Rabbit Holocaust

Men from aggressive, foreign tribes, full of passion and conviction, have begun targeting the culture and lifestyle centers of their post-tribal enemy, as opposed to government and military sites. They have identified the softest underbelly and are eviscerating it with a vengeance. This means liberals — r-selected rabbits — will bear the brunt of violent Diversity. We are careening into the rabbit holocaust, when everything liberals believe and hold dear will be under mortal threat, and they will die or scatter to the protection of their warrens.

This may be a needed cleansing. After all, it’s rabbit ideology that got us to where we are: besieged by malcontents and barbarians, and making high-minded rationalizations for welcoming ever more of them to lay waste to the rabbit-optimized Elysium fields of grass that is always fresh and green.

Grass needs watering and tending to keep out pests. Rabbits forget that. All they know is that the grass is there, let’s eat, and why not invite others to join in the feast. Well the grass is retreating, and the rabbits are being gunned down. This won’t change things; common sense and a preservation instinct are missing in the rabbit genes. Millions more Americans — even shitlib Americans — could die at the hands of Diversity and the Effete Elite would not surrender their open borders globalist race-mongrelizing agenda. The solution will be, as always, a forceful taking of power by the K-selected wolves, to save the rabbits from themselves.

Read Full Post »

The Sad Squeaks Of An Aging Starlet’s Rationalization Hamster Spinning Its Final Wheel

Sharon Stone is a long way from her star turn in the movie Basic Instinct as a femme fatale who flashes her vaj during an interrogation. Thirty years on, paying audiences don’t want to see her vagina anymore. And, if the bitterness and sour grapes that drip from this recent interview with Stone are any indication, not many quality men in her real life want to see her vagina either.

After two divorces and decades in the business, Sharon Stone isn’t looking for a casual romance.

How convenient.

The 58-year-old actress opened up to AARP magazine about the effects of aging on both her personal and professional life.

“Obviously it’s pretty easy to get a date,” she said. “But to me, my life is so full. I don’t want to take time out to just go on a date, or to just have sex with a stranger.”

Translating from the hamsterese: “There’s a whole world between ‘sex with a stranger’ and involuntary solitude, but I can’t access it because obviously it’s pretty hard to get a date with a man who doesn’t eat his own boogers as a woman over 50.”

“At this point, I get more satisfaction – physically, spiritually, emotionally – from a smile, a laugh, a warm conversation or a really sexy look,” she told the magazine. “You know the way a man can look at you? Where you know he really sees you? I don’t want to be with someone unless it’s like that.”

The above is what age-related low libido looks like in words.

The aging beauty claims to seek romantic perfection as an ego emollient to avoid the crushing reality that imperfect romance isn’t even an option for her anymore.

Why pick on Sharon? Isn’t her personal torment enough punishment? The problem is that, unlike most aging women who must nurse their fantasies and shill their platitudes in private or to a small audience of immediate family and close friends who know better, Stone has a public platform to spread her lies to impressionable younger women who can’t see through the bravado to the sexual market rejection hurt underneath. At the margins, some younger women could be convinced, to their detriment, by Stone’s false pride that playing the field until late middle age is a viable route to life happiness, instead of what it really will be: a big mistake.

Making an example of Stone is a lesson for the others to avoid the same lonely fate. Prime fertility women need to know with the utmost seriousness that it will NOT be easy for them to get a date at age 58, with ANY man, and an old lady saying otherwise is blowing smoke up their skirts. Platitudes are cute when no one really believes them, but they’re downright malevolent when asserted with righteous authority as truth.

Read Full Post »

Civilizational Death Dance

Brannon asks what could be the burning question of the century:

How could an entire generation get so cucked to give their entire nation & values away like this.

He links to an outstanding comment that should be retired to the Realtalk Hall of Flame. The comment was to an article written by @NickCohen4 (which I can’t locate atm; if any reader would care to do the legwork, I’d appreciate it).

The White West — we, us — is really in uncharted territory, which means this experiment in self-annihilation signaling has the potential to go very, very wrong. “Civilizational death dance” captures the dispirit of our times: a reckless gambling with our nation’s posterity for the fleeting pleasure of moral preening. The fundament rends… or rather, prolapses.

Read Full Post »

Shiv Of The Week: Choices And Consequences

A reader worthy of wielding the obsidian Chateau shiv sends a screen cap of his Tinder response to a single mom-by-choice. The lols are strong (and frequent) in this one. (Reader’s Twatter handle is @FUSigma.)

How to teach cause-and-effect to Millennial Tinderellas & impose sanctions on single mommery:

(It’s especially effective if it’s done immediately, so that the reason is obvious.)

A few thoughts:

First, this reader’s Game, however little of it he revealed here, is tight. He promptly starts off with a qualifying question, to which the single-mom-by-choice eagerly feels the urge to defend her skankly honor. The quickest seductions occur when the woman is thrown back in the defensive crouch. In fact, the line “So how normal are you?” could legitimately serve as an effective, all-purpose opener. Don’t even bother with the “hi”, just stroll up and drop that hamster nuke at ground zero. It’ll get laughs from the cool, self-confident (read: thin and cute) women, and that’s practically the same as foreplay.

Second, I commend the sly follow-up leading question; not “are you divorced?” (which can trigger an offended rebuttal), but “how long have you been divorced?” This is assume-the-slut Game, and she couldn’t resist correcting his assumption.

Third, this woman is weaponized American Whore, marinated in decades of feminist cunt indoctrination. Her answer — “I’ve never been married lol” — indicates a confidence with, or an obliviousness to, how she’ll be received by men for admitting she shat out a bastard with a fly-by-night jerkboy. She thinks men will praise her. And why does she think men will praise her shitty life choices? Because she probably has experience on Tinder stringing along thirsty beta and omega pre-op Millennial males to treat her nicely and boost her ego major, in return for a fraction of the sex she lavished in one night on her sperm donor.

Fourth, notice all the “lol”s Alayna scatters throughout her banter. This is a tell-tale verbal tic that hints at the desperation and self-doubt lurking underneath her tough skank facade. Insincere LOLs are an attempt to coax intimacy, and a conversational bonding, that doesn’t yet exist. Beta males do it all the time (which is why  they fail). The scattershot LOL is also a ploy to distract someone from keying in on the LOLyer’s personal flaws (which in this case is the single mommery and Samsonite sprog).

Finally, my opinion is that the best message shiv to deliver single moms-by-choice is the pump-and-dump. Leading her on to get what you want out of her — a quick and dirty no muss no fuss lay while avoiding tripping over her kid’s toys on the way to the bedroom, and then ghosting — will leave bloodier stigmata on her soul than the curt “Unmatch”. The problem is that very few men can pull off this cold-hearted maneuver without getting physiologically attached to the pussy and returning repeatedly to that over-used well, because very few men are alpha males accustomed to living with the knowledge of endless sexual market options. Therefore, an alternative special lesson to teach the feminist-brainwashed squadrons of stupidly proud single moms is what FUSigma did here: the rhetorical pump-and-dump.

Read Full Post »

The Hidden Costs Of Dual Income Relationships

I’ve since lost the link to the original Voxday post, but this comment by Cail Coreshev is a valid criticism of dual-income marriages that one doesn’t often read from more mainstream sociological pundits:

Good comment, but it’s too bad he threw in that sop to getting an “education” before marriage. The “she needs it for a financial backup just in case” attitude is a big part of the feminist narrative. It leads to women entering marriage with one foot out the door, trying it out for a while before deciding whether to go with the backup. By the time she gets that college degree “just in case,” she’s already burned through several of her most attractive, fertile years; and unless she’s unusually virtuous, has been on the carousel learning bad habits.

It makes logical sense to reduce your risks as much as possible, but taking risks together is one thing that bonds a couple. When people like my parents and grandparents started a life together, owning very little and highly dependent on each other to make ends meet, it bonded them in such a way that they couldn’t imagine having done anything else. If a man died and widowed a young mother with no skills outside the home, that sucked, but it was very rare, and that’s what family and community are for. But when a married couple are both financially stable and don’t particularly need each other, you don’t get that interdependence. Instead you get a lot of people wondering if they could be doing better elsewhere.

I’ve made similar points that working wives are 1) tempted to infidelity (physical or emotional) by close proximity to high status male bosses not their husbands in corporate environments, 2) men are less inclined to emotionally invest in, and therefore materially provide for, careerist women who are financially self-sufficient, and 3) marital egalitarianism kills sex lives dead.

There are many good reasons why the feminist idea of a successful marriage is a warped one. Humans are not (yet) an androgynous blob of asexually-reproducing drones. Women love men who come closest to the masculine ideal, and men love women who come closest to the feminine ideal. This means, in real life, women love powerful confident men who serve as the oak tree under which they can find shelter against the storms, and men love to shelter pretty, vulnerable, feminine women whose first instinct is to nurture rather than swim with the corporate sharks.

Cail’s theory that shared risk — and shared vulnerability —  helps bond couples is also worth pondering. It’s not hyperbole to say that women who depend on “having a backup in the event of a broken marriage” unwittingly encourage the breaking up of their marriages. Not a sermon, just a shiv.

Read Full Post »

Options = Instability: Another Heartiste Maxim Externally Validated By SCIENCE!

Options = Instability. A Chateau maxim as universal and relevant to life satisfaction as the famed CH aphorism Diversity + Proximity = War. The O=I theory was introduced in this original press post:

Where you have options, you have trouble sticking by one person. A man dating a girl (or girls) will feel on top of the world and suddenly all those single women traipsing around the city look like much easier targets to approach. His loins will quiver with excitement. A woman transplanted from a less populated region of the country to the big city will become enthralled with all the extra attention from men who are probably much better at playing the game than the men she left back home. Her ego will quiver with expectation.

…and fleshed out here, with accompanying scientific confirmation:

[T]here is an inherent sex difference in the destabilizing force of increased options. A man with more options than his partner is a less destabilizing force to his relationship than is a woman with equally more options than her partner. This phenomenon results from the greater hypergamous drive of women, who are less satisfied than are men with sub-par lovers, and from the biological reality that risk of female infidelity is a graver threat to relationship harmony than is risk of male infidelity for which there is no chance of “reverse cuckolding”.

Think of the relationship permutations this way:

Man with options + woman with fewer options = man with peace of mind and wandering eye + happy but anxious woman + lovingly prepared home-cooked meals.

Woman with options + man with fewer options = unhappy woman with wandering eye + happy but anxious man + microwaved dinners.

Man with options + woman with options = stable relationship. Both are happy and infidelity or rupture risks are minimized.

Man with few options + woman with few options = stable relationship. Both are unhappy yet infidelity or rupture risks are still minimized.

I don’t need my knob slobbed by ¡SCIENCE!, but I won’t turn down a freebie blowie if 💋SCIENCE💋 just can’t get enough of my Renaissance Meat. So once again, to the lab-coats (via VIP commentator chris):

Scientific proof that options creates instability.

In the interests of weeding out the mathematical complexity, there were three values calculated. Assuming you were taking the survey, they would correspond to (1) how well your actual partner matched your ideal (2) what percent of possible real mates out in the world are better overall fits, and (3) how much more or less desirable you are to others, relative to your partner. These values were then plugged into a regression predicting relationship satisfaction. As it turned out, in the first study (N = 260), the first value – how well one’s partner matched their ideal – barely predicted relationship satisfaction at all (ß = .06); by contrast, the number of other potential people who might make better fits was a much stronger predictor (ß = -.53), as was the difference in relative mate value between the participant and their partner (ß = .11). There was also an interaction between these latter two values (ß = .21). As the authors summarized these results:

“Participants lower in mate value than their partners were generally satisfied regardless of the pool of potential mates; participants higher in mate value than their partners became increasingly dissatisfied with their relationships as better alternative partners became available”

Implied in the CH Options = Instability formula is the premise that the available options are desirable; options don’t mean much if what you have now is decidedly better than the alternatives. Few people will trade up from a filet mignon to a burger, so the existence of millions of attainable burgers doesn’t register as a menu of options to our subconscious minds if we’re currently dining on filet mignon. (If you’ve dated a really pretty girl, you’ll know that, at least for a while, the world of women outside her presence seems to recede into invisibility. Some call that love.)

Instability follows from options when the options are instinctively perceived as worthwhile substitutes. From this truism, we can deduce the effectiveness of a powerful Game principle: Dread. If you are a man who is, or is subjectively perceived to be, lower in sexual market value than your girlfriend/wife, then you can help stabilize your relationship and increase the happiness of you and your partner if you ACT LIKE you are a man with many desirable and attainable options you’d trade up to if circumstances allowed.

That is, it’s sexy to act more like an untrustworthy man than a trustworthy man. Why? Because women LOVE LOVE LOVE men who are loved by other desirable women. And an untrustworthy man signals his desirability to many beautiful women. This principle is why it’s so common to see physically unattractive men dating hot babes “out of their league” strut like a cuntquistador who could drop his current lover on a dime if she ever gave him trouble. Platitudists may not appreciate this facet of human sexual behavior, but it’s real and it works.

CH Maxim #77: If a man acts as if his life is full of willing women, then women will be more willing company.

Read Full Post »

Tattoos As Maimgeld

Tattoos are everywhere. I believe more women than men now sport the under-skin ink. While I personally am not put off that much by small, inconspicuous tats on attractive women, what I see parading around lately are women who have disfigured themselves under sheets of blotchy doodles. Why? Why would women — particularly White women whose alabaster skin is a bucket of boner bait no other race of women can simulate — deliberately uglify themselves? Worse, deliberately advertise their sluttiness? (Tattoos are a major slut tell.)

Reader Ang Aamer offers a possible explanation, and it relates to the rapid browning of America,

White girls getting numerous tattoos always struck me as the girls trying to look more like their less white boyfriends. Almost maiming the beauty to fit in more.

I would bet the 40 year old does not feel that she can have any control over her daughter. Because she remembers when she was that age and that she herself was uncontrollable.

Which is why you don’t control the behavior of your offspring you control the environment. If daughter were brought up in an area where South Americans were rare she might hook up with a white bad boy and at least have a daughter with better looks to perhaps break the cycle… Blue eyes could do that. Or even better live in an area without public transportation so the not-whites can’t make it out to court your white daughter … but that’s me.

I will say this pointedly to any fathers out there. Go to your daughter’s school and LOOK at the student body. That is the gene pool of your potential Grandchildren. It takes like 2 minutes to go to the local high school website and look at the graduating class picture. COUNT the colors and do the math. If there is a high probability of you getting a diversity package delivered by the Stork… MOVE.

Reader PA adds,

The rare high-end mudsharks (ones who consort with Talented Tenth or high functioning coloreds and remain members of White society), generally keep normal grooming habits.

The much more common low-end mixers, ones who assimilate into the male’s usually ghetto society, will NEVER keep their hair long and pretty.

Even if in many cases that’s their sole physically attractive feature. It’s usually the Mudshark Facelift, with hair pulled up tight to a bun on top of her head.

As I figure, they do that to avoid antagonizing the black females they socialize with. Also, it’s slovenliness — laziness about grooming — which is congruent with their other defects of character.

But I hadn’t considered your more transcendent point about self-maiming before.

Tattoos in the current year could be seen as a sort of “maimgeld”: the tribute that White women pay in self-disfigurement to a growing Diversitopia they live in that both covets the White women’s exquisite natural looks and hates it to the verge of eliminationist rage. So all these negative body modifications by Whites could be construed as an effort to blend invisibly into the muddying waters of late stage America.

Self-maiming (to alleviate the envy felt by the lesser races of women) and slut signaling (to attract the attention of alpha males on the prowl for easy r-selected sex) are the two big subconscious reasons tattoos have become such a cultural marker for White women.

Read Full Post »