Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Ugly Truths’ Category

A recent social science study found that female obesity elicits disgust in people.

This study examined the relevance of disgust to evaluations of an obese target person, and the connection between disgust and prejudice toward that person. Participants (n = 598) viewed an image of an obese or non-obese woman, and then evaluated that woman on a number of dimensions (emotions, attitudes, stereotypes, desire for social distance). Compared with the non-obese target, the obese target elicited more disgust, more negative attitudes and stereotypes, and a greater desire for social distance.

:lol: “Get away from me you lazy-eyed fatty!”

Furthermore, disgust mediated the effect of the target’s body size on all of the outcome variables (attitudes, stereotypes, social distance). Disgust plays an important role in prejudice and discrimination toward individuals with obesity, and might in part explain the pervasiveness of weight bias.

It’s a good idea to not look like a monster who elicits disgust in others.

Randall Parker speculates,

Maybe people are becoming less patriotic because of the long term rise in obesity. Think about it.

I thought about it, and there’s something to it. Obesity – particularly female obesity – aggravates trends toward social atomization and community breakdown because it compels people to get the hell away from the corpulent company of modern day circus freaks. In some regions of the US, obesity is the NORM! That’s a lot of pent-up disgust.

If patriotism is in large part an organic expression of community, racial, and ethnic pride channeled through loyalty for the nation, then obesity, by severing localized social bonds all over America, will undermine national patriotism, as the repulsive forces incited by fatties are scaled up.

When humans turn themselves into monsters, it’s inevitable that their society becomes monstrous.

Read Full Post »

visualshiv

In the id-carving business, this is what’s known as a future vision shiv. Oracular serration.

Read Full Post »

Tradcons and feminists have more in common than either would care to confront. Browsing popular alt-right outposts, I’ve found that a significant number of them — not all; I don’t mean this to be a sweeping indictment of the tradcon right — share with feminists a misunderstanding of sex differences and of the functioning of the sexual market (hint: it’s transactional in nature, and sneering at the messenger won’t change that fact).

So what false notions do tradcons and feminists share?

  • Pussy pedestalization

That’s one. Feminists and (some) tradcons reflexively defer to the contradictory premises that female entitlement both a. doesn’t exist and b. must be catered to at all times.

  • Sexual desire uniformity

Tradcons, like feminists, wrongly assume men and women share reproductive goals, or that the triggers and the expression of their desires are similar. They are not.

  • Sinful male sexuality

Tradcons, like feminists, express a wanton cruelty toward male sexuality, never missing a chance to pathologize it. Where it really shows is in their hate for sex differences in attraction and arousal, which they dismiss by denying the biocentrality of visual stimulus and mate variety to male sexuality. Or, if they don’t deny those things, they demonstrate their contempt of male sexuality by deriding its emotional and sensate power over men, and belittling men who “can’t control” their natural urges.

  • Denial of female hypergamy

Female hypergamy is real, (and different in kind from male mate choice motivations). Maybe tradcons are upset by the science-y terminology. That’s another deficiency they share with feminists. If it helps them get over their anxiety about being mistaken for an autistic, they could call it “dating up”.

  • Denial of depraved female sexuality

No one in the “Sex Pill” community argues that male sexuality can’t be depraved. Gang bangs, facials, and homosex come to mind. But tradcons, like feminists, have a peculiar habit of denying the facets of female sexuality that tend toward depravity and darkness. For instance, female rape victims often go on to have consensual sex relationships with their rapists. And, oh yeah, there are all those coercive rape fantasies women indulge.

Similarly, tradcons (maybe not so much as feminists) tend to overestimate women’s inclination toward faithful monogamy. Studies consistently show women are less monogamous than tradcons assume and more monogamous than men as a sex.

  • Denigration of male sexuality as “entitlement”

Tradcons, like feminists, have a hysterical hatred of men trying to improve their romantic fortunes. They slander normal male desire for a quality dating life as entitlement, when it’s nothing of the sort. (Entitlement is the feeling one is owed something for nothing; most men who want to get better girls know that they have to put in the effort commensurate with the quality of girl they’re aiming for.)

The entitlement slur is one of the more toxic tradcon smears against men. The tradcon mercilessly mocks the man who strives for a cuter girlfriend, but lavishes praise on the woman who screens for Mr. Right. Self-discrediting.

  • Belief that marriage is an equal sacrifice

Tradcons, like feminists, want to believe that women sacrifice as much as, or more than, men do when deciding to marry. Not true. Men must tacitly renounce the heart of their natural, God-given sexuality to marry; women don’t. Women have a greater disposition for monogamy than do men, and a weaker urge for sexual variety and profligacy. Marriage is therefore an easier transition for women to make than it is for men to make. This sex discrepancy in monogamous marriage sacrifice demands an array of legal and informal cultural recompense for married men. (This recompense can take form in big and small ways; e.g., “king of the castle” privileges, wife taking his name, etc.)

Btw, Tolkien and CH are on the same page about men and their greater marriage sacrifice:

tolkienmonogamy

  • False equivalence between male and female cheating

Tradcons, like feminists, abhor sex-based “double standards”, refusing to accept that double standards are a fact of life when the species in question is sexually reproducing. Tradcons love to lump male and female cheating under one umbrella of equal awfulness, but the comparison deserves more nuance than that. One, female cheating can result in pregnancy (especially true before the Pill and latex condom, which was the environment humanity evolved in for most of its history). A cheating wife impregnated by her dalliance was a serious cuckold risk to her husband. The same cannot be said of a cheating husband.

Two, when women cheat, they tend to hypergamously cheat, (they turn the sex spigot off to their husbands). Men cheat in the harem-building style, mostly for physical pleasure (as opposed to the yearning for romance typical of cheating wives), and often retain love for their wives even during the times of their extramarital trysts.

***

My evidence for tradcon resemblance to dumbfuck feminists comes from reading what a lot of them who are normally straight thinkers on a number of hot button topics have to say about sex, love and women. I don’t attack all tradcons, but I do note there are quite a few of them who are as dumb about sex as shitlibs are about race.

(This is a good point to remind tradcons that one can be both clear-eyed about innate sex differences in desire AND about the importance of monogamy/marriage to Western Civ.)

The reflexive tradcon white knighting for the female sex finds its source in the same place all people tap when considering the lamentations of the women. It all gets back to the Fundamental Premise. Women are the reproductively more valuable sex (by order of the cosmic overlord), and this eternal truth explains innumerable societal phenomena related to the instinctive urge by both men and women to favor women’s concerns at the expense of men’s concerns.

***

It’s been claimed that the Sex Pill is the gateway drug to the Race Pill. But I’ve noticed a lot of race realists have trouble with sex realism. Is it a problem of demographic bias? Maybe race realists are older (less naive about race) and settled down. They’ve been out of the seduction game for a while and have forgotten what climbing-the-walls horniness feels like, or how much tougher it is to seduce younger, hotter, tighter chicks than older, hoarier, looser women?

Read Full Post »

There is a relationship between a woman’s marriageability and her “down-to-fuckability” (shortened: DTFability). It’s quite robust and replicable.

Down-to-fuckability is fancy scientific jargon for the impression a woman makes that she is eager and ready for sex, and that bedding her would not be much of a challenge. DTFability also suggests an openness to sexual experimentation and to trysts in public locations.

DTFability is similar to, but not the same as, sluttiness. For a woman to qualify as a slut, she has to have racked up a higher-than-average cock count. A better synonym for DTFability would be skankitude, which embodies the stylistic and behavioral qualities of sluttiness but not necessarily the high cock count that is the trademark of the slut.

A woman who is commonly considered by men to be “down to fuck” is a sexpot identified by her skimpy clothes, whore hoop earrings, tattoos, slut eye and other quirks of appearance, as well as by her seductive flirtations and aggressively sexual demeanor. Masculinized women with the telltale “manjaw” and careerist ambitions are representative of the DTF woman; they don’t play coy and they love giving head.

Marriageability refers to women who are “marriage material”. These women are the polar opposite of down-to-fuckable women. A marriageable woman, by her appearance, style and demeanor, implies a low risk of unfaithfulness and a high disposition to romantic loyalty, and following from these implications she likely possesses a pretty good maternal instinct as well. These things matter to men who are considering settling down and starting a family with “the right woman”. A faithful, loving, affectionate woman is a woman who is unlikely to frivorce or cuckold a man.

Looks-wise, marriageable and down-to-fuckable women aren’t all that different from each other. Beauties can be found in both groups, although DTF girls tend to a “hard” look and a psychotic thousand-cock stare, while marriageable girls tend to look softer, kinder and, less encouragingly, diffident. DTF girls inspire horniness in men; marriageable girls inspire romance in men.

Horniness and romantic investment aren’t positively correlated. Their relation is haphazard at best. Yes, men generally want to spend lots of time with women who make them horny, but women who inspire nothing BUT horniness exert a relaxation effect on men’s more subtle sexual urge: the urge to protect and provide. In scientific terms, a DTF girl is a “fucknchuck”, while a marriageable girl is a “waitnmasturbate” (i.e., men are willing to wait for the marriageable girl to open up sexually to them, while they endure the wait by masturbating).

And that explains the inherent tension in men when choosing between marriageable and DTFable girls. Men love the sexy, alluring ingenue with the come-hither eyes and Mariana Trench cleavage, but they don’t so much love her infidelity risk and her reckless, indiscriminate coquetry. And men also love the coy, demure, innocent blushing beauty with the promise of a hymen and a chaste sensibility, but they don’t so much love her prudery, sexual timidity and loose-fitting cable-knit sweaters.

So men looking to the future with a woman that goes further than a one-night-stand or a three month fling must find a balance between the two female genera. A woman who is too sexy is a divorce and cheating risk. A woman who is too prudish is a bed death risk, comfortable with weeks of sexlessness and having an aversion to blowjobs (which when she gives them can result in her face twisting into a rictus of disgust; quite the mood killer with the lights on).

Which brings us to:

The Marriageability-DTFability Relationship Curve

marryslutcurve

This curve captures the essence of the subconscious decision-making process that goes on in the minds of men judging women for their marriageability. A High Marriageability woman is NOT the most prudish and faithful; such a woman will dutifully bear and raise your children, but she will not dutifully bare herself and raise your churro. A very Low DTFability woman earns a “meh” on the marriageability question.

Peak Marriageability occurs at the inflection point where a woman is still relatively chaste but has a nascent talent for projecting a hungry sexuality in your general direction. This is the Sweet Spot (to complement the Wet Spot). A man would feel comfortable leaving a Sweet Spot wife for stretches at a time, and simultaneously would never dread having to hear from her the snapper-sutured lie “I have a headache”.

After this point, the more DTFable a woman becomes — which, in practice, means the more a man will push hard for first date sex with her — the less marriageable she is. A woman with a porn star look and Megyno Kelly’s aggrocunt short haircut will arouse a desire to rush her home and pile drive her through the mattress. What she won’t do is make any quality man with sexual market options reach for his wallet to buy her a fancy dinner, let alone a diamond engagement ring.

A smart woman knows where this balance lies, and works it to her advantage when trying to snag that perfect man into marriage. If there are glowing reviews to be written for the High DTFability girl, it’s that she isn’t satisfied with missionary alone, she gets down to business without a lot of insufferable wavering, and if you have even a lick of experience with women you’ll know how to spot her cruel wantonness and avoid serious romantic entanglements that could cost you your sanity and sense of self-worth, if it was precarious already.

Read Full Post »

From what looks to be a late 19th Century pamphlet advising women to heed the approach of The Wall and to abstain from the life of a dissolute party girl, (h/t @KaliYugaSurf):

“bad literature” :lol: 50 Shades of Gray-style female porn has been around for a long time.

Our ancestors were wise. There was no “40 is the new 20” back then. A single woman at 40 has lost all her feminine charms; a sexual market outcast, for sure, but also a social outcast. The two designations tend to go hand-in-hand for women who remain unmarried and childless. (To a much lesser extent, this is true for men as well, but men have the option of several compensating social and sexual status-boosting pursuits that mitigate any marginal ostracism from remaining unmarried and childless.)

It was also assumed by our wise elders that women would have children by age 26, committing them to a life of home of hearth and removing them utterly from the field of courtship. Today? Eh…. not so much.

partysluts

Read Full Post »

Cuckservatives adore the idea of assimilation like they do heterosexual sex; from a distance, as an abstract concept. When things between tribes aren’t going well, the cuck pipes up to assert all that’s needed is more encouragement to immigrants to “assimilate” to the American Way of Life. The cuck imagines assimilation as some magical process or cosmic intervention that appears after the requisite number of incantations calling for it by name are scattered throughout op-eds and on TV talk shows.

Now shitlibs are getting in on the assimilation racket (they used to be against it, arguing that America isn’t a melting pot, it’s a salad bowl, but recent trends have them worried the salad bowl is turning into a toxic stew so they’re backtracking to good ol’ assimilation to save their White dispossession project). You’ll hear increasingly frantic calls for Assimilation as Diversity spreads like a black goo over the nation, snuffing out the last strands of societal trust and bonhomie.

Too late. Current events are throwing into stark relief the reality that Assimilationism is a failed ideology, and its failures will become more apparent as there is a rise in the numbers of disparate peoples the ideology must accommodate and manage to meld into a workable social contract.

From Alec Leamas,

It’s not hard to see how a flood of young male and Muslim reinforcements from the Near East and Africa is going to embolden the extant second generation Muslims who may have been born in Europe but who will never be Europeans. The Rapefugees’ behavior is a given; the resident Muslims will be more free to act on their existing fantasies of power and conquest.

This is an insightful point. A tribe’s essence may sleep, but it never dies. It may lie dormant, but it will never go extinct. As new immigrants gain numerical power and ruling class protection in their host nations, the tribal instinct within their second and third generation cousins already in the country is released from its artificial suppression. The few secular liberal minority tokens that equalist leftoids, in a pique of supreme naivete, assume are representative of all of the minority tribe’s people, will recede to nothingness as their half-hearted voices are drowned out by the ululations of their extended family. To put it more bluntly, that smiling taxi driver praising America will revert with a quickness to the mores and standards of his race as soon as there are enough of his kind in close proximity to safely let his assimilationist mask slip.

Assimilationism doesn’t take long to reach diminishing returns, and even to expose the absorbing culture to deleterious regression to the behavioral norms of the immigrants. The more immigrants, and the more different the immigrants, the less likely assimilation is to work, and the more likely assimilationist rhetoric will ramp up to conceal its ineffectiveness.

Assimilation to the host nation’s way of life can work, but only under very strict preconditions:

  1. the immigrants are not genetically and culturally distant from the native population into which they are assimilating.
  2. the number of immigrants don’t exceed a threshold above which their natural born racial characteristics can’t be contained and redirected into expressions more compatible with the host nation’s culture.
  3. the host nation culture has the self-confidence and pride of place to demand total acquiescence to its norms from the arriving immigrants.

Western nations are currently failing on all three assimilation preconditions: Post-1965 immigrants are almost entirely nonWhite, the numbers of them are astronomical, and the host nations have lost faith in themselves while they bend over backwards to assist immigrants in retaining and celebrating the cultures of the homelands they abandoned for Western prosperity.

Even when assimilation “works” — e.g., when Anglo-Germanic America absorbed millions of Southern and Eastern Europeans in the late 19th and early 20th centuries — there are immense costs and miseries that must be overcome along the way. And those costs are never completely paid off. Irish-Americans to this day still vote more Leftist than a typical Olde Anglo-Germanic American of yore would have been comfortable voting. And Italian-American communities have more corruption than adjacent Anglo communities. And don’t get me started on the Eskimos…

But the Irish, the Italians, the Poles, et al are White ethnics, meaning that they aren’t so genetically and culturally dissimilar from Anglo-Germanic Whites that their assimilation into the American fabric was ordained to fail absent the heavy hand of a police and surveillance state to keep everyone in line. Plus, their immigration was halted in the 1924 Act to preserve the Anglo White character of America. Intermarriage with other Whites further helped their assimilation, and this White ethnic intermarriage also contributed to the unique characteristics of Americans relative to their Old Country European cousins. This was a history of ethnicity-mixing among already high-achieving peoples (compared to world standards) that buttressed America’s strength.

So past immigrant waves to the US satisfied, more or less, assimilation preconditions #1 and #2, and from all accounts #3 was also operative up until oh, 1970 or so. The assimilation calculation has changed a lot since then, (but don’t tell the Ellis Island schmaltz shoppers that). Now the US’s immigrants couldn’t be more genetically/culturally different from the Anglo-Germanic substrate, couldn’t be more numerically unmanageable, and couldn’t be more free to avoid assimilation to a native stock American norm in favor of a globalist multikult credo. This is a recipe for the complete annihilation of the historical American culture (and subcultures).

I should mention there’s one other way assimilation can work when the above three preconditions aren’t met: Assimilation to a new norm via race mixing. This is the goal of the globo-homo elite. They want historic America to die in a hodge-podge of race-mixed mediocrities and consumers of perishable goods, who will then assimilate to a new, recombined America that is changed for eternity right down to its DNA.

For the record, the Chateau’s immigration policy proposals (restated here from previous posts) is:

  • sixty year (i.e., three generations) immigration moratorium
  • deportation of all illegals
  • end of birthright citizenship
  • end of H-1B program (and similar wage-gutting loopholes)
  • favored immigrant status extended to NW Europeans when immigration flow is re-opened
  • South and East Europeans receive second favored status
  • immigrants from all other groups admitted based on education/skill and only in trivial numbers

Reading this, I’m sure a shitlib’s head is about to go Scanners, but perspective is a beautiful virtue. A mere sixty years ago, this immigration policy list would have been considered eminently sensible and uncontroversial by the vast majority of Americans. Here’s to hoping Trump Makes America Sensible Again.

Read Full Post »

Another drearily familiar rapefugee news story contains a portentous subtext.

All over Europe, women are suffering the consequences of the Muslim invasion disguised as a refugee crisis, and one reporter’s encounter was captured on video. A group of Muslim migrants thought she was too attractive, then showed her what happens as a result.

The video is at the link above. There’s nothing NSFW in the video; it’s just the usual enriching perspectives we’re instructed to appreciate from our colorful third world Diversity.

A reader gives his interpretation of this vibrantly multicultural scene, and issues a warning to the White Men of the West.

Here is the reality.

These guys have monumental, stone cold asshole game.

They treat this woman like absolute shit, and she is fascinated by it, she keeps calling them back for more.  She lets the guy take the microphone out of her hand.

In the pussified world of Western European girly-men, these guys stand out as masculine, hard men who say what they want, take what they want.  They walk down the street like they own it.  They don’t smile.  They double down when challenged.  They give sub-zero fucks.

CH readers will see where this is going … .

The dried up miserable vaginas of Europe’s women will be engorged and dripping at the sight, and they will be blushing and squirming in their chairs and playing with their hair even as they say, oh, how awful … .  Then they will do everything they can to get more of these unapologetic bastards into their country, and look for the opportunity to be called a slut, have their hair pulled, their clothes grabbed and pulled off, be slapped, be violated, be dominated, be owned.  As more of these videos circulate, the man-starved women of Europe will become increasingly desperate to spread their legs for a vicious and hateful pummeling by these invaders.

They will forget their own so-called men ever existed.

And to get all “meta”, feminism was a civilization-wide shit test, and the men of Western Europe and the USA failed.  They have been reduced to sniveling beta status ever since.  The poon of the West is desperate for a stern and iron Alpha ramming by anyone, and the first guys who showed up are these Muslim dirtbags.

Looks like it’s their lucky day.

Note that the foregoing is clearly correct for the Germanic countries.  The Muslims will own the place in a generation.  This is not true in Eastern Europe, only the west.  The Poles, Hungarians, Serbs, will absolutely without blinking shoot, hang, stab, run over with trucks, set on fire with gasoline, or club to death every Muslims they can get their hands on before they will turn over their women.

Hyperbolic, but he’s onto something. After watching the video, I wouldn’t go so far to say the female reporter is sexually aroused (she could just be chirpily stringing the rapefugees along to make sure she gets entertaining quotes), but the wider theme explored by the reader is by and large true: when stronger* men invade your public space, your women will eventually, and often in contradiction to their own stated wishes, gravitate into an orbit with the dominant invader male valence and assume the submissive position.

*Stronger in a sexual market context means less appeasing, bolder, and firmer of frame. IOW, an asshole.

The lesson is that when an existential crisis threatens the nation, its women simply can’t be trusted to correct course. Men must steer the ship. And if that means dismissing their women’s opinions while they get to the hard job of making their country great again, then so be it. The dismissiveness will probably reignite their women’s desire for them.

The conclusion one must draw is the utter incompatibility of the White K-selected races with the less-than-White r-selected races. Multiculturalism is a failure. Worse, it’s a deliberate failure; an attack by the ruling classes against their own people.

The saracens are a different breed, possessing a natural ZFG attitude and patriarchal insolence towards women that may not buy them much poon in their homelands but acts like a tingle generating explosive reaction in secular, betatized, domesticated, and effeminated European societies. The shy, shoe-gazing, polite White European beta male – representative of his tribe – is rendered impotent when contrasted against the brutish brown man’s street theater, and the White man’s women notice the contrast, and their hindbrains, despite the best intentions that some may have, map out sexual market hierarchies accordingly.

PS Refreshingly, there are some young women who know the score.

If there is hope among White women, it lies with the virginal cuties. But, as reader Diversity Heretic averred, the White man’s chivalry comes with a necessary cost.

Okay, you want male protection. Male protection comes at the price of female deference. If you want to compete with (and displace) men in the job and education marketplaces, if you want women to be defense ministers, if you want to pursue a career at the expense of being a wife and mother, if you want income and status equality with men, if you want to ride the alpha cock carousel until your early thirties, then expect to find a beta male provider who’ll buy with a ring what you gave away free when you were younger and hotter,

THEN CHICKY BABE, YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN! GUTEN GLUCK UND GUTEN ABEND!

PPS PA writes about white knighting (when it’s appropriate, and when it’s self-toolage.)

PPPS Reader Philomathean adds,

I’m not convinced the majority of White women support the invasion because they long for a mud breach in their vaginal canals. It’s state sponsored, socially approved moral posturing no different in spirit than an Oprah inspired kaffeeklatsch.

I reply: But women lead the moral posturing to open the borders. They are lapping men in their eagerness for more diversity enrichment. There is a deeper psychological compulsion that animates women’s politics, and I contend it begins at the source of female sexuality: their innate desire for strength and dominance in men. Right now, that female desire has been redirected to outsider males, because their own men are hamstrung from reacting in the proper masculine manner to the alien threat (and too many are donning miniskirts as feeble signs of protest).

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,465 other followers

%d bloggers like this: