Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Ugly Truths’ Category

Agree with this guy. The above could be Trump’s 2016 campaign poster. He’d clean up the White vote. And still get more black votes than compassionate cuckservative Bush did. Heh.

The cold-blooded racist anti-White dindu murderer once sued for “racism in the workplace”. It is to laugh.

these are the stakes.
five decades, maybe six, of ruling class and hivemind attack drone anti-white antiracism propaganda
aimed at the soft heart of core america
a weaponized arsenal of semantics
arming and inspiring the fringe antagonists
demonizing and demoralizing
one generation of whites after another
while extolling the numinous barbarians
who multiply in number and in self-regard
a coordinated hate machine of self-denial
self-loathing
and self-dispossession
corrupting the minds of white children
and their parents
and poisoning even their will to survive
to see the world clearly
to grasp the rules of this deadly game
to understand their enemies and to deal with them effectively.
a vicious blackbody, (high yella), like so many of his ingrate kind
imbibes this forty of establishment glorification
of his purity and virtue
until the envy which is his inevitable fate
in a multiparous societal placenta of unequal ability and moral sense
collides with the government sanctioned message
of his angelic goodness
his virility
his smarts and bravado
and, contradictorily, his enervating martyrdom
as he suffers christ-like the burden
of evil, malevolent, invidious white racism
and he becomes convinced
his redemption
lies in the slaughter of his tormentors
after all
who would complain?
two dead happy whites, and one likely crippled white?
to whom would they complain?
those most like them
most expected to defend their place in the world
and a place for their children
long ago
deemed them expendable to the greater cause
Alison Parker’s and Adam Ward’s lifeblood

drips

drips

drips

from the US government’s hands.
from academia’s hands.
from the mass media’s hands.
from every vile sjw’s hand.
from cuckservatives’ hands.

will these treacherous vipers
be held accountable
for creating and sustaining and breathing satanic life into this decades-long war against one people?
for stoking the rage of the enemies of this people?
the one people who, through their ingenuity and fortitude, built the very nest
that swaddles and nourishes
the vipers
who strike at them relentlessly, fangs bared.

we’ll see.

Read Full Post »

Another cherished feminist and equalist shitlibboleth falls. Fat chicks were never attractive to men. There never was a “fatopia” in history when low sexual market value manatees battled the patriarchy’s beauty standards and won. Fat women have ALWAYS been repulsive to the vast majority of men.

And CH has long been on record reminding the fat acceptors and fatty fat apologists that their quest to overturn men’s innate preference for slender babes is a quixotic one doomed to end in oleaginous tears.

As if ❤️SCIENCE❤️ hadn’t already stamped more than enough Chateau real world observations with its liberal-approved (heh) imprimatur, along comes another trove of historical research (re)discovering the wisdom of the ancients that men prefer slim-waisted beauties, and that this preference is about as universal as a human mate preference gets (h/t thejerk):

Slim waists have been the mark of attractive women throughout history, says a US scholar who has analysed thousands of ancient texts.

Dr Devendra Singh scoured references to fictional beauties from modern times back to early Indian literature.

He found that slimness was the most common term of praise from an author. […]

In the most recent research, he looked at how ‘attractive’ women were depicted in literature, analysing more than 345,000 texts, mainly from the 16th to 18th centuries.

While most of the writings were British and American, there was a small selection of Indian and Chinese romantic and erotic poetry dating from the 1st to the 6th century of the Christian era.

While the most-often mentioned feature was the breasts, waistlines were mentioned 66 times, with a slim waist predominantly linked to attractiveness.

Objective female beauty standards are timeless, unchangeable, and hated by the ugly, fat, and misshapen.

This shiv gleams with the bloody blubbery wetness of a skewered fatty, but the good doctor Singh has one more wound to carve in the distended porcine bellies of the slovenly shambling mounds.

Dr Singh said: “The common historical assumption in the social sciences has been that the standards of beauty are arbitrary, solely culturally determined and in the eye of the beholder.

“The finding that the writers describe a small waist as beautiful suggests instead that this body part – a known marker of health and fertility – is a core feature of feminine beauty that transcends ethnic differences and cultures.”

And that is why America has never been uglier, in body and spirit, than she is today, groaning under the weight of an obesity epidemic and fracturing from the tinnitus caused by the whiny wails of a million butthurt losers.

******

And that is not all the shiv we have today! There’s yet more shanky goodness. CH has written about the grade inflation in women’s dress sizes to accommodate, physically and psychologically, the zaftig proportions of the modern emporkered American woman with an ego as thin-skinned as her hide is thickly equipped.

And no wonder manufacturers have sought to “vanity size” their dresses for sale to a growing (heh) market of waddling wursts. The average American woman today weighs about as much as the average 1960s man! To my American male readers, the odds are good that you are banging a woman you’d have as much trouble throwing over your shoulder as you would have had with your father or grandfather in their primes. Sleep on that.

A follow-up to that CH post about women’s dress sizes comes via reader Critical Eye. Inflation strikes again:

A size 8 dress today is nearly the equivalent of a size 16 dress in 1958. And a size 8 dress of 1958 doesn’t even have a modern-day equivalent — the waist and bust measurements of a Mad Men-era 8 come in smaller than today’s size 00. […]

Enter the era of vanity sizing. Clothing manufacturers realized that they could flatter consumers by revising sizes downward. The measurements that added up to a size 12 in 1958 would get redefined to a size 6 by 2011.

And Lena’s getting laaaaaaaaaarger!!

Critical Eye observes that the Fat Acceptance bowel movement “comes with Offishal Imprimatur:  the clothing sizes are maintained by the American Society of Testing and Materials.”

Fat fucks can take a backhanded comfort in the assuaging of their wide load egos by Offishal government organizations devoted to spreading a Valdez-sized oil slick of lies over everything true and beautiful in the world, but in the end the only imprimatur that matters is the serrated CH Shiv leaving its insignia in the marbled vitals of these filth-peddling grotesqueries.

******

This is a truthnbeauty post, so hatefact news about Diversity™ is related to exposing the lies of the Fat Acceptors: diversity lowers a firm’s market value.

Most likely share values drop when a firm’s board adds more women because investors are discounting the future rate of return of the firm based on two unflattering facts about the Diversity Danegeld: one, that a company which moves its focus to social justice adventurism loses focus from its profit-making ability, and two, an increase in female board members will result, given time, in a decrease in firm performance. (Hi, Carly!)

PS Commenter JP makes a great analogy between stock portfolio diversity and racial/ethnic diversity:

When you over-diversify your stock portfolio, you don’t ever outperform the market. You just sort of putter along, rising and falling with the all-share index while everyone else gets rich. The same applies to diversity uber alles.

PPS

Yes, I know it’s ‘shopped, but the visual alone sans placard (the hooters chick was originally carrying a drink order) would’ve sufficed to get the point across. A happy, smiling hottie, content to be a pleasing decoration for men, horrifies an ugly feminist by her mere cavorting presence. Low mutational load rape!

Read Full Post »

Nothing.

Or, more precisely, less than nothing. She became unhappier.

The husband bent over backwards to fulfill his wife’s every demand, and the result is tragicomically predictable: gina tingles extinguished.

For the past year or so, my husband has ceased to be able to turn me on, to the point where I am almost repulsed by our lovemaking. Recently, I broke down and told him everything. Since then, he has done everything in his power to get us back on track. The problem is now me! Even though this is all I’ve wanted, I can’t bear to be touched in certain areas.

Never mind the couples therapist answer. As per usual for the quality of output typical of this field of inquiry, it’s garbage. A commenter’s sarcastic jab gets it more right: “I love you, but I’m not in love with you.”

Ok, just to torture the CH reading audience, here’s a sample of the couples therapist’s answer (a woman, natch):

This “hot potato” syndrome is not uncommon: one partner has an issue, but once he throws it off, the other catches something too hot to handle. In many ways, it is a good thing that your husband is responding so energetically to your plea for change, and you did an excellent job of moving beyond what had become a long-term impasse.

Yes, clearly what the husband needs to do is more of what didn’t work at all.

For example, you say you don’t like to be touched in certain places, so the exact details of this must be gently communicated to him, and he needs to be shown exactly what you would prefer.

As the feminist sages tell us, women are really turned on by having to read an instruction manual to their men on the proper use of their bodies during lovemaking.

You have done very well so far – be brave enough to address the next steps, which are largely about better communication.

“Better communication” to solve all your relationship problems! Empty platitude, the stock in trade of marriage counselors everywhere. The unhappy wife wrote to the worse-than-useless psychotherapist shell entity informing her STRAIGHT UP that she told her husband everything, and he did everything he could to meet her demands. What part of that suggests this relationship needs to be addressed with “better communication”? Sounds like they were communicating their marriage to an early bed death!

I shouldn’t be surprised anymore, but the alacrity with which marriage and couples counselors and creeeeeeedentialed “psychotherapists” resort to droning bromides devoid of any explicit advice that might prove useful to saving relationships but carries the baggage of gently disturbing the gentle egos of gentle wives with gently feminist views about the moral supremacy of the female prerogative and the assumption of the male’s automatic fault in any scenario stuns even experienced observers of the junk therapist scene such as yours truly.

This couple deserve better advice than what a one Pamela Stephenson Connolly can offer them. CH to the rescue…

To the wife: First, make sure it isn’t some serious physiological issue, like CVD or something that could affect your sexual response. For that, see a medical doctor, i.e. a real doctor. But, odds are it isn’t a medical problem.

The way to bet is that your husband is a beta male — that is, dependable, reliable, generous, deferential… and utterly unsexy — and that his beta maleness got worse the longer your marriage went on. It’s not uncommon for men to get soft in body and attitude once they’ve settled into the marital comfort zone.

If this is the cause of your turtling sexuality, I’m afraid anything you do could only make matters worse. This is because there is a natural disconnect in your female brain between what actually turns you on and what you think SHOULD turn you on. You will, therefore, be unable to give your husband any advice that would work.

To the husband: STOP doing what you’re doing, and do the opposite. Instead of appeasing your wife, ask her to do things for you. No, DEMAND of her those things. Stop supplicating, and instead assume that you are God’s gift to womankind and can do no wrong. Apologize for nothing, make no excuses for her. Be unpredictable. Leave her for a spell, preferably unannounced. Tease her, poke fun at her, squeeze her hip fat with a disapproving glare, flirt with other women as she watches. In sum, initialize the first sequences of Dread Game.

After a few weeks of this wifely romantic reprogramming, grab her when the mood hits you, and start tearing off her clothes, oblivious to her mewls of protest. If your psychological preparations have been successful, she will relent and shake off an orgasm like a dog shitting a peach pit.

If not, consider cutting her loose and saving your newfound self-confidence for another woman who will submit to your love in the way every man secretly desires a woman to do. Even the effete hipster manlets.

Read Full Post »

There’s a theory floating around alt-blogs that human IQ in the developed world has been steadily decreasing since about the dawn of agriculture. The working hypothesis is that agriculture enabled dense urban life to develop, and cities are known population sinks (lack of space/high cost/disease vectors all contribute to lower fertility rates in cities).

The thinking goes that cities attract smarter people, who upon settling into urban mimosavilles promptly forget the Darwinian Prime Directive and fail to reproduce themselves in sufficient numbers. 1.5 sprog per hipster village yenta is a recipe for extinction. (Which is not necessarily a bad thing.)

I don’t know if I buy this theory of decreasing IQ in total, but if true, I can suggest another plausible mechanism that is far more pertinent today, now that disease threat and high child mortality have largely been eliminated. This mechanism is far darker than disease or child mortality, once you get to peering at it closely in your skull ham.

You could call this the CH-ian “The Pill, The Rubber, and Abortion, Oh My!” theory of dysgenia.

The speculative specs: Evolution has slowly, and sometimes quickly, produced human populations with great intelligence (on average). As these population groups gained smarts, they reconfigured their environment so powerfully that their cultures began to exert more influence than the natural world did on how their progeny would evolve.

Gene-culture co-evolution became the order of the day. Civilization sprouted and flourished. And it was good. Until…

These groups of humans became so smart that they outwitted — for a time — the second evolutionary guiding principle of reproduction. They invented Pills and Rubbers and safe and cheap Abortions, thus allowing themselves the joy of sex without the joylessness of changing diapers.

Smarter people, having by their inherent mental dispositions a lower threshold for the tedious and boring tasks of infant care, stopped having so many babies. But smarter people USED to have more babies than dumber people! What happened since then? Well, when pre-20th Century smart people had sex — which they never found boring — they were often stuck with the consequences. Most of them simply accepted the boredom of child-rearing as a necessary component of life.

Once the Era of The Pill, Rubber, and Abortion began in earnest, smart people saw the wisdom, from their own personal hedonistic perspectives, of using these smarthuman-created tools to separate the consequences of boring child-rearing from the titillation of sex. End result: Fewer smarties having kids, more dummies taking up the slack, dysgenia in full black lotus bloom.

For the first time, perhaps, on a large scale, humans had made an end run around a Darwinian First Principle. Humans — some humans, anyway — had become TOO SMART and invented pregnancy-thwarting tech that also thwarted the cosmic, and divine, imperatives. The Pill, The Rubber, and Abortion may be making us dumber!

Hard double-blind, metabolically-controlled ¡SCIENCE! evidence for this “PRA” theory is sparse and mostly circumstantial, but it is out there. For instance, in a study of German parents, having a child lowered their happiness more than any other life change, including death of a spouse!

And of course there are the oft-cited stats of later age of first marriage and lowered fertility plaguing almost the entire Pan Western developed world.

There are countercurrents pushing against the PRA theory of dumbing down humanity. The Pill seems to alter women’s sexual preferences so strongly that they choose less masculine beta males as partners if they were on the Pill during the time of choosing. This would imply that these women would have more kids, Pill-disposed as they are to settling into family life with a beta provider. However, it could conceivably run the other way: Once married and thinking about having kids, women who get off the Pill might suddenly become repulsed by their babyfatted betahubbies as their ovulatory machine revs up again after a hiatus of many years. This could lead to an increase in divorce (which in fact has been happening throughout the West since the 1960s) and consequently a decrease in children (or a decrease in children born in wedlock).

Is the evolution of human intelligence self-limiting? If it is, will societies respond by banning the Pill, the Rubber, and the Abortion? Or will we just have to ride this one out for a few millennia, until the fitness maximizer pendulum swings back to the smart set? Either way, going on the way the West is going now, something’s gonna give.

Read Full Post »

A commenter, jjbees, leaves a profoundly pointed anecdote in reply to genial Audacious E’s righteous rage against the dying of the White Light,

It’s simply impossible for whites to thrive when there are too many minorities around.

If we want to reach the heights of civilization, to visit the moon again, to colonize mars, to automate cars and have robots servicing all of our needs, to genetically engineer disease out of existence, we simply can’t be around minorities, specifically black people.

When my family lived in an urban ghetto (us white, 99.999% of our neighbors black) one of our main worries was survival. Are the guns loaded, did you lock the doors. Oh look, your bicycle was stolen out of the garage by your next door neighbor who we invited to have dinner with us last week (no shit, it happened). Having to drive to school every morning 3 towns over to avoid a 90% minority school (and therefore not get beaten).

Then we moved to a rural town, 100% white, where I could explore in the woods, ride my bicycle around town, never get robbed or threatened or beaten, where I could read books in peace, and we left the doors unlocked at night, and my intellect could flourish and I could dream of a beautiful future and live, not merely exist in a hardscrabble fight against a mean world. I thank god my parents were smart enough to do that for me and for us.

We can spend all our national treasure letting our natural enemies make their home right next door, we can feed them, and clothe them, and let them make more and more of themselves as we dwindle and become less and less, ad infinitum, working ever harder, ever longer, just for them, until we are nothing and there is nothing more to give, and our dreams are dead forever.

Or we can just. say. no.

No means no, except when the question is how best to secure a future for White Americans.

It’s a favorite shitlib shitlibboleth to claim that poverty causes crime, but the opposite of that formulation has more truth in it: crime causes poverty. Poverty of the wallet as well as of the mind. jjbees is right; when you fear for your safety every day of your life, and approach every social interaction with an enervating, distrustful cynicism borne of hard experience dealing with aliens who’d sooner screw you over if the screwing was good, you’ll sacrifice inordinate mental and physical energy navigating the shoals of Diversity™ that could be better spent tapping the unquenchable human spirit that your great (and unique!) European ancestors bequeathed you to advance civilization.

This is the price of Diversity™: slow attrition of living space for the individual, his family, and his intellectual, aesthetic, and spiritual aspirations. To think that the mental template of White Europeans evolved only in the last 5,000 years, and probably later than that, is to realize the precious gift of your genetic and cultural inheritance, and how easy it is to throw it all away for a return to the abyss.

But, hey, White’s be raciss an sheeeit, and who’s gonna mow your lawn?

PS As per usual when these topics about self-determination come up, a “white” troll with a fever for the flavor of a Yellow Eskimo drops his stinky “I love diverse neighborhoods as long as they’re full of high IQ slants and shekels” schtick. But as the Audacious One rightly reprimands, IQ isn’t everything. Not even close. The dimensions of personality and… wait for it… moral character, all of it passed on by chromosome and community, play a big role in how trusting we are with our neighbors and consequently how much faith and investment we put into our little islands of civilization.

Thriving in a mixed neighborhood of functional, middle-class or affluent two-parent households with children is of course attainable, but that sort of neighborhood tends to have less community cohesion/neighborliness than a homogeneous neighborhood with of intact families of means (a la Robert Putnam’s now famous study). I live near Cerner, Sprint, and Garmin headquarters and consequently a lot of my neighbors are Asian (South and East). They take care of their houses as well as anyone else and we always get a reciprocated wave, but they don’t tend to come outside to chat it up when my son and some of the other kids in the neighborhood are running around.

And of course NAMs are disproportionately less likely to meet the functional, two-parent household criteria.

A nation crumbles inexorably to its slow expiration when its native sons drop below 80% of the total population for more than a few generations. The US is about to head down that r-selected rabbit hole. This ride won’t end well unless someone hits the brakes hard and slaps it into reverse. It may already be too late, but standing against the tide beats a glum suicide walk into the briny deep.

Read Full Post »

Although rare, one does occasionally encounter the younger grown man-older woman couple. (I specify “grown man”, because there is room in the sexual market for inexperienced teenage and early 20s beta males to pop their cherries in the easy and uncomplicated, if road-worn, guiding folds of older woman orifice.)

The married younger man-older woman is a coupling that seems to defy not just evolutionary theory but also common sense. Why would a man so ludicrously work against his reproductive interests? There is already a built-in preference among women to date and marry older men than themselves, and a woman’s fertility window is much shorter than a man’s. One would have to be either a fetishist who gets his GILF freak on, or a complete loser lacking any confidence in his ability to marry at least a few boner-inspiring years down the poon market.

While fetishists of every stripe exist, they are so rare — much rarer than the noise their advocates make on SJW comment boards where all that matters is parroting the Pantywaist Line — that it’s safe to compartmentalize them into a box full of Darwinian exceptions who don’t violate the general rule governing sex interactions.

More common are the lesser beta and omega male losers who have so little to offer women, or who believe they have so little to offer, that they settle, with a sad resignation they have spent their lives expertly concealing under self-soothing bromides and plastic smiles from public inquisition, for older broads with short shelf lives and lowered standards.

If the numbers of these loser husband-older wife couples are increasing, (anecdotally, there does appear to be a slight uptick in their numbers, mirroring the slight uptick in the numbers of white women-black men couples. I invite the reader to make the relevant connection), we can identify a number of social changes that may be contributing to the odd pairings.

Reader corvinus explains,

CH: and then marry, if he wishes to marry, a younger woman.

This. About 10 years younger.

As to why it’s considered the norm to marry a woman the same age as you, I have a couple of ideas:

1) Social pressure, especially from the women.
2) Online dating, which has a stronger age-homogamy bias than IRL.
3) Lack of game on the men’s part.

Interestingly enough, apparently during the recession, the age at first marriage has gone up faster for men than for women, suggesting that women are more willing to consider marrying somewhat older men than they were before.

During times of economic hardship, women smartly choose established men with more resources (betas). The inverse is also true: during times of female economic self-sufficiency, women vaginally choose charming jerkboys with or without resources.

Corvinus has hit on the big three reasons why younger man-older women marriages continue to exist and offend good taste.

Social pressure is a big deal, because women are the lemming sex and bend to the will of the group more readily than do men. If more older women are getting locked out of the chase for older, resource-rich men, then they will seek succor from their misery by propagandizing the wonderful wonderfulness of fucking younger men in short-term flings. (We here at CH know better. These women hurt badly on the inside.) The lies of feminism can have an impact on how socially comfortable women feel about dating older men.

Online dating does create a sex market skew against the intangibles of courtship. That is, women who try to find a man exclusively online will subconsciously bias the crude, artless markers of a man’s SMV — his listed age and profile pic — at the expense of the complex, refined cues of his seductive prowess (amply explored in the CH archives). Luckily, there are plenty of smooth moves a man can execute to evade this age-homogamy bias of online dating.

Lack of game. This is the big pink tuna. In my travels around the world of women, I’ve come to observe that younger man-older woman relationships are invariably of four kinds:

– The older woman was preternaturally attractive and slender, and competing in a local market filled with chubby younger women and off-the-market married men. In this milieu, an older woman (but not too much older) will capture the interest of younger unmarried men fed up with the feeding schedules of their female peers.

– The younger man was a beta male to the core. This is the explanation for 90% of younger man-older woman marriages. You take a lesser beta with little experience bedding women, add an older, sexually aggressive broad with her talons out for contractually locking down an indentured servant a husband, and you’ve got a combustible situation the beta has no hope of exerting any control over its direction. These couples flout natural law because the beta male has few sexual market options, or believes in his heart he has few options. Scarcity mentality is the soulkiller of masculinity.

– The younger man was black, the older woman a flabby white. For biomechanical reasons I don’t feel like hammering into submission yet again, it is an observable fact that black men are simply more tolerant of SMV hideousness in the women they screw, and this goes double when black men date white women. A black man will spear white land whales or go down on the wrinkled vag flaps of old white women that no white man would touch.

– The older woman was rich. Many of the younger men in these relationships are closeted gays on the psychopathy spectrum.

tl;dr: There’s a reason we feel an emotional swell of harmoniousness when we see older man-younger woman couples, and we feel a jolt of emotional discomfort when we see the opposite.

Update

I forgot to mention sex ratio skew as a potential cause of increased younger man-older woman marriages. In a prime nubility market in which men outnumbered (against the historical average) the available hot young minxes, there would be immense pressure at the younger male margins to tragically settle for older women who are the sexual and/or marital discards of older alpha men in the process of trading up to younger lovers. An ahistorical sex ratio skew can introduce plenty of tumult and “black swans” into the normal functioning of the sexual market.

Read Full Post »

It’s time for a sequel to the original “International Truth Day“.

– the ugliness of the world is proven by the energy devoted to hiding that ugliness under mountains of platitudes and self-deluding hokum.

– i have yet to see an exception to the rule that fat men who lose weight promptly start dating thinner girls than they dated when they were fat.

– the specter of options, or lack thereof, is always haunting one’s choices, despite any assertions to the contrary.

– christie brinkley at 60 beats lindy west at 220.

– christie brinkley at 20 beats christie brinkley at 60, no matter how good 60-year-old christie “looks for her age”.

– eventually, money, or space, will run out. when either does, liberal pieties will vanish in a puff of smoke, as if they had never existed. don’t underestimate the flimsy nature of post-industrial morality.

– female “natural beauty” is spoken of with sentimental reverence, because it is so rare, and the rarer still not long past the teenage years.

– nearly all women look better with strategically applied make-up. maybe one in a thousand women are equally attractive without cosmetic illusion.

– the numbers of women who look just as good without makeup are dwarfed by the numbers of women who ruin their looks with too much makeup. this proves that women universally understand the critical importance of artificially improving their appearance to remain attractive to men.

– a woman will fish an alpha male’s used condom out of the trash to impregnate herself. she’ll demand her beta boyfriend wear a condom.

– guilt is a man’s second wife.

– later marriages = passionless marriages. the marital norm is shifting to less passion.

– fat men desire the same thing that thin men desire: slender babes. ugly old women desire the same thing that hot, young women desire: sexy alpha males. the demand far outstrips the supply. in economic terms, sexual desire is inelastic while the stimulants of sexual desire are a scarce resource.

– in the trade-off between inelastic sexual desire and scarce desire stimulants, we find the innumerable losers starved for affection.

– there will never be a post-scarcity sexual economy. not even one in which beauty and charm are genetically engineered to perfection. in the gattaca of the future, all it takes is one man trying to get a leg up on others for the equalist utopia to shatter.

– “diversity is our strength” is the Prime Lie of our age.

– Liberal Race Creationism is the Totalitarianism of our age. like Totalitarianism, Liberal Race Creationism is destined to fall.

– fathers provide confidence, mothers provide comfort. when parents attempt to reverse those roles, their children suffer emotional distress.

– the ideal long-term relationship dynamic is one in which the woman is (if such an intersex comparison could be made) more physically appealing than the man, and the man is more socially appealing than the woman.

– options = instability.

– the WAR (Wins Above Replacement) stat in baseball is useful as a sexual market analytic. the higher a man’s WAR (Women Above Replacement, or the number of additional women he could get above the number of women the average man is expected to get), the more valuable he will be to women scouting for mates.

– the only pro-natalist argument that makes any philosophical sense is the hedonistic argument: that is, the true pleasure of having and raising kids over a lifetime outweighs their psychic, social and material costs and the opportunity cost of giving up pleasures derived from other sources… unless the premise of an illimitable black void after death is wrong, in which case competing pro-natalist arguments gain currency.

– philosophy is nice, but unfalsifiable human emotions will have the final say.

– if nonwhite immigrants become more patriotic and flag-waving, expect to see white natives become less so. tribes demand differences, even if those differences must be paid in a sacrifice of civic fellowship.

– if a wife or girlfriend calls you her “best friend”, start looking for replacement pussy. you’re already pushed halfway out the door.

– synthetic vaginal lubricant is the tribute frigid wives pay to their beta husbands.

– it’s easy to control the frame once you stop giving a shit. corollary: you will almost always cede the frame if you care more than the other person.

– when you observe naturals to learn their ways, you will fortuitously learn more about women than about naturals.

– discretion is the better part of seduction, but the conventional wisdom is wrong: women are often the ones to break the code of silence first, especially when they have developed strong feelings for a man.

– a man’s romantic love for a woman fades in direct proportion to the fade of her looks plus the time spent in a monogamous relationship with her.

– in every successful, long-lasting relationship, romantic love was replaced by companionate love.

– kink is just a desperate attempt by unattractive has-beens to recapture the sexual passion of youth.

– a big penis is like PEDs; it’s prohibited from use in precisely those circumstances when it could be most useful.

– the meaning of life is still to fuck.

– politeness never defeated an existential threat.

– men in long, happy marriages to first or second loves can never give insightful advice about women. for that, turn to cads with recent experience and a high N sample size.

– strong evil beats weak good every time.

– SJW hate merchants make the fatal mistake of assuming their hate can be limited to those targets with whom it is hard to empathize. but hate is a fragmentation grenade. blowback is inevitable.

– a dead lion is worth more to white liberals than a million aborted black fetuses.

– eventually, in every relationship, terms of endearment and professions of love become as perfunctory as belching. and about as meaningful.

– cynicism is the handmaiden of experience; hope is the burden of innocence.

– a rapist (bill clinton) and a community organizer (barack butt naked) were elected president twice.

– a lonely woman inspires sympathy. a lonely man inspires contempt.

– racism is normal, natural, healthy… and most evident in the actions of those claiming otherwise.

– when women aren’t openly adoring cruel men, they are sleeping with them.

– women who shun men with standards are the women who can’t live up to them.

– a man with strict standards is like a beautiful woman; both make their lovers feel like they have acquired something priceless.

– fake it till you make it, and once made you will no longer be faking it.

– this, too, shall pass, but you’ll probably be dead before then.

– love is easily missed, carelessly denied, fleetingly intense, nakedly vulnerable… and for all these reasons it is more precious than anything else in this world.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,325 other followers

%d bloggers like this: