Chicks Can’t Stop Loving Jerkboy Killers

Tragically comic story coming out of Orlando. Noor AkbarMySnatchbar Salman, wife of murderous Muslim Omar Mateen (son of Afghan immigrants who is now the post-mortem proud jihadi owner of the worst mass shooting in American history), texted him during his rampaging massacre of a club full of gay latinos to remind him that she loved him. To death? And apparently she texted him her love after she was aware he was in the middle of a killing spree.

The Orlando shooter and his wife exchanged text messages during the Pulse nightclub rampage, a law enforcement official briefed on the investigation told CNN.

Around 4 a.m. on June 12, about two hours after he started the attack and while holed up in a bathroom, Omar Mateen texted his wife, Noor Salman, asking if she’d seen the news, the official said.

At one point, she responded with a text saying that she loved him. Salman also tried calling her husband several times during the standoff, a second law enforcement official said.

The timing of her calls came after reports of the attack had emerged, and apparently after she realized her husband might be responsible. He didn’t answer, the official said.

LOL

Noor: I love you Omaaaar!! ❤️😍

Omar: *crickets* *reloads*

Skittles Man, you may have been bested in the aloof and indifferent alpha male jerkboy sweepstakes. Having a girl lovingly swoon for you while you’re mowing down fifty gays is the kind of hold over a woman that few men achieve.

Who doubts that Omar would have drowned in marriage proposals from prime fertility cuties if he had survived to see time in the slammer? Anyone? You sir, in the back? No? Ok then.

REVOKE THE WOMEN’S VOTE

America’s Epitaph

“The bride, 35, is keeping her name.”

)))Via(((.

Rhetoric Vs Dialectic: How Game Principles Apply To Politics

There’s no question the Trump Temptresses are more attractive than the Hillary Harpies. The photographic evidence accumulates with every rally and selfie. Trump women flaunt hourglass figures and bubble with estrogen. Hillary Hags bomb the retinas with volumetric flask-like waistlines and attitudes dripping caustically with androgen overload.

So it is with no surprise that supporters of TheCunt can be so easily triggered merely by holding up a mirror to them. They know their visages say more about their worldview than any 12,000-word New York Beta Times article could glowingly conceive for them.

CH Maxim #200: Pointing out a feminist’s masculine, ugly physiognomy or a manlet’s androgynous physiognomy is reliable shorthand for their politics.

(One Twatterlord put it pith-wise, “You can tell a man’s politics from his upper body strength. A woman’s by her waist size.”)

Swinging this around to the topic of Game and politics, reader Freereel forwards,

[H]ere’s a great strategy cribbed from the blog Poseidon Awoke:

“Let’s face it, Bernie and Hillary have a terrible branding problem: their supporters are just not attractive. Have you seen Hillary supporters? Lena Dunham is a perfect example. Yuck.

On the other hand, beautiful women love Trump and masculine men want to be Trump. I’ve even seen some predictions of a Trump-inspired baby-boom, which is certainly possible.

As I’ve said before, I spend some of my time in the Trenches meme-ing things into reality. And a Trump presidency is one of those things. I’ve also been learning from Vox Day about the difference between rhetoric and dialectic. When someone attacks Trump with some nonsense charge, a dialectician will attempt to counter with a logical argument, facts and reason. However, humans are rarely persuaded by dialectic. Humans are persuaded by rhetoric. So, I have a new kill shot for those who attack Trump. I post a picture of a hot Trump supporter.

Because Hillary and Bernie supporters are cat-ladies and low-T bronies, they are unattractive, so they have no response. Images like these arouse normal males to want the girl that supports Trump. It’s just animal instinct. Women want to be like the women that men want, so they want to be this girl. This is rhetoric in action. No words, just a picture of a hot Trump supporter. Luckily, there are millions of hot Trump supporters.

It’s a kill shot.

Pickup and politics are kissing cousins. Both utilize the principles of seduction to win the hearts of women and of voters. One paramount Game concept — amused mastery — is the courtship equivalent of meme-worthy rhetoric. In practice, amused mastery manifests as quippy retorts to women’s shit tests, or quasi-juvenile observations of a woman or her surroundings, or dismissive indifference to a woman’s tantrums and dramatics. This is the stuff of ZFG alpha males, and women LOVE LOVE LOVE it.

Amused mastery in the political sphere would appear as a photo of a fat bluehair Hillary voter or a raging, arm-flapping SJW feminist in id-carving response to some shitlib regurgitating boilerplate shitlibbery. The brutalist juxtaposition is a nuke to her anti-antifragile ego. It’s like when a potential date you’re texting starts asking you what you can do for her and talks about the cool guys she knows, and you reply with a Birthday Cat emoji. A rapport break like that can’t be answered. All she can do is laugh with growing desire at your alpha impudence.

Dialectic is the preferred form of communication when level-headed White men are drawing up policies to ensure prosperity for their nation and a future for their posterity. But we don’t live in that world anymore. Our world is tribal wagon-circling and feral women. Dialectic falls on deaf ears in an Idiocracy and in a Jizzocracy.

Rhetoric has the stage now. The beta male who patiently and thoroughly explores all the logical implications of a woman’s emotional extemporizing will bore her to tears. No sex for him. As it is in 2016 American politics; the cuckservative who patiently and thoroughly explores all the Constitutional implications of a liberal’s destructive anti-White animus will ostracize himself from the public discourse. No influence for him.

The ideal set-up for the alt-right rebel is rhetoric + dialectic. Get your kill shot in, then cow the others with an unanticipated foray into informed dialectic. This is a war that needs its meme MOABs as much as its persuasion personnel.

Talking To Children Is Good Practice For Talking To Women

We lords of love at Le Chateau have explored and endorsed the theme of improving one’s seduction skills through the use of children’s games and phrases. Women, especially the prime nubility hotties, are more like children than they are like men. A despicably un-PC truth, but true nonetheless.

There’s another way the behavior of children holds the key to successfully flirting with grown women. The conversation style that elicits peals of joy from children is pretty similar to the conversation style that elicits squeals of arousal from women.

Allow me. When you talk to a kid, they will react in one of two ways: escalating excitement, or boredom. Kids don’t have a “neutral listening gear” like adult men do. When a kid is excited, he’ll show it. When he’s bored, ditto. And there’s no faster way to bore a kid than indulging in long-winded, detail-oriented replies to the myriad questions with which kids love to bombard adults. It’s not that kids don’t want answers to their burning questions; it’s that they don’t want dry answers that aren’t painted with the brute force rhetoric of the primary colors.

Kids expect short answers because kids have underdeveloped attention spans and a hunger for amusement. Just like women. Therefore, kids, (just like women), will zone out on long explanations. And they will positively engage with pithy, sarcastic jibes that merely brush with a sufficient answer to the questions.

For example, say a child asks you about something unique you’re wearing. The beta male reply would be to dive into a lengthy history behind the artifact which has momentarily caught the child’s eye, boring him to an exasperated facial expression with an answer that might surely be thorough and enlightening but not fun at all. The alpha male reply would be something shorter, sweeter, far more dramatic, and only superficially aligned with the real provenance of the artifact. So instead of the straight answer to the child’s question, the savvy man answer would be something like, “A bullfighter gave it to me as a gift.” Which is a delightfully heart-racing, child- and woman-amusing shorthand for “I found it in a Spanish alley next to a cafe purportedly owned by the mother of a famous bullfighter.”

The drive-by conversational style that wows children is equally effective on the limbic nodes of women’s hindbrains. If you can keep a child’s happily rapt attention, you can do the same to women. Practice, practice, practice.

Related: Owning a dog is training for owning a woman.

That’s Not Who The Degenerate Freak Mafia Are

The newest thought-stopping libfag incantation to join classics such as “It’s [the current year]”, “I can’t even”, and “right side of history”, is “That’s not who we are”. You can hear our esteemed pleaders like president Gay Mulatto, TheCunt, and Paul “I can’t put my ankles any farther behind my ears” Ryan saying it, especially in response to Donald J. Trump’s eminently sensible accusation in the AIDS-soaked wake of the Orlando gay nightclub shooting that Muslim immigration to America presents a dire threat to citizens.

(It really does. A Muslim in America is 5,000% more likely to commit an act of terror than a non-Muslim American. As one alt-right shiv-wielder on Twatter wrote to preempt the predictable shitlib response: “Oddly enough, I don’t find the position that we have an ample supply of idiots and bad guys here a compelling reason to import more.”)

What does “that’s not who we are” really mean? As with all shitlibboleths, there’s nothing of substance underneath the faggy pomp. Pin down a lib on this empty slogan and he’ll twist in the wind whistling through his empty skull trying to come up with a coherent explanation. Are we all self-hating Whites? Are we all avatars of altruistic love eager to permit the resettlement of 7 billion foreigners into our neighborhoods and homes? Are we all similarly disposed to redirect our rational fear of Muslim terrorism onto law-abiding White men who aren’t sufficiently prostrate to the reigning equalist narrative?

The reality is that when shitlibs with an affinity for Islam and the Other, and a kneejerk resentment of Whites, (like the Gay Mulatto), say “that’s not who we are”, what they mean, more precisely, is “that’s not who the degenerate freak mafia are”. And that would be true. The degenerate freak mafia, of which the spiteful half-breed Obama is a proud member, are not friends of common sense, not given to honest appraisal of reality, not advocates of pattern recognition, not guarantors of a livable nation for their posterity, not satisfied with a personal quiet ethics that substitutes for a public virtue signaling, not psychologically capable of race realism, and not visceral defenders of what is true and beautiful.

That is not who they are, and the sooner Americans know this about them, the quicker they will be cast out to the prolapsed wastelands where they can be who they are all by themselves….until they get sick and tired of their own company and stop being who they are in a bathtub of warm water.

The Thirsty Beta Male Analogue Is The Thirsty Omega Female

Commenter maldek regurgitates a shopworn belief among a certain set of manospherians concerning the ability of LSMV women to get sex.

Women at 58 – even much worse looking and overweight women – CAN get dates easily.

No they can’t. More on this below.

They can get as much sex as they want easily. Quantity is not a problem.

Yes it is. More on this below.

The problem is, the quality of mate. Dates are from younger guys who can get laid in their own age group or younger so they date older. Or from guys their own age or older who are in one way or the other SMV rejects and have no other options.

Man with options with an SMV of 7 or higher can and prefer to date younger pussy. This hurts the old hotty even more than it hurts the overweight ex-housewife, because she is used to male attention of the 8+ area and now has to decide between low quality flesh and high quality plastic inside of her lady parts. More often than not, its the later.

Look, you don’t need SCIENCE! to tell you that fat, ugly, and old chicks have trouble getting laid. If you enjoy a halfway-respectable social life, you’ll notice time and again that the unattractive girls show up to parties and events alone, and leave alone, no man to escort them home for post-party boffing. It happens so often no one really blinks an eye, because it’s expected. If you DO need SCIENCE!, please consult the CH archives for studies clearly finding that fat chicks have sex less often than slender babes.

In the real world, fatties, fuglies, oldies and, less frequently, super hot sexpot ingenues with a case of BPD, are the ones who never seem to have a boyfriend when they meet up with their social groups. The sexpots are BF-less for a different reason: they play the field so much they’ve forgotten how to identify a quality man worth slowing down for and stashing the crazy in the crawl space.

The SMV hierarchy of “ease of getting laid” looks like this (note that ease of getting laid does not necessarily imply fulfillment of sex opportunities), in descending order of ease:

Alpha females (HB 8s, 9s and 10s)
Super Alpha males
Beta females
Alpha males
Beta males
Omega females
Omega males

Fat, ugly and old women are essentially omega females in the sexual market, and that’s reflected in the fact they have as much, perhaps more, trouble getting laid as do garden variety beta males. In line with what we know about biomechanics and sex differences in reproductive goals, Omega Females are the instant sexual access equivalent of Beta Males. They don’t get sex offers, direct or indirect, as often as prettier girls, and when they do get laid it’s usually with flings who aren’t their first choice and who don’t even feign a promise of commitment to a longer term agreement.

Omega males have it the worst, and can often go years without so much as a whiff of womb flower.

(Note the curiosity that beta females — 4s, 5s, and 6s — have an easier time getting laid than regular alpha males. The cheapness of sperm guarantees that even alpha males have to put a little legwork in to find a willing buyer.)

So while it is true that in general women can get sex easier than can men, in the particulars we see that this truth varies by the sexual marketability of the woman in question, just as it does for men. What we can say with certainty that applies to all men and women is that the curve for women’s “ease of getting laid” is shifted to the rawdog right of the same curve for men. But there are still plenty of women on the left side of their sex-getting curve who languish as insols for uncomfortable lengths of time.

There’s another psychological dynamic that puts the lie to the “ugly girls can get laid whenever they want” mantra. Women simply don’t emotionally or mentally process their ability to get laid the same way men do for themselves. If a fat chick can slum it with a piss-stained bum, that’s no comfort to her ego. Even if she has an easier time getting hobo dick than a similarly LSMV man has getting fatty furrow, that reality won’t resonate with a positive assessment of her self-conception.

Succinctly, women don’t count loser men as validation of their sexual desirability, (just as they don’t count vacation sex or anal sex as points toward their lifetime partner count). A bum willing to fuck a fat chick just won’t register in her brain as evidence that she can get laid whenever she wants. For women, the only men that register as proof positive of their feminine allure are quality men with options who have willingly chosen them over others, instead of having been chosen because the woman was desperate.

Some manosphere types (and a lot of bitterbitch feminists) forget this because, just like feminists, they frequently dupe themselves into projecting their male sensibilities onto women. That never works. Notch count, and the ability to inflate it, has a different meaning for men and women. However, their wrongness on this subject does spring from a premise with a small kernel of truth: ultimately, sex-getting comparisons between men and women are inherently flawed, because women are, barring exceptions, the receiving sex, and men are the achieving sex. Women wait to receive the sex of a bold sex-getting man emotionally judged worthy of their reception, while men are moved to action to achieve the sex of a beautiful sex-receiving woman penilely judged worthy of their injection.

Because of this intractable psychological and behavioral difference between the sexes, it’s difficult to say with precision that this man and that woman have equal capabilities to easily get laid. The man may have a shy personality or religious feeling that limits his easy sex opportunities, and the woman may be surrounded by timid men who incidentally limit her easy sex opportunities. For this reason, the evidence that fat chicks can’t get laid easily is even more damning than at first blush, given that they have to betray their native womanhood and allow emotional distress into their lives when they chase after men to get the sex they aren’t getting by waiting around passively for a man to approach them unsolicited.

In the big picture, though, the Thirsty Beta Male = Thirsty Omega Female formulation is a useful shorthand. Refer to this post the next time some butthurt blowhard goes on at length about how women have it so great because even the ugly ones can get sex on demand.

The Impossibility Of Open Borders

It’s been said by others, but it’s worth reiterating here. Open borders are an impossibility. If you remove one border, two more, smaller, borders will be created in its place. It’s like the titular creatures from Gremlins. Spill water on one, and five more mogwai spawn.

The logic is inescapable. A big border protects a lot of smaller entities within the territory it rings. Abolish the big border, and small borders will organically arise to protect the smaller entities that were once protected as a whole behind one big umbrella border. Abolish the small replacement borders, and still smaller borders will be formed to protect the integrity of the multiplying units of partitioned entities and territories.

For real life examples of this phenomenon in action, see any gated community, school with metal detectors, or bulletproof glass-enclosed 7-Eleven check-out counter. If you remove the national border, the citizens will respond to their unwelcome vulnerability by erecting borders around that to which they can still control entry.

Open borders libertardians like Cheap Chalupas either are too stupid to understand this or, more likely, are too disingenuous to bother understanding. Perhaps for them, ensconced in the swaddle of their own leafy, 95% White, high trust suburban borders, the recursively multiplying, mitotically dividing, expanding universe of atomized borders and supporting Surveillance State machinery necessary in a Diversitopia are a feature instead of a bug. If that’s how they think, then here’s to hoping their cushioned principles are put to the test the best possible way: with swift and unremitting exposure to the reality of the borderless world they champion.