Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Ugly Truths’ Category

This comment by Les Saunders, Protestant rings true. I’ve seen so many similar cases that there should be a term to describe men who look like womanizers on paper, but who are paper tigers in practice.

Being tall and handsome simply isn’t enough. Well, I suppose it will get you some play but it’s not the be-all end-all. I’m tall and handsome, but had weak game in my 20s. My physical attributes meant I didn’t starve and probably got me a number of 02:00am drunk hookups at da club that a short, homely fellow wouldn’t.

However – I’ll tell you about a good buddy of mine in university. 6’0″, better-looking and -built than me.  Had absolutely zero game. Think he got laid once in 4 years of school by some fat redhead in our dorm who I turned down.  Once, after graduating, a whole bunch of us  gathered in the countryside at a buddy’s parents farm for a weekend of games, drinking, and pig-roasting. A good, old-stock Canadian gathering. A female friend of a friend, a lovely natural blonde haired, slim lass, let it be known that she would bang the retiring buddy of mine. He completely buckled. I saw him freeze up, shift nervously, and stammer, “I can’t do it.”  A few lads and I tried to strong-arm him into going to her tent, but nothing doing. We speculated that he was gay, but I lived with the guy for over a year, and I honestly believe he simply has zero game and zero confidence. His mother was quite a stern and forbidding figure in his life. To this day, 12 years after graduation, he still lives at home, commutes into the city to work, and is thoroughly single.

The moral of the story? Being tall and handsome isn’t everything. Not even close. I’ve seen many shorter, less attractive men hook up with quite attractive women over the years. To be fair, I’ve seen many of the same type of men hook up with fat, homely women, and this is what you’d expect.

What do we all want? Hotter, younger, tighter. To get that you need to be, above all, interesting. That can mean being an asshole with a motorcycle, being a musician, or having game. Tall and handsome gives you some breathing room if you’re a little short in the charisma department, but not a hell of a lot. I’m a tall and handsome guy, but the best lays I’ve got over the years had far more to do with upping my charisma and zfg/keep ploughing attitude than walking into a place and having girls throw themselves at me based on looks alone.

By the way, Ukraine continues to be interesting. Girls here are sexy as hell and receptive to being approached – it’s normal here. I’m staying in a suburban area so they don’t get any foreigners here (100% Ukrainian here) and they practically cream their pants when I speak English.  Why is that? Because, as adduced above, being a White native English speaker is interesting, and interesting is what sets hearts and pussies alight. It just might be a poosy paradise here.

It’s been said before at this raw truth retreat, so I’m not saying anything new here, but a usefully attenuated guideline to male SMV and predicted success with women would run in this order, from highest to lowest:

Tall, handsome, sociable man with Game
>>
Average looking, sociable man of average height with Game
>>>>>
Tall, handsome, introverted man with no Game
>>>
Average looking, introverted man with no Game
>
Extremely ugly and disfigured man with Game
>>>>>
Extremely ugly and disfigured man with no Game

Anyone who thinks there’s something controversial in the above hierarchy of male mate value has, in my opinion, never lived a day in his life.

Bottom line, no matter your looks and height, or lack thereof, having male charisma is always better than not having charisma in the sexual market zero sum plunderdome for romance, love, and a genetic stake in the future.

I have personally witnessed so many good-looking men get BLOWN THE FUCK OUT by less handsome men with BIGGER BALLS and NIMBLER TONGUES that I came to write this blog partly to deliver to the world the truths that I saw unfold almost daily in the dating and mating trenches of our modern sexual market. And yet there are still some who prefer the safe space of pretty lies where black-pilling passivity and inaction are rationalized as moral imperatives…..how predictable.

Read Full Post »

Via reader Ponce du Lion, a Doctor H. Thiel quote from a 1907 report that eerily foretells Western decay through sexual bolshevism.

Hey Heartiste readers here is a mandatory read (by Doctor H. Thiel as quoted in Racial Decay by Octavius Beale):

There is just one thing more to add : unreasonable demands for exaggerated “rights ” of women will always find a limit in the fact that the majority of men will constantly prefer for wives those who do not claim such rights, but who rather seek their happiness in cultivating and developing their specially feminine virtues and attributes, apart from any aim at equality with men. These attributes will also therefore be preferably inherited, whilst the extreme tendencies of the women’s rights movement will usually not come into heredity, but will constantly tend to die out. Notwithstanding, should woman-rule —contrary to all expectations— become so strong in any single State that it will be able to enforce all its demands, even the most extreme, that result could only be possible where the men are completely degenerated. Such a nation would soon be supplanted and dissolved by healthier peoples, who might, perhaps, stand on a lower scale of culture.

Equalism is more than a big lie; it’s a corruption of civilized man’s soul. As the good doctor Thiel explains, femcuntery will only achieve wrecking power in a nation of degenerated men unable and unwilling to act to preserve their culture and protect their tribe. Women are followers and will follow their nation right into the abyss if it guarantees their social standing among peers; as I’ve been saying, it’ll take shitlord men with big balls to bring their women to heel and their nation back to greatness.

Read Full Post »

Does this woman have the unmistakable look of a mother with mystery meat kiddos?

MISCIOGNOMY IS REAL

Yep, I think the hambeast above is the iconic mudsharkin’ momma; fat, inbred, pig-snouted, and perpetually unhappy and resentful. This is the ugly reality of White woman-black man mixed race couples in America. There are miscegenation exceptions, but the rule looks like the above photo. For now. If the anti-White hate machine propaganda continues unchallenged, there may be more mudsharking across all White demos in the future. That’s why, even though none of us here would lay with such a gargoyle, it’s in the aesthetic interest of all Whites to counsel ugly White women away from mudsharkery. No good will come of it, and they will have trashed whatever slim hope they had to find a White man, have White babies, and ensure that they are vessels for their genetic and cultural heritage. A womb is a terrible thing to waste.

Read Full Post »

This is a sad story. I don’t intend any mean-spiritedness by telling you all this story. My shiv is sheathed. My purpose in passing along this real life anecdote is to expose the heartlessness of the sexual market so that you and those you love can know the monster who stalks you till the end. You won’t defeat this monster, but you can avoid accidentally stepping into its maw before your time.

A lanky White woman hit on me once. She was thin, but ugly. At the time, I rebuffed her plausibly-concealed solicitation. Over the months that followed, I would see her occasionally, here and there, around our itty bitty city, usually alone or working at a service job. The months turned into a few years. Still, I would catch glimpses of her every so often, working different low-pay service jobs.

I left the city, but my travels would take me back there sometimes, for month-long stays. Again, and weirdly coincidental, I saw her about town. And again, she was working in the service industry. Job-hopping from one middling wage outpost to another had become her lifestyle. Still ugly, but now older too.

In all these incidental path-crossings, I’d sometimes catch a look of recognition sweep across her face, but not always. I nonetheless pretended not to recognize her.

I would always feel sad when I saw her, because I knew if she were more attractive her life would be very different. A man of means would have scooped her up years ago, rescued her from that wage slave crush of unmarried despair, and given her the life so many women dream about as little girls. The house, the yard, the children, the comfort, the sense that the future is safe and secured and she is loved….all of it would have been hers if the God of Biomechanics had been more generous to her when the spark of life was breathed into her earthly story.

No pretty girl suffers the indignities of the callous job market for long. Men value female beauty so much they will bend metal with their minds if it can give them a hot girlfriend or wife. To rescue a fetching minx from soulkilling drudgery and sweep her into the good life is in fact many men’s fantasy.

If the woman of my anecdote were prettier, she could be that happy effervescent lady from the suburbs who picks up her coffee and pities the poor sub-prime ugly woman behind the counter taking her payment.

In the final abacus, sometimes all the difference between hell and heaven is a few millimeters of facial bone structure.

I can never stop forgetting this banal, gutter-bound ugly truth, which is why, even in my sincerest moments of heavenward yearning, I’m compelled to scoff at anything greater than this dirty muck which shackles us.

Read Full Post »

German Chancellor and High Priestess of Anti-White Virtue Signaling, childless hag Angela Merkel, is going to Washington to meet the God-Emperor and, hopefully, take another one of his rhetorical shivs to her flabby fraüface.

Merkel and GayMulatto are neck and neck in the running for Most Treasonous Leader of a Western nation since Abraham Lincoln. There’s a theory floating around the shivosphere that Merkel essentially opened the floodgates to hordes of rapefugee filth because she mortally feared the bad press she would get if she sent in German troops to stop the first wave of muslim invaders at the border.

I can believe that. An old woman with no genetic lineage to care for and who is forgotten and ignored by her nation’s men has caught a deathly case of the feelz and wants more than anything to avoid ostracism by the cowardly cucks braying at the center of her social universe.

What a cünt. This is why you don’t entrust your nation’s survival to a childless lonely old woman. She’s more liable to send your people to the brink of extinction on an emotional wave of moral peacocking than she is to sagely steward the nation and preserve its character.

If Germany and the German people disappear from the face of the earth, it will be an enormous evil of incalculable loss, but it will have been ENTIRELY THE FAULT OF GERMANS.

They can stop their suicide spiral. They just need the will.

Deus Vult

or Deus Excusat.

That is the existential choice facing Germany, and so many other White nations of the West.

PS I’m tearing it up on Gab. If you wish to join the sadistic fun, it’s gab.ai, and the CH account is @Heartiste.

Read Full Post »

Although the old trope of the undersexed husband has been around for ages, it wasn’t quite accurate, at least until recently. General Social Survey warriors like Audacious E had dug up data showing that married couples have more sex than singles. (Forgive me for not finding the relevant post, I’m a lazy SOB).

I can recall objecting to the GSS sex frequency data on the grounds that it exaggerates the sexual wantonness of married couples compared to singles because the population of singles includes all the no-sex, fap-happy incels dragging down the sex frequency average for their group. I suggested this asexual albatross would conceal the incredibly-high, curve-busting sex frequency rates of unmarried alpha male cads who are following the “girlfriend and fling” formula for happiness.

While I can’t at the moment recall any posts I may have written confirming with data any factual basis for my objection, I can report that a recent study, via our resident gold star artist Captain Obvious, finds that there was a decline in sexual frequency among married or cohabiting American adults from 1989-2014.

American adults had sex about nine fewer times per year in the early 2010s compared to the late 1990s in data from the nationally representative General Social Survey, N = 26,620, 1989–2014. This was partially due to the higher percentage of unpartnered individuals, who have sex less frequently on average. Sexual frequency declined among the partnered (married or living together) but stayed steady among the unpartnered, reducing the marital/partnered advantage for sexual frequency. Declines in sexual frequency were similar across gender, race, region, educational level, and work status and were largest among those in their 50s, those with school-age children, and those who did not watch pornography. In analyses separating the effects of age, time period, and cohort, the decline was primarily due to birth cohort (year of birth, also known as generation). With age and time period controlled, those born in the 1930s (Silent generation) had sex the most often, whereas those born in the 1990s (Millennials and iGen) had sex the least often. The decline was not linked to longer working hours or increased pornography use. Age had a strong effect on sexual frequency: Americans in their 20s had sex an average of about 80 times per year, compared to about 20 times per year for those in their 60s. The results suggest that Americans are having sex less frequently due to two primary factors: An increasing number of individuals without a steady or marital partner and a decline in sexual frequency among those with partners.

Regular guests of this brazen retreat won’t be surprised by the relative sexlessness of the Millennial generation, a screechy, androgynous, narcissistic generation which from nearly every vantage point appears to be the most useless lump of Americans to ever squib outta their mommas’ womb chutes.

Nor will readers be surprised by the finding that old farts who look like raisins with eyes have less sex than virile youts who can still flaunt their sexual dimorphism.

What’s interesting is mentioned in the last line: sex frequency is down over the period because there are more unpartnered people having no sex, and partnered couples are having less sex.

So….the incel demo is exploding. That would seem to confirm a CH observation of the sexual market; namely that the prolonged unmarried phase of courtship (aka the cock carousel) is supercharging female hypergamy. A lot of single in the city ladies are sharing HSMV men and leaving less charismatic beta males in the cold. That explains the male incels. The rise in female insols is explained by the concurrent rise in obesity (and aggro-feminism). Fat chicks and annoying chicks really do have less sex than slender, feminine babes, because men also exercise choice of mate.

The remaining mystery is why married and cohabiting sex frequency is decreasing. Captain Obvious writes,

Shitlib & Libertardian geeks and nerds at /. were sounding thoroughly Red-Pilled about this – talking about Phuckerbergbook, SSRIs, pr0n, the decline in earning power, an omnipresent sense of trepidation & cowardice & fear pervading much of the population, etc etc etc – and one dude even div0rced his wife over her iPhag Addiction: https://science.slashdot.org/story/17/03/07/2313232/americans-are-having-less-sex-than-20-years-ago-study-finds

Yes to all of that as causes for the sex frequency decline, but again I must humbly suggest that the primary causes are female obesity, female economic self-sufficiency, and the multigenerational drop in testosterone.

Female obesity: men are visually stimulated to bedroom action, and men really are disgusted by the sight of a female fatbody. Men, and especially White men with options, will fap to porn before bouncing dick-first into a fat chick’s belly brûlée. The obesity epidemic shows no signs of letting up, and that’s gotta have an effect on the national GCP (Gross Carnal Product).

Female economic self-sufficiency: women are aroused by powerful men with resources to spare on them, and they are turned off by powerless cash-strapped men. Women who are in less need of a man’s resources are also less sexually interested in men who don’t make substantially more than they make (or have other compensating traits). If husbands’ incomes have decreased relative to wives’ incomes, then there will be a shift toward wives desiring less sex from their husbands. It’s biomechanics all the way down.

Testosterone decline: this one is self-evident. Lower T means lower libido, for men but also for women. Since men are the initiators of sex (especially within the confines of a long term relationship), a low libido man will initiate less frequently, and his woman won’t take up the slack (women have a lot of pride about their ability to passively rouse their men to ardor, which is why they don’t like making the first move). If there’s lower T in women as well (a small amount of testosterone does affect female libido), then that would kill the passion just as quickly. Finally, low T men are just a plain turn-off to women. I have read studies which found women preferred the musky scent of sweaty shirts of men with high T.

All of this is leading to sex-starved husbands and the high divorce rate, because no matter how sacred your marital vows if hubby ain’t getting any his guilt about checking out of the marriage evaporates in a haze of 31 Redtube tabs.

Read Full Post »

At the end of the last post, I wrote about the modern sexual market and how it may relate to dysgenic breeding.

In my opinion, the current situation is unsustainable. Something’s gotta give. In a near-future post, I will explain how our postmodern sexual market dovetails with evidence that the West is careening toward idiocracy.

Well, the evidence is arriving by hatemail, and it doesn’t look good for the Pollyannas.

From the linked research paper:

Social Epistasis Amplifies the Fitness Costs of Deleterious Mutations, Engendering Rapid Fitness Decline Among Modernized Populations

Deleterious mutations are typically understood exclusively in terms of their harmful effects on carrier organisms. But there are convincing reasons to think that such adverse effects are not confined to the individual level. We argue that in social species, interorganismal gene-gene interactions, which in previous literatures have been termed social epistasis, allow genomes carrying deleterious mutations to reduce via group-level pleiotropy the fitness of others, including noncarriers. This fitness reduction occurs by way of degradation of group-level processes that optimize the reproductive ecology of a population for intergroup competition through, among other mechanisms, suppression of free-riding. Such damage to group regulatory processes suggests a hidden role for the accumulation of behavior-altering “spiteful” mutations in the dynamics of the demographic transition—these mutations may have contributed to the maladaptive outcomes of this process, such as widespread subreplacement fertility. A structured population model is presented describing aspects of this social epistasis amplification model. This phenomenon is also considered as a potential explanation for the results of Calhoun’s mouse utopia experiments, which provide an opportunity to directly test a major prediction stemming from the model.

In plainspeak, the dangerously scaled-up and decadent postmodern West has lost the ability (and the willpower) to cleanse itself of toxic people who have bad DNA mojo and even worse character, and the resulting sludge will build up to the level where the West will collapse under the weight of its welfare state-supported genetic sewage (insert visual of those Ethiopians buried alive by a garbage heap avalanche (true story)).

The paper (according to second-hand sources….I wasn’t able to access the full text) has data that the IQ of Western nations is falling some 0.8 points per generation, and the blame for it is apportioned mostly to dysgenic patterns of fertility, which it explains as consequences of modern post-industrial societies easing up the cultural selection pressures on their populations. The study authors finger the source of the problem as postmodern marriage and childbirth trends; more dumb people (specifically, women) than smart people are having kids, and more people (specifically, women) are waiting until later in life to have kids and therefore passing on more genetic mutations that have accumulated with age in the parents.

The cock carousel is birthing the moron merry-go-round. Sex and the City is being remade as IVF and the Refugees.

Modern, indulgent society — which in reality is the modern sexual market, since society is an emergent property of reproductive dynamics — creates massive, positively reinforcing feedback loops that essentially reward degeneracy and corruption by allowing it to run wild and unopposed, instead of snuffing it out in the crib. Free-riders at first slowly increase in number in a prosperous, proto-declining society, and if their growth isn’t halted early a rapid, exponential decline metastasizes until free-riding becomes the norm. When that happens, social collapse is guaranteed and maybe even necessary for the rebirth that can only occur after the free-riders are washed out of the system (usually in not-so-nice ways….think fire hoses and flamethrowers or, if we’re lucky, the humane option of welfare contingent on mandatory birth control).

There’s a lot going on in this paper, which draws Calhoun’s rat experiments and group selection (a controversial subject) into its theory of dysgenic breeding enabled by a soft, feminized, virtue signaling West. Urban density and anonymity are increasing within the population a lot of weird sexual paraphilias and psychological problems, and as discussed in the previous CH post the severing of the sexual market from the marriage market is delaying family formation and childbirth and contributing to the dysgenic reproductive skew. That, coupled with the pathological altruism that has run amok among White Westerners who basically want the West to be an enormous safety net and catch basin for the world’s 7 billion poors, is pushing White societies close to complete collapse — a cosmic own-goal so amazingly self-destructive that Darwinian selection is practically guaranteed to work swiftly and mercilessly at the task of culling the White West of its low fitness leftoid freaks.

In the end, as always, Diversity + Proximity = War, and as the study authors note, if a group isn’t bothering to defend itself, other groups will be more than willing to fill the power vacuum.

I’m warning shitlibs, get on board the Trump Train. Because if he fails to stop the Sewer World inflow and Globohomo one market dystopia, you libs are NOT gonna like what has to follow.

“You have to be cruel to be kind, in the right measure.” The West needs to relearn the value of this timeless lesson.

***

Readers wonder about suggestions to stem the idiocratic tide. I have offered many within these hallowed Chateau halls. For instance, there’s the CH BOSSS system; let’s break the back of the FemKunt KKKollective and get our HSMV men paired off with young, feminine secretaries less interested in careers than in mothering so the good genes can spread around more evenly to the whole of the White tribe. Close the borders. Kick out the illegals and anchor babies. End wage-gutting cheat codes like the H-1B visa program. Destroy the anti-White propaganda mills (many tools for this, including anti-trust and defunding leftoid institutions). As a last resort, allow the blue states committed to their suicidal ideation to secede from the union.

We in the West are on the precipice of annihilation and a complete repudiation of our past greatness. The good news: there’s still time to fix this. The bad news: there’s not much time left, and there’s a lot to fix.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: