Good White Liberal Translation Dictionary

Over at GLPiggy’s, a discussion has ensued about an article written by a white man describing his experience growing up in a predominantly black neighborhood in Philadelphia. It’s the heartwarming story of a good white liberal daring to confront his deepest, darkest thoughts on the subject of race and what we in the sanity industry call “reality”.

Normally, good white liberal forays into the topic of urban real estate require a handy dandy translator service if you aren’t up to speed with the encryption used to guard the moral boundaries that separate crimethink (what we in the candor industry call “realtalk”) from cocktail party sophistry. That pulpit isn’t going to draw the flocks of finger-waggers if you can’t maintain the plausible deniability of the self-righteous neo-Puritan thundering against the boogeyman of Southron witches.

Good White Liberal Translation Dictionary

“dangerous” = black
“bad” = black
“sketchy” = black
“marginal” = black
“touch and go” = black
“rough” = black
“crime prone” = black
“inconvenient” = no cabs = black
“gun free zone” = black, as translated from the MSM-ese
“no-go” = 100% black
“ghetto” = archaic, so black has become unacceptable as a euphemism
“teen gangs” = the blackest of black
“seedy” = black + street walkers
“scary” = witnessed a black committing a crime there
“tricky” = black, with some mestizos
“crazy” = more trannies than blacks
“edgy” = African immigrant blacks with jobs + overpaid gay web designers
“borderline” = black, but saw some white faces and exhaled with relief
“decent” = less black
“up and coming” = even less black
“expensive” = non-black
“yuppie” = been non-black so long forgot how bad black was
“boring” = asian

This translation dictionary is a valuable companion on your sojourns through the land of clever silly SPWLs. Good luck trying to get a high verbal IQ SWPL to admit to what they’re actually saying. You may as well try to squeeze blood from a lawyerchick. But now you don’t have to do the impossible; with this dictionary, you’ll be able to suffer through semantic legerdemain while nodding knowingly and hoisting a craft brew in tacit tribal affiliation.

Read Full Post »

Was Satoshi Kanazawa Right?

Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary scientist and former columnist at Psychology Today who wrote an article (since pulled, and which got him fired from the magazine) about the attractiveness of the different races of women, (concluding that black women were the least attractive), might, in the end, have had his analysis vindicated.

Peter Frost, over at his blog, Evo and Proud, has a good post delving into a study by Michael Lewis et al which examined the attractiveness of the big three races. He starts with a primer about the evidence that beauty is not in the eye of the beholder, it is objectively measurable and only “subjective” inasmuch as the perception of objective beauty resides in the individual brain.

Notions of human beauty seem to develop along similar lines in all humans. Children as young as 2-3 months old look longer at female faces that adults have rated as attractive, be they white infants looking at faces of black women rated by black men or black infants looking at faces of white women rated by white men (Langlois et al., 2000; Langlois et al., 1991; Langlois et al., 1987; Langlois and Stephen, 1977). Similar findings have been obtained with adults of various racial/ethnic origins (Bernstein et al., 1982; Cunningham et al., 1995; Maret, 1983; Miller, 1969; Perrett et al., 1994).

In the most comprehensive of these studies, Cunningham et al. (1995) assessed criteria of female beauty among men of different ethnic backgrounds: Taiwanese, White Americans, Black Americans, and recently arrived Asian and Hispanic students. All of them perceived a female face to be more attractive when possessing high eyebrows, widely spaced large eyes with dilated pupils, high cheekbones, small nose, narrow face with thin cheeks, large smile, full lower lip, small chin, and fuller hairstyle.

To be sure, the East Asian men tended to prefer more immature and inexpressive faces whereas the Black American men tended to prefer women with larger buttocks and a heavier body build. These differences in preference, however, are much smaller than the differences in physique that actually exist among human populations.

Just as I have been saying: there are universal beauty standards molded by smaller regional racial preferences.

So what happens when physically different populations come into contact with each other? Are some judged to be better looking than others? And is there consensus on this judgment?

The anticipation is killing you! I hope it lasts.

Finally, Lewis addresses the possibility that this gender asymmetry may reflect an underlying asymmetry in sexual attractiveness: “If there are differences between the relative attractiveness of the genders between different races then asymmetries in interracial marriage will follow.” To this end, he asked male and female volunteers to rate the attractiveness of human faces that differed by ethnicity and gender. Of the male raters, 15 were White, 2 were Black, and 3 were Asian. Of the female raters, 14 were White, 3 were Black, and 3 were Asian.

The results are shown at the top of this post. Female raters gave the highest ratings to Black men, followed by White men and East Asian men. Male raters gave the highest ratings to East Asian women, followed by White women and Black women. There was no significant interaction between the race of the rater and the race of the face being rated.

This research, at least, supports Kanazawa’s theory that black women are the least attractive of the major races of women. Read the comments to Frost’s post as well. They are very good and blessedly free of feminist or equalist cant, even the ones which question the validity of the study or the conclusions one can draw from the data. Interestingly, in the chart appended to the top of Frost’s post, the standard deviation — or “spread” — of beauty is highest among white people (and lowest among blacks, except for Asian males). So, although the white beauty average is higher, there are more very ugly people and very beautiful people within the white race. The spread between ugly and hot, in other words, is greatest among whites. This observation falls in line with what appears to be a general trend for whites to have very large spreads in quality along multiple measurable human traits.

White people are, essentially, nature’s favored evolutionary guinea pigs. They are experimented on to a greater degree than other races, and as a result there are a lot more experimental failures, and a lot more experimental successes, within the white race.

My personal opinion on this matter of interracial attractiveness — besides the belief that nothing pricks the collective id like a rip-roaring, no-egos-spared discussion about the hotness of this or that group’s women — is that, like the women of most races, there are a fair number of hot black chicks I have seen whom I would most assuredly and happily defile with sweet lovemaking. And there are a lot of gross white women I wouldn’t touch with Tim Wise’s precious anti-racist dick. Honey Boo Boo’s mom comes to mind as a perfect example of the genre.

But we are talking about averages. If you don’t know what an average is, you should leave the internet and return when you are more enlightened than a garden slug. And, on average, I have noticed that some races just have proportionately more bangable women than do other races.

That’s all. If you can’t comment below without propping your ego with a strawman, or a hayfield of strawmen, you will be banned. Life is too short to tolerate obtuseness and trollery.

Anyhow, Frost talks about his own research into facial attractiveness, and explains where his conclusions or theories differ from Lewis’ study above.

Nonetheless, there are significant differences between my findings and Michael Lewis’. The cross-cultural study showed a general preference for lighter-skinned women, but only at the lighter end of the local range of skin color. We see this in folk terminology. Traditionally, a beautiful woman was ‘white’ in Europe and East Asia, ‘golden’ in Southeast Asia, and ‘red’ in sub-Saharan Africa.

As for my menstrual cycle study, the darker male face was indeed more strongly preferred by women in the first two-thirds of the menstrual cycle, i.e., when estrogen levels are high and not offset by progesterone. Yet, even in that group, there was still more preference for the lighter male face. In other words, estrogen seems to weaken a woman’s resistance to darker male skin, without reversing the direction of preference, at least not fully. […]

Finally, the ideological environment has changed over the past twenty years. In Lewis’ study, the White raters showed no tendency to prefer their own kind—an unusual finding in itself. Many of them may have thought long and hard before choosing a White face over a non-White one. Of course, this possible anti-White bias would not explain the gender asymmetry. It would simply shift all preferences towards the darker end of the color spectrum.

And that leads to another point. Perhaps some of the raters were unconsciously using East Asian preference as a proxy for White preference. In our current ideological environment, it is legitimate to admire East Asians for a wide range of good qualities: politeness, work ethic, self-discipline, attractive facial features, and so on. Such admiration incurs no social cost. So if you feel ashamed of your preference for White people, why not repackage it as East Asian preference?

Frost posits an evolutionary mechanism by which black men and white women would become more physically attractive over generations.

In some populations, men competed against each other for access to women. This was especially so in tropical ‘horticulturalist’ societies where year-round farming enabled women to provide for themselves and their children with little male assistance. For men, the cost of taking a second wife was close to zero and may even have been negative. Such societies thus had a high polygyny rate and correspondingly intense male-male rivalry for mates. The pressure of sexual selection was therefore on men.

In other populations, women competed against each other for access to men. This was especially so in continental Arctic societies where men provided almost all the food and where long-distance hunting caused more deaths among young men than among young women. Such societies thus had a low polygyny rate and a surplus of women on the mate market. The pressure of sexual selection was therefore on women (Frost, 1994a, 2006, 2008).

I’ve come across this theory before in different outlets, so it’s not like Kanazawa is some kind of freakish radical for suggesting it in the pages of Psychology Today.

A reader mildly objects:

My one caveat is that black women may not photograph as well as women of other races.  Having recently spent some time in the Caribbean around (non-fat) black women and I can say that there plenty _plenty_ of good looking black girls, at least where I was.  But I’ve never found black women all that attractive in photographs.  And the obesity epidemic in the US has hit them hard too.

A caveat worth considering. I’ll assume the Lewis study used photographs of slim black women, or at least photos of black women who were comparably thin to the other women, because otherwise that would qualify as a major flaw and oversight by the researchers.

As for the idea that black women photograph worse than women of other races, I’m not sure I buy it. Bodybuilders have known for a long time that tanned skin, sometimes tanned to the point of orange-y absurdity, looks better in glossy mags. Darker skin captures plays of light in more pleasing ways. Perhaps the reader is referring to the facial bone structure of black women, what with their pronounced jawlines and unappealing prognathism, and how that may contribute to their looking worse in photos. That’s possible, but I can’t figure out a way that theory would work such that the faces which look bad in 2D look better in 3D. Maybe some photoshop experts in the audience could lend their opinions.

Also, is it possible that sexual selection in some outlier black majority communities, like the Caribbean, runs the other way, producing hotter women and blander men? A sex skew in the favor of men could certainly produce more beautiful women over time. So could a greater demand by women for men who can provide for them. You might see this happening in black societies with white minorities, where the continual reminder of the minority’s higher status compels black women to seek out more paternal and productive and less showboat-y caddish black men. Or you might see it in societies where the women are not able to provide for themselves as easily as they can in lands with more fertile soils and better climate or where there’s a generous welfare system in place that substitutes for male provision. Pure speculation, but isn’t that the seed corn of scientific truth?

Read Full Post »

The Settling Order Of Men With Limited Options

How do men with constrained options choose which women deserve their commitment and emotional and resource treasure? There’s a hierarchy to the order of settling for Men Without Options (M-WOs) and Men With Limited Options (M-LOs), but before we get to that, we need to clarify our premises so that we can better understand the settling hierarchy. A man with limitless sexual market options — aka a man who has his pick of the kitty litter aka a super alpha — wants and desires the same thing that a man with no options wants and desires; specifically, a young woman with a pretty face, a slender hourglass-shaped body and a feminine, becoming temperament.

The only difference between the piss-stained homeless bum and the captain of industry is the ability of each to fulfill his shared desire for young, slender babes. That’s it. The desires are the same but the fulfillment of those desires varies wildly from man to man.

Any fat chick who tells you that her repulsive condition is Ok because at least fat men will always be there for her misunderstands the nature of the sexual market. Fat men without compensating male attractiveness traits will only be there for her because they have no other choice; expand (heh) the fat man’s options through, say, wealth or game or wit or social status cues, and his reluctance to settle for fat chicks rises in proportion to his increasing options among thinner, sexier women.

Thus, the hierarchy of settling that describes men with options is not very interesting. It would be a short ranking that starts and ends at “young, hot, tight, sweet”. At the very top of the alpha male heap, there is no settling at all. A few super alphas have practically unlimited choice in women, and their cornucuntia could not be exhausted given one hundred lifetimes of skirt-chasing.

At the bottom end of the male SMV scale, the omega males and dick dregs lurk. Their settling order, too, would be a short ranking: it would begin and end at “take whatever female filth will have me”. A few are lucky to have internet connections and porn outlets, in which case the living flesh vaginas of obese monstrosities, toothless methheads and prognathic missing links can’t compete with remote digital simulacra and chafed fap hands.

As with the super alphas, the hierarchy of settling that describes men with no options is also not very interesting.

But what about the rest of menkind? How do the remaining 80% of men — men who are bound by involuntary restrictions lenient and punitive on their dating choices — decide how far down the female attractiveness ladder they’re willing to descend? What is the settling order of the masses of beta males who aren’t particularly attractive nor unattractive to women, but who struggle to acquire the kind of stimulating pussy they really want?

Legend

Hot = pretty face (objectively measurable, highly correlated with youth, 8-10 on looks scale)
Pretty = minor flaws (6-7 on looks scale)
Plain = medium flaws (4-5 on looks scale)
Ugly = major flaws (2-3 on looks scale)
Fugly = extinction level flaws (0-1 on looks scale)
Slender = hourglass figure, 17-22 BMI, 0.65-0.75 waist-hip ratio
Bangable = 23-24 BMI, 0.65-0.75 WHR
Chubby = 25-26 BMI, 0.75-0.80 BMI
Fat = 27-28 BMI, 0.75-0.80 WHR
Shaneequa = Same as Fat, except more hourglass, fat sits in rump, hips and pendulous tits
Sausage = Same as Fat, except more cylindrical, 0.80+ WHR
Formless Blob = 29+ BMI, WHR irrelevant at such sizes
Young = 15-25 (18-25 under existing legal constraints)
Less young = 26-30
Not So Young = 30-35
Older = 36-40
Old = 41-50
Expired = 50+ (invisible to men with options, last resort for men without options)
Sweet = feminine disposition (empathetic, nurturing, kind, generous, employed in female-oriented profession)
Sassy = femininity salted with sarcasm and insecurity
Dull = lacking in any discernible personality
Self-Centered = attention whore
Caustic = Angry, humorless, bitter, nasty
Man-Like = Aggressive, ambitious, cutting humor, selfish, slutty, employed in male-oriented field
N/A = Not applicable

Settling Order Of Men With Limited Options

1. Hot/Slender/Young/Sweet

Most of these girls are scooped up by alpha males. For a night, at least.

2. Hot/Bangable/Young/Sassy

Hotness and youth still exert the most influence on a man’s requirements in a lover, but the tier of men (lesser alpha) who must make some small concessions to snag a hot, young lover will generally accept in their women a few extra pounds and a little more annoying sassiness.

3. Pretty/Slender/Young/Sweet

Facial hotness is so crucial to a woman’s dating success that when men have to sacrifice a little bit of facial beauty in their lovers, they tend to tighten up their standards for the other three attractive female traits. Here we find the greater betas who are dating young 6s and 7s with very nice bodies and wonderful personalities.

4. Pretty/Bangable/Young/Sassy

Again, greater beta males and some lesser alphas populate this settling group. You’ll notice that the requirement for youth hasn’t yet budged a day past 25 years old. Men will choose youth and beauty before perfect bodily dimensions and heavenly femininity, particularly when LTRs are under consideration. (This post is primarily focused on LTRs, which is the romantic arrangement to which “settling” usually refers.)

5. Pretty/Bangable/Less Young/Sassy or Dull

Now we enter the realm of real sacrifice. Here you’ll find your established “good catch” beta males who must make painful concessions to achieve love with a pretty girl with a decent body. The first major concessions are usually age and personality — most men are willing to put up with annoying personality quirks and an upward age adjustment to enjoy the scenery of a pretty face and curvaceous, taut physique.

6. Pretty/Chubby/Less Young/Man-Like

What, chubby girls can be pretty?!? No. Most girls with naturally pretty faces who are twenty or more pounds overweight will have concealed whatever prettiness was there under a layer of blubber . The common refrain from desperate mothers trying to marry off their slacker sons — “but she has a such a pretty face” — is often a dead giveaway that the girl in question is a fatso. That said, there are very exceptional girls who can manage twenty extra pounds and keep a pretty face suitable for excellent blowjobs because the fat accumulates in places hidden by clothes. The slightly better than average beta male with something going on for himself will be forced into this settling category. He’ll take the extra pounds (can’t really be helped in modern America what with 70% of women obese or overweight), less sprightly upper range of youthfulness, and less sparkling personalities for a shot at a girl with a face that can inspire unbidden boners.

7. Plain/Chubby/Not So Young/Self-Centered

Welcome to beta male hell. Dear Average American Man, this is your life.

8. Ugly/Bangable/Not So Young or Older/Caustic

Here are your butterfaces. Broken beta divorcees sink to this level of settling. Very horny and indiscriminate alpha males (see: roids, teenage boys) will occasionally slum it with these ladies, but never consider them for LTRs.

9. Plain/Shaneequa/Not So Young/Caustic

See #7. Substitute black beta male for white beta male.

10. Ugly/Fat/Not So Young/Sweet

A man who has to settle for a fat chick is a lesser beta male, or an extremely depressed and unconfident beta male. He will try to get a fat chick who at least treats him like a king.

11. Ugly/Sausage/Older/Dull

Say goodbye to even a semblance of a human female shape.

12. Fugly/Formless Blob/Young or Less Young/Sweet

Some men must have youthful lovers, no matter what, because there is at least a chance their seed will find fertile ground, even if the ground is a patchwork of tar pits, quicksand, bulging calderas and deep sea trenches. Here you will find those skeezy losers who prey on impressionable young fatties with willing mouths.

13. Ugly/Fat/Old/N/A (sweetness is not possible for these women)

This is the omega male wheelhouse. The walking deadmen in this group would welcome a crossbow bolt to the head.

14. Fugly/Formless Blob/Expired/Man-Like

Why are you bothering? A furries outfit with a spooge valve would feel, and look, better.

***

So there you have it. The fourteen-step settling order, from A to O.

Executive summary: Men will yield on feminine personality and a few extra pounds to get youthful and beautiful lovers, but the acceptable threshold for extra weight is met far more quickly than is the acceptable threshold for an unfeminine personality. A hot, young woman with a lawyerly in-your-face personality and with ten extra pounds distributed in a pleasing manner on her ass, thighs and tits is still more desirable than an older pretty woman with a perfect body and perfect disposition. But once the hot young babe starts to accumulate more than ten extra pounds, the older woman begins to look better and better as an LTR alternative.

Of course, past a certain age, weight, ugliness, or mannish disposition the choices become so dispiriting that men are hardly able to summon the motivation to lift a finger and pick out one grotesquerie from another.

Read Full Post »

Women Are More Emotional Than Men Because Of Biology

A reader keeps it real:

[T]he male brain experiences an acid flush about three months into gestation damaging the corpus callosum, or intermediary between the two hemispheres.  This makes women more prone to bounce around between hemispheres, and men more prone to focus cognitive energy to areas of the brain consistently.  Furthermore, the caudate nucleus, ventral tegmental area (VTA), limbic system, are shown to be up to three times larger and far more active in the female brain than in the male brain.  The combined over influence from irrational, emotional centers of the brain together with the propensity to bounce around frenetically between hemispheres, leads to a less rational, more emotional product.

And why would nature build women in such a manner?  Because, in accordance with CH axioms, nature has designed women to be more emotionally prone for the (main) purpose of child rearing.  Furthermore, the rapid oscillation between hemispheres allows them to parallelize household tasks in the home, i.e. taking care of children, cooking, cleaning, negotiating with other units in the tribe, etc.  Males on the other hand, have more inherent ability to focus.  That combined with a heightened depth perception made us more adept for the hunter gatherer role.  It goes without saying thus far, we are in complete agreement with CH maxims.

Blaming ‘gender inequality’ for the gender disparity in the sciences is equalist ego assuaging bromide proffering at its finest.

Much of game can thank biological sex differences for its inspiration. Women and men, on some very fundamental and relevant grounds, differ to the bone, and many of these psychological sex-based divisions are set in motion before birth. Instead of society or culture molding humans like clay into “gendered norms”, it is innate human biology which molds culture and society into manifesting observed sex differences. Further molding occurs as forces within the cultural fold exert amplifying or dampening effects on preexisting biological dispositions. But the culture will always reflect the biological basis of its people; it will never transform wholly into something the people are not. Or: You can’t make a Zimbabwe out of America without first swapping the Americans for Zimbabweans.

There is some reinforcing feedback between biology and the culture which biology births, and nations become strengthened (or weakened) by the best and worst genetic characteristics of its source material. As humans are bequeathed a certain degree of adaptation capability in response to environmental stressors, there can be cultural shifts to accommodate new and aggressive memes which themselves emerge organically from the biological substrate. Thus is belched from the bowels of hell the twin reality-denying Western ideologies of feminism and equalism.

But sex differences are powerful, more powerful and more fundamental than even cognitive differences between individuals or groups, issuing as sexual desire does from the more ancient hindbrain rather than the relatively recently developed forebrain. Even the most virulent memes can’t dislodge and replace sex-based desires, as we can see by the fact that men and women continue to differ radically in noticeable ways. Women have to understand that, contrary to the bitching of feminists, it is not a validation of their worth as women to strive for dominance in pursuits that have traditionally been the domain of men. (Traditions, we must note, which became established practice and unquestioned common sense because they grew out of intrinsic biological urges.)

Men must realize the opposite, as well — that they are not made more man by becoming kitchen bitches or doing more housework — but for now the propaganda campaign to push men into women’s pursuits is muted compared to the propaganda push of the feminist devolution to deny women the fulfillment of their feminine natures.

Women are more emotional, intuitive and illogical than men. Anyone who’s lived a day in his life knows this. In the worlds of corporate industry, war-making and invention, perhaps these traits are setbacks. But women should not be measuring themselves by those standards, the standards of men. They should seek succor in the standards of women, and there — in the worlds of family, social cohesion, lawfulness, empathy and child-rearing — women excel and men struggle.

There will always be among men those shut-ins, universalist heart-bleeders, and comfortably ensconced middle class herbs married to unchallenging frumps who deny or downplay the psychological differences between men and women to focus on the similarities. Yes, as members of the same species (barely), men and women are similar. Both sexes whore for status, both sexes want the best for their kids, both sexes prefer flattery to criticism, both sexes like a peck on the cheek before heading off to work. But beyond those human qualities, sex looms, in all its divergent, polarized energy, ready like a feral beast in the shadows to burst forth and maul the delusions of the most naive believers in a common humanity.

And from that realization, it’s just a hop skip and jump to noticing other divergent, multipolar differences between peoples. The shadow beasts are everywhere.

Read Full Post »

Fat People Don’t Live Longer: Science, Interrupted

Remember that meta-analysis study that came out about a month or so ago which purported to show that overweight people live longer than thin people, and remember hearing the groans of joy from diabetic, foot-chopped fatties with zero romantic prospects jumping two centimeters into the air in victory celebration? Remember thinking, “Hm, this study totally contradicts everything I see with my two lying eyes. Something smells fishy, and it isn’t just smegma trapped in some fatty’s stomach folds.”

Well, the skeptics and fat antagonizers, like yours truly, were right to doubt the claims of that study.

It turns out the methodology of the prior study was terrible, and they included skinny people dying of cancer and AIDS and so on in the calculations.  As stated in the linked article, “These people weren’t dying because they were slim; they were slim because they were dying.”

I wonder what Fat Apologist of the Blogosphere thinks of this recent correction?

Moral of the story: If you are a repellent fatty, don’t rely on meta-analysis studies conducted by “researchers” with an axe to grind to save you from a life of unbearable chronic pain, horrible BO, involuntary celibacy, jeers, and malfunctioning reach-around wiping implements. Instead, rely on the mirror. And… say it together now… push away from the buffet.

You don’t need studies, fatties. You need willpower. And a healthy dose of shame and realistic self-appraisal. If you think these things are impossible, just recall that a mere fifty years ago most people in America were thin, and they weren’t genetically dissimilar from you. They managed the willpower and shame. So can you.

Read Full Post »

The Reeducation Camps Of Multicultural America

After the Vietnam War, the government of Vietnam instituted “reeducation camps“, which were prison camps holding hundreds of thousands of government and military partisans of the former South Vietnam regime. In these camps, psychological torture was often as bad as the physical torture endured by the prisoners. Indoctrination and forced confessions were the order of the day, and the humiliation of the prisoners was total, reaching zeniths of cruelty so abhorrent that many surrendered their identities and wept at the feet of their captors and praised them as gods.

In the former Soviet Union, the infamous Gulag labor camps had a system in place for the “re-education of class enemies“. Red China had such a system, as well, and rumors circulate that China continues the practice of reeducation “of undesirables” to this day.

Commies. Horrible people. Awful, genocidal ideology. Couldn’t happen here, in the land of the free and home of the brave, right?

Watch this video. See if you have the stomach to watch the whole thing without wincing with revulsion.

The vibrant buffoon in this video was hired by the USDA — the UNITED STATES Department of Agriculture — to speak at a “Cultural Transformation” training seminar, aka reeducation camp for white people. You don’t even have to read much between the lines to recognize that the target of his vile propaganda is white people, and in particular, white men. As a mouthpiece of USDA policy, his enemy is the government’s enemy, and that enemy is whites. Never forget that.

The USDA would like you to forget that, though, because as fast as these videos are going up on YouTube, they are being taken down.

Like Communist reeducation camps, the captive (yes, captive, or they lose their jobs) listeners in the audience are being humiliated by this piece of shit into participating in de facto forced confessionals of their imaginary sins, and indoctrination of their “privilege” and “oppression”. You can hear their humiliating subjugation in the way they nervously laugh at slander directed against them. This is the laughter of the bullied beta male trying to go along to get along, so as to avoid any beatings on the playground later.

Not all are feeling humiliated though. Some of that laughter is the cackle of victory, of triumph, of sweet sweet tribal vengeance. Affiliation matters, and the speaker is clear that not all in the audience are designated targets.

Yes, Virginia, it can happen here. It IS happening here. Everywhere. All around you, if you only have the eyes to see. And it is perpetrated by YOUR government, the government you fund and to whom you pay allegiance. YOUR government, YOUR country, is in the racket of utterly humiliating you and your kind. You have lost the loyalty of the very nation your ancestors built into a gleaming castle from nothing but dirt and vast emptiness.

God FUCK America.

The time for petty negotiation is over. Such tactics will only serve to further arouse the hunger of the diversity beast. Insurrection fueled by the illuminating hatred of a thousand suns is the path to progress. Be not afraid. Let the filth and the flotsam know how you feel. Stand up for what is right and true for once in your life, and when they fight back with futile gestures of passive aggressive snark, drive your sword deeper in their guts. To the hilt. And don’t stop until they’re on their knees begging forgiveness. At which point you finish them off.

Read Full Post »

Bitter, Delusional Fattie Thinks Sluttiness Is An Accomplishment

A bitter, delusional fattie (BDF) with disfiguring tattoos plastered all over her porcine hide has a blue spruce up her pancake batter butt about the normal people who are claiming 26 year old Lena Dunham’s character Hannah on her show Girls (said show cribbing liberally from this blog, and the proprietors know it) is not hot enough nor skinny enough to entice the sexual attentions of a 42 year old handsome doctor. (Speaking of Hannah and BDFs: Why the hell is it always the grossest women who are the biggest exhibitionists? Wait, we all know why. Because you have to give it away for free when no one is interested in buying it. This explains the phenomenon of aging, Hollywood ex-starlets dropping their moral compunctions against nudity and eagerly stripping down for the cameras. Thanks, ladies, for the day-late, dollop-short consolation prize.)

The normal people are, as per usual, right as rain. In real life, no doctor who isn’t a total dweeb will bother with a frumpy, dumpy, plumpy formless flesh entity like Hannah, even if she’s fifteen years younger. Men with high status and thus plenty of options in the dating market will choose pretty women with discernible hourglass figures. They will choose younger pretty girls over older attractive women, but if the choice is between an older (pre-wall) attractive woman with a nice body and a younger, uglier woman with a bratwurst impersonating a body, the red-blooded man will opt for the former.

The BDF under the Chateau laserscope for this go-round is truly an exemplar of her foul genus. To wit, here is a quote from the gelatinous beast:

Aside from being sexist and sizeist and just plain fucking rude, this idea that you have to have a thin, perfect body and the face of a model in order to be sexually attractive is just patently untrue. Sexual attraction is oozing and amorphous and refuses to live in boxes. Regular women, women who look like Lena Dunham, or me, get laid easily and often. Some men who look like Patrick Wilson are attracted exclusively to women 3 times Dunham’s size. Men who look like Patrick Wilson get rejected by women who look like Lena Dunham.

Couples are “mismatched” because these boundaries, these “leagues” are made up by society and easily crossed. Anybody can have sex with anybody else!

Friends, that is a hamster triple bank shotting on roids, ECA stacks, and crack cocaine. CH is in a Christmas mood, so let’s unwrap this rationalization rodent offal.

Aside from being sexist and sizeist

If the -ist fits…

and just plain fucking rude

BDF complains about rudeness while squeezing the word fucking in every sentence.

this idea that you have to have a thin, perfect body and the face of a model in order to be sexually attractive is just patently untrue.

Forget the science, forget clear-eyed observation, forget the reality that swims all around us… she said it, so it must be true. Rejoice, repulsive fatties! BDF says that men actually want to have sex with you even though the millions of decisions that men make every hour of every day, the preference for sex and love with thin women they attempt to satisfy, and the cruel mockery of fatties they indulge, demonstrate the exact opposite.

Sexual attraction is oozing and amorphous and refuses to live in boxes.

Well, it’s definitely oozing on her.

Regular women, women who look like Lena Dunham, or me, get laid easily and often.

Proof by assertion. But for the sake of further evisceration, let’s assume she’s not telling a bald-faced lie, and that she does manage to get a fuck dumped in her when the planets align. For the typical BDF, getting unceremoniously and absent-mindedly banged out by a desperate omega loser whose closest companion is normally a couch crease is not a trophy to place on the mantel. There are enough degenerates who will spelunk a convenient flabby hole when no other more attractive alternative is available that it is possible for a fat chick to sustain a belief in her marginal desirability, however threadbare that belief. Men are, on the whole, less discriminating about whom they will penetrate than are women about whom they will allow to penetrate. This is because for each egg that a woman produces, a man produces billions of sperm. Each sexual congress is therefore of far lesser biological, and thus emotional, importance to a man than it is to a woman, even to a BDF simulacrum of a woman. A woman who makes herself readily available to every wanton horndog who can’t afford adherence to standards is a woman who essentially announces to the world that her eggs are worthless mass market crap. Emphasis on mass.

Some men who look like Patrick Wilson are attracted exclusively to women 3 times Dunham’s size.

But most men aren’t. And in the zero-sum arena known as the sexual market, it’s the mate preferences of the majority that will most impact how much happiness any individual will extract from it.

Men who look like Patrick Wilson get rejected by women who look like Lena Dunham.

But most men don’t. It’s more often the case that alpha males are doing the prompt rejecting of women who resemble Lena Dunham. Remember, BDFs, male rejection usually takes the form of emotional rejection, and that’s the rejection that hurts you most.

Couples are “mismatched” because these boundaries, these “leagues” are made up by society and easily crossed.

Hugo Schwyzer agrees! Losers of a feather…

Anybody can have sex with anybody else!

Only if you count forcible rape.

There are some egregious BDFs out there, but this one takes the cake and inhales it. You can distill her crass self-motivational to two points, and neither one casts her in a flattering light:

1. She says she has had sex with “movie-star hot men with chiseled Adonis bodies”*, some of whom were “wealthy and successful”.

Try-hard. If you have to say it, it’s less true than true. If you have to say it so hyperbolically, it’s likely not true. If you have to say it so hyperbolically while looking like a propellor-scarred manatee, it most definitely is not true. But you keep telling us pigs can fly, BDF, and we’ll keep pointing and laughing at your ego-pricked obtuseness.

Here’s the deal whenever one of these asinine BDFs or her close kin rumbles into view to claim they have wonderful sex with high value men: they are almost always lying.

Nearly every instance when a low value woman claims she dates high value men, it will invariably reveal itself upon closer examination that the men she dates are supplicating, socially awkward, dull beta males, unreliable drunkards, or fly-by-night players who couldn’t give a shit about her beyond a late night booty call and who are clearly embarrassed to be seen with her in public. This is Rationalization Hamster 101, wherein the compulsion to assuage one’s BDF-riddled ego by declaiming the handsomeness, charm, high status and virility of sex partners overrides all consideration of truth value.

2. She implies that amassing a notch count of sex partners is an achievement for women like it would be for men.

Self-deluded fattie gonna self-delude. Spreading as far as two hamhocks can spread for a loser to stick his dick in and jab a few tepid spurts into sea cucumber labia is not an accomplishment. There will always be a contingent of wretched, loveless omega males roaming the wilderness like zombies to occasionally service the land whale through three seconds of love, for no other woman remotely attractive will have them, and sheep aren’t always as receptive as fat chicks. Now multiply the relative ease of convincing a loser to participate in greasy pig rutting by ten million to get an approximation of how effortless it is for the typical good-looking girl to entice a whole battalion of higher value men to line up for a free blast inside her exquisite heart-shaped pussy, and you’ll have an idea of just how inconsequential is sex itself as a measure of a woman’s romantic worth.

The crux of the cunt is this: a woman’s sexual worth is measured by the ease with which she can convince a worthwhile man to commit to her and stick around for the long haul. It is not measured by the accessibility of her sperm receptacle. You’ll note that the BDF under discussion refers in the past tense to these “Adonises” whose intimate company she allegedly enjoyed over the years. Presumably, they all fled before the last jizz stream swirled down her belly button drain. Who could’ve guessed a noxious, fat, ugly, hallucinatory, tatted freak would have trouble getting any of them to fall in love with her? Rhetorical.

Some of you kinder, gentler, naive readers ask, “Why flay this poor fattie’s soul? What has she done that’s so bad? She’s just masticating on the internet, giving girls a self-esteem boost.”

If she were gloomily masticating in her bedroom, alone and out of earshot of impressionable darlings, she would escape the torture. But she shouts her rampant idiocy from the rooftops, sliming the minds of thousands (millions?) of young women who teeter at the precipice between unhappy fatness and happy slimness. Thankfully, most thin babes know in their lovely bones that getting fat will hurt their chances at finding love, so a whole goon platoon of bellowing fatties would do nothing to dissuade them from following the right and true path in life. But some girls are emotional basket cases, and in their weakened conditions are susceptible to infectious mind disease.

If this BDF propagandist can potentially convince even one slim girl that she would suffer no romantic consequences were she to bloat up and ruin her desirability, ruin the scenery, and ruin the attitudes of hotter girls who relax self-constraints on their bitchiness when their competition is reduced, then the BDF is a legitimate enemy of the natural state. She has earned her designation as a prime target. The incalculable cruelty of the breaking wheel wrenching screams of agony from her blubbery carcass will serve as an example for the others thinking that it’s a wise life decision to dedicate oneself to spreading lies and destroying the looks of pretty girls.

*PS: The cynics will interpret this BDF’s outrageous claim — “movie-star hot men with chiseled Adonis bodies” — as a fat white girl euphemism for black guys. They are onto something. You brothers won’t like to hear this, but too many of you are willing to drop your standards, however temporarily or conveniently, and plow white fatties with finger-wagging ‘tude to spare. While proof is lacking, it’s a strong possibility that this particular BDF is another data point in favor of the African Megafauna Size, Shape, Color and Texture Theory of Conditionally Flexible Black Male Mating Preference.

CH is on record stating that black men, when they are free to choose high value women, will, like men of other races, generally choose thin, pretty women, especially if the choice is for a woman who will be a long-term relationship lover. C.f., Will Smith. And yet, there is also plenty of evidence, observational and analytical, confirming the stereotype that black men, when they date or screw around interracially, slum it with the refuse of white womanhood.

Two things ought to be said about this: One, most white girls prefer sex and relationships with white guys, if online dating statistics are to be believed. So a fat white chick transcending earthly bonds on wings of passion with a vibrant black dude is likely feeling a powerful discomfort on a subconscious level that she is settling. Two, it’s a good bet none of these black lovers are staying around to cuddle and raise a nuclear family with their BDF gory holes.

It’s fair to surmise, then, that a fat white chick who brags about snagging indiscriminate black guys with chiseled abs is not feeling the winner vibe those abs are supposed to make her feel. In the morning, she is left confused about what the fuck is happening to her life. This is what is happening to the BDF: You are a loser, you will continue to be a loser, and you will die a loser. And no amount of pain-addled transparently ego-massaging insistence to the contrary on a feminist website will change that. Only pushing away from the table will help.

Read Full Post »