Shiv Of The Week

PA drives the shank into the flanks of both bitter feminists and white knight game-haters.

CH, he’s right. Hang it up and delete all your game posts. As any woman can tell you, real men don’t need game. Just be attractive and don’t be unattractive.

I help coach a youth league. Think I’m gonna stop teaching these kids any techniques and just tell them to be awesome and the W column will take care of itself.

Heh. For that matter, since it’s all predetermined and outside personal control, why bother with schooling? Just pop out enough kids who will grow up to pay the government levy, and the economy will hum along without the dead weight of teaching the three Rs.

Anyone get the sense that the reason bitter cunts and indignant tradcons hate game is because they secretly believe it works and don’t like the thought that women can be actively seduced into love? Or maybe they find the whole idea of working at something and achieving goals irritating, because it introduces the notion that those who don’t work at something can be harshly judged for falling short of universal ideals.

***

Gotta hand a SOTW runner-up award to GBFM, whose lifted shiv gleams with pregnant possibility against the bright blue sky.

After da GBFM got dones with her, Sheryll Sandberg wrote, “I say in the book, date the bad boys, date the crazy boys who don’t fall off the treadmill, but do not marry them. Marry the boys who are going to change half of the diapers until dey fallz offf lzozozozzzol.”

Sandberg did say that, in so many words. I wonder how Dave Goldberg felt when he read those words his wife wrote? Like he was second- or third-rate betaboy, diaper-changing material? I’m sure he sucked it up and put on a happy face, like an obedient male feminist would.

Read Full Post »

Spot The Feminist Experiment Design Flaw: Update

Recalling that feminist “””social experiment””” video which triggered millions of androgynous Millennials to ecstatic retweeting, commenter “anonymous” hit upon the primary design flaw which renders the feminist-friendly result absolutely worthless:

Experimenter bias

In social science, especially in an experiment like this, the experimenter interacting with subjects should be blind to the hypothesis being tested.

The 1989 Clark and Hatfield study mentioned in the page linked to had it right. Asking a random sample of unwitting subjects to proposition other random subjects of the opposite sex. 70 percent seems about right to me with that methodology.

With what was done in this video, the experimenter can give all kinds of subtle cues pushing the guys to give the answer they want. In addition they can exhibit selection bias- choosing guys that seem likely to give the answer they want. You should notice there were more yes answers in the beginning and more no answers later. She gradually got better at getting the answer she wanted later. (The video seemed to be in chronological order). I skipped around and didn’t watch the whole thing, but I also noticed a larger proportion of guys saying they were gay (or that came across as really obviously gay without saying it) than exist in the general population. To me that is a red flag as to the biases (either conscious or not) of those making the video. By the way the real proportion of gays is between 2 and 3 percent; the 10% number that gets repeated a lot is bullshit.

In a nutshell, if they wanted an answer of 0/100 or an answer of 100/100 she (and the people working with her) could “discover” whatever they wanted to discover. It’s not science with this methodology.

She looks good by the way. I would sleep with her. As a woman of course that’s the only thing she’s here on this planet for. Just a reminder

There were, in fact, multiple biases at work in that “girl asks men for sex” femcunt troll job, but experimenter bias is… as a mewling ankle-biter might say… the most “problematic”. Read the CH commenters to learn which other biases corrupted the 30% result.

(Another problem with the experiment design was what I call the “incredulity factor”. The girl gradually learned to deliberately hit on the kinds of men who are least likely to garner the attention of young attractive women, and these men probably surmised as a result that she was part of an underage solicitation sting operation, or she was taking the piss with them.)

Men and women are so completely different in the realm of sexual psychology that it’s not much of a surprise to discover that some men, when openly propositioned by a semi-cute stranger, will immediately doubt her motives. The real surprise is how many men are willing to cast aside their rational doubts and throw caution to the wind; that’s a powerful demonstration of a serious sex difference in predilection for the pleasures of casual sex; men are simply wired to want it, and to avail themselves of it, far more often and with more intensity than are women. But of course, your grandma would be able to tell you this without a stack of social science studies to back her up.

It won’t be long before we’ll have to amend that last clause to specify “great-grandma”, with the way this country is accelerating past timeless truths.

Update #2

Commenter Wake makes some good points.

Her approach induces a mass raising of red flags, it’s sooooo fake. Her body language is not that of a horny chick, quite the contrary (look for crossed arms, backward leaning, etc): it oozes revulsion. Her voice tonality is also incongruent with the message. No sane woman proposes directly and that fast (compare how often did your fuckbuddy/girlfriend /wife do that?). A horny girl would compliment first, chit chat for a minute at least and then would propose to look for an intimate location with a BS pretext, the subject of sex would at best be alluded to.

Most of the men refusing her offer could tell she was insincere. The 30% figure is thus looking like an incredibly high number of positive responses given all the negative body language signals she was sending out.

But, feminists gonna feminist, like shit gonna stink.

Read Full Post »

Sweden: Where Does She Go From Here?

Sweden is the flaccid tip of the rapidly deflating penis of Western civilization, so what happens there can be construed as portents of dire things to come to the rest of the West. Reader Jack Dorchol writes about his first vision upon landing at Sweden shores.

Last year I took a regular passenger ship line from Helsinki to Stockholm. It was to be my first time in Sweden. As I was disembarking the ship, the moment I put my feet on the Swedish soil I was “Welcomed to (new) Sweden” by the sight of East African multiple-wives freak show (the 4th one hid behind his back when she saw my camera.)

And this is just the first of many similar scenes playing out on the Swedish streets.

I felt the sick to my stomach the entire stay.

The suicidal tendencies of white Swedes (a qualifier one needs to employ nowadays) are breathtaking. So breathtaking, that it’s not possible to see a happy future for Sweden that doesn’t take a path first through an illuminating hellscape. I see two possibilities for the new Sweden:

1. Dissolution. Quickening cultural and economic deterioration, and absorption of white Swedes into a nonwhite polyglot via intercopulation and abysmally low native birth rates. Total demographic and cultural exhaustion.

2. Rupture. A formidable fraction of non-elite, sane-thinking white Swedes bring war home. Or this war is brought to them when a tipping point of foreign migrants utterly drain the Danegeld reserve.

Either way, Sweden is set to go through a trial by fire. What comes out the other end is disappearance, or destruction. What I don’t see happening is possibility #3: Swedish elites come to their senses, close the borders, kick out the alien squatters en masse, and reaffirm their northern white European identity. Ideological leftoids with a bad case of the non-reciprocated altruistic yips will never change their minds; the human ego is a cosmic force too powerful to defeat. They can only be removed from power and cast to the wastelands where their status-striving idiocy can’t threaten the very existence of their own nations.

Read Full Post »

Norway’s 200th National Day Celebration

Via My Whytening Career:

The superimposed quote says,

“I live in western oslo, the last white part of the city. This picture I took at 17 May 2014, Norway’s 200th National Day celebration.”

WELP.

PS Give this guy a Chateau VIP pass just for that knowing, shit-eating smirk alone.

Read Full Post »

Smarter Women More Likely To Be Romantic Failures

In my years of living, dating, and loving across these United Plates, I’ve come to certain conclusions about women drawn from a wellspring of eagle-eyed observations and red raw experiences. One of my personal observations is that smarter women tend, for various reasons among which female hypergamy must surely loom prominent, to have more difficulty locking down a long-term boyfriend, and to stay single far longer in between relationship bouts, than do women of less Hollywood-sized prefrontal-pectorals. And this romantic failure is worse the smarter the woman.

But, I didn’t have the benefit of ¡scientifical! studies to confirm my observations, so I guess I should have washed my brain of any pattern recognition inputs and waited the requisite fifty years for the scientific consensus to come to a prevailing view.

As I’ve always said, if you keep your eyes open and live not by pretty lies, 80% of the patterns you observe about human nature will eventually be proven true by laboratory analysis (or at least recognized as a real phenomenon by cultural gatekeepers). (15% of the remaining 20% are too difficult to properly measure by social scientists, and the last 5% of your observations can be grouped under conventional wisdom that science manages to overturn, usually by data-twisting legerdemain.)

From the article relevant to this post, the quotes that make feminists choke:

A study conducted with 121 British participants reported findings that females with high intelligence in male/female relationships were seen as problematic.

Their intelligence were predicted to cause problems in the relationships. Whereas, high intelligence in the male partner was not seen as problematic, but desirable. […]

Why don’t men want women with whom they can converse and who challenge them? [ed: spot the false premise] When did the aversion to strong and intelligent women become a code orange? When did everyone just want to go to the Bahamas and lie around?

In an article by “The Wire,” financial reporter, John Carney, gives one explanation for this phenomenon, deducing, “successful men date less successful women not because they want ‘women to be dumb’ but rather because they want ‘someone who prioritizes their life in a way that’s compatible with how you prioritize yours.’”

Basically, they want someone who isn’t ever going to let her career come before making dinner and pleasing them first.

My take is that men, especially smart men, instinctively recoil from very smart and/or educated women (in the same way women instinctively recoil from needy niceguys) because men know that a woman of equal or greater brainpower or academic achievement is a high risk for future relationship instability and a latent threat to paternity assurance. Men are aware, consciously perhaps, subconsciously definitely, that female hypergamy is real and therefore it’s personally advantageous to find women who aren’t too much more gifted in traits that double as male mate fitness cues.

In short, it pays men to date up in looks and date down in everything else.

The inverse is also true. It pays women to date down in looks and date up in everything else.

Everyone’s happier all around if they abide the above two Heartistian precepts.

A reader contemptuously adds,

Nearly schizophrenic incoherence, self-loathing, generalized rage, sexual frustration, pride that she can’t admit that a life has been spent believing pretty, stupid lies and making irretrievable mistakes, contempt and hatred for men on one hand, yet demands and pangs of hopeless desire for their attention and affection and love on the other hand, unabashed hatred for women who are young and attractive and willing to make love and devotion to a man a priority in their lives.

This hamster wheel is spinning at 10,000 revolutions per second. The axle is going red-hot from the friction.  The spinning wheel is making a sharp, high-pitched, painful screeching sound, which sets your teeth on edge. If you listen carefully millions just like it are audible all over America.

This can’t go on much longer.  10 years, maybe. But not 50. Probably not another entire generation.

Future generations will look back on the women of this era with disgusted amazement.

Before then they are going to spend the second 50 years of their medically extended lives alone and filled with a despair and a hatred for their own lives and for the lives of those around them who have managed to be happy which is going to poison our society for many years to come.

If they weren’t so vicious and destructive you could almost feel sorry for them.

I do think we Americans are living through a period (heh) when women are at their absolute worst. Porn addicted manlet men aren’t much better, but this dystopia is largely a female-centered implosion.

There’s a gene-culture co-evolution process that describes how groups have self-balancing mechanisms, so that when one type of organism within the group becomes too numerous, a competing type will start to have greater reproductive success to “bring balance to the force”. I forget the term for it, but the classic case is the “cheater-cooperator” evolutionary strategies, in which cheaters prosper (and hence reproductively prosper) in cooperative societies, but then lose ground to cooperators when cheaters become too numerous and start poaching each other.

Well, a similar thing could be happening with SMRT women. The more smart over-educated over-credentialed women a society has, the less reproductively fit they become at the same time women with average smarts become more reproductively fit. The group shifts its evolutionary strategy toward smarter or dumber women as each becomes prominent. Maybe this is why human IQ hasn’t continued upward into the stratosphere…. smart men get tired of the haranguing from smart women and smart women get locked out of the dating market because there aren’t very many men smarter than them who can satisfy their hypergamous urgings, and they resist settling for dumber men.

Related, the supply of beta males in a group could also fluctuate according to some cosmic balancing mechanism that favors or disfavors betas depending on their numbers. The rise of pathologically altruistic white beta males in the West is producing blowback as their ranks swell with self-abnegating ankle-biters. Ultra violent thugs or ultra charming cads are starting to increase in impression, if not yet in number, and women are turning to them for relief from the effete beta male masses.

It’s a spitball, I know, but maybe it’s high time for the patented CH BOSSS strategy to invigorate our culture to take center stage? Maybe it already has and we’re just now waking up to the fact?

PS Really smart women fuck like demonesses. They love their contraceptively-enabled fucking as much as any sub-mensa slut.

Read Full Post »

How To Exploit The Rise Of The Degenerate Freak Mafia

Recently, I saw a woman from behind who, when she turned in my direction, displayed a full beard. A real beard meticulously trimmed to glamour mag perfection. Not two minutes after that encounter, I saw a thing whose sexuality I could not for the life of me accurately discern. When it turned to face me, I saw that it had the faint countenance of a male face, and humongous swinging manboobs that slapped against its kegerator belly. The worst part? The thing’s nipples were huge. I could see the dark outline of islet areolae and jutting teat tips stretching the fabric of its silky t-shirt.

Now, normally, I don’t like giving these freaks the satisfaction of my gawking attention, but some of them are so outlandish that the eye can’t help but try to make sense of what it’s seeing. Normally, the best way to treat freaks is to look right through them, as if they make no more impression than the air around you. Deny them what they want, which is attention, good or bad.

(Ed: Correction: the best way to treat freaks is to cast them to the icy wastelands, alone with their degeneracy, but that is not an option anymore. Too bad.)

Anyhow, the crooked rise of these shambling mounds has got me to thinking about a potential upside. If you’re a well-groomed, healthy, trim, normal looking man with no obvious psychological or sexual identity issues manifested in any body “art” or strange fashion choices, the world of the Degenerate Freak Mafia is your oyster. Waltz into a job interview or client meeting with your head held high and your chest projecting an invincible aura of confidence, because everyone will breathe a sigh of welcome relief that they’re in the company of a genetically and psychologically superior human. In the land of the disfigured, the abnormally normal man is king.

Read Full Post »

The Measure Of A Man’s Alphaness By How Much Crap His Woman Will Tolerate

Although CH prefers the more direct means of measuring a man’s degree of alphatude, there are proxy methods for coming up with a ballpark figure for the Alpha Within. One such proxy is the amount of shit a woman will put up with from her man. The more crap she happily tolerates, the higher her man’s alpha male rating.

As commenter WillBest explains,

Women are far and away more pragmatic about men’s affairs. I know of several couples that have survived a man’s affair and none that have survived a woman’s affair.

You could probably plot your relative alphaness against what your wife will tolerate.

brothel outside country < … < discrete mistress < rumored affair < open mistress < claiming bastards < having your wife assist in selection of your harem (as seen on Marco Polo).

It’s funny ’cause it’s cruel.

A marriage can survive a husband’s infidelity because the real risk, from the wife’s gene’s POV, is the redistribution of his resources (of which love is a proxy indicator) to the other woman. As long as the husband remains primarily devoted to his immediate family’s finances, his oat-sowing won’t much affect the future of his children or the guarantee of the mother’s “maternity assurance”.

But a wife’s infidelity is much more dangerous to her family’s cohesion. She could get pregnant on one of her slutcations, and saddle her husband with another man’s spawn. (And this would’ve been more likely in the contraception-free environment of evolutionary adaptation.) This is the worst thing that can befall a husband from his genes’ POV. And if he finds out, the whole family may be nuked from orbit.

Naturally, a man’s affair isn’t automatically forgivable. Women aren’t totally inhuman; they will feel the sting of romantic rejection. But it’s true that the more alpha the man, the more tractable his woman. Hell hath no fury like a scorned wife… if her husband is a beta male. Heaven hath no angelic forgiveness like a scorned wife of an alpha male.

This post cries out for a handy dandy chart.

There’s a reason for the exponential trajectory. Observe closely, and you’ll notice most married men are betas whose wives won’t even tolerate their wandering eye without stirring up a storm of martyrdom. But once a man begins taking on the penumbras and emanations of alphaness, his woman’s toleration curve skyrockets. Each increment of alphatude results in a drastic expansion of the scope of caddish misbehavior that a wife or girlfriend will tolerate. At the extremes of male alphatude, their women are complicit in helping their men achieve the limits of sexual and romantic pleasure that are particular to the male domain of desire.

I hope this post has been instructive. May it guide you to better days in your own relationships.

Read Full Post »