Study: The Decline In Married Sex Frequency

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 »

The Modern Sexual Market And Our Coming Idiocracy

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.

How Civilizations Die In One Image. https://t.co/pl9qwJuhCq pic.twitter.com/llvNSyaayi

— RorschachRockwell (@False_Nobody) March 14, 2017

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 »

Freelance Comment Of The Week: A Primer On The Modern Sexual Market

Responding to Triflewoman (infamous cross-platform, multiblog denier of sexual market realities), LOTB commenter “map” channels many CH themes and unloads one of the best short primers I’ve read that echoed my collected writings on the functioning of the modern sexual market.

There is no such thing as male hypergamy. Female hypergamy, though, is quite real. It was enabled by the sexual revolution, which divided the relationship market into the market for marriage and the market for sex. In the sexual market, women trade up…the result is that, at every level of attractiveness, there is a shortage of women. This shortage is generated by the belief that every woman who is a 5 can do better than a man who is a 5. And this is true…a woman who is a 5 can sleep with a man who is a 6,7, or 8. This happens due to the shortage of women in these categories as well, created by the female hypergamy of their corresponding women.

The problem with this is simple and dire: women confuse the market for sex with the market for marriage. The woman who is a 5 thinks that if she sleeps with a man who is a 6, 7 or 8, that she, too, is a 6, 7 or 8. The reality is she is not, so she will not be able to convert her easy sex life into a marriage with the men to which she is genuinely attracted. She, instead, will continually be pumped and dumped until she ages past her peak years of attractiveness and can no longer pull the attention of the men she genuinely loves, usually at around age 30. The vast majority of women have gambled away their 20’s on this very high risk strategy in hopes of finally getting a marriage with a high value man.

Traditional, monogamous marriage and morality short-circuited this problem. While biological hypergamy still existed, men did not date or marry beneath them and sex outside of wedlock was frowned upon, so there were few opportunities for women to carry on open affairs with lots of out-of-league men. Marrying young and having children young also sucked out their narcissism and they focused inward on their families instead of competing with other women. The system worked…which is why the Cultural Marxists did everything they could to attack it.

Unmarried women riding the carousel until they age past their peak years of attractiveness are some of the worst human beings you will ever meet. Their personalities harden because they need to filter out the men that they previously rejected, who are now the only men that will actually talk to them. To marry one of these shrews is a guaranteed divorce. These women should never be rewarded with marriage.

Why do we focus on television? Because television is how the people who run the country, the ruling class, communicate with the masses. It is nothing but propaganda, where what you watch is exactly the kind of world the elite want you to believe can be created. So, 50 Shades of Grey is about a billionaire who loves a woman who looks like a housekeeper. Sex and the City has 40 year old women sleeping with baseball players and marrying investment bankers. Big Little Lies has a woman marrying a beta-male provider while pining for her alpha male ex. See, woman? You, too, can have a life like this.

The reality is different. Billionaire alpha males marry models, like Donald Trump did. Most women will end up as crazy cat ladies after 13 years of riding the carousel. Look at Ashley Judd. Why is she so angry? Because her husband, a former race car driver, dumped her ass, married a far younger and hotter woman, and they just had their first kid. She knows there are no race car drivers or kids in her future, so we get to watch her act out that realization in public by demanding other women make the same mistakes she did. And she is a very successful and beautiful woman, who did not lock down her options when she had the chance. Imagine the results for the less gifted. It’s a society of Meg Griffins.

Cultural Marxism is about engineering this decline, by triggering female hypergamy and letting it run wild. Once that reproductive and youthful window closes, you will have this army of women permanently, because they have no choice but to be committed to this course of action, just to avoid the despair of their own circumstances. This even operates internationally, where NGO’s try to “educate” women in various third-world countries, like Nigeria. Boko Haram was created to fight this.

Whiskey and others [ed: that would be me, the original realtalker] make the claim that women are far more valuable than men and that is how all of this is enabled. They are partly correct. Women, in their prime youthful and child-bearing years, are more valuable than men, but that quickly inverts once women lose those years. The women who have missed those windows really have no idea the living hell that is coming for them in the decades to come. Childless, unattractive women, with bitter personalities, causing problems in a resource poor and declining civilization, will get burned at the stake, like the witches of Salem. Count on it.

The kinds of people that stubbornly deny these blatant truths about the sexes and the shared mating market which they inhabit, and worse invert the truth into a distorted funhouse mirror image lie that plays to their fantasy of how they wish the sexual market worked, typically fall into two camps:

1. ugly women
2. flawed women

Ugly women have every incentive to deny fundamental truths about SMV. They can’t fix their ugliness in the way men can improve their lots in life, so for them lying and wallowing in vapid platitudes is better than existential hopelessness. You can throw fat women and childless post-Wall women into this mix, too.

Flawed women — for example, the aging ex-stripper who’s still sexy enough for a night but would give men pause when she began demanding more commitment than that — aren’t at risk of existential hopelessness….yet….but they loathe any incursion of sexual market reality and any messengers bringing news of that baleful incursion because they prefer to maintain the illusion that their marital market worth is the equal of their sexual market worth.

So I deduce that Triflewoman is either an ugly woman or a skank approaching the Wall.

(A third category — envious, spiteful beta males bitterly hitched to fat sow wives — are also particularly prone to resentful denials of sexual market realities; the truth in their case is a depressing reminder of both their low romantic rank and their politely suppressed desire for something better. If Triflewoman is a Trifleman, he would fall in with this group of misfits. John Scalzi is a case study.)

As to map’s comment, there isn’t much with which I’d quibble. He (likely not a she) pretty much nailed the essential difference between the sexes (chicks dig power, men dig beauty, eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap, men are expendable, women are perishable) and the nature of the modern sexual market in relation to mating behavior and marriage. He makes a good point about postmodern society severing the ancient link between the sexual market and the marriage/monogamy/parenthood market, and an even better point about children focusing women’s attention and preventing female solipsism spirals (and leftist activism predicated on megadoses of feelz; one of the reasons why divorced and single Boomer hags with no or few kids are so obstreperously anti-Trump).

Consequently, we observe that an isolated and transactional sexual market — greased by urban anonymity and social media — prolongs the time and energy women spend on the cock carousel (or languishing in “I REFUSE TO SETTLE” insol hell). We similarly observe that prolonged childlessness is a female narcissism accelerant, and simultaneously jacks up women’s standards and carves away at their likeability and femininity (aka chasteness), resulting in a snatch-22 that reduces their chance of finding love at precisely the moment they think the most highly of themselves and place the greatest demands on potential mates.

It’s an open question whether our Masturbators of the Universe intentionally or accidentally unleashed forces (abortion, condoms, the Pill, penicillin, poz, female economic self-sufficiency aka the Six Sirens of the Sexual Apocalypse) that would sever at every level sex from marriage and children, and thus lead to the low fertility of the West and the poisoning of relationships that naturally percolates when women are surrounded by weak, deferential men and men are left with the prospect of marrying road-worn sluts who secretly still pine for the dazzling cads of their nightclub bathroom passion play memories, but it’s indisputable that the oligarchs and Bezosians and open border 1%ers prefer a deracinated, dehumanized world bazaar with women freed from the constraints of early marriage and motherhood to consume, capitulate, and clog the globohomo capitalist self-negate machine as happy little office cogs.

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.

Read Full Post »

What Are The Consequences Of Multigenerational Low Testosterone?

Testosterone levels have been plummeting in Western men for at least two generations and this fact is without question. I will speculate in this post what a multigenerational, age-independent decline in T will portend for American society, should the trend not shortly reverse itself.

• women will dress and act sluttier to capture the attention of increasingly benumbed men who need the services of the hardest of hardcore porn to feel aroused.
• team sports will disappear.
• drama club will be a required class.
• politics will intensify its shift leftward because low T men will vote more like women.
• the national (and psychological) borders protecting the low T men from predation will remain, for all practical purposes, open to the sewer world until, inevitably, higher T conquerors arrive in sufficient number to wipe out the low T White submissivists.
• inventiveness and entrepreneurship will stagnate, and contract.
• any big job or goal will demand more oversight, more paper pushing, more regulatory hurdles to overcome. the days when men gathered and made shit happen on a reasonable time frame will be over. it’ll be an HR dystopia of endless meetings all the way down to the musty cellar of the gossip mill.
• corporations will turn into ghettos of bickering crones, slutty college girls, and yes-manlets. nothing will be produced but social media apps and articles about online dating. the resulting economic collapse will create a run on arable urban land as millions of useless SWPLs fight to the death for patches of communal gardens to plant their sad kale and heirloom tomatoes.
• therapy and self-medication will shoot through the roof.
• heart disease, cancer, and obesity will rise again (or continue the general upwards rise) among men.
• the rate of infidelity will increase.
• the rate of divorce will hold steady or increase (we may have hit the divorce industrial complex saturation point).
• marriage will increasingly be platforms for brides to take selfies and grooms to blubber during the vows. jerkboy best men will be tasked with the job of deflowering any virgin brides remaining in the wilds as the soyfatted grooms recite lines from their favorite feminist poets.
• fertility will continue declining.
• the rate of cuckoldry will increase.
• cat ownership will increase among men.
• muscle cars will become a distant relic.
• there will be vanishingly little entertainment made with a straight male sensibility in mind.
• weird sexual paraphilias and fetishes will rise (those afflicted with declining libido will compensate with outlandish substitutes to bring back that lovin’ feeling).
• the prevalence of sexual dysfunctions will increase.
• feminism will get increasingly shrill, and male feminists increasingly servile and pathetic.
• the population of basement bachelors, cat ladies and bitter spinsters will explode.
• sexbots will be the only romantic companionship for half the population.
• high libido men — cads — will reign supreme in the actual sexual market (what’s left of it) as opposed to the pretend sexual market that lonely feminists jabber about during their intersectionality bullshit sessions.
• androgyny will become the norm.
• polyandry will be common.
• polygyny will be rare, but more entrenched. (the few high T men who aren’t eunuchs will have no trouble keeping de facto harems of smitten lovers satisfied and compliant)
• balls, penises, jawlines, chins, noses, and musculature will literally shrink in men. ears may become floppy.
• a million sociologists with shitty research papers no one has any intention of replicating will claim that beta male orbiters are our strength. they will write of the virtues of polygamy and the matriarchy, as their civilization burns down around them.
• no one will ever again speak anything close to the truth about the world, about the sexes, about the races. equalist self-delusion will be taught in schools under the subject “everything but math”.
• math will succumb soon afterward.
• art will suck. music will suck. architecture will suck. literature will suck. this will continue a trend long evident. houellebecq may very well be our last great author.
• tissue boxes will be handed out in movie theaters so that the 70-30 male-female audience may dab their eyes sitting through a full line-up of sappy rom-coms.
• Mars? Uh, no. More like, the space program will be dead and the androgynes of the future will come to remember the moon landing as a myth promulgated by ancient hirsute men imprisoned in a strictly binary sexuality, who possessed a vestigial feature called a “jawline” and squinted a lot.
• infrastructure will continue crumbling. instead of doing something about it, everyone will wait for the next tragedy when a bridge fails and then participate in a candlelight vigil and cry a lot. they will repeat this process until everyone is dead from preventable tragedies.
• John Scalzi will be Premier of this Empire of Aromatase. His rule will not last long. Muslims, blacks, and black Muslims will overrun the Femme West and every capital will ring out with the dulcet ululations of muhammed’s flock.

Recall the Law of Gender Conservation:

∑Masculinity = ∑Femininity

Or, ∑T = ∑E, for short.

Nature abhors a testosterone vacuum. If one tribe’s men has low T, the fapuum will be filled with (in no particular order or likelihood of emergence):

1. invader men who have higher T
2. aggrocunts of man-jaw and boy-hip who have lower E (to align with the lower T of their men)
3. intratribe men with high T who somehow evolved an immunity against the low T disease.

Option one is genocide. Not fun.
Option two is bed death. Not fun.
Option three is our best bet for saving the West. Society will rebound as Nature, in her infinite wisdom, entrusts the low T landscape to high T spermlords who, despite feminists’ faux abhorrence to the contrary, will piledrive a wide swath through a lot of parched pussy that has spent decades lost in an anhedonic wilderness of un-men.

But if we don’t get our borders under control and stop seeding our water supply with endocrine-disrupting chemsexicals, Option Three will never have a chance to pass.

Read Full Post »

Realtalker Of The Week: Steve King

The Overton Window of acceptable discourse nudged wider a little more this week when Iowa Representative and Red Pill Dispensary Steve King had this 100% TRUEFACT to say about civilization and race:

Wilders understands that culture and demographics are our destiny. We can't restore our civilization with somebody else's babies. https://t.co/4nxLipafWO

— Steve King (@SteveKingIA) March 12, 2017

Naturally, Steve King’s foray into the fucking bleeding obvious truth sent whole warrens of shitlib rabbits hopping in a frenzy, denouncing him as a Nazi, a White supremacist, a White nationalist, and the dreaded SupraWhite Nazemalist (rare breed).

Steve King’s shockingly uncontroversial assessment of the nexus between civilization, culture and demographics — that a nation is a culture and a culture is a people and a people are their genetic bloodlines, and that the fewer White people there are the more America will resemble an alien land — has bent the arc of the ad hominem universe toward his Twatter feed.

The shitlib hysterics are expected, but what is notable this time around is the fairly muted response from the GOP cuck crowd; few if any GOPers have joined in on the witch hunt, and for once that has sapped some of the self-righteousness steam from the howling leftoids at the front of the torch and pitchfork parade. Overton cracks a bit wider with each passing week in the Era of Our God-Emperor Trump.

A reminder, to any stray shitlibs who wander into this happy hunting ground, of the essential truths underpinning nationhood and civilization which Steve King tapped:

• Society is a racial construct.
• There is no magic dirt that will transform, say, Somalis and Syrians into lovers, defenders, and disciples of Constitutional republicanism.
• Race matters.
• Once more…..RACE MATTERS.
• In fact, race is the primary source pool of civilization and culture; all other variables are commentary in comparison.
• Culture isn’t a costume. It can’t be worn like a Turinic shroud with the expectation that it will reverse-imbue the intrinsic character of any people who happen to hop the border and adopt its most superficial trappings.
• Culture is an emergent property of the people that comprise it, who themselves are properties of their genes and of the predispositions and beliefs and behaviors and temperaments and aptitudes with which they are endowed by their genes.
• America is not a nation of immigrants. America is a nation of colonists who, along with their descendants, created, built, and nourished America into a great nation, perhaps the greatest the world has ever known. Immigrants came later, and they were for a long while chosen from stock populations that were not too dissimilar from the founding stock of America (African slaves stand as a glaring exception). It was not until relatively recently (1965 onward) that immigrants significantly deviated in numbers and racial congeniality from the historical norm of immigration into America.
• Quite simply, the myth of American exceptionalism is just that. American ideals aren’t spread by osmosis into the deep psyches of different races of people; rather, a very specific race of people — White Europeans of primarily Anglo-Celtic-Germanic descent — breathed life into the American ideals, and without them their ideals wither from neglect and misuse in the care of their usurpers.
• We are not created equal under Nature, and this truism applies to races as it does to individuals. Memorable exceptions only prove the wisdom of pragmatic generalizations.
• The Constitution, or any stirring stanza of words written by Whites for White sensibilities, will not change a Chinaman into a heartland Chad. Racial foreigners can mouth the words, but if they don’t feel it in their bones they’ll have no trouble betraying those words when its personally advantageous or when the Law isn’t hovering closely to motivate their observance.
• A civilization is the sum total of the people that inhabit it. Change the people, change the civilization.
• Some cultures really are superior to other cultures. If it were not so, millions of those from the lesser cultures would not be escaping into the homelands of the better cultures.
• Finally, the character of a nation is not established by a founding document; instead, the founding document chronicles the character of a nation. PEOPLE MAKE THE NATION, THE NATION DOES NOT MAKE THE PEOPLE. If the people change, so does the nation, into whatever form the replacement people find most familiar, which usually means a facsimile of their native homelands they left behind.

Steve King is right. You can wave your final goodbye to White American civilization if some other tribes are having all the babies. The future belongs to those who show up, and the shape of that future depends on the innate character of its inheritors. That’s Stone Cold Truth 101, and it’s the truth that has bedeviled suicide signaling leftoids for generations, and driven them into increasingly insane postures of delusional doublethink, obscene hypocrisy, and hoary lies.

The Chateau stands against these lies and the liars who swallow and vomit them up, and if their deluge of sewage should eventually drown us all we here can say at least that we never stopped shining a way to safe harbor. Cold comfort, but it beats cuckery.

Read Full Post »

The Authoritarianism Of Academia

Huge survey of college faculty: only 12% really support #1A. Another 55% waver. And 33% strongly oppose free speech. https://t.co/LMgJwhTxrY

— Geoffrey Miller (@primalpoly) March 9, 2017

Academia has become a training camp for petty tyrants. Universities were supposed to be arenas where the exchange of ideas, some of them taboo, could be pursued without compromise or threat of suppression. We’ve come a long way……down, baby. The majority of college faculty now either eagerly and gleefully relish the thought of silencing dissenting thinkers, or weakly acquiesce to those holding the heretic-whip. And yet these same dictatorial academics have the gall to project their witch-burning psychoses on Trump and his supporters and brand them the real authoritarians.

PS Interestingly (from an HBD-vantage), a survey of schoolchildren in 1971 found eerily similar percentages of support among them for free speech.

@primalpoly @JonHaidt wow it's almost the same as a 1971 sample of schoolchildren https://t.co/aeLfD7MFP3

— Professor Banana (@literalbanana) March 10, 2017

The origins of children’s attitudes toward freedom of dissent were investigated using questionnaire data from 1384 children in grades 5 through 9. Political socialization of attitudes toward free speech apparently does occur during late childhood and early adolescence. Most children acquire support for the abstract principle of free speech in slogan form, without learning its concrete implications. Support for free speech in concrete instances is dictated largely by the child’s attitude toward the dissenting out-group in question and only rarely by the general principle of free expression. There are indications that the child’s confidence in his ability to think divergently contributes to tolerance, presumably by reducing the personal threat posed by deviant out-groups.

More proof that shitlibs (who have almost completely overrun academia) are arrested adolescents, (and that Boomers are were the worst fucking generation ever, in any universe).

Read Full Post »

Female Privilege

A hilarious social experiment unintentionally blew up in the faces of the shitlib academics who ran it when it busted their cherished shibboleths about male privilege and misogyny. An actor and actress were recruited to replay the Presidential debates between Trump and thecunt, except the actor played as thecunt and the actress as Trump, ostensibly to confirm the biases of the liberal academic audience that only anti-woman sexism caused thecunt to lose the election.

Unfortunately for the self-congratulatory libs, their egos were stroked against the grain.

Salvatore says he and Guadalupe began the project assuming that the gender inversion would confirm what they’d each suspected watching the real-life debates: that Trump’s aggression—his tendency to interrupt and attack—would never be tolerated in a woman, and that Clinton’s competence and preparedness would seem even more convincing coming from a man.

***

“I’ve never had an audience be so articulate about something so immediately after the performance,” Salvatore says of the cathartic discussions. “For me, watching people watch it was so informative. People across the board were surprised that their expectations about what they were going to experience were upended.”

Many were shocked to find that they couldn’t seem to find in Jonathan Gordon what they had admired in Hillary Clinton—or that Brenda King’s clever tactics seemed to shine in moments where they’d remembered Donald Trump flailing or lashing out. For those Clinton voters trying to make sense of the loss, it was by turns bewildering and instructive, raising as many questions about gender performance and effects of sexism as it answered.

***

We both thought that the inversion would confirm our liberal assumption—that no one would have accepted Trump’s behavior from a woman, and that the male Clinton would seem like the much stronger candidate. But we kept checking in with each other and realized that this disruption—a major change in perception—was happening. I had an unsettled feeling the whole way through.

***

We heard a lot of “now I understand how this happened”—meaning how Trump won the election. People got upset. There was a guy two rows in front of me who was literally holding his head in his hands, and the person with him was rubbing his back.

Male shitlib academics are such nancyboys.

The simplicity of Trump’s message became easier for people to hear when it was coming from a woman—that was a theme. One person said, “I’m just so struck by how precise Trump’s technique is.” Another—a musical theater composer, actually—said that Trump created “hummable lyrics,” while Clinton talked a lot, and everything she was was true and factual, but there was no “hook” to it. Another theme was about not liking either candidate—you know, “I wouldn’t vote for either one.” Someone said that Jonathan Gordon [the male Hillary Clinton] was “really punchable” because of all the smiling. And a lot of people were just very surprised by the way it upended their expectations about what they thought they would feel or experience. There was someone who described Brenda King [the female Donald Trump] as his Jewish aunt who would take care of him, even though he might not like his aunt. Someone else described her as the middle school principal who you don’t like, but you know is doing good things for you.

Anti-reality: Male privilege.
Reality: Female privilege.

Feminists and Globohomo poz dealers want you to believe in the anti-reality of MUH MISOGYNY, when the reality is that female privilege is the incessant undercurrent of culture, derived from the fundamental premise that governs all social organization and policy: women are more reproductively valuable than are men. The Fundamental Premise — namely, the biological reality that the sexes are innately different in reproductive capacity and in the psychology that must flow from that reality — explains why, for instance, thecunt actually would have done WORSE on election day if she were a he, and Trump would have done better if he were a she.

Female privilege is getting a boost for being a woman, which is exactly what thecunt got, given how her core natural constituency — smug liberal academics — hated her male version.

The opposite of male privilege — male privation — is closer to what Trump had to overcome; a plain-talking, aggressive, masculine man will frighten away a lot of sensitive shitlib snowflakes, whereas a female version of himself would have lowered his natural antagonists’ defenses and rendered them more open to his message.

This also clues us into why Trump supporters tend to be feminine women and masculine men; both groups are more secure in their healthfully polarized sexuality and thus unlikely to be put off by a male leader behaving as an unabashedly masculine man. Masculinized shitlib females and feminized shitlib males often feel threatened by men (and women) who are closer to the SMV ideal for their sex.

I was particularly struck by the post-performance discussions about effeminacy. People felt that the male version of Clinton was feminine, and that that was bad.

Generally, people are more accepting of masculine women than feminine men (the latter are bigger traitor risks to the tribe), but neither are loved. Sexual polarity was the God of Biomechanics’ first order of business, and that means we — all of us, whether or not we admit it in heretic-burning company — prefer our women feminine and our men masculine.

I was surprised by how critical I was seeing [Clinton] on a man’s body, and also by the fact that I didn’t find Trump’s behavior on a woman to be off-putting. I remember turning to Maria at one point in the rehearsals and saying, “I kind of want to have a beer with her!” The majority of my extended family voted for Trump. In some ways, I developed empathy for people who voted for him by doing this project, which is not what I was expecting. I expected it to make me more angry at them, but it gave me an understanding of what they might have heard or experienced when he spoke.

Recall, as uncovered by Jonathan Haidt in his research of the moral priorities of liberals and conservatives, that libs have a more constricted moral universe and are therefore less able to understand and empathize with conservative moral considerations. Conservatives in contrast have a broader and more soundly distributed moral spectrum of concerns that one might call “adult”, (as opposed to liberals’ “juvenile morality” that focuses almost solely on harm and fairness).

I don’t expect any of these eureka moments to crack the libshit facade. The typical post-America libocrite can accommodate levels of COGDIS that would’ve left his lib-lite grandfather a quivering lump of neuroses. No, the only solution to the currently toxic shitlib insanity is a return to the kind of existential pain that can’t be mentally eaten away.

Read Full Post »