Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Ugly Truths’ Category

First Things peers into the playroom of women’s minds and discovers that women really LOVE LOVE LOVE dominant alpha males and are BORED BORED BORED by beta males, when they aren’t HATE HATE HATING them. Has First Things been visiting the Chateau? Yes.

[W]hat are fans of the Fifty Shades series seeking?

One answer is that there’s a hunger that’s not being satisfied: Namely, for men who are unabashedly masculine, who aren’t afraid to take control, and to lead. That is, there’s a longing (even a lusting) for men who aren’t afraid of what’s classically been called “headship.” To this end, while Fifty Shades subverts Christian sexual morality, it subverts the modern crusade for “genderlessness” all the more.

For the past forty years, there’s been a concerted effort to minimize or eliminate the sexual differences between men and women. The sought-after utopia is the “truly equal world” envisioned by Lean In author Sheryl Sandberg, in which “women [run] half our countries and companies and men [run] half our homes.” According to this view (and contrary to the scientific data), the differences between the sexes are merely social constructs: the culture is to blame for women being feminine and men being masculine.

The funny thing about “Fifty Shades” is that I doubt the female author set out to subvert “genderlessness”. Rather, she set out to write a book with themes that she knew would be arousing for women to read, because those themes are arousing to her. It’s female hindbrains all the way down (to the vaj).

A reader responds with an optimistic take:

Chicks dig assholes, sure.

But women are aroused by male strength, even when the man is not an asshole.

If people want a moral regeneration of the USA then the key is to restore masculine strength as a virtue to be cultivated and admired.

Good luck with that. Every Western culture vector is pointing to more androgynes of either sex. Have you seen a manboobed new atheist or an iron-jawed feminist lately? They’re everywhere. Have you seen them get raked over the coals by the Hivemind, as a lesson for the others? I haven’t. Rehabilitating these sexless wonders will be like squeezing healthy sperm from a brony. Their anti-human abasement is enabled and encouraged by the megaphonies.

This is possible but will be difficult.  On the positive side, there is a pent up demand there that dares not speak its name.

Exalting masculine strength NECESSARILY means discrediting feminism and trannyism and all the other degenerate freak mafia -isms. The former cannot COEXIST with any of the latter.

(And the PLAYA, echoing St. Augustine, says, yes, ok, sure, some day, but not too soon, maybe in a decade or two, in time for me to retire in safety and comfort, but not yet, the women have to stay loose for a while  … .)

I believe women are aroused by assholes qua assholes because assholes are, above all, INTERESTING men. They aren’t like the mediocre masses of rapidly feminizing beta males. You want masculine, virtuous men of the West? The path to that nirvana is blazed by the swashbuckling assholes.

Read Full Post »

Drop another social science study on the pile of studies affirming the CH maxim that diversity + proximity = war (by whichever means).

Keep your enemies close? Greater proximity to opponents leads to more polarization.

Encouraging adversaries to have more interpersonal contact to find common ground may work on occasion, but not necessarily in the U.S. Senate, according to new research.

In their study, “Pulling Closer and Moving Apart: Interaction, Identity, and Influence in the U.S. Senate, 1973 to 2009,” which appears in the February issue of the American Sociological Review, Sameer B. Srivastava, assistant professor, Haas Management of Organizations Group at UC Berkeley’s Haas School of Business, and Christopher C. Liu, assistant professor of strategy at University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management, studied the interactions among U.S. senators from the 1970s to the 2000s.

A pattern emerged. Senators either moved closer together or further apart in their voting behavior as a function of their political identities and how much contact they had with each other. This pattern was especially pronounced when contact occurred in Senate committees that were more divided.

“Conventional wisdom says interpersonal contact between people will foster collaboration and consensus,” says Srivastava. “We found that increasing physical contact between people who have opposing and public political identities can instead promote divergence of attitudes or behavior. This tendency is further amplified in environments involving high conflict, which makes political identities more salient.”

“Co-location can induce both positive and negative outcomes. Sometimes keeping some distance is the better option,” says Liu.

A billion white leftoid SWPLs would weep, except they already agreed with the conclusions of this study and others like it when they skedaddled for white hipster enclaves and white suburbs with white majority schools.

This latest result belying the “diversity is our strength” mantra is in line with Putnam’s previous finding that trust within communities decreased as ethnic and racial diversity increased. Just like regular people, politicians don’t want to be around strange, irritating foreigners for long.

Of all the stupid acts of malice elite white leftoids have perpetrated upon America, when the dust settles on District Yankeeland it will be the opening of the borders to the nonwhite world and the shitting in the faces of core middle class whites that will chasten them the most. That is, if there is any integrity left in them.

 

Read Full Post »

The shapes of female figures have real world consequences, for both men’s capacity to experience pleasure and willingness to commit, and for women’s ability to leverage the sexual market to snag a winner man and fulfill their romantic needs. Given that men, unlike women, are neurally primed to get aroused and motivated solely by stimulating visual cues, it’s difficult to overestimate just how much a good body shape assists women in the promise of a healthy and happy love life.

“Beauty is in the eye of the beholder” is a lie insofar as it presupposes every female body type is equally attractive. They aren’t. Women don’t have equal sexual or marriageable worth. Some body types are better than others. And one body type is so much better than the others that women who possess it can name their price.

The Anti-Gnostic, ruddy and taut from doing a yeoman’s job disinfecting that cistern of stupidity at Cheap Chalupas whenever the subject turns to mass nonwhite immigration, forwards a handy chart illustrating the four five female body types.

He adds for effect,

Female body types: hourglass, pear, banana, apple.

I’d add a body type of “rotund”, given the historically unprecedented numbers of fertile, obese females.

Never bonked an apple or a rotund. Ever. I’ve had some widely variant sexual partners, but if she doesn’t have inflection points that result in a definite waist, the right subinsular is just not going to be firing. No amount of drugs or desperation on earth could get me over that hump.

The recently added Rotund fifth female body type:

Who said America’s inventive spirit is dead? We’ve invented a whole new female body type!

Of the five, rotund is obviously the most disfiguring, and the ugliest female body type. A woman with this non-shape will suffer MASSIVE constraints on her mate choice options. Compared to less celestial women, she will have the least number of men pursuing her, and those who do will be the lowest value men. Her odds of spending many years enduring painful involuntary solitude are very high. Like her male analogue the socially clumsy nerdo, she will likely spend months, perhaps even years, in parched involuntary sexlessness. And any man she does manage to lure into her sticky, bulbous, pitcher plant vagina will be less interested in a longer-term commitment with her than he would with a woman of more human shape.

The Rotund female body type is so bad in contrast with the others that it practically deserves its own graphic. Correction: It needs its own graphic due to screen size limitations. So we boot Violet Blobbybarge into Jupiterian orbit where she belongs, and rank the remaining four female body types in ascending order of attractiveness.

Apple

Not nearly as atrociously repulsive as the Rotund, the Apple nonetheless squats lumply below the other three body types. Top heaviness works for linebackers, not women.

Pear

The Pear is interesting, because much of her sexual appeal or lack thereof depends on the distribution of her fulcrum fat. If her fat sits grotesquely on her hips like a hoop dress, and her ass juts like a National Geographic native, she will turn off more (white) men than the Apple-shaped girl. If she sports an incipient fupa, even worse. The entire deleterious effect is magnified if her narrow-shouldered upper body sways like a swamp reed atop the mountain of fat below.

But if the Pear’s fat isn’t obtrusive, and it rests gracefully and smoothly on child-birthing hips without too much distortion, the Pear can be quite bangable. Unfortunately, most Pears aren’t this lucky.

Banana

I expect this categorization to elicit the most opposition from the penis gallery. Men like curves, and will assume the Pear has more of those boner-inducing curves than the Banana. But that’s not how it always plays out. Bananas have curves that are proportionate to their overall slender body shape. The waist-hip ratio is what counts, not the absolute hip width.

Bananas are your archetypical athletic girls: Tall, slender and built like sex pistons. Bananas are overrepresented among porn starlets, probably because they have the optimal balance of higher testosterone-induced horniness and thin body shapes that arouse male viewers. If the Banana has a narrow waist to complement her lithe hips, and her torso isn’t overdeveloped, she will turn more men’s eyes than the Pear. However if the Banana is tubular, the Pear with pleasing pelvic padding will win more head-swivel contests.

Keep in mind that men with a keen future time orientation who are also seeking relationships will be better at projecting the Banana and the Pear into the future, whereupon they will see with mental clarity what happens to each type of body after ten or twenty years, and the Pear doesn’t come out looking so good under those conditions. The Banana typically holds up better, while the Pear turns into a Weeble.

Hourglass

And here we arrive, at last, to the goddess. My, but she is a tall drink of tumescence. The vast…. VAST… majority of men prefer hourglass-shaped women. Those perfect Playboy measurements — 34/24/34 and mostly unchanged in their boner-popping power since time immemorial — are so desired by men that women with this body type run laps around their sexual market competition.

The Hourglass lady is desired by the most men, pursued by the most high value men, and when pursued is solicited the most frequently by men with offers of long-term commitment. If she is also pretty of face, she has, for all practical purposes, unlimited sexual market options.

***

There it is. Women would do well to understand and accept the visual acumen with which men make their split-second judgment of women’s bodies. Men are frickin electron microscopes in human form when they’re visually assessing women’s figures. A centimeter here, a millimeter there, can mean the difference for women between suffering the awkward sexual interest of a spazzy beta or the passionate love of a smooth alpha. It can mean the difference between waiting for years for an Alex Pareene to propose in cubic zirconia, or weeks for a God of the Rod to gift wrap a bag of Skittles.

Read Full Post »

Leftoid Prime Jonathan Chait is feeling kind of nervous about the intensity and target acquisition algorithm of the witch hunts that his Social Justice Wanker allies have been up to these last few centuries decades years. Ross Douthat responded in a gentlemanly manner (and that is why he will always fail), and Steverino Sailerino detailed the intramural derailment on his blog.

The liberal elite are beginning the phase of cultural decline where they eat each other after having achieved total victory over their enemies (i.e., normal people). It would all be a humorous sideshow if the stakes weren’t so high and marginal realtalkers weren’t losing their livelihoods to mobs of screeching idiots.

Anyhow, a commenter at Steve’s, doombuggy, perspicaciously noted:

Sounds like Chait is just bragging that his side is winning.

For all this winning, they are the most unhappy people in history.

Doombuggy, intentionally or not, revealed a deep truth about human nature, particularly human female nature.

Maxim #105: Women, and leftoids, are unhappy when they have no dominant power to whom they can submit.

Leftoids, and women, ARE the dominant power in late stage Western societies. And this makes them very unhappy. That’s because the nature of leftoids, and women, is submission. The joyous capitulation to a dominant man, or a dominant paternal culture, has the paradoxical effect of relieving women and leftoids of that gnawing feeling of unfulfilled yearning to give themselves over to a truly powerful force of nature.

When there are no dominant men, or no dominant culture, to rein in their worst excesses of mind and habit, women and leftoids become unhappy and agitated, like untethered electrons spinning out of valence, naked nuclei violently colliding. This explains why, even in the moment of their absolute victory, leftoids and women wail and ragepout like toddlers throwing temper tantrums. They really never wanted to win. They just wanted to stamp their wee feet as dad sternly admonished and sent them to their rooms.

Now that they’ve won, they cast around for sturdy support, only to find themselves and their despicable loser cohorts flinging feces at each other. Desperate for a father figure to at once obey and resent, they summon the frat boy or redneck southroner golems, but that horse left the barn a long time ago, replaced by fat pigs and sneaky rats.

Leftoids, like women, will stress-test their objects of dominance. They need to know if the dominant society/men they love are as they seem.

Leftoids, like women, will quickly lose respect for their society/lovers if the former are allowed to get away with murder by the latter.

Leftoids, like women, say one thing and desire another.

Leftoids, like women, will get very angry and spiteful if they are given what they claim to want.

Leftoids, like women, will make life miserable for the society/men who supplicate to them.

Leftoids, like women, are contemptuous of a weak society/weak man.

Leftoids, like women, will work ceaselessly to sabotage society/relationships, and will blame anyone but themselves for their treachery.

Leftoids, like women, are incapable of wisely and judiciously exercising power. A few leftoids and women are comfortable wielding real power for the good of their fellowmen and posterity, but most are clumsy tyrants who secretly hate having the role thrust on them. They grow angrier, more spiteful, and more vindictive with each day they are tasked to possess the monarch’s mace.

This is the nub of it: Leftoids are like women because both crave the calming embrace of a strong, dominant, unshakeable lover.

An alpha society as an alpha male.

But we are no longer an alpha society. We are a beta society into which women and leftoids have filled the alpha male vacuum. And they hate the world for it.

Equalism, multikultism, and anti-white prostration have robbed leftoids of happiness just as assuredly as feminism has robbed women of happiness. But they will never realize or accept this. It therefore falls to men, unapologetic men and their patriarchal goodness, to set them right. What leftoids need is what women have always needed:

A strong pimp hand.

***

Addendum: Douthat asks a rhetorical question in his ChaitFact column:

Is the vocabulary that the contemporary left increasingly uses for this purpose, to condemn arguments instead of answering them — don’t victimblame, don’t slutshame, check your privilege, that’s phobic (whether trans or homo or Islamo or otherwise), that’s denialism — worth embracing and defending?

I have a simple reply to leftoids pulling this indignant condemnation stunt:

“Answer the question.”

Conservatives should try it sometime. If they do, they might find they enjoy the feeling of their testicles dropping.

Read Full Post »

Lardass of the Blogosphere is butthurt by all the anti-fat realtalk in the free speech zone, and this resentment fuels the obstinacy with which he holds to wrong-headed opinions about obesity. His latest is a howler:

In the comments, there is often talk about the fattening of America, yet I hardly see any fat white people in Manhattan. Thus I came up with the theory, this morning, that thin people are moving to Manhattan and other thin cities such as Washington, Boston, and San Francisco/Silicon Valley, leaving the fat people behind in the rest of the country. Those readers who live in the rest of the country are, therefore, getting the false impression that the population as a whole, is fatter than it really is.

Or that, you know, the skinny people living in the pricey coastal cities are getting the false impression that the population as a whole is skinnier than it really is.

LotB is called out on his ignorance of CDC obesity data by one of his commenters, which he reacts to by attempting a semantic evasion.

Those [CDC obesity] statistics are not broken down by race. New York has plenty of overweight blacks and Hispanics.

Here is the CDC obesity data for white women (the data most pertinent to the functioning of a healthy sexual market):

Between 1988–1994 and 2007–2008, the prevalence of obesity among women increased (Figure 4):
•    From 22.9% to 33.0% among non-Hispanic white women.

Yes, there are disproportionately more fat black and amerindian women, but white women are getting FATTER too. LotB is simply mistaken in his pro-fatass beliefs. For shits and giggles, here’s the obesity rate in the United States in 1960 versus the obesity rate in 2008:

Obese (BMI ≥ 30)
1960-1962: 13.4%
2007-2008: 34.3%

Extreme Obesity (BMI ≥ 40):
1960-1962: 0.9%
2007-2008: 6.0%

Environmental shocks.

Obesity and extreme obesity are the two most revolting categories of fatness. Mere overweight has gone up a couple percentage points since 1960. None of the trends are good, however a few extra pounds on a man won’t adversely affect his romantic prospects like similar extra weight on a woman would affect hers.

These numbers are even worse than they appear, because the obesity categories are based on renormed standards. The 1959 Met Life insurance tables are truer standards of ideal weight, because they were devised before American “girth inflation” became necessary to spare the feelings of chubsters like, I would bet good money, those of LotB’s.

Read Full Post »

Ladies and gentleman, this is a chowderhead. He lives on the planet Endor.

A stone cold killer was executed in Georgia and a small group of Moral Majority protestors are upset because the killer had an IQ of 69.

Hill was condemned for beating fellow inmate Joseph Handspike [ed: what a surname!] to death in August 1990. At the time, Hill was serving a life sentence for the 1985 shooting death of his 18-year-old girlfriend, Myra Wright.

Five thousand people signed a petition seeking to spare his life and it was presented to the state parole board, his lawyers said.

Hill’s supporters included former President Jimmy Carter and his wife, Rosalynn, the American Bar Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, the European Union and the Georgia chapter of the NAACP, according to his attorneys.

Core Americans.

Experts generally define mental disability as having a score of 70 or below on intelligence tests. Hill scored 69 on one intelligence test and in the 70s on others, according to court records.

He had the mental capacity of an 11-year-old, his attorney said.

In 1973, after the civil rights movement permanently clouded the minds of millions, the American Association on Mental Deficiency lowered the threshold for retardation from IQ < 85 to IQ < 70. The reason this was done was feels.

“This execution is an abomination,” Hill’s attorney, Brian Kammer, said in a statement. “The memory of Mr. Hill’s illegal execution will live on as a moral stain on the people of this State and on the courts that allowed this to happen.”

“Brian Kammer”.

As a moral principle, executing ultraviolent imbeciles is no more questionable than putting down a rabid animal. But if IQ is going to be a moral litmus test for liberals — and why wouldn’t it be, given the eagerness with which liberals embrace the concept of IQ — then anti-white knights for moronsters like Hill should acquaint themselves with the research (see above link) which shows race differences in the ability of the cognitively deficient to socially integrate with peers and adapt to everyday life.

To put it bluntly, a Warren Lee Hill with a 69 IQ will be more competent to stand trial and better able to understand the nature of his vile crimes than will a similarly mentally challenged killer with a privileged racial background.

Read Full Post »

There’s a certain kind of hater/troll who loves to poison sensible, race-aware discourse concerning mass immigration with tendentious exhortations to “make more white babies” as the only feasible solution.

A relevant comment by dastardlyrake had me thinking about this numbingly tedious variety of troll.

If we want to put reproduction as a primary goal in the arena, doesn’t that mean we need to reduce the importance we place on the virginity of a wife? Why shame men who marry women with high N counts? Shouldn’t we be lauding them?

Shaming has got nothing to do with it. Men, all else equal and all options available, would prefer to marry and bear children with virgins than with road-worn sluts. Chalk it up to the paternity assurance protocol. However, if MOAR WHYTE BAYBIES NOW!! is your only goal then, sure, impregnating ALL THE WOMEN will get you closer to that goal.

That goal, of course, is bullshit. Sure, a sub-replacement fertility rate will become a problem if it’s prolonged and the threat of self-extinction looms. But fertility rate isn’t the only concern. Quality matters. Demographic ratios matter. Living space matters. The environment matters. Social cohesion matters. And, yes, a little freedom to enjoy life without the hungry mouths of twenty kids taking bites of your soul matters.

The anti-game and anti-white haters — and that’s who these MOAR WHYTE BAYBIES trolls are once you scratch their surface bleatings — like to deploy the “””argument”””, such as it is, that white men who aren’t impregnating scads of white women have no right to complain about mass nonwhite immigration or white women with shitty feministing attitudes and blubbery hides. This notion is preposterous on its face.

One, as a matter of policy it’s a lot simpler to close the borders than it is to raise the birth rate of an entire race. Hell, it’s easier to create incentives for self-deportation than it is for Flukey femmes to get off the birth control.

Two, getting into a birthing war with the trash world’s wretched refuse is no way to build a city on a hill. However, it is a great way to despoil any remaining natural lands, exacerbate the animus generated by diversity to all-out war, and bankrupt social safety nets.

Three, we have fairly recent history to prove that America did just fine when she was 90% white and half the population she is today.

Four, as a philosophical point, reproduction is not the goal of human courtship. Sex is the goal. Children are an after-effect.

And five, most pointedly, there isn’t an exclusionary principle that prevents a man from lamenting the quality of his women and the wide-openness of his nation’s borders while simultaneously pursuing a hedonistic kinderfreie life. It’s as stupid as those dullards who demand that someone who doesn’t vote has no right to express an opinion about political matters or the direction of his country.

Finally, what do population growth whores think will happen if their prescription to bear lots of fruit and multiply unto the end of days is taken to heart by everyone? At some point, there will be too many people. Is there anyone who seriously believes the earth will be a livable planet at 50 billion people? I suppose Matty “Who polar bear this is?!” Yglesias thinks all will be fine with billions stuffed like sardines into 1,000 story, rent-controlled skyscrapers.

There’s sometimes necessity for population retraction and rebalancing. Population declines, land frees up, family formation costs go down, and population rises again. Naturally, all this is a lot more manageable when your elites aren’t flooding your country with the spillover of 100 shittier countries.

It may not please population growth GDP FOREVER libertardian theorists, but a period of slow or no growth caused in part by a shrinking population base isn’t a surefire recipe for a declining standard of living. Goatse’d borders, on the other hand….

…well, let’s say that the spirit of procreation would be enlivened when the world to be inherited by one’s children isn’t a socially disconnected, racially haphazard, overcrowded, low trust tooth-and-claw mad dash for value transference supremacy.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,174 other followers

%d bloggers like this: