Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Ugly Truths’ Category

Via reader oldfury, a Chesterfield warning on the dangers of reorienting one’s foremost purpose to the objective of empowering women.

As women are a considerable, or at least a pretty numerous part of company; and as their suffrages go a great way toward establishing a man’s character in the fashionable part of the world (which is of great importance to the fortune and figure he proposes to make in it), it is necessary to please them.

I will therefore, upon this subject, let you into certain Arcana that will be very useful for you to know, but which you must, with the utmost care, conceal and never seem to know.

Women, then, are only children of a larger growth; they have an entertaining tattle, and sometimes wit; but for solid reasoning, good sense, I never knew in my life one that had it, or who reasoned or acted consequentially for four-and-twenty hours together. Some little passion or humor always breaks upon their best resolutions. Their beauty neglected or controverted, their age increased, or their supposed understandings depreciated, instantly kindles their little passions, and overturns any system of consequential conduct, that in their most reasonable moments they might have been capable of forming.

A man of sense only trifles with them, plays with them, humors and flatters them, as he does with a sprightly forward child; but he neither consults them about, nor trusts them with serious matters; though he often makes them believe that he does both; which is the thing in the world that they are proud of; for they love mightily to be dabbling in business (which by the way they always spoil); and being justly distrustful that men in general look upon them in a trifling light, they almost adore that man who talks more seriously to them, and who seems to consult and trust them; I say, who seems; for weak men really do, but wise ones only seem to do it.

-Lord Chesterfield in a letter to his son

Chesterfield here is essentially arguing for restricted female agency, and therefore the necessity to men of wisely shielding women from matters of true importance – like immigration policy – while pretending as if women’s counsel was desired.

Feminine women don’t really desire, as beta males are wont to believe, full egalitarian inclusion in serious business or political decisions. Having it bores them and they often rebel by deciding for changes that subvert the bounty for which they were charged by obsequious, supplicating men to protect and preserve. What women really love is the man who “trifles with them”, but also assuages their fear that their instinctive female predilection for flirtation and little passions won’t be exploited to embarrass them in polite company as frivolities.

Read Full Post »

No, really. This post’s title isn’t an ironic invocation of leading cuckservative pundits. Esssra Klein and his merry band of (((voxlets))) love hissing about authoritarian conservatives; it’s one of their favorite pastimes, along with getting assaulted by dindus and post hoc rationalizing a way to blame )))White((( men.

Liberals have been trotting out the “conservatives are authoritarians” claim in one form or another for generations. It’s a Stalin-esque example of the rhetoric trick favored by leftoid radicals of pathologizing the normal, healthy instincts of one’s ideological enemies. Remote psychological diagnosis, and the Commies were very fond of its agit-prop utility.

Yet, all around us in the current year we are besieged with evidence to the contrary. Conservatives aren’t the ones crashing Trump rallies and stabbing people. Nor are they the ones leading modern-day witch hunts against crime thinkers like James Watson or Jason Richwine and getting them fired from their jobs. Nor are conservatives running gargantuan media conglomerates and information gateways dedicated to purging wrongthink. Nor are conservatives – actual conservatives as the word is commonly understood, not cuckboys like Paul Ryan – using extra-Constitutional executive privilege to foist hundreds of thousands (soon to be millions) of third world refugees on small town America and committing what in a sane world would qualify as treason.

When your lying eyes conflict with social science studies pumped out by tenured academics living the easy life in leftoid hothouses, and propagated by credulous media leftoids whose preexisting biases have been confirmed, the way to bet is that the leftoid study has the problem with accurately assessing reality.

And that’s the case with the flurry of “authoritarian Trump supporters” articles that have appeared recently in such esteemed publications as the Huffington ShitPost, the Washington Post-Op, and The New York Beta Times. A major retraction was issued, unsurprisingly, to very little media coverage, essentially overturning the cherished beliefs of smug liberals.

Conservative political beliefs not linked to psychotic traits, as study claimed

Researchers have fixed a number of papers after mistakenly reporting that people who hold conservative political beliefs are more likely to exhibit traits associated with psychoticism, such as authoritarianism and tough-mindedness.

As one of the notices specifies, now it appears that liberal political beliefs are linked with psychoticism.

WOOPS

When we asked Hatemi to elaborate on what that magnitude was — how much more likely were people who held conservative or liberal views to exhibit certain traits? — he said:

[T]he correlations are spurious, so the direction or even magnitude is not suitable to elaborate on at all- that’s the point of all our papers and the general findings.

If the correlations are spurious and unworthy of elaboration, then WHY THE FUCK DID EVERY GODDAMNED LEFTOID PRICK IN EXISTENCE run with the erroneously reported study results that conservatives are authoritarian?

Even if the errors don’t affect the conclusions of the paper, they matter, Ludeke told us:

The erroneous results represented some of the larger correlations between personality and politics ever reported; they were reported and interpreted, repeatedly, in the wrong direction; and then cited at rates that are (for this field) extremely high. And the relationship between personality and politics is, as we note in the paper, quite a “hot” topic, with a large number of new papers appearing every year. So although the errors do not matter for the result that the authors (rightly) see as their most important, I obviously think the errors themselves matter quite a lot, especially for what it says about the scientific process both pre- and post-review.

Amen. What it says is that a shitlib social scientist found out liberals are actually more likely to be authoritarian, but through partisan negligence or deliberate deception permitted the results of his study to be published and reported as if the exact opposite were true.

I’d ask Essssssra Klein for his thoughts on this retraction, but I fear he’d respond with midnight raids and one way tickets to the gulag.

Read Full Post »

In a study of paraphilia (obsession with unusual sexual practices), a curious sex difference poked out of the findings. See if you can spot it.

masojism

That’s right, men are over-represented in every sexual perversion except one: masochism. Women are the eager beavers of sexual masojism. It is to LOL.

Any regular Chateau guest would not be surprised by the discovery that women are more sexually masochistic than men. Women are attracted to dominant men, and one way male dominance is exerted is in the bedroom. Women therefore enjoy the masochistic pleasure of submitting to a dominant, takes-what-he-wants man, or will purposely assume a masochistic sex play role to fulfill their need for submission to a dominant, takes-what-he-wants man if such a man isn’t satisfyingly forthcoming with his dominance prowess.

Also, the fact that men excel at all sorts of sexual fetishes is indicative of their inherent “cheap sperm” reproductive status. Men are constantly on the lookout for mating opportunities, and expanding the field of sexual outlets beyond normie sex with an alt-right tradwife widens (heh) men’s scope of intercourse possibility. It is therefore hypothesized by your free-thinking host that very LSMV men will be found at the margins of sexual proclivity, hoping to snag some kind of scrotal relief that they are hard-pressed to achieve the normal way.

This fact is the “is” part of the “is, not ought” equation, and its existence should not be used as justification for social engineering to make sexual freaks more accepted by the general public.

Read Full Post »

Pman sells the science of physiognomy short. There’s evidence (re)emerging from the labcoats’ mental masturbatoriums that a person’s looks do say something about his politics, smarts, personality, and even his propensity to crime. Stereotypes don’t materialize out of thin air, and the historical wisdom that one can divine the measure of a man (or a woman) by the cut of his face has empirical support.

For instance, facial width-to-height ratio (fWHR) is a reliable cue to dominant social behavior in men. Another study found that wide-faced men are untrustworthy. You CAN judge a book by its cover: ugly people are more crime-prone.

Shitlibs have a look. Shitlords have a look. And you can predict with better than 50/50 chance which 2016 presidential candidate a person supports based on nothing more than their photograph.

Physiognomy is real. It needs to come back as a legitimate field of scientific inquiry, and the snarling equalists who lied and slandered good men to suppress the investigation of physiognomy should have their faces rubbed in the realtalk. Physiognomy isn’t just an illusion of confirmation bias, or of backwards rationalization of evoked emotions. The connection between facial appearance and character is observable and measurable, not a figment of cognitive self-bias. There are exceptions, of course, but the existence of exceptions should not be used as an excuse to sweep the reality of the rule under the rug.

Read Full Post »

In a CH post about older men’s advantages in the sexual market, frequent sex difference and Game denialist wolfie65 avers,

There are VERY few things in this world that actually do get better with age.
High quality wine (if you like that sort of thing), high quality cheese (to a point), things made very well from high quality wood, like musical instruments or furniture.
People are not one of those things.

Generally true, past a certain age. But that threshold age from youthful to old is different for men and women. Most men aesthetically peak around 29-30 and stay there well into their late 30s. For women, their physical peak happens somewhere between the late teens and early 20s, and doesn’t stay there long.

Men who lift weights and don’t bloat up can look quite dashing to the majority of women well past their 30s. Women who lift and stay slender will keep their sexual worth longer as well, but not nearly as long as in-shape men keep theirs. So the adage that one should strike while the iron is hot is more germane to a woman’s romantic fortunes.

If men over 30 have any advantages in the dating market, they are:
1) MONEY – Very few younger men have any money worth bragging about and da wimminz do LOVELOVELOVE da moolah, all polls to the contrary.

Sure, women love da moolah, but it takes a LOT of moolah to activate a woman’s love programming. Merely being in the top quintile of SES won’t cut it. The entrance fee for unlimited access to poonworld rides is seven figures in the expensive shitlib cities. Given that most men boffing cute girls have nowhere near seven figures, it stands to reason that, although money may be a powerful attractant once accumulated over a very high amount, it’s a rather weak attractant below that number. Other, more important, factors contribute to a man’s success with women.

2) Social status – Very few younger men (athletes, rock stars) have the kind of ss women are looking for, their mostest favoritest sport being social climbing.

Younger men who aren’t musicians or athletes can accrue social status through sheer force of personality. If you make yourself the life of the party, women will notice. And, always worth reminding recalcitrant readers, BOLDNESS is itself a sign of a man’s social status. If you approach girls uncompromisingly, they will adorn you with a higher status than you would otherwise have had if you stayed in your little corner staring at them lustily.

The ZFG part is more something that benefits you, the guy, internally, as it makes failure easier to deal with.

ZFG does more, far more, than simply make courtship failure easier for a man to deal with, (specifically which in Game terminology is called “outcome independence”). Zero Fucks Given is an ATTITUDE, expressed manifold ways through a man’s words, behavior, and body language, that women have FINELY TUNED VAJDAR for recognizing, because it is in women’s DARWINIAN INTERESTS to hook up with and fall hard for men whose attitude suggests they could TAKE OR LEAVE those women. This kind of man is desirable BECAUSE he acts like he’s desirable. And desirable men have OPTIONS, which they show by never bending over backwards to appease or impress any one woman.

It’s not something she’s going to pick up on at da club, not even with her magical powers of ‘female intuition’ ESP………

Yes, she is. This is the gripe of someone who hasn’t been in a heated sex market arena in a long time. No ESP required. Women have a sense originating at the nexus of their hindbrains and tingling pussies for which men are high value, just like men have a sense originating at the nexus of their hindbrains and boners for which women are high value. Men react instinctively to the sight of a beautiful, height-weight proportionate young woman. Women react equally instinctively to the company of a masculine, devilishly charming, self-confident, ZFG man.

The sexual market is the prime market exactly because its machinations are governed by instinct instead of by considered forethought. It’s hard to undermine human instinct, though our Equalist Overlords are doing their level best to do just that.

Read Full Post »

There’s no question the Trump Temptresses are more attractive than the Hillary Harpies. The photographic evidence accumulates with every rally and selfie. Trump women flaunt hourglass figures and bubble with estrogen. Hillary Hags bomb the retinas with volumetric flask-like waistlines and attitudes dripping caustically with androgen overload.

So it is with no surprise that supporters of TheCunt can be so easily triggered merely by holding up a mirror to them. They know their visages say more about their worldview than any 12,000-word New York Beta Times article could glowingly conceive for them.

CH Maxim #200: Pointing out a feminist’s masculine, ugly physiognomy or a manlet’s androgynous physiognomy is reliable shorthand for their politics.

(One Twatterlord put it pith-wise, “You can tell a man’s politics from his upper body strength. A woman’s by her waist size.”)

Swinging this around to the topic of Game and politics, reader Freereel forwards,

[H]ere’s a great strategy cribbed from the blog Poseidon Awoke:

“Let’s face it, Bernie and Hillary have a terrible branding problem: their supporters are just not attractive. Have you seen Hillary supporters? Lena Dunham is a perfect example. Yuck.

On the other hand, beautiful women love Trump and masculine men want to be Trump. I’ve even seen some predictions of a Trump-inspired baby-boom, which is certainly possible.

As I’ve said before, I spend some of my time in the Trenches meme-ing things into reality. And a Trump presidency is one of those things. I’ve also been learning from Vox Day about the difference between rhetoric and dialectic. When someone attacks Trump with some nonsense charge, a dialectician will attempt to counter with a logical argument, facts and reason. However, humans are rarely persuaded by dialectic. Humans are persuaded by rhetoric. So, I have a new kill shot for those who attack Trump. I post a picture of a hot Trump supporter.

Because Hillary and Bernie supporters are cat-ladies and low-T bronies, they are unattractive, so they have no response. Images like these arouse normal males to want the girl that supports Trump. It’s just animal instinct. Women want to be like the women that men want, so they want to be this girl. This is rhetoric in action. No words, just a picture of a hot Trump supporter. Luckily, there are millions of hot Trump supporters.

It’s a kill shot.

Pickup and politics are kissing cousins. Both utilize the principles of seduction to win the hearts of women and of voters. One paramount Game concept — amused mastery — is the courtship equivalent of meme-worthy rhetoric. In practice, amused mastery manifests as quippy retorts to women’s shit tests, or quasi-juvenile observations of a woman or her surroundings, or dismissive indifference to a woman’s tantrums and dramatics. This is the stuff of ZFG alpha males, and women LOVE LOVE LOVE it.

Amused mastery in the political sphere would appear as a photo of a fat bluehair Hillary voter or a raging, arm-flapping SJW feminist in id-carving response to some shitlib regurgitating boilerplate shitlibbery. The brutalist juxtaposition is a nuke to her anti-antifragile ego. It’s like when a potential date you’re texting starts asking you what you can do for her and talks about the cool guys she knows, and you reply with a Birthday Cat emoji. A rapport break like that can’t be answered. All she can do is laugh with growing desire at your alpha impudence.

Dialectic is the preferred form of communication when level-headed White men are drawing up policies to ensure prosperity for their nation and a future for their posterity. But we don’t live in that world anymore. Our world is tribal wagon-circling and feral women. Dialectic falls on deaf ears in an Idiocracy and in a Jizzocracy.

Rhetoric has the stage now. The beta male who patiently and thoroughly explores all the logical implications of a woman’s emotional extemporizing will bore her to tears. No sex for him. As it is in 2016 American politics; the cuckservative who patiently and thoroughly explores all the Constitutional implications of a liberal’s destructive anti-White animus will ostracize himself from the public discourse. No influence for him.

The ideal set-up for the alt-right rebel is rhetoric + dialectic. Get your kill shot in, then cow the others with an unanticipated foray into informed dialectic. This is a war that needs its meme MOABs as much as its persuasion personnel.

Read Full Post »

The newest thought-stopping libfag incantation to join classics such as “It’s [the current year]”, “I can’t even”, and “right side of history”, is “That’s not who we are”. You can hear our esteemed pleaders like president Gay Mulatto, TheCunt, and Paul “I can’t put my ankles any farther behind my ears” Ryan saying it, especially in response to Donald J. Trump’s eminently sensible accusation in the AIDS-soaked wake of the Orlando gay nightclub shooting that Muslim immigration to America presents a dire threat to citizens.

(It really does. A Muslim in America is 5,000% more likely to commit an act of terror than a non-Muslim American. As one alt-right shiv-wielder on Twatter wrote to preempt the predictable shitlib response: “Oddly enough, I don’t find the position that we have an ample supply of idiots and bad guys here a compelling reason to import more.”)

What does “that’s not who we are” really mean? As with all shitlibboleths, there’s nothing of substance underneath the faggy pomp. Pin down a lib on this empty slogan and he’ll twist in the wind whistling through his empty skull trying to come up with a coherent explanation. Are we all self-hating Whites? Are we all avatars of altruistic love eager to permit the resettlement of 7 billion foreigners into our neighborhoods and homes? Are we all similarly disposed to redirect our rational fear of Muslim terrorism onto law-abiding White men who aren’t sufficiently prostrate to the reigning equalist narrative?

The reality is that when shitlibs with an affinity for Islam and the Other, and a kneejerk resentment of Whites, (like the Gay Mulatto), say “that’s not who we are”, what they mean, more precisely, is “that’s not who the degenerate freak mafia are”. And that would be true. The degenerate freak mafia, of which the spiteful half-breed Obama is a proud member, are not friends of common sense, not given to honest appraisal of reality, not advocates of pattern recognition, not guarantors of a livable nation for their posterity, not satisfied with a personal quiet ethics that substitutes for a public virtue signaling, not psychologically capable of race realism, and not visceral defenders of what is true and beautiful.

That is not who they are, and the sooner Americans know this about them, the quicker they will be cast out to the prolapsed wastelands where they can be who they are all by themselves….until they get sick and tired of their own company and stop being who they are in a bathtub of warm water.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,571 other followers

%d bloggers like this: