Archive for the ‘Ugly Truths’ Category

The Dutch monarchy adheres to very strict rules concerning the mating and marriage practices of its royal family.

The monarchy of the Netherlands passes by right of succession to the heirs of William I.
The heir is determined through two mechanisms: absolute cognatic primogeniture and proximity of blood.

The Netherlands established absolute cognatic primogeniture instead of male preference primogeniture by law in 1983.

Proximity of blood limits accession to the throne to a person who is related to the current monarch within three degrees of kinship.

The Dutch Constitution prescribes that every royal who is eligible for the throne and wants to marry someone, must get permission from Parliament to marry that person.

Therefore, members of the Dutch royal family/The Crown Prince(ss) cannot have a same-sex marriage, unless he/she abandons his/her right to the throne.

Hybrid vigor? Hah, that’s gene dilution agitprop for the plebs. White royalty in nations like Holland are into a finer form of aesthetic and behavioral supremacy: eugenics.

In Gregory Clark’s book A Farewell to Alms, the central thesis is that 800 years ago a process of natural reproductive culling started in England and continued long enough to birth the Industrial Revolution. Smart, conscientious, upper class English people had more kids, and dumber, impulsive, lower class people had fewer kids. What then occurred was an over-production of the wealthy elite, whose sons and grandsons, from lack of elite positions, fanned downwardly in social status to occupy middle class and lower jobs. There they mated with sub-elite women — you could call this a “dribble down effect” — and spread their superior genes amongst a wider swath of the English population. The genetic profile of the English thus improved, and this led to them helming the Industrial Revolution.

The process outlined in A Farewell to Alms sounds eerily similar to the BOSSS strategy I have recommended to make America great again. Smart HSMV men should eschew marriage to overeducated cunty shrews in favor of marriage and family with feminine, under-educated, sweet White secretaries from less stellar social classes. Then their good genes will spread out rather than be sequestered in a credentialati hothouse of low fertility shitlibbery.

Right now in the West, the opposite fertility pattern is happening: A+ men are matching up with hand-picked female specimens from within their social and educational (and royal) circles. They may preach the wonders of miscegenation, but their actions are solidly in the camp of purifying their blood. Miscegenation for the plebs, genetic purity for the landed gentry.

In order for this insular and ultimately deleterious genetic pattern to break, there has to be a concerted effort via culture channels of communication to explain to the masses that the elite don’t have their interests in heart, in fact want them genetically destroyed in a slurry of mixed race breeding, and that they are setting themselves out quite literally as a special race of Eloi with their mating and marriage habits. We have to dump feminism, in other words, so that upper class White men can feel unashamed to pursue those lovely submissive under-educated White women who would be happy to take their seed by the wombfuls.

This is genetic egalitarianism, and in the final analysis all forms of egalitarianism issue from the genetic substrate.

Read Full Post »

Because I am a humanitarian and love to give and give until it hurts, I submit this uplifting essay to fat chicks everywhere who need to hear these 14 things for their mental health and mortal souls.

14 things every fat girl absolutely needs to hear:

  1. push away from the table
  2. coffee, not sugary milkshake with coffee added
  3. eat less, exercise better
  4. weight room, not treadmill
  5. fatness ruins your health and quality of life
  6. your romantic life will suffer because men prefer slender women
  7. if you are a white fatty, your odds of mudsharking rise
  8. intermittent fasting and portion control are your friends
  9. curvy doesn’t mean beach ball. it means hourglass.
  10. you’ll have to put out faster to keep a man’s interest
  11. even an extra five pounds makes a difference to men
  12. the fatter you are, the lonelier you’ll be
  13. the fatter you are, the farther down you’ll have to settle to find a man willing to stick with you
  14. excuses and feminist boilerplate won’t make men hard for you

HTH, fatties!

FYI this is a response to the same femmedia-elevated fatty satirized in this CH post who is beloved by her fellow sexual market losers for “telling it like it is”. More like “scarfing it down like it is going out of style”, right, Jes Baker?

For years, Jes has worked in this sphere of reminding people— especially women— of their right to feel beautiful.

Women and poopytalk, inseparable! Explaining simple concepts to fat feminist retards loses its allure after the third iteration, but here I go again, into the breached whale. Nothing is stopping fatties from their “right” to feel beautiful, a meaningless conceit at any rate. But ginned-up Fake Feeling and reality are two distinct universes, and no matter how much a fatty exercises her right to feel beautiful and assuage her butthurt ego, that won’t change the fact that most men will deem her falling far short of beautiful. No fatty self-motivational in the world can convince men she’s hot.

My 14 pieces of fatty-smiting flair, if followed to the letter, will reunite fat chicks with genuine feelings of self-worth that no feminist happy-clappy feedgood nonsense can hope to accomplish.

Read Full Post »

Never often enough, the YASS QUEEN gaypedoface brigade and catlady consortium need a reminder that thecunt (aka hillary clinton) achieved power and a near-miss at the Trump House solely by using her husband as a stepping stone. From Harry Dexter White,

Eternal reminder that the only reason Hillary Clinton has a political career at all is because she is a woman. She married a man who was a much more charismatic and adept politician, a natural leader, and used his popularity to gain national prominence. She admitted this to the entire world when she was cuckqueened by Bill and remained – remains – in the marriage because she needed him to win her Senate seat.

All the posturing about “she overcame”, and glass ceilings, and yass slay independent and strong queen must be seen in this light. She did what women who managed to gain any degree of prominence in human history typically did – married the right man. And there’s nothing wrong with this, it’s just how woman navigate their way into the corridors of power. But don’t for one f**king second pretend she’s some exception, some revolutionary, the first of her kind.

She was handed her fame and fortune on a silver platter, but her incompetence, narcissism, and general inhumanity led her to fail where many other women would and already have succeeded.

thecunt literally got to where she is used to be by leaning on a man — her charismatic and much more successful husband — to empower herself. Without Bill, thecunt is nothing more than a corrupt, two bit trial lawyer in Little Rock. And yet she is a feminist icon. The lack of self-awareness among girth wave feminists never ceases to amaze, but thecunt’s life story is especially discrediting of the feminist elevation of her to goddess-like status, given that she was entirely dependent on a man to achieve sufficient notoriety to be able to claim the mantle of independent woman.

Or maybe this is what bitter middle-aged women think when they envision an empowered she-bitch: a woman willing to exploit the man in her life for personal gain and have the gall to assert she did it on her own.

Read Full Post »

Current Year ¡SCIENCE! is continually affirming CH maxims about the sexes, but even old timey trustworthy science, from before the SJW and femcunt infestation warped the scientific method, clairvoyantly strokes the Heartiste ego.

From a 1987 research paper, a finding that should crush the spirits of sex equalists and Game denialists (h/t Mr. Roboto):

Dominance and Heterosexual Attraction

Four experiments examined the relation between behavioral expressions of dominance and the heterosexual attractiveness of males and females. Predictions concerning the relation between dominance and heterosexual attraction were derived from a consideration of sex role norms and from the comparative biological literature. All four experiments indicated an interaction between dominance and sex of target. Dominance behavior increased the attractiveness of males, but had no effect on the attractiveness of females. The third study indicated that the effect did not depend on the sex of the rater or on the sex of those with whom the dominant target interacted. The fourth study showed that the effect was specific to dominance as an independent variable and did not occur for related constructs (aggressive or domineering). This study also found that manipulated dominance enhanced only a male’s sexual attractiveness and not his general Usability. The results were discussed in terms of potential biological and cultural causal mechanisms.

It wasn’t that long ago that scientists were ballsy and fearless exposers of ugly truths. These mid-20th Century studies are a gold mine for realtalk unpolluted by political cowardice and libshit sophistry. 1987 was probably near the last year these brutally shivtastic studies made it past the Narrative enforcers.

Descriptions of traditional female role expectations either omit dominance as a relevant dimension or suggest that low dominance is an aspect of the feminine role. For instance, Broverman, Broverman, Clarkson, Rosenkrantz, and Vogel (1970) found that clinical professionals viewed the healthy woman as submissive and not competitive. The empirical literature on normative behavior for males and females thus suggests that striving for dominance and success (ascending a social hierarchy) is typically demanded of males and is frequently proscribed for females.

Submissive wife, happy life.

Although females do compete for positions in status hierarchies, there is no available evidence to suggest that their achieved dominance or rank is positively related to their attractiveness to males.

This is borne out by personal observation. Mean Girls is orthogonal to female attractiveness to men. Women compete intrasexually primarily as a means of securing social favors from other women when they need them (for example, after childbirth). This is in stark contrast to men, who compete in dominance hierarchies to unlock a higher PUSSY POUNDER achievement level.

I read through the study to see if the authors properly defined what they meant by “dominance”. Luckily, they have: the term as they use it means PSYCHOSOCIAL DOMINANCE, aka GAME, and all that entails, including alpha and beta male body language and conversational nuances. Quote:

Dominance gestures in the performance were derived from criteria published by Mehrabian (1969). In the low-dominance condition, a constant male (CM) is shown seated at a desk in an office. An actor enters the room and chooses a chair near the door approximately 6 ft (2 m) from the desk of the CM. The actor, clutching a sheath of papers, aits in symmetrical posture, leans slightly forward with head partially bowed, and alternately looks down at the floor and up at the CM, During an ensuing discussion, the actor engages in repetitive head nodding and lets the CM engage in longer communications.

In the high-dominance condition, the actor enters, chooses a chair closer to the CM and sits in a relaxed, asymetrical posture. The actor’s hands and legs are relaxed and his body is leaning slightly backward in the chair. During the discussion, the actor produced higher rates of gesturing and lower rates of head nodding than in the low-dominance condition. Identical films were made with actresses playing all roles. Within each sex, the same actor or actress played both dominant and nondominant roles.

Does psychosocial dominance REDUCE female attractiveness to men? It would appear it does, a little at least (and it certainly doesn’t help women with men):

Female target persons in both Experiments 1 and 2 were in a context where dominance was displayed only toward other females. Perhaps a somewhat different picture might have emerged had subjects rated females who were dominant over males, indicating that it is in competition with males where females violate the normative expectations that they be submissive and noncompetitive (Broverman et al., 1970; Broverman, Vogel, Broverman, Clarkson, & Rosenkrantz, 1972), and it is only in this case that their attractiveness suffers. A third experiment was conducted to examine this possibility. […]

If the dominance manipulation had a differential effect on the female target’s attractiveness when she was in competition with men (as opposed to women), this would have shown up as a Sex of Target Person x Dominance x Sex of Opponent interaction. This interaction yielded F values of less than 1 for both variables. The higher order interaction, sex of target person by dominance by sex of opponent by sex of subject, likewise yielded an F of less than 1 for the sexual-attractiveness item and an f[l, 199)= 1.33 for the dating-desirability rating. [ed: see Table 3 at the link]

The fourth experiment in the research paper is the most interesting. It found that psychosocial dominance, but NOT aggressiveness or a domineering attitude (aka try-hard douchebaggery), was the key to increased male sexual attractiveness to women:

Manipulation of the level within the aggressive and domineering cells produced no differential effects on sexual attraction. These factors also did not differentially affect the sexual attractiveness of male and female targets (all F values for Sex x Aggression and Sex x Domineering simple interactions were less than 1).

A different pattern emerged for manipulations of dominance. The main effect of dominance on sexual attractiveness was significant, f{ 1,66) = 8.12, p< .01. This main effect was produced by differences in rated attractiveness of men in high- as opposed to low-dominance conditions. Consistent with the results of Experiments 1 through 3, there was a significant Sex x Dominance interaction, F(l, 66) = 9.79, p < .01, with men rated as more attractive in the high-dominance condition.

Ignoramuses and cunts arguing in bad faith love to assert that Game is about being a try-hard douchebag, but it’s nothing of the sort. Game is about amused mastery, subcommunicated through dominant body language and verbal confidence. Domineering men aren’t master seducers; they’re usually romantically insecure and their self-doubt impels them to try to ham-fistedly control women’s fluid flirtations and feral sexuality, instead of smoothly guide women to a heightened state of arousal.

This next finding should piss off another subset of Game denialists:

Results for the dimension of physical attractiveness were similar to the results for sexual attraction. Neither the aggression nor the domineering factor produced an effect on physical attraction. Level of dominance did, however, influence attributions of physical attraction, F( 1, 69) = 6.62, p< .01, and this main effect was again moderated by an interaction of sex and dominance level, F( 1,69) = 4.42, p< .01. Once again, a test of the simple main effects indicated an effect only for men, who were rated as more physically attractive in the high-dominance condition only, ^1,37)= 12.71,p<.01.

Resident Looks Piller wolfie wept.

So why aren’t all men dominant? Well, for one, status hierarchies only have so much room at the top. Two, there are trade-offs in the race for maximal reproductive fitness:

Manipulation of the level of dominance produced a constellation of personality attributions. In addition to its impact on variables related to sexual attraction, the level of dominance significantly influenced attributions concerning the target’s likability, stability, promiscuity, competence, and social class.

High dominance was found to lower the general likability of the target person, F(l, 64) = 38.7, p < .001. There was neither an effect of sex nor any interaction between dominance and sex on this variable. This result indicates that for men there is a potential trade-off between sexual attractiveness and likability, with high dominance increasing the former but reducing the latter. […]

High dominance led to perceptions of greater promiscuity in the target, /(I, 66) – 10.86, p < .002, with high dominance associated with increased promiscuity. A significant Sex X Level of Magnitude interaction, F{1,66) = 5,36,p < .02, indicated that men were perceived as more promiscuous in the high-dominance condition than were women. […]

To summarize, the following influence of dominance level was observed. High dominance increased the rated sexual attractiveness and physical attractiveness of male targets but had no discernable influence on the sexual or physical attractiveness of female targets. High dominance substantially decreased the likability of both sexes and was associated with increases in the rated stability, competence, promiscuity, and social class of both sexes.

Women are sexually attracted to psychosocially dominant men, even as these men are perceived to be less likable and more promiscuous. So no, femcunts and manginas, promiscuous men do not suffer a sexual market penalty. In fact, the perception of promiscuousness and unlikability may help them score additional notches.

It all goes to the old CH saying, “Don’t listen to what a woman says, watch what she does.” Which includes whom she fucks. Women will tell you they want a likable, chaste man, but their pussies are aching for a dominant, unlikable, promiscuous man.

Wynne-Edwards (1962) and Pfeiffer (1969) have suggested that among humans the ability to impress and win deference from others depends on the sum of many qualities, including strength, skill, determination to achieve superiority, and intelligence.

This sentence is a wet kiss planted right on the Heartiste lips, evoking as it does the seminal CH pinned posts “Dating Market Value Test for men and women” and “The 16 Commandments of Poon”.

The results of our fourth experiment suggest that some of the behaviors that may lead to a high rank do not themselves promote an individual’s attractiveness. Aggressive and domineering tendencies did not increase the sexual attractiveness of either males or females. The covariance analysis suggests that the highest levels of sexual attractiveness should occur when males express dominance without the use of such behaviors.

This research is a veritable PSA for the efficacy of Game (learned charisma).

Furthermore, dominance increases the sexual attractiveness of males but does not produce a general halo effect. Individuals simply described as dominant were assumed to be also aggressive and domineering; they were regarded as less likable and were not desired as spouses.

The first unearthing of the famed “alpha fux, beta bux” principle?

Executive Summary: If you want to bed more women, stop trying to make them like you. Instead, make them desire you.

Denying and obfuscating and suppressing these truths about the nature of the sexes inevitably leads to tragic cases like the women on the following magazine cover. Maybe someone should inform these aging beauties that men aren’t attracted to “sassy, sophisticated, solvent” women.

Where have all the good men gone? Back in their nubile 20s, where these sour grapes spinster cows left them. 54 and “looking for love”. jfc the delusion is unreal.

Psychological projection seems to be a feature of the female brain gone insane. What women desire — male dominance — is mistaken by women for what men desire in them. But men don’t love dominance, or sass, or careerism, or ambition in women. What men love is younger, hotter, tighter. Something which these has-beens lost as a bargaining chip a long time ago. And now they claim the chaps they can get just don’t measure up, which translated from the female hamsterese means the only men willing to fuck them are naggers and LSMV dregs with no standards and no other choice but internet porn. In fact, many dregs would choose the Fap Life before laying with one of these sassy harridans.

Sass is tolerable on a 21 year old vixen. It’s boner death on a 54 year old matron.

Likewise, chasteness and likability are tolerable on a dominant man. But they’re tingle killers on a submissive man.

Dominance is Game and Game is pussy.

And pussy is life everlasting. Amen.

Read Full Post »

Reader Jim gives a short field report testifying to the Power of Jerkboy.

Off-topic: A girl I’m seeing on the side just texted me “You have me so wet right now. How is that possible when you’re making fun of me?”

I keep waiting for CH to be proven wrong about something… but it hasn’t happened yet. Girls love jerks.

They sure do. Smartasses. Jerks. Even assholes. Girls love ’em, and the niceguys can only watch in despair from the sidelines (or until said girls reach post-nubility age and suddenly become available to them. heh).

In all the time this ‘umble abode has been running there hasn’t been a single field report come in over the wire that delivered news of Boring Beta Politeness lubing the limbic of a sassy lassie. I’m sure it happens…somewhere…sometime…but it’s a rare event, like an eclipse. You perk up and take notice when you hear of it.

Everything you need to know about women is revealed in their romantic fantasies. Ol’ Reliable and Ol’ Dependable are always MIA from women’s erotic steamscapes. When was the last time you heard of a girl fantasizing about a proper beta pulling a chair out for her? Or paying for her drinks? The absence is telling.

Read Full Post »

Every race of woman, no matter how ugly on average, has its redeeming exceptions of universally admired beauty.

Except the abos. Not even one.

Abos and the assorted subpopulation primitive groups like pygmies and Amazonian tribes have literally zero attractive women. You could Find, Meet, and Attract ten thousand of their women, but you wouldn’t want to Close any one of them.

Would abo men bang their women? Apparently, enough to still exist as a race. Actually, research of that nature would be very illuminating. Do abo men — literal proto-human throwbacks with an average IQ lower than that of deepest Africa — prefer their own women or would they be enticed by the standard White Euro beauty norm? This would reveal the nature of the tussle at the intersection between evolution and a platonic universal beauty standard.

Most likely, abo men would prefer non-abo to abo women, were they given a side by side comparison and a realistic shot at bedding a non-abo. Can we get some funding over here for this critical research proposal?

Aesthetically, the beautiful women of every race have more in common with each other than they do with the ugly women of their own race.

Aesthetically. Not temperamentally, intellectually, or morally.

A universal ideal of beauty is real. The beholders’ judgment is a borg.

Read Full Post »

New research finds that smart people are better at pattern recognition and thus of stereotyping groups based on real world observed behaviors. In other words, the Credentialati R the Real Racists (for real).

I’ve always said that the biggest racists were the White UMC striver SWPL shitlibs, but because they are extremely sensitive to peer approval and social status they are also the biggest self-deniers and psychological projectors of their honed racist feelings.

Smart people are also good at unlearning their stereotypes in the face of new (read: manufactured) information (read: propaganda), so now you know why the (((media))) is so committed to disseminating equalist lies about the races and sexes and so keen to begin the indoctrination in early childhood. 2+2 = oh look over there, another black surgeon and White street thug!

I think I will dub the early 21st Century, The Great Unlearning. It’s not enough to suppress the truth; the ruling class wants a new truth in its place.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: