves being a chad.
He is a doer instead of a talker.
He builds, rather than blathers.
He is a Gizmo, not a Paperwork and Lawyering drone.
He has Game.
He mocks liars, gossips, and degenerates.
He fights, and shames cowards.
He has ridiculed feminist beliefs and representatives and come away unscathed, even stronger than before.
He reminds women that their own men — their very own beta male bootlickers — may think the same things as Trump and pursue the same pleasures if they had Trump’s stones and Trump’s options.

Iconic Maleness embodied by Trump is the hot branding phallus that penetrates the hunchbacked ids of bitter women and the manginas who are fated to settle for them. Trump and his Trumpericans spotlight and magnify the romantic failures and futility of the Nasty Women and the Girly Boys. It’s no wonder they hate him; he’s a Big Beautiful TruthWall looming high above the muck and blocking their desperate ego-soothing escape into self-deluding fantasy.

Read Full Post »

The Crisis Of Supportive Beta Husbands

A hot if somewhat mannish-looking female teacher is in court on charges of “raping” one of her students during their months-long sexual adventure.

A teacher is accused of sodomizing a middle school student and raping him during their alleged months-long sexual relationship.

Lindsey Jarvis, 27, pleaded not guilty to two counts of rape at the Fayette County Courthouse in Kentucky, where she held hands with her husband of three years.

She was also charged with rape, sodomy and unlawful transaction with a minor in neighboring Woodford County, where she was accused of sexually assaulting the boy in May 2016.

Police found evidence on the victim’s phone suggesting the two were in a ‘romantic relationship’, and Jarvis was arrested on Friday.

If you’ve heard this story before too many times to count, you’re not going crazy; sexual predation by female teachers, many of them hot and married, of their young (and usually willing) charges is rampant in America, FOR SOME ODD REASON. (Hint: it’s the leftoid glorification of unconstrained female sexuality and the concomitant demonization of normal male sexuality and patriarchal prerogative, plus various r-selected biofeedback loops that accompany declining cultures in the throes of late stage decadence.)

You can tell by the psychocunt smirk in her mugshot she expertly summoned like a seasoned PUA that there was no adult alpha man in her life who could stand up and answer the call, “Who bitch dis is?“. On paper, she was her husband’s bitch. On paper. In reality, she was no one’s bitch, to the detriment of society.

Never rely on legal documents to secure a woman’s love. You can only win her heart in the supreme court of her raging id.

But the black heart of this sordid tryst — the essence that tells you everything you need to know about why she did it and why she’s smirking — isn’t in Lindsey Jarvis, Wonderslut. It’s in Lindsey Jarvis’s lapdog, her dutiful, supportive husband.

Lindsey Jarvis, 27, pleaded not guilty to two counts of rape at the Fayette County Courthouse in Kentucky, where she held hands with her husband of three years

There’s a time to hold your wife’s hand, and that time is NOT when she’s in court for fucking and tickling the anus of one of her underage students for months on end.

(Who, by the looks of her, will probably go right back to livin’ la vida alpha fux beta bux once she’s out of jail (one month)).

Their body and facial language is a thin palimpsest barely concealing two rotten souls — hers rotten with wantonness, his rotten with appeasement. That’s a married couple in complete sexual polarity reversal, defying the God of Biomechanics with arrogant impunity. She’s the alpha male, here, looking into the middle distance, thinking of some other male, head tilted away from her doting husband who, for his part, must reach across her lap to take her hand, his eyes downcast in submission and supplication, probably fighting back a gnawing fear of her hot body and BPD love leaving his life forever (even though he never really had unrestricted access to her body and heart, but just try telling ARE MARRIED BETA MALE that, and he’ll suddenly find a reason to passionately defend his manly honor.)

“But he’s innocent in this!”, you poon plebs shriek ignorantly. No, friendos, he’s not innocent. He’s an enabler. A force ten amplifier of the crassest female instincts and tramp malice. America is suffering a crisis of these “supportive” beta male husbands who stand by their cheating slut wives, bearing for themselves all the shame and responsibility that should be the sole domain of their faithless women.

You think a beta phagg like Lindsey’s Lapdog just started being supportive now, in Lindsey’s time of greatest need? Ha, no. This doormat was born supportive, a human toilet seat upon which the world’s whores would sit to pinch their cock-impacted loafs embedded with the crusty cum of secret lovers, knowing all too clearly that a pushover like this milquetoast will take those steaming slut deuces and beg for more.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but women are DISGUSTED by indiscriminately supportive males. Look closely at Lindsey’s face in the second photo; that’s disgust mixed with contempt amid a swirl of illicit yearning. No man who’s had experience with more than one or two women would miss the meaning in that face. And no man worth his dignity and salvageable serum T level would unconditionally “support” a cheating wife who seethed with that much resentment for him. He’d tell her to hit the road, face first, and be glad he was rid of her for the rest of his life.

Unquestioning beta male support is ruining our women. It’s as simple as that. Beta thirst kills feminine virtue dead. Manginatude frees the Inner Whore in every woman.

If women, especially spoken-for women, don’t fear consequences for indulging every sexual compulsion (and women have many, often contradicting, sexual compulsions), then they won’t curb themselves. Women are not natural self-regulators; they require a strong pimp hand to avoid descent into womb wilding, whether that pimp hand comes in the form of a dominant alpha male or a dominant patriarchal culture.

Instead, America’s men are caught in a spiral of self-abnegation and slavish pussy pedestal polishing. Witness:

On her 25th birthday, husband Andrew Jarvis paid tribute to his wife, writing: ‘Happy 25th birthday to my sweetest Lindsey!

‘So thankful for your wonderful heart, which teaches me so much about compassion and kindness.

‘So thankful for your wisdom and discernment that help guide us through life….Love you with all my heart, and so thankful to have you as my best friend.’

First mistake: a wife or gf should never be a man’s “best friend”. His lover, his confidant, his alibi, his accomplice, his lolita, his sex toy, sure. But not his best friend. That cloying admission reeks of neediness and uxuriousness, and sucks all the romantic lifeblood out of what should be a sexually dichotomous relationship. Women don’t want a best friend for a husband; they want a lover and a king.

Second mistake: penning this treacle at all. He could have done so much more for his cause, meaning his sex life and future paternity certainty, had he sent her this instead on her birthday:

I’d like to end on a hopeful note. How do we solve the crisis of supportive beta husbands and boyfriends enabling the worst sort of female animal behavior?

My suggestion, one I’ve been proselytizing for a while, to no avail apparently as we can see the population of supplicating betas grows year over year, is….hold your breath….Game. If beta males gained the skills of the crimson arts and had more choice in women, or at least perceived that they had more choice in women, the confidence instilled in them would stream outward and fill the hearts and Bartholin’s corpuscles of the women in their lives, and a big beautiful mutually reinforcing limbic synchronization that aligned with the ancient biomechanic laws of sexual polarity would draw man and woman closer together, and those wild cockscillations that undulate darkly in the vajfold crevices of every woman threatening to crumble heartbridges would be calmed.

Or, having options in women, beta males would at least be more emotionally continent about their choice of long-term mate and be more willing to jettison those women who don’t make the grade.

Read Full Post »