The Aggrocunt Period

The Daily Mail wonders if we Westerners are living through a time period when the numbers of aggressive, unfeminine, caustic, ball-busting battle-bitches are on the rise.

I think we are. And I’ll tell you why it’s happening. First…

So seemingly serene is the 51-year-old that she even soothes others in the course of her career as a reiki therapist. [ed: wtf?] But, like an increasing number of respectable women, Jo has become so consumed by rage that even a simple trip to buy the weekly groceries can lead to frighteningly aggressive outbursts. Recently, she completely ‘lost it’ when another driver tried to take the space she wanted in a Tesco car park.

Jo’s response was instant, and utterly disproportionate. ‘I was there first. So I got out of my car as he approached and shouted: ‘F*** you, a*******, I’m staying here until I get this space.’

‘The driver was a man much bigger than me, but I wasn’t intimidated. I told him we’d be stuck there all day if he didn’t move — which eventually he did.’

There’s the problem right there. If the Gynocratic State didn’t leash men, women wouldn’t be testing men’s patience like this cunt did.

Worryingly, it would seem this is a dangerous trend, seen by many as yet another dark side of equality.

Equalism is a false prophet heralding decay, misery, and eventual capitulation to nonbelievers.

Stories of professional women drinking themselves into ill health, trying to keep up with male colleagues are well documented.

Nothing good comes from reversing the sexual polarities.

But they are now matching men on the aggression front, too, putting themselves in physical danger — risking their good name, career prospects and relationships. In 1957, men were responsible for 11 violent offences for every one perpetrated by a woman — today, that is four to one.

Some of this shift towards more female violence (if accurate) is owed to the race replacement pogrom in Western countries. White women are fairly pacifist by world woman standards.

Add to the mix long hours, pressure juggling work and family life, plus fluctuating hormones caused by the menopause, PMS or childbirth and it’s no wonder so many women are exploding with rage.

I would’ve said “childlessness”. Failing at their most important life job has got to make careerist tankgrrls feel a little peeved.

Indeed, earlier this month it was reported that Oxford-educated Jocelyn Robson, a company director, 40, etched the word ‘c***’ in capital letters on two of her former boyfriends’ cars after they broke up.

“Oxford-educated”. “company director”. I guess it would be redundant to add “Maestro of Manjaws”.

And last month BBC presenter Jeremy Vine released footage of a woman — smartly dressed and driving a top-of-the-range car down one of London’s most expensive streets — who swore at him to ‘get the f*** off the road’ and allegedly kicked his bicycle.

These are the kind of women that men pump and remorselessly dump. And then these masculinized women have the gall to wonder why they have trouble finding a husband.

Research has also found that women are significantly more likely to be verbally and physically aggressive to men than vice versa — something physicians are seeing more of in their clinics.

Correction: BETA men. Since it’s obvious to anyone who has trawled a social media account that the ranks of weepy supplicating beta males in the West is at an all-time high, it’s no wonder women are lashing out at them. Weak men are like fat women: each defies the opposite sex’s romantic needs.

‘We are treating more women than ever who are struggling to regulate their emotions and express themselves appropriately,’

Sounds like the typical problem of men. This is what it looks like when the modren woman’s estrogen level are as low as the modren nümale’s testosterone level: bitterness, spite, aggression, acting out from an uneasy feeling that the world ain’t right.

And why is this anger afflicting so many upstanding women, the sort you might hope would be immune to, or too ashamed of, having outbursts?

“Upstanding” translated from the equalist leftoid mewlspeak means “over-credentialed careerist shrew”.

Some experts suggest women believe that such outward displays of aggression allow them to seize the initiative from traditionally dominant men.

NOPE. That’s not it. The usual feminist answer to these sorts of social changes is never the right one.

The right answer is that power abhors a vacuum. And nobody abhors the loss of male power more than a woman, who will rush in to fill it with nagging, passive-aggressive bitching, and closed legs.

Whether it’s in the workplace or around the dining table, shouting, swearing or throwing things are increasingly viewed as valid methods for women to assert themselves.

Aggrocunts aren’t interested in asserting themselves. What they’re doing is crying out for a chance to be a feminine woman again who doesn’t have to assert herself.

Such outbursts can also become addictive, a form of almost animalistic release.

Women who are regularly dicked by a self-entitled ZFG jerkboy feel no need for further animalistic release.

ADVERTISEMENT

But as well as this rush, Jo also admits to feeling under constant pressure to provide for her family.

Economically self-sufficient gogrrls betray the essence of their sex.

Thankfully Steven who works with disabled children,

Nümale pussy.

has learned how to cope with her outbursts. As mild-mannered as Jo is volatile, he’s found that the best thing to do is to walk away and let the tantrum burn itself out.

Wrong answer.

Right answer: SHUT THE FUCK UP JO *readies pimp hand*

Her stepchildren, too, have learned to walk away from her outbursts.

Mix-and-match broken family. Cunt stepmom. Shit writes itself.

‘Our relationship is still strained, which is a shame, but I feel convinced she is as much to blame as me.’

Pathologically narcissistic BPD supercunt spotted.

And when, last year, she decided a driver was too close behind her as she kept to a 30mph speed limit, she braked suddenly and got out of the car. ‘I asked the driver, a young man, what the hell he thought he was doing driving up to my bumper,’ she says. ‘My heart was pounding as he called me a bitch and drove off.’

A young shitlord, to be precise.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, she has upset family and friends with her behaviour. In restaurants, she has embarrassed loved ones by high-handedly sending back food she considers isn’t good enough.

By the way, if a woman ever does this on a first date, you have complete license to exit through the kitchen and leave her with the bill.

Executive Summary:

DIVERSITY + FEMINISM = UNLOVABLE CUNTS

Read Full Post »

A Sexual Market Oddity

The sexual market is the one market to rule them all.

That’s a classic Chateau maxim. But reader Daffyduck thinks there may be evidence of a Current Year contradiction of the maxim.

My question to the proprietors is this: if the sexual market is the primary market, why do so many women (the vast majority of women where I live in the UK), do everything they can to lower their SMV? Tattoos, obesity, single mummery – all so ubiquitous now it’s close to impossible to find a woman that doesn’t have some dire self induced SMV cratering characteristic. Thank you.

On the face of it, this does strike one as a refutation of the primacy of the sexual market. But digging a little deeper into the mechanics of mate acquisition in postmodern Western societies, we find that the maxim holds as true as ever.

It’s a fact that obesity lowers every single fat chick’s SMV, often dramatically. 99.9% of men would choose a slender babe over a fat chick if they had the option to do so. (78.4% of black men)

Tattoos generally ding female SMV, although this self-induced body modification has mixed results depending on the woman sporting them. On hot babes, tattoos that don’t occupy much skinscape have a neutral to occasionally positive effect on their SMV. And don’t neglect the handicap principle, which postulates that prime nubility girls get tattoos as a way to advertise they have excess SMV to spare (The “Look at me, I’m so hot I can afford to defile my body and you’ll still love me” whore’s brag.)

Single mommery lowers female marital market value (similarly, their long-term relationship worth). As with tattoos on hot babes, single mommery won’t detract much from a woman’s SMV, but it will severely penalize a woman’s value as a long-term partner.

So as we can see, of the three SMV-altering inputs, only obesity reliably craters a woman’s SMV. Tattoos and single mommery are best avoided, but if a woman has a super tight bang-able body, most men won’t let a butterfly tat or a screaming sprog stop them (at least for the night. heh).

Here’s where we get to the grist explaining the source of Daffyduck’s confusion: Sexual markets are vulnerable to changes in the incentives for paternal investment. (Paternal investment itself is a crucial aspect of the sexual market.) As women become more economically self-sufficient and sexually liberated their mate acquisition algorithm begins to emphasize the targeting of men for sexual and romantic validation and to undervalue men who would make dependable resource providers.

Likewise, men who are less interested in commitment and family formation would seek out women primarily for sexual thrills rather than their maternal instinct or faithfulness.

If this is the operative sexual market, then tattoos and single mommery would not only have little effect on women’s SMVs, they may very well raise their SMVs by advertising a greater willingness to go all the way right away, (and to not make much of a fuss when she’s dumped post-chaste).

Now ask yourself, where do you see women with lots of garish tattoos and bastard spawn? The lower classes. And where do you see less dependable fly-by-night men? The lower classes. In the upper classes single mommery is still rare and tattoos, though more common than they once were, are tastefully inconspicuous. Obesity, too, is rarer among upper class women.

So it’s in the lower classes (now gradually expanding into the working and middle classes) where the sexual market has responded to the changing incentives and women have resorted to more “slut signaling” accoutrements like tattoos, skimpy trashy clothes, and yes even bastard spawn (a single mom is a slutty mom).

In the upper classes, paternal investment is still important, so we see less of this among the women who have kept to the traditional SMV norms of their sex: slenderness, clear skin, and childlessness.

Ok, you ask, if tats and single mommery are slut cues to men on the make, what about obesity? No man wants to boff a blob if he has a choice.

Female obesity does present a difficulty for the theory of sexual market primacy….until we realize that very very few women voluntarily choose to be fat (unlike the many who choose to get tats or bear the devil bastards of one night stands). Most fat women want to be thinner, so they know, whether they admit it to anyone or drown their egos in a vat of fat acceptance platitudes, that fatness kills their SMV dead.

Larger societal and chemical forces have conspired in modern societies to accelerate and amplify the gaining of many pounds of fat. Unless you’re careful and actively avoid sugars, grazing and processed foods (all of which increased exponentially sometime in the mid-20th century) then you will likely get fatter than your ideal peak performance weight. (Reminder: For women, peak SMV performance is a 17-23 BMI, 0.7 waist-to-hip ratio, and an age that is roughly half the age of gogrrl feminists looking to conceive their first and only autistic child.)

The relatively recent explosion (heh) of obesity among Westerners suggests that the existence of all these female fatties is not a refutation of sexual market primacy theory, but is rather evidence of a rapidly changing input variable that is causing immense (heh) volatility in the sexual market, as men respond by “dropping out” to amuse themselves with acceptable substitutes that are better than sleeping with a fat chick: porn, controlled substances, video games, and now even gainful unemployment.

So if you notice a lot of tattoos, obesity, and single mommery in the sexual market, you can deduce the following dynamics are in play:

1. Men have less leverage and fewer mate options (due to sex ratio skew or female emancipation from needing to rely on men to provide for them).
2. Women have utterly given up trying to find a husband and have settled for finding a cock notch or a sperm donor.
3. Sluts are ascendant.
4. Men are dropping out and tuning into substitutes for female companionship.
5. Enormous upstream social forces are streaming down and wreaking havoc on the normal functioning of the sexual market.

None of the above redact the primacy of the sexual market. They are instead first responder symptoms of a sexual market in dire flux. In the final analysis, SMV remains king of human society, and any secondary markets (economic, social, political) that exert downstream pressures on the sexual market will eventually be reconfigured, even corrupted, by the unstoppable feedback loops unleashed by a primal sexual market convulsing from rapid transformation of the individual players and the higher order systems those players design.

Read Full Post »

The Seven Deplorable Sins Of Secularism

Racism
Sexism
Anti-Semitism
Islamophobia
Homophobia
Xenophobia
Judgmentalism

The above is a riff on thecunt’s LGBTQ speech from Friday, in which she labeled Trump’s supporters a “basket of deplorables” (aka normal, sexually dimorphic Americans).

“You could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the ‘basket of deplorables.’ They’re racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it,” Clinton said.

Hillary recites a moral panic laundry list of -isms and -phobias & ends with “you name it”. That coda is very telling. As an id-blurt it reveals that Hillary and her ilk don’t really feel the moral urgency of their frightwords as much as they use them as weapons to intimidate their cucked-up enemies into a cowardly submission.

Thecunt, whether she understands it or not, enunciated the tenets of the Left’s new Secularism faith. The Seven Deplorable Sins are a guide to how the typical shitlib measures a person’s worth, because everyone needs a religion, even shitlibs who have discarded Christian Puritanism for “enlightened” atheism. The religious compulsion is an evolved trait in humans; all that differs across generations is how it’s expressed.

Compare and cuntrast with the Seven Deadly Sins of traditional Christianity:

Lust
Gluttony
Greed
Sloth
Wrath
Envy
Pride

The difference? The Seven Deplorable Sins of Secularism are affronts to the high priests. The Seven Deadly Sins of Christianity are affronts to God and self.

As Twatter renegade @Ricky_Vaughn99 notes, our modern priests are like the Pharisees in Jesus’ time. And like the Pharisees, if you cross them they’ll try to cast you out of polite society.

The Seven Deplorable Sins are at their core rationalizations for a pleasure island autistopia where harm is banished, personal liberation is the highest ideal, and equality and fairness overcome human nature. And, coincidentally, where the moral paragons of this nonjudgmental religion are free to judge the rabble as unworthy of redemption. Heaven on earth, plus the inevitable feedback loops, unintended consequences, and community disruption that always follow in the wake of liberal utopias.

As a Pepe foot soldier quipped, the central principle of Secularism is “Don’t judge your neighbor as you don’t judge yourself”. It’s the religion of solipsists, (for if one where to judge another, that would mean one would have reason to judge oneself….and that way leads to bad feels).

As another Twatterer wryly noted, the vacuity of the Seven Deplorable Sins is revealed when we attempt to identify the inverse of them; in other words, their virtuous opposites.

Racism => Race Equalism
Sexism => “Men and women are the same except for genitals, and not even then”
Anti-Semitism => Ignore ethnic traits and tribal power imbalances
Islamophobia => NAMALT
Xenophobia => Xenophilia (but not in my backyard)
Homophobia => Love Wins
Judgmentalism => You are free to be judged, but not to judge (the one sin to rule them all)

The inverse of each of the Seven Deplorable Sins is the same: blindness. Pattern denial. Willful ignorance.

In contrast, the inverse of each of the traditional Seven Deadly Sins is a list of seven virtues.

The modern religion of Secularism doesn’t proselytize for anything Good. All it preaches is the child-like virtue of Not Bad. It aspires to nothing but avoidance of social opprobrium. The problem with that ethos is the ever-shifting definition of what qualifies as socially unacceptable. The Secularist’s Seven Deplorable Sins are outgrowths of temporal sensibilities and the detritus of verbally dexterous status whores jockeying for power, distinct in nature from the Seven Deadly Sins which resonate precisely because they tap into timeless truths about humanity and fallen man.

Read Full Post »

¡SCIENCE! Sweetly Validates The Fundamental Premise

Recall the Chateau Heartiste Fundamental Premise governing all human social dynamics.

Eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap. Every psychological dynamic you see playing out in mass societies liberated from artificial constraints on the sexual market flows from this premise. This means, as a systemic matter, women are coddled, men are upbraided. Women are victims, men are victimizers. Women need a leg up, men need to man up. Women have advocacy groups, men have equal opportunity violations. A woman subjected to the indignity of eavesdropping on a tame joke about dongles makes national news, while the chilling fact that 95% of all workplace deaths are suffered by men barely pings the media consciousness.

The Fundamental Premise essentially states that women are more reproductively valuable than are men, and that this inherent biological disparity in sex-based worth precipitates all sorts of double standards in social policy and cultural norms.

Aaaaaaand once again ¡SCIENCE!, with love in her heart and fire in her loins, administers a meticulous old-fashioned to my tumescent ego.

Moral decision making study finds men willing to sacrifice 3 hypothetical men for every woman of reproductive value.

***

Killing someone in order to save several lives seems more morally acceptable to men than to women. We suggest that this greater approbation of utilitarian killings may reflect gender differences in the tolerance to inflicting physical harm, which are partly the product of sexual selection. Based on this account, we predicted that men may be less utilitarian than women in other conditions. In four studies, we show that men are more likely than women to make the anti-utilitarian (hypothetical) choice of causing three same sex deaths to save one opposite sex life; and that this choice is more likely when there are fewer potential sexual partners, more likely for heterosexual men and less likely if the female character to be saved no longer has reproductive value.

The id-shiv is contained in that final bolded part. That, more than anything, proves the Fundamental Premise: women are coddled only when they still have REPRODUCTIVE VALUE. As women age into the dead ovary zone, men treat them same as they do other men: with utilitarian indifference.

This, too, explains more than anything the bitter man-hating rage that your typical aging feminist spinster is capable of uncorking on “the patriarchy”. She has lost her female privilege, a privilege that, unlike the mythological male privilege, has real world evidence (and, now, scientific evidence) proving its existence.

White Knighting and Pussy Pedestaling is baked in the braincake, so to speak. As is the disposability of men. Remember all this the next time some whackjob feminist is screeching about the poor poor wymyn suffering under the boot heel of male privilege. She is constructing a semantic fantasy world and deluding herself that she lives in it. Her lying theatrics are a balm for the fear that she’s discovering what it’s really like to live as a man in what is in reality a woman’s world.

Read Full Post »

“Punk’d” For The Pattern Denial Generation(s)

The “Spot the Common Denoginator” post got me musing about a memetic warfare idea that has real potential: A “Punk’d” type of hidden camera TV show that would simultaneously entertain and insidiously uncuck Americans of their race equalism religious belief.

An unlocked bike (with a taser installed in the seat for maximum lulz) is a tempting target in black neighborhoods, but what about that lonely bike placed in an all-White town? What about comparing and contrasting the neighborly response to the unlocked bike in Detroit, Fargo ND, and Charleston WV? How about a special episode based on zip code: the bike propped up at, say, Tim Wise’s block vs the bike stationed at a block full of Tim’s Wise’s favorite nonWhite shock troops?

Secretly recorded video of this nature would open a lot of eyes, or at the least shut a lot of dumbfuck shitlib mouths.

In fact, my idea is SOO GOOD I offer it free of charge to any social scientist with half a ball left who wants to supercharge the relevancy of their field of study.

Read Full Post »

SoftWhites Vs SlavWhites

The Philosopher offers a needed corrective to this post about the failure of the proposition nation ideology that so animates the Anglo-Germanic White soul:

Just want to note that when you make the argument slavics and irish and italians and so on reduced the character of the nation, just remember the irish, italians and slavs are also the most pro white minorities and peoples in the west. Poll your readers: how many call descent from these rather than scandinavians and dutch? These nice people.

Scorcese’s taxi driver was making hbd arguments about cesspit new york 30 years ago. Slavic and irish are generally very r selected whites. With slavs being more intelligent but irish being more r.

They will stand at your side even more than most of the autistic leaning germanic descended cucks because these white ethnicities are more survivalist, even if their differential calculus ability or blind rule following is not 100%.

Trumps temper is 100% scottish.

The Philosopher makes a very astute point. The cultural landscape has changed. The White groups who once made America great now strive, unwittingly or intentionally, to destroy America, while more ornery white ethnics rise up as a last bastion against suicidal universalism.

So three cheers for the American SlavWhites and their high T refusal to bend the knee to the multikult mongrelization machine. Odin-willing, these outposts of White ethnic shitlords will crush the SoftWhites, hear the lamentations of their wive’s sons, and herald The Trumpening, altering the course of America for generations.

Read Full Post »

The Earnest Futility Of “Proposition Nation” Magical Thinking

This comment by consiliosus stands as one of the purest expressions of “proposition nation” idolatry I’ve read. I highlight it because Realtalkers should understand the imposing mental road blocks of the benighted that they have to hurdle if America is to be saved in any form that remotely resembles the historical America.

Respectfully, what CH is missing is that, what is unique about America, is it was the first nation or even first political organization of people NOT built on race or ethnicity, but on an ideal. Alt-Right/ethno-racial nationalism is based on European political thinking. The latter is a way of thinking that goes back to the beginning of Human history. America made a break from this. It showed that it was possible, even ideal.

Leftism, another European ideological import, exploits ethnic and racial groups for it’s benefit, seeking to be in power. The Alt-Right, being an ethno-racial ideology also, reacts to such, and fights back, also seeking to be in power. Both however are ethno-racial based, even more so the latter however.

America doesn’t deny the influences of bio-mechanics and race and ethnicity. It developed a new way to organize and benefit from such influences. We need Constitutionalism more than we need White Nationalism. The latter is just a European leftist ideology based on race, ethnicity and bio-mechanics. It’s a watered down Nazi Germany.

The fundamentally flawed premise in this earnest proposition nation belief system is the idea that America is an idea which can stand apart from her racial genesis and heritage and continue thriving with any sort of people constituting her population. “As long as the idea is embraced, America will survive”, is the core tenet of this “blank state” religion.

This religion is heretical in any American age but the one we live in now. It is historically ignorant and a disingenuous misinterpretation of the Founding Fathers intent — Vox does a good job dismantling the proposition nation lie here.

Like any effective lie, each is constructed  around a fragment of truth, in this case, the section of the Declaration of Independence which declares: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

However, it is also self-evident that a secular atheist Jew, such as (((Ekaterina Jung))), who does not believe in a Creator, cannot credibly appeal to the Declaration in order to claim to be an American. And it is documentarily evident that, like the U.S. Constitution, the Naturalization Act of 1790, the writings of John Jay, Ben Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and other Founding Fathers, and the Alt-Right nationalist position, the Declaration of Independence itself is directly opposed to the revisionist interpretation, as the document also refers to:

• the connection between [the United Colonies] and the State of Great Britain
• the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages
• large Armies of foreign Mercenaries
• the present King of Great Britain
• the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners
• the free System of English Laws
• our Brittish brethren

To cite one phrase of a document in contradiction to the central theme of the entire document, which is that the People of the United Colonies are an English people, unique and distinct from foreigners, Indians, and the English people loyal to the King of Britain, is an outrageous attempt at deceit that relies entirely on the historical ignorance of the audience. To say that anyone can become an American because “all men are created equal” is a shameless lie. One might as readily cite it as evidence to claim it means anyone can become Chinese.

And here is MPC’s contribution to debunking the proposition nation myth and revealing the universalist idealists among America’s founders whose equalist fervor helped provide subversive rhetoric for the various tribes to come later who despised blood-and-soil legacy America.

So not only is the proposition nation shibboleth historically inaccurate, it’s biologically (and hence culturally, since culture derives from biological inputs) fraudulent. The principle simply cannot be severed from the people. And the people cannot be severed from their pedigree.

Principle from people from pedigree.

Ergo, Constitutionalist principle = racial pedigree.

Race is people is idea is culture is nation. Englishmen created the American Idea, and Englishmen are best suited to allow that idea to flourish and to sustain it over generations. Others came who were not too dissimilar from Englishmen — the Germans, Dutch, Swedes — and their genetic closeness did not radically undermine the American Idea. Later still, ethnic Whites and half-White/half-Semites — Slavs, Italians, Irish, Jews — arrived, and their genetic and cultural distance, relative to the Englishman’s, did begin to erode the American Idea and twist it into a monstrous apparition that could be turned against its father.

These later White ethnic waves opened the Pandora’s Box to the Hart-Cellar 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act, which has since overrun the nation with literally tens of millions of nonWhite hordes who are as genetically and culturally distant from the founding sons and daughters and their posterity as can be, and their presence on American soil now rapidly (and predictably) debases, poisons, and will shortly extinguish, the Proposition Nation ideal.

Of course, some misanthropes insist that turning America into an unrecognizable third world market bazaar teeming with violence, grime, corruption, hostility, incompetence, and tribalism, all of which left unchecked by a hollowed-out disappearing White middle class, is evidence of the victory of the Proposition Nation ideal.

Normal people say to that, “If that’s colorblind Constitutionalism, give me race-aware Nationalism.”

Read Full Post »