The United States Of Autoimmunity

The immune system of the United States of America has been sabotaged. It now fails to recognize its own cells within the body politic. The West has been conditioned like Pavlov’s creepier zombie dog to cannibalize itself when a PC platitude bell is rung.

So says godless capitalist (gc), in the comments section of perhaps the most rollicking and perspicacious post and comment thread on the internet in the past four years.

[…] The only way to maintain a holy lie is by persecuting the truth tellers. Such persecutors are not interested in the long term fate of Western Civilization, but only in short term stability. They are like people who “protect” a dying patient from the bitter medicine that will cause momentary discomfort but lasting remission.

The priest class which controls the media and which coordinated the attack on Watson and Summers is not making a hard decision to produce the greatest good for the greatest number. After all, they have promoted ideologies and policies like no-fault divorce and forced busing that have caused untold misery for millions. They care not about the plight of the vast majority of inhabitants of the country; they care about the stability of their sinecures. […]

But here’s the thing. You’ve seen hundreds or thousands of hours of footage of events in which rightist ideas of one stripe or another are causing harm to minorities. The Holocaust, My Lai, Bull Connor, the Japanese internment, Operation Wetback, Columbus, Guantanamo, etc. Literally trillions of dollars in capital investment has resulted in a reflexive, emotional association of rightist action by whites with mass murder in your mind. I know it has because I have the same association. How could you not, when you have been strapped into a chair with the Holocaust beamed into your eyes for the K-12 years and beyond?

But bear with me for a second and imagine what would happen if the polarities had been reversed, if the footage on TV was of the people manning the White Sea Labor Camps, of the Killing Fields and the laogai, of South African crime and Saudi Arabian fanaticism, of Mexican illiteracy and pre-Columbian savagery.

In short, imagine if the Blank Slate Asymmetry were inverted — if the footage were intended to spur the immune system of Western Civilization to action (and overaction) rather than to disable it. No doubt such a world would be blinkered and biased in many aspects…but it would in major respects be closer to reality.

It’s a vertiginous thing to even contemplate, because it makes you realize the extent of the unreality you’ve internalized. For example, everyone has been told — over and over and over again — that blacks are victims rather than victimizers when the reality is the complete opposite. The realization that the media has been lying to you comes too late, only when you or your loved ones have become the victims…only when your friend is lying dead on the ground and there is no TV camera to put falsehood before your lying eyes. […]

The whole point is that h-bd is the one determining aspect which is not publicly discussed. Of course marginal tax rates affect tax receipts. But so does IQ. Of course bilingual policy affects immigrant assimilation. But so does IQ. Of course the educational curriculum affects achievement. But so does IQ.

Yet IQ is the factor that cannot be publicly mooted, let alone debated. And as for the reason that it cannot be debated — that reason is even more doubleplusungood.

Anyway, by now it’s a moot point. These taboos are not going to change anytime soon. Civilizations *do* die. The West had a 500 year run in which it was characterized by being the most willing to jettison holy lies in favor of truth. That willingness to embrace truth, regardless of where it may lead, lead to world beating power and unmatched material wealth. And eventually, it lead to contentment, relaxation, and subsequent immunocompromisation.

In addition to the admission of millions of illiterate migrant workers, the West has now admitted groups that are in some respects symbiotes, but that have now well and truly sabotaged its immune system and its nervous system. Not just the Ashkenazim, but the South and East Asians as well — my people. If the numbers were manageable that would be one thing; the symbiotes might eventually be integrated into the host. But the numbers are not manageable. Everyone is now in the ethnic activism game, intent on suppressing the immune response and preventing frank discussion of truth.

“Ask not what you can do for your country, ask how the country can benefit your ethnic group”. Look at Racialicious or some of the posters on Sepia Mutiny for examples of this attitude; Racialicious in particular is written by a modern-day Torquemada.

Bottom line — like a man with a sabotaged immune system, the West can no longer make self/nonself distinctions:

At the heart of the immune system is the ability to distinguish between self and nonself. Virtually every body cell carries distinctive molecules that identify it as self.

And like a man with a damaged nervous system, the West’s internal perceptions are out of sync with the external reality. Consider a hand on a hot stove. It does not matter if the lowly epithelial cells are burned by the million if the nerve cells refuse to communicate this truth to the seat of conscious action.

Similarly, the media is the nervous system of a civilization. The signals it chooses to amplify, dampen, or interpret control the response of the body. If paralyzed, it matters not if the body is hale and hearty and theoretically capable of action. A malfunctioning nervous system will leave an otherwise healthy body jerking around in response to phantasms of racism — or directing its efforts against its own cells.

But sawing off heads is a bit of a chore. Parasites are not accustomed to exerting themselves if they can coerce a stand-in. My favourite character in Wilson’s The Insect Societies is Monomorium santschii. This species, over evolutionary time, has lost its worker caste altogether. The host workers do everything for their parasites, even the most terrible task of all. At the behest of the invading parasite queen, they actually perform the deed of murdering their own mother. The usurper doesn’t need to use her jaws. She uses mind-control. How she does it is a mystery; she probably employs a chemical, for ant nervous systems-are generally highly attuned to them. If her weapon is indeed chemical, then it is as insidious a drug as any known to science. For think what it accomplishes. It floods the brain of the worker ant, grabs the reins of her muscles, woos her from deeply ingrained duties and turns her against her own mother. For ants, matricide is an act of special genetic madness and formidable indeed must be the drug that drives them to it. In the world of the extended phenotype, ask not how an animal’s behaviour benefits its genes; ask instead whose genes it is benefiting.

Witness the reaction to Katrina: the fact that whites had to defend themselves against black looters somehow became an indictment of white racism. The obvious facts on the ground, the facts sensed by those lowly epithelial cells, were simply inverted by a compromised nervous system.

By selective signal amplification or damping one can make overlaps appear to be equalities. The signals exist — they need not be made up out of whole cloth. One need only turn up the volume on (say) poor migrant workers stranded in the desert and turn down the volume on (say) anchor babies to achieve the desired effect without obvious fingerprints.

…anyway, I’ve gone on long enough. The West’s time in the limelight is fast coming to an end; the West will be known for fractious infighting in the years to come, with the taboo looming above like a solar eclipse, with “decent people” tasked with blotting out truth for as far as the eye can see. Hate speech legislation will come to the US. Sensitivity demands it.

And as America continues its descent into Mexico Norte, I will mourn the civilization that produced Bach and Beethoven and Shockley and Watson. […]

I like this guy’s style.

Those of us who aren’t lying phoneyfucks and traitors mourn the passing of America. The gated community crowd, ever so vigilant to signal the proper moral pose to their SWPL and elite overlords, will carry on self-satisfied and haughty, as the cytokine storm consumes the body around them…

…until there is nothing left from which to feast.

Read Full Post »

Another Cougar Bites The Dust

Nearly two years ago, the original Chateau host predicted that Ashton Kutcher was cheating on his cougar love, Demi:

instead of sleeping their way to the top, men commit their way to the top.

anyhow, give it time. most of these older female celebrity-younger male B lister couples are inherently unstable. i bet within five years ashton has fully severed himself from demi and hooks up with a young hottie. as opposed to hooking up with young mistresses on the sly as he is doing now.
heh heh.

It was also predicted by this very blog’s überhost that once Ashton’s cheating was discovered, Demi would put up with it in humiliating fashion because her rapidly declining sexual market value severely limited her options to get an equally high status man.

Right on cue, a chorus of cougars growled that yer humble host was wrong; that Ashton LURVED LURVED LURVED Demi and would never betray her. And just look how hot Demi is! Ashton could hardly do better. The virtual Ashton harem of aging broads reveled in bringing him up on this blog as some sort of retarded feminist proof that the older woman-younger man couple was the exception that broke the rule.

Well, the celebrity rags are reporting that Ashton Kutcher has been stepping out on Demi with a very cute and very young blonde mistress. (She’s only twenty-ooooooone….) And muckrakers are reporting that Ashton and Demi are putting up a “united front”.

HA HAAAAWW!

You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Miss Moore, and YOU… WILL… ATONE.

You can practically hear the nation’s leading cougar pundits expire in the cold, snowy mountain crags. Maureen Dowd was found with her yellowed claws embedded in a fallen tree that resembled a Bill Clinton dildo.

If the prediction was off, it was only in overestimating the number of years it would take for Ashton to stray. Ashton couldn’t hang on for more than a couple years before his cock homed in on young, fresh, tight inelastic pussy like a divining rod.

Here is a new prediction: Demi Moore’s next lover will be lower status than Ashton Kutcher. And she will begin tweeting nude photos of herself in a desperate bid for sexual relevancy. Bruce Willis will continue banging hot young babes.

Read Full Post »

A Woman Explains Why Chicks Dig Jerks

Why hear it from an evil player when you can read a normal, everyday woman tell you how much chicks love assholes? This girl confirms the Chateau maxim that Do Almost Nothing Game is an important component of any man’s arsenal of ardor.

Curiously familiar hypothetical situation: You’re at a bar with your friends when you spot a guy you recently hooked up with. You’re feeling indifferent about him, but you wouldn’t be opposed to giving it another go. You think, “Ehh, no need to say ‘Hi’ right away.” Twenty minutes later, he still hasn’t approached you. You wonder, “Why hasn’t he said anything to me? Does my hair look bad?” But granted you’re not criminally insane, you brush it off and look for someone else to schmooze. Thirty minutes later, still nothing. Well, he did wink at you from across the bar (or was there just something stuck in his eye?), but then he started talking to some girl wearing a tube dress. Your confusion escalates. “Oh god, she’s way hotter than me. I knew I should’ve worn heels.” Suddenly, your neurosis reaches “Girl, Interrupted” levels and you wonder how you got so nuts. To avoid further humiliation, you turn to a friend and ask if she wants to leave and get nachos.

Yes, the Asshole U Luv knows when and how to parcel his attentions. He knows that ignoring you to flirt with another woman in your line of sight makes you horny and desirous of him.

Fact: Girls love guys who are, for lack of a better description, total assholes.

Any man who’s lived a day in his life knows this is true. Deniers are true blue brainwashed believers in gender equalism, whores who have gotten stiffed by assholes one too may times and purify their damaged psyches within an imaginary reality, or… well… pretty much all women for whom any fact about female nature is discomfiting.

We’ve seen it time and time (and time?) again, but nonetheless, it’s an issue that riddles our minds with confusion, stress and a shitton of excitement. So, what’s a girl to do about this bleak reality?

Sit back and enjoy my beef jerky intrusion. After all, you may as well ask what’s a man to do about his lust for hot, young, slender babes with pert tits and firm asses.

The authoress goes on to list reasons why she thinks women swoon for assholes.

Most girls are turned off by a guy who showers her with attention. It bores us, it seems desperate and it can be a predictor for a slew of undesirable behaviors lurking beneath the surface. Instead, we gravitate toward guys who give us just enough attention to keep us on our toes. Here’s what I mean:

Socially-unaware-nice-guy: Hi Rachel! I saw you from across the bar. You look pretty. Can I buy you a drink? You look like a G&T gal. So, what are your career aspirations? I love kids. You look pretty.

Asshole: Hey.

She is one of the few self-aware chicks who gets it. I’m sure it’s soul-ripping for my detractors to see my Do Almost Nothing Game and One Word Game confirmed by female experience.

Think about it. Have you ever seen a guy you’ve recently hooked up with and waited an hour for him to start flirting with you? And worse, did you feel great when he finally approached you and probably said a total of four syllables that somehow made you feel on top of the world?

Forget the wordy, clever openers. Keep it succinct, stupid.

Don’t be embarrassed if that’s a yes. We’re aroused by the unpredictability of waiting for a guy to strike up a conversation with us, and the longer it takes, the more rewarded we feel when it actually happens.

Value of scarcity. Why do women love men who make their availability scarce? I submit this universal female preference has its roots in preselection — women get turned on by these types of men because in the fevered downtime the women muse that his unavailability is caused by other women occupying his time.

You know what? It’s a cop-out to say only weak girls go for assholes. Self-esteem aside, many girls crave the thrill of keeping up with a jerky guy, or better yet, putting him in his place.

This admission was like a stake through the haters’ hearts. The “low self-esteem girls fall for jerks” rationale is the go-to lie of nerdy internet femtards everywhere.

While they might not always be better at flirting per se, assholes have a certain knack for conversation that confident girls can’t wait to provoke.

Yes, it’s called passing shit tests with ease.

When you’re not looking for anything serious, few things are sexier than a well-spoken, quick-talking guy whose comebacks somehow indicate that he’ll be amazing in bed.

She’s admitting that women put up bitch shields to test men for their alpha worthiness, and that men who pass their shit tests are automatically deemed more viscerally attractive. I’m coming to the conclusion that 80% of early game, when attraction is being built, is basically passing a woman’s shit tests.

Entertaining as his drunken tales are, [Tucker Max] has spawned a new breed of wannabe assholes who masquerade as genuinely awesome guys by mimicking traits like confidence, charm and humor in the forms of aggression, sleaze and flirtatious insults. It’s difficult for our drunken brains to distinguish between worthwhile guys and those who embody that second set of qualities — and for most casual flings, we don’t care to evaluate the difference. In fact, getting attention from an identified asshole can seem weirdly special.

A clarification is in order: it’s difficult for drunken *and* sober women alike to resist the charms of the asshole seducer.

And why is it weirdly special to receive an asshole’s attention? Because women imagine, rightly so in most cases, that the asshole is the apple of many other women’s eyes. And so to be the recipient of his bastard charms is to know that his quality seed is hers for the moment.

Example: If a guy won’t give other people the time of day, but he’s taking a moment of his time to be semi-decent toward you, you might think to yourself “Wow, this guy’s being nice to me. He’s usually such a douche! I must be different.” False.

Women also get turned on by the thought that they are defeating other women for the prize studs.

In the end, there’s no clear way to stay away from guys who play these games. It seems the best we can do is hold our heads high, stay on our toes and sleep with one eye open.

For me to spooge in!

Read Full Post »

Players Die Young

It’s time to take an internet-y jaunt around the world of science and extract nuggets of wisdom from the minds of your betters.

Womanizers live fast, die young.

Promiscuous males are so intent on pursuing sexual partners that they can neglect even essential tasks such as eating, says a new study published in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology.

The finding suggests that male promiscuity is not more common – despite its potential evolutionary advantages – because it is subject to natural limitations: playboy males have stunted growth and go to an early grave. […]

When the male fish were regularly supplied with new unfamiliar females throughout their life, they spent less time looking for food and more time pursuing the females. Males living with unfamiliar females also grew more slowly and to a smaller adult size, and tended to die sooner.

In contrast, males living with a single partner ate regularly, grew steadily throughout their lives and lived longer.

“The considerable costs of promiscuity to the individuals involved reveal a natural limitation on promiscuous behaviour, previously undescribed in vertebrates,” says Jordan. “Perhaps those who wish for a more promiscuous existence will see this as a warning.

Sure, this is a study of fish, not humans, but it may be relational. I can recall during my most deliriously promiscuous months I suffered from frequent colds and exhaustion. My health regained its footing when I settled into serially monogamous relationships.

There is one possible way out of this trade-off between promiscuity and health: be a late bloomer. If you start your womanizing career after you have fully grown and gained your maximum size, strength and constitution, you may not suffer the deleterious health consequences of chasing a wonderful variety of pussy. Vitamin D helps also.

******

Femtard fave bonobos aren’t the free love communitarians originally thought:

A team of researchers led by Gottfried Hohmann of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology has discovered that the higher up a male bonobo is placed in the social hierarchy, the greater his mating success is with female bonobos. But even males who are not so highly placed are still in with a chance of impressing females.

Researchers reported for the first time direct support from mothers to their sons in agonistic conflicts over access to estrous females. Martin Surbeck from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology discovered that the presence of mothers enhances the mating success of their sons and thereby causes mating to be more evenly distributed among the males. As bonobo males remain in their natal group and adult females have the leverage to intervene in male conflicts, maternal support extends into adulthood and potentially affects male reproductive success. (published in: Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences)

Variation in male mating success is often related to rank differences. Males who are unable to monopolize estrous females alone may engage in coalitions with other group members to chase higher ranking males off these females and to thus enhance their own mating success.

High status male bonobos get more sexual access to females, just as in chimpanzee tribes. Here, there is the additional influence of high ranking bonobo mothers helping their sons get a screw. Mothers benefit because sexually successful sons give them more grandchildren.

In addition to rank, the presence of mothers does indeed enhance the mating success of sons and thereby reduces the proportion of matings by the highest ranking male.

Mothers and sons seem to be inseparable and mothers provide agonistic aid to sons in conflicts with other males. As bonobos are male-philopatric, i.e. males remain in their natal group, and adult females occupy high dominance status, maternal support extends into adulthood and females have the leverage to intervene in male conflicts. The absence of female support to unrelated males suggests that mothers gain indirect fitness benefits by supporting their sons. “Females do not grant this kind of support to unrelated males. By helping their sons the mothers may likely increase the number of their own grandchildren”, says Martin Surbeck.

It never made sense to believe that mothers wouldn’t have some influence over their sons’ reproductive success. It is, evolutionarily speaking, in mom’s interest to see her son do well with the ladies. There are parallels to human families. Mothers of murderous sons nearly always absolve, excuse or defend them. Mothers, despite having an almost universal lack of game knowledge, do exert a sort of primitive effort to set up their sons with “good girls”. Sometimes these efforts even work. I imagine in more matriarchal societies, like sub-Saharan Africa where fathers are generally less involved in family matters, mothers play a big role in increasing the status of sons and helping fight off (not necessarily physically) competitor males who could vie for sexual opportunities with the same women as their sons.

******

Single moms take note: if you want help from the bastard spawn of your first badboy lover in raising any future spawn, you had better have the future children with the same badboy.

Help from earlier offspring in rearing a subsequent brood should evolve more easily when the mother is strictly monogamous. A comparative study of birds provides evidence in support of this view.

Cooperative breeding, in which more than two individuals combine to rear a single brood of young, has evolved repeatedly in animals, and most commonly in insects and birds. This situation poses an evolutionary paradox: because individuals have only two parents, some of the carers in these cooperative societies are helping to raise young that are not their own.

A related study shows that promiscuous females reduce a society’s cooperativeness.

Theory predicts that the evolution of cooperative behaviour is favoured by low levels of promiscuity leading to high within-group relatedness. However, in vertebrates, cooperation often occurs between non-relatives and promiscuity rates are among the highest recorded. Here we resolve this apparent inconsistency with a phylogenetic analysis of 267 bird species, demonstrating that cooperative breeding is associated with low promiscuity; that in cooperative species, helping is more common when promiscuity is low; and that intermediate levels of promiscuity favour kin discrimination. Overall, these results suggest that promiscuity is a unifying feature across taxa in explaining transitions to and from cooperative societies.

So, a society of sluts = Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome. POF’s fiancé wept again.

******

Women are more compassionate than men because it benefits their health. File under: the eternal solipsism of the female body.

The research demonstrates that concern for the well-being of others does, indeed, benefit the self. By increasing the effectiveness of social support, compassion served a stress reduction function for women in the study.

Signaling, stress reduction, SWPL membership dues… call it what you like, it’s clear that compassion is not exactly the noble human trait our pious poseurs and puritanical lefties would tell you it is.

******

Women, do you want to marry a man who won’t cheat on you? Then make sure he has higher economic status than you.

The more economically dependent a man is on his female partner, the more likely he is to cheat on her, according to research to be presented at the 105th Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association.

“But for women, economic dependency seems to have the opposite effect: the more dependent they are on their male partners, the less likely they are to engage in infidelity,” said Christin Munsch, a sociology Ph.D. candidate at Cornell University, and author of the study, “The Effect of Relative Income Disparity onInfidelity for Men and Women.”

What’s going on here? Two explanations jump to mind: one, lower earning men cheat because their higher earning wives emasculate them either through withdrawal of sex or by snarky verbal slapshots. Thus, they seek the reinvigoration of their testicular fortitude in the flaps of another woman’s vulva. Or, the higher earning wives fell in love with the sort of lower earning but charming ne’er-do-wells who are more apt to cheat because they can. Either way, it’s in both men’s and women’s interest, if faithful, long term marriages are their goals, for the wife to be hotter than what the husband has previously dated and for the husband to be higher status — as measured by income, social standing, or some other status variable like fluency with game — than the wife.

But this is not the whole story.

Ironically, men who make significantly more than their female partners were also more likely to cheat. “At one end of the spectrum, making less money than a female partner may threaten men’s gender identity by calling into question the traditional notion of men as breadwinners,” Munsch said. “At the other end of the spectrum, men who make a lot more money than their partners may be in jobs that offer more opportunities for cheating like long work hours, travel, and higher incomes that make cheating easier to conceal.”

So basically, men will cheat under a lot of different conditions. Alert the media! Men like a variety of pussy! Unless the woman is exceedingly hot — like a 9 or higher — she should avoid marrying a much higher earning man if she doesn’t want to endure the pain of infidelity over and over and over…

******

Trusting people aren’t necessarily more gullible than skeptical people.

People high in trust were more accurate at detecting the liars—the more people showed trust in others, the more able they were to distinguish a lie from the truth. The more faith in their fellow humans they had, the more they wanted to hire the honest interviewees and to avoid the lying ones. Contrary to the stereotype, people who were low in trust were more willing to hire liars and they were also less likely to be aware that they were liars.

Moral of the study: If you are going to aspire to be a manwhore taking advantage of innocent blondes of Northern European descent, you had better have a good poker face.

******

For the men (you women should lift too, but I don’t want you getting any ideas that the 2.5 pound pink dumbbells are gonna make much difference to your cellulite ridden asses): you can build just as much muscle doing high rep light weights to failure as doing low rep heavy weights to failure.

Current gym dogma holds that to build muscle size you need to lift heavy weights. However, a new study conducted at McMaster University has shown that a similar degree of muscle building can be achieved by using lighter weights. The secret is to pump iron until you reach muscle fatigue.

“Rather than grunting and straining to lift heavy weights, you can grab something much lighter but you have to lift it until you can’t lift it anymore,” says Stuart Phillips, associate professor of kinesiology at McMaster University. “We’re convinced that growing muscle means stimulating your muscle to make new muscle proteins, a process in the body that over time accumulates into bigger muscles.”

I have put on sixteen pounds of muscle in the past five months lifting very heavy weights, two sets for each exercise of approximately 6-10 reps and 4-7 reps each. My routine is formed around a core of the big four: deadlift, squat, bench and wide grip pullups. I also take whey protein, creatine, and an assortment of peer-reviewed legal supplements, and my diet is 80% paleo. (Note: I have nothing against steroids.)

I’ve done both the high rep light weight and low rep heavy weight methods to failure, and I find that the latter leaves me feeling more aggressive and torqued. The former gives me more of a pump, which quickly subsides after a half hour. I like the feeling of accomplishment I get from incrementally lifting heavier weights, so I will stick with that method. Perhaps a mixed routine incorporating both methods is the way to go.

Read Full Post »

Why Sluts Make Bad Wives

This is a post about sluts. It is a post that will inflame the small animal passions of milquetoasty, nonjudgmentalist men and women alike, for in this post is evidence — hard evidence — that sluts are bad choices for long term girlfriends and, especially, wives. Chateau reps have written extensively (and gleefully!) on this subject, always with a phalanx of indignant detractors yelping in protest and vomiting some lame excuse or another.

The mentally flaccid nonjudgmentalists are running from ugly truths they cannot bear to accept, and never is this more apparent than when discussing the price that sluts pay in the open sexual market. Here, for instance, is an excerpt from an infamous post that sent hordes of internet whores into screeching hissy fits:

[T]his goes without saying, but apparently there are some commenters who believe being completely nonjudgemental of anything a woman does is the mark of an alpha. In fact, it’s just the opposite. Only alphas have the market value to mercilessly judge the women they choose to bring into their lives.

Men subconsciously judge women’s sluttiness for eminently practical reasons, just as women judge men on a host of alpha benchmarks for similarly practical reasons. No moral equation required. “Slut” is, in fact, a morally neutral term in the context of the sexual market, where a slutty girl is viewed, justifiably and desirably, as an easy lay who will go all the way right away, and undesirably as a girlfriend or wife prospect in whom to invest precious resources. With the law and social institutions of the modern west arrayed against male interest as it hasn’t been in all of human history, it is of critical importance that men get this part of choosing girls for long term investmest and wife and mother potential down to a science.

Well, the science has arrived; at least, the science that proves that sluts are suckers’ bets for LTRs or marriage. You want to marry or have a loving long-term relationship with a girl without an elevated risk that she’ll divorce you or cheat on you? Then you had better get good real fast at screening the sluts from the relatively chaste girls so that you can lavish your resources and commitment on the latter.

The Social Pathologist has crunched the numbers, and the verdict is in: women with lots of past partners are more likely to divorce than women who didn’t take a self-empowering spin on the cock carousel.

The results presented in this article replicate findings from previous research: Women who cohabit prior to marriage or who have premarital sex have an increased likelihood of marital disruption. Considering the joint effects of premarital cohabitation and premarital sex, as well as histories of premarital relationships, extends previous research. The most salient finding from this analysis is that women whose intimate premarital relationships are limited to their husbands—either premarital sex alone or premarital cohabitation—do not experience an increased risk of divorce. It is only women who have more than one intimate premarital relationship who have an elevated risk of marital disruption. This effect is strongest for women who have multiple premarital coresidental unions. These findings are consistent with the notion that premarital sex and cohabitation have become part of the normal courtship pattern in the United States. They do not indicate selectivity on characteristics linked to the risk of divorce and do not provide couples with experiences that lessen the stability of marriage.

A good guess as to what precipitates this “marital disruption” — the slut gets bored with her betafied hubby.

Here is a handy graph associated with the study:

As The Social Pathologist writes:

Note, the really disturbing [finding] still holds. As soon as a woman has had more than one partner her long term marital stability risk drops to near 50%.

Poetry of Flesh’s brand spanking new hubby wept. On the other hand, she is old enough to be less of a flight risk, so there’s that. Which is nice for him. I guess.

Players and traditionalists, take a close look at that graph. When a woman has had 16 or more past lovers, the odds that a marriage to her will end in divorce rise to over 80%! Even “average” women with “only” five past lovers — women that few men would admit in public qualify as sluts — see an increase in odds of divorce to 70%. What man would want to screw his chances by marrying that? No wonder women react so vehemently to accusations of sluttitude and to helpful hints from yours truly on how best to identify sluts before you get in too deep.

Basically gentlemen, if you want to beat the sordid odds and enter a marriage with a less than 50% likelihood it will end in divorce, you need to date virgins or girls who have had only one partner before you. Good luck with that! Of course, you can do as the Chateau recommends and skip out on marriage altogether. This option opens the playing field for you to continually date and dump sluts as you see fit, minus the accompanying divorce theft financial rape.

Interesting conjectures arise as to why sluts pose a greater divorce risk than more innocent girls. The most obvious is encapsulated in this maxim:

Maxim #80: The more cocks that have ravaged a woman, the less any one cock will mesmerize her.

Sluts may have higher testosterone levels, leading them to cheat and, thus, to increase marital instability. Sluts may get bored faster with any one man. Sluts attract the sorts of men who themselves have no use for monogamous commitment. Sluts may just be fucked in the head. Their psychology doesn’t matter as much as the ability to quickly identify and discard them as potential wife and mother of your children material.

What’s really going to blow some readers’ minds is that, despite the happy smackdown of the platitude parade marchers, the Chateau is not necessarily anti-slut. After all, sluts are good to go. They make easy lays in a pinch when you don’t feel like investing much time or energy into winning over a more prudish girl. Sluts are often wild in bed from the get-go; no training required. And sluts have lower expectations; they will rarely pressure you for a ring.

Nevertheless, what the above study and graph should convince you is that there are solid biological and sociological reasons why men place higher value on virgin women, and this fact is immutable regardless of the handwaving by the polyamory crowd. Sluts are simply a poor investment strategy for men seeking something more than a fling. This goes doubly for relationships codified by the state.

It should also be noted that sluts, while possessing pasts spattered with the cumshots of multiple lovers, are not less discriminating than saints. Betas thinking that all they have to do is hone in on sluts for the easy kill are in for a rude surprise. Sluts want to be properly gamed by an alpha male just as much as good girls. The difference is that sluts will sleep with more alphas, and will jump into bed quicker with them, than will good girls.

No girl wants to be labeled a slut (even if she co-opts the term for herself in a vain attempt to de-fang it), which is why women lie about their past number of partners. Women know, deep down, that being less slutty means better treatment from men.

To men thinking about marriage, double the total number of past lovers your girlfriend admits to you, add additional lovers based on the slut cues she reveals, and divide a 1 carat diamond engagement ring by that total. Ergo, a woman with twenty cocks in her past would receive a 1/20th carat ring.

Preferably quartz.

Read Full Post »

The Problem With Women Is Too Much Self-Esteem

The mantra for the past two generations in America has been that women suffer from low self-esteem brought on by a multitude of negative influences such as teacher bias, misogyny, old boys’ networks, parenting favoritism, double standards, gender stereotyped toys, etc.

Le Chateau representatives are here to tell you the low female self-esteem industry has been one giant scam perpetrated on gullible liberals and cowed conservatives. Women — American women in particular — don’t have a low self-esteem problem; just the opposite — they have a problem of unwarranted high self-esteem. What kind of woman do you get when you combine a cultural apparatus designed to maximally extol the virtues of womanhood and cast all fault for any female shortcomings on male bias and discrimination with a biologically innate evolutionary imperative that renders men more expendable than women? Answer:

A woman with a big fat head.

From the cradle, women are groomed by their peers, family, society and DNA-coded algorithms alike to embrace the joys of big-headedness. It used to be only beautiful women had this problem (and with at least a semblance of justification based on real value), but now ugly women, fat women, and lawyers are all riding the phony low self-esteem grievance chariot to the entitled princess winners’ circle. The result has been to produce a nation of broads hell-bent on seeing themselves as god’s gift to god himself.

The worst thing a man could do would be to feed this beast even further with traditional courtship game. It’s not for nothing that modern game focuses so much attention on breaking down a woman’s self-esteem into manageable chunks — negs, qualification, teasing, push-pull, takeaways, calculated indifference — all are game tactics with the primary purpose of knocking bigheaded chicks off their royal, gilded vaj-shaped thrones. And these tactics are effective precisely because girls want to be dethroned by a man of higher value than themselves, whether they admit to this or not.

The funny thing about female self-esteem is that it doesn’t take much to help it grow wildly beyond the bounds of the pot it was planted in. All women are born with a self-entitlement complex preinstalled. Eggs are biologically more expensive than sperm, and the brain of each sex has evolved to reflect that immutable procreative reality; in women, their minds are primed from birth to regard themselves as the more valuable sex, and this regard is not without merit, at least in the reproductive realm, which is the realm that underpins all other realms. Men, by contrast, are primed to regard themselves as less individually valuable than women, and this manifests as a willingness to take more mortal risks.

So now that we know that women start with a higher basal self-esteem than men, wouldn’t it make more sense for a healthy, functioning society to turn its cultural apparatus toward the project of boosting men’s self-esteem? In fact, this is what quasi-patriarchal Western societies used to do, before they were infected with the late decadent, postmodern deconstructivism and victimology virii. Now the optimal pattern has been completely turned on its head — intrinsically high self-esteem women are administered supercharged booster injections of ego-stroking, while intrinsically low self-esteem men are, either deliberately or coincidentally, pushed further into ego-deflating self-abnegation. See: March 2009 BOTM.

The goals of this outpost of bristling reality are, one, to acquaint readers with the truth of the female (and male) condition that exists past the boundaries of mainstream-approved polite discourse and, two, to arm the male readers (and, by extension, the female readers) with the tools to capitalize on that taboo knowledge. Thankfully, there are plenty of readers here who contribute to that knowledge base. Reader PA comments:

Gentle and friendly teasing is not intimidating, and creates a sort of rapport that makes one feel at ease.

Exactly. This is true even with non-sexual interaction. Think the last time you saw a man who is good with kids. He will ‘neg’ the girl by saying stuff like: “hey! you’re cheating! no red crayon allowed!” or whatever.

Boys, on the other hand, don’t like to be negged. If you’re good with kids, you will build him up with stuff like “that’s really cool. Can you draw it bigger?” etc.

If you have young nieces and nephews, you will quickly recognize the truth in PA’s comment. Nieces respond positively — with glee, even — to prototype negs and teasing; the sort of banter that modern feminists would describe as demeaning. In contrast, little boys, with their fragile egos, wilt under negs and teasing, but respond well to compliments and encouragement. Mothers instinctively know this, as they will often reprimand the fathers for being too discouraging or too critical with their sons while giving the fathers a pass or a semi-serious chiding when they tease the daughters.

The great irony here is that what makes good parenting is exactly the opposite of what feminists claim is the best way to raise boys and girls. Parents know, deep down, that to raise a good daughter you must keep her ego judiciously pruned, and to raise a good son you must suffuse his ego with promise.

Game theory — in fact, most social theory — has much to owe to the instinctual rapport that emerges between father and child, before diseased memes intrude and sully the message. When you want to better understand the nature of game and how it helps attract women, think of how you treat your niece, or how a father you know treats his young daughter. Recall how effortlessly the negs and teasing spilled from your lips when you were goofing around with your little niece. Recall, too, how she squealed with delight. Then take that knowledge and apply it — almost verbatim! — to your seductions of adult women. Their vocal pitch may change, but the squeal remains the same.

Today, in the era of the bloated female ego, the mark of a quality woman is a humble woman. Meet a pretty woman like this — usually foreign, and usually from a strong lower to middle class family — and marvel how refreshing she seems to the typical, mind and body bloated American chick you are used to dating. Unfortunately, more likely you will meet another egotistical bitch with self-love issues and will have to invest months training her (i.e. running game on her) to grace her with a proper and realistic humility. For those who love the game for what it is, this is not such a burdensome sacrifice. But for those who struggle to hear the strange tuning of women’s feminine nature, the required training may be a cost too high to pay.

Read Full Post »

Why The Elites Prop Up The Blank Slate

Dennis Mangan nails it:

But it also occurs to me that Orszag and his ilk have another motivation beyond pushing their blank slate theories, and that is self-justification. Those like him who have made into the elite are made of sterner stuff, practicing their 10,000 hours, and thus deserve to be part of the elite, unlike you proles, wasting your time on TV and Nascar.

No, connections and intelligence have nothing to do with becoming a Cabinet member, or even a New York Times columnist. All that success comes from the superior morality of someone who buckles down to the task.

There is a lot of speculation about why the elites (and at present, the elites in America are mostly megaphone-wielding whites) are so insanely and stupidly gung-ho about the infinite malleability of human nature and the policy implications that follow therefrom.

• They want to drive a wedge between themselves and “the wrong kind of white people” using the underclass as pawns so that they face less competition from those most likely to give it to them for the top career slots.
• They are brown-nosing amongst fellow SWPLs for those ever-crucial status points that can only be signaled by hating and obfuscating the common sense that is the currency of thought with putatively less enlightened whites.
• They are true blank slate believers.
• They are creating artificial social obstacles designed to make it difficult for less intelligent whites to navigate their way into polite society, thus selectively filtering for only the most socially savvy to rise to the top.
• They are paying the danegeld and rationalizing their extortion.
• They are secretly ashamed of acting in ways in their own lives that deny blank slate theology, and therefore seek to assuage their guilt. Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue.
• They want to squeeze the middle class — their main competitors — and establish a virtual hereditary aristocracy of globalized ruling class transnationalists. Patriotism, religion, tribalism, and ethnic kinship all work against that goal.
• They are bored with national prosperity.
• They abhor hopelessness.
• Do-gooderism is their replacement religion.
• They are sadists who like sticking it to dumber people.

All the above reasons have a kernel of truth, but for a glimpse at what motivates the seemingly self-duping elites in their crass status whoring and propagandistic myopia, you have to peer beneath all that straight into the thermal core of their souls where self-conception resides and the ego sloshes in a cauldron of lifeblood. This is where Mangan’s answer hits upon the ultimate truth —

A defeat of the blank slate robs the elites of their self-satisfaction. Their pride is the beast that stands guard at the last gate, claws and fangs bared, a giant warhammer held aloft to stop those who would raid the castle. At this gate — the last stand before they must relinquish everything that defines their smug superiority — they will spare no quarter for platitude smashing barbarians. Here they fight with a viciousness that belies the nobility of what they claim to fight for.

If genes for intelligence, conscientiousness and discipline account for half or (probably) more of one’s success in life (i.e., success over others), then what does that say about the elite that doesn’t remove a large plank propping up their zealously guarded pride? What successful person really wants to hear that a big reason for their success was…

dumb fucking luck?

(This post has been a 9-11 remembrance, mothafuckaaaaaas.)

Read Full Post »