The Trump Burrito

Everyone should Trumpify his life. Here’s a perfect example. I laughed at this comment by Greg:

Trump demographic update. I went through the local fast food drive my daughter works at and ordered a Trump burrito. Silence ensued for a moment and I then explained that I wanted a Yuge wall of cheese with the beans on the other side. When I came up to pay there must have been 4 other young gals beside my daughter laughing and liking what they heard. I heard later on from my daughter they all like Trump. 18 to early 20s in age.

There’s a new generation of Whites coming up, later Millennials and even younger, who will crave the bullshit-free stylings of shitlordery that for so long have been suppressed by our sick anti-White culture.

They beg for thought leaders to show them the way to self-pride and ZFG impudence. Will you step up for them?

Study: No Consent Divorces Favor Women

Courtesy of reader BK, a link to an economic analysis of woman-coddling divorce laws.

CH, thought you would like this article – economist looks at how no consent divorces have changed savings rates and women’s leisure time – the result is that men are saving more to protect themselves and women are taking a lot more leisure time.

Quotes from the research paper:

By regulating when divorce can occur and how resources are divided when it does, divorce laws can affect people’s behavior and their wellbeing both during marriage and at divorce. Household survey data from the United States shows that the introduction of unilateral divorce in states that imposed an equal division of property is associated with higher household savings and lower female employment rates among couples that are already married.

This sounds like a legal backdoor to re-institute “barefoot and pregnant” as a family norm.

During the 1970s and 1980s, divorce laws were rewritten around the United States. Until then, mutual consent—the consent of both spouses—was often a requirement and upon divorce, property was assigned to the spouse who held the formal title to it; usually, this was the husband.

Then, profound state-level reforms brought about the so-called “unilateral divorce revolution.” Most couples now entered a legal system in which either spouse could obtain a divorce without the consent of the other and also keep a fraction of the marital assets, often close to fifty percent.

Here come the negative externalities! (which feminists always miss)

This study explores the impact of the reforms—unilateral divorce and equitable property division—on the economic behavior of couples.  In the US, these reforms affect no small number of people, as forty percent of married couples and about one-third of all people over their lifetimes are divorced. So how did the unilateral divorce revolution change the consumption, the labor supply decisions, and ultimately the wellbeing of married and divorced couples?

There are at least two ways in which we might expect the reforms to affect household behavior. First, because divorce is one of those events for which people cannot buy insurance, savings can act as self-insurance, allowing people to face some of the financial costs associated with marriage dissolution. Different ways of dividing property can affect the insurance role of savings. Second, even among couples that do not split up, a change in divorce laws can change a spouse’s options outside of the marriage. For instance, a property division regime change that favors one spouse can improve her position inside the marriage, particularly if she can obtain divorce without the other partner’s consent. This reallocation within marriage could result in changes in private consumption, savings, and labor supply.

Muh incentives and disincentives.

From this “difference-in-differences” exercise, two main facts emerge on the impact of unilateral divorce in states with different property division regimes. First, in states with equal division, households reported higher net savings (around 16%). Second, in such states, women who were already married became less likely to work, by approximately 5 percentage points. By analyzing additional time use surveys between 1965 and 1993, I find that the decrease in the labor supply of women was associated with an increase in the amount of leisure time they enjoyed.

So how is this result explained by the behavior of spouses in marriages operating under no consent divorce laws?

With these features, the model provides a qualitative explanation for the observed empirical patterns. In states with equal division of property, the law favors women at the time of divorce. When the equal division of property grants them more resources in the event of divorce than they are receiving in the marriage, unilateral divorce means that they can use the threat of divorce in their favor while remaining married, thereby increasing their leisure.

How’s that oppressive patriarchy working out for you feminists? Heh.

At the same time, married couples save more because spouses’ individual incentives to save are distorted because they cannot choose how to allocate savings between man and woman in the increasingly likely event of a divorce. Because mandated equal division of property does not reflect the allocation of resources within marriage, it ultimately distorts household saving behavior.

Influenced by the specter of no consent divorce law, marriage has moved from a “build a nest egg” model to a “build an insurance against property loss” model.

So how do divorce laws, which were passed when men and women’s economic outcomes differed substantially, affect wellbeing today? Simulations from the model suggest that, as intended by the policymakers who promoted it, the equal division of property gave more assets to women in the sample compared with a title-based regime that would grant them about 40% of household wealth. Thus, for couples that married before the 1970s, the reforms likely achieved the goal of supporting women through divorce. However, their effect is more nuanced if we believe that today’s couples may have a different, more egalitarian, distribution of resources within marriage.

Here’s a thought: How about crafting equitable divorce law that isn’t deliberately intended to favor women? There must be a word for favoritism in the law…. oh yeah, injustice.

Beta Of The Month: A Brainscape Strewn With Discarded Testicles

Do we have a blockbuster BOTM contest for you readers today! Buckle up, buttplug out, kebab removed, you’re about to have the honor and the privilege to Detox the BOTM Buttox.

BOTM Candidate #1: Geld One and Geld Two

First, take a gander at this hot mess and then guess the backstory.

Avowed polyamorists are almost universally VLSMV (Very Low Sexual Market Value). This is especially true of polyandrous arrangements. The male facsimilies who volunteer to be shared by one (ugly) woman are so wretchedly unlovable that only the mentally diseased leftoid webzine Salon can identify with their cause.

Everyone wants to know how my polyamorous family works. You’d be surprised how normal we really are.

She got that right. Everyone seeing these circus freaks would be surprised if they exhibited characteristics that were faintly humanoid.

One of the biggest hurdles in non-monogamy — probably the hurdle — is jealousy. My husband was an incredibly jealous person back then, but he began to question its usefulness and purpose.

Was this questioning before or after the chemical castration?

Jealousy is born from a fear of losing a partner; if you believe that love and intimacy can be shared, and are not diminished by sharing, then that fear loses a lot of its power.

No, male jealous is born from a fear of cuckoldry. This is classic projection of the female sexual and emotional world onto men.

I often talk to her about the fact that society frowns on families like ours, and whenever I mention the claims that polyamory is bad for children, she rolls her eyes and says, “Oh no, kids having more people to love them! How horrible!”

TheDarndestThingsThatKidsNeverSaid.txt

My boyfriend and I are planning a (non-legal) wedding ceremony next summer, and would likely legally marry if we could. But it’s painful to know that many people in our lives will never take our relationship completely seriously, or see it as entirely real.

Of course it’s painful to her. That’s her mind-body axis telling her what she’s doing is depraved and… problematic… to her social fitness.

When my daughter talks about same-sex marriage or polyamorous relationships, she always looks perplexed and says, “I don’t understand why anyone is angry about people being in love and not hurting anyone.”

The battle cry of the Millennial misfit.

Maxim #109: Consensual polyamory is a contrived hookup service for undesirable sexual market rejects.

******

BOTM Candidate #2: Love Chair Troll

You know what’s unforgivably beta? Sticking around in the same place to witness your dignity getting shredded. Why didn’t this droopy dog just stand up and leave?

******

BOTM Candidate #3: Pink Letter Pussboy

Forwarded with an explanation from reader Shitlord_2000:

My girlfriend who is 27 and a HB8, was at the gym doing some cardio on one of the hamster wheel machines they have a plethora of at her gym that basic bitches seem to love, when some young ‘kid’ (her words, not mine) comes into her periphery and puts the following in her hand.

“text me if you want”

Cowards write sappy letters to their muses. Sacked-up men approach and say “Hi”. It’s the difference between seeing the world from under a pussy pedestal, and seeing it side-by-side with a woman down on earthly ground.

Don’t pretend you’re a swooning romantic to allay the suspicion you’re really just a huge pussy. BUSTAMOVE. (Charitably, since this “kid” might be young and inexperienced, it’s worth cutting him some slack. But not too much slack… that way lies John Scalzification.)

******

BOTM Candidate #4: Tats For Nothing

Courtesy of reader Tom:

I met a female tattoo artist from Toronto in London doing daygame, 24 with huge boobs and quickly ticked all of the boxes for a same day lay. I ended up spending about 7 hours with her and though I didn’t actually get laid she did leave my flat with my cum in her mouth.

So far, so alpha, the beta bit is a story she told me about her exploits on Tinder.

She matched some guy on Tinder who sent her a message saying “If you could tattoo anything on me what would you do?” Her response was “A transsexual Jesus nailed to a cross with my name and surrounded by buttplug ivy”

HE ACTUALLY WENT THROUGH WITH IT AND GOT THE TATTOO! As, I assume, a strategy to get laid.

However it didn’t even work, in her words “He hit the roof when I declined a 2nd date”

First date, hours of needle in the back getting a tranny jesus tattoo. 2nd date, declined.

I actually have a photo of the tattoo, it’s his entire back and he didn’t get so much as a hand job.

I wish I had that photo to post here, but Tom either didn’t send it or I lost it in the shuffle.

Maxim #45: Don’t appease before she’s had your peen.

Corollary to Maxim #45: Better yet, don’t appease. Ever.

******

And finally…. (this one needs a build-up)…(ps it’s NSFW)…(trust me)…

BOTM Candidate #5: The Palace Eunuch Pube Groomer

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

The skinnyfat middle and punchable shitlib face echo indicate that this is a DEFCUCK 1,000 beta male grooming apprentice. I.e., the realio dealio, and not a sexually satisfied boyfriend doing his chick a short n curly solid.

But even if he were a legit boyfriend, or alternately a gay slumber party buddy, this act of defiance against all norms of masculinity would qualify him as a worthy BOTM contender. If, as I suspect, he’s worse than that — a beta male orbiter so sexually invisible and inoffensive that this woman feels comfortable propping him mere inches from her vagina to pluck some ingrown pubes — then by my reckoning he has to go down as one of the all-time “greatest” beta losers, veering dangerously close to omega male territory. (What stops him from going all the way is that omega males don’t even get to see pussy this close up.)

The voting:

What To Say When A Girl Asks If You’re Seeing Anyone Else

Will asks for game advice,

If a girl asks if you’re consistently seeing anyone else right now…isn’t that showing interests that they want to be in an LTR and that they want you all to their self.

I’m trying to just be chill with this girl and have good inner game, but literally this same thing keeps happening with her and about 4 other girls in the past… The girl will ask “are you sleeping with other girls” or “how many girls” etc etc. and then usually they will fall off the map after a month or 2 or I’ll get the ultimatum.

Basically, When is it not a shit test?

This is a very common scenario, and it’s been covered extensively at Le Chateau. Check the archives.

Very briefly, reply, “I’m dating around until I find a girl that I click with.” If she presses for clarification, tell her to slow down and enjoy your moments together.

This serves two purposes. One, it sidesteps the trap of beta male defensiveness. Two, it burnishes your “preselected by other women” credentials. Don’t say you aren’t dating anyone else – that risks leaving an impression of incel haplessness – and don’t say you’re drowning in women, which sounds try-hard and off-putting if she’s interested in something serious with you (unless you say it with a disarming self-aware faux braggadocio). Keep it vague and ambiguous, and let her fill in the details of your love life (her rationalization hamster will gladly oblige).

If a girl asks you this type of question after dating for a few months, it’s not a shit test. It’s a sincere effort on her part to coax signs of commitment from you, and make the relationship exclusive. In that context, it’s better to tell her she’s the only girl you’re currently seeing, or that you’re ready for her to be the only girl you’re with, if you want a relationship as much as she does.

Winter Is Trumping

A Father’s Desperate Bid To Stop His Daughter’s Mudsharking

Before I get to the grist of this post, a reminder about my feelings on the subject of coal burning:

On a case-by-case, practical basis, I don’t sweat it if the mudshark and her F YOU DAD boyfriend are only loosely affiliated to me. If the love is real and true (rare, but it happens), I’m not gonna rain on their charade. It’s the Equalist miscegenation propaganda, and the forced platitudes of shitlib miscegenators trying to justify their anti-Darwinian middle finger, that sticks in my craw. If the propaganda and the SJWistic glorification of dindu diving were to disappear tomorrow, I’d probably drop the subject because 1. there wouldn’t be a nonstop media assault of mixed race sproglet abominations to offend my aesthetic sensibility and 2. the risk of emotionally unstable White girls betraying their race’s heritage at the behest of subliminal media messages would be lower.

Now that that’s out of the way, PA provides an intro to the main subject:

Check out that Stephanie tweet. Dad threatens his mudshark daughter with disowning. She tweets the letter saying more or less that “racissss so sad it’s the current year.” Thank God I have sons, no daughters.

Unfortunately (and unsurprisingly, after the mudshark received the serrated side of the CH shiv), short-sighted Stephanie (not fat, looked pretty) deleted her Twatter account, so I can’t dig up the letter her despondent father wrote to his daughter and re-post it here.

But I can say this about that: Every father, every parent, has a perfectly justified and legitimate grievance when a daughter strays from the Good and White to slum it with vibrancy. In fact, I’d go so far to say that nonWhite parents are equally justified to fear their own daughters dating outside the race, and to try to thwart it.

The plain fact of it is that parents want children, and grandchildren, who resemble them and share their temperamental qualities; this is a deeply primal genetic imperative imprinted into the hindbrain. To deny this longing is to deny a piece of one’s divinely-inspired humanity. We can see how the denial looks on the faces of older patriarchs in family photos featuring a mudshark daughter and her dusky affront: blank, listless, sallow, hinting at a soul killed dead from suppressed grief. The eyes have a thousand-coal stare.

What miscegenation comes down to is defilement — of family, of thousands of years of irreplaceable genetic legacy, of Truth and Beauty. This is why, if people (including shitlibs) are honest, they will admit that the thought of their daughters getting fucked — yes, FUCKED… let’s not prettify the gutter rebellion with softened odes to intimacy — by a man of another race, especially of a genetically and phenotypically distant race, disgusts them to their very marrow.

(Oil drilling sons don’t elicit the same degree of disgust, but that’s because sons don’t carry the risk of burdening the family with a technicolor conception.)

mendo writes:

I checked that out and saw the all the people supporting her. There was even another girl that disowned her dad, for other reasons, and was glad she did.

Fucking parenting failure all the way.

Love how the dad had the suitcases on the ready and where she could find them.

greg adds:

Exactly… people forget that, back in the day, banning and shunning wasn’t just for outsiders.

Community integrity demanded that it be applied to one’s own family, if need be.

This is a good time to plug PA’s PSA on how to prevent mudsharking.

My sentiment is that White fathers have a MORAL DUTY to keep their daughters off the coal. To abandon this task, or worse to welcome the reproductive dispossession, is tantamount to betraying one’s own identity. It’s a scary prospect, but it needs consideration. If as a father you’ve given it all you’ve got, and you still lose your daughter to dinduville, then the option to disown is available. If you can’t save her, you can at least save yourself decades of humiliation concealing your torment for social approval.

I imagine the biggest concerns of new parents must be fear of a son growing up gay and a daughter landing in a relationship with a racial alien. This is about as harsh an ugly, un-PC truth as you’ll read anywhere, which is usually the case with truths that emanate from the id, where platitudes find no purchase. Whites currently constitute less than 10% of the total world population, and shrinking fast. Pretty White women are, by a global accounting, as rare as blue lobsters. Throwing that precious gift away and destroying thousands of years of evolved preternatural uniqueness to, in most scenarios, spite a parent or an ex-lover, is the height of folly and the banality of evil.

A Dark Future.

***

UPDATE

Here’s a web cache of the father’s desperate letter to his mudsharking daughter. And here’s a link to an incredibly faggy run-down of the story plus letter, written by Mustafa Gatollari (good lord). Representative quotes: “All right so it’s the year 2016. The civil rights movement happened.”…”Cops shoot suspects in the back just because of the color of their skin.”…”It’s the whole being super racist thing that’s the worst part. Best of luck to Stephanie and her man, and hopefully her dad will realize he’s totally on the wrong side of history,”…”What’s up with us as a country?”

What’s up Mustafa, is that Whites are WAKING UP to the occupation of their country by ingrate goat-humpers like yourself. If you think your feels are hurty now, just wait until the gloves are off. (Mustafa’s whine is so SJW-ish I wonder if it’s a parody.)

Getting back to the Stephanie business and her dad’s letter, one can’t help but think her dad’s words got under her skin, as she felt compelled to publicize his letter for wagon circling “atta girl”s from a small army of degenerate social media sluts.

A father can exert a lot of influence over his daughter by removing the credit card. Too bad Stephylococcus’s dad didn’t avail himself of that option. A woman will bend to a strong man’s will, and that includes daughters who have had their weekly allowance lifeline cut off. If that fails, the last thing left for a father is disowning. No money, no emotional support, no contact ever again. In most normal daughters, this will strike a deep fear and shame in them that may not become apparent to themselves until years later, which will be too late. Mudshark orphans are tragic lessons in preventable suffering that can serve as examples in what not to do for the others.

Victorian Era Shitlord Valentine’s Cards

During the Victorian era, men would sometimes hand out spinster shaming cards like these to ugly and unfeminine women on Valentine’s Day (any feminists reading this ought to consult a head asplosion doctor before continuing further):

Women can be shamed into behaving and looking more feminine. Which is a good thing. Too bad we’ve lost that lesson and do the opposite now: shame women for being feminine and looking thin and pretty, and glorify women who act masculine and look like dump trucks.

“Lean in”, lose love. That’s all you need to know, ladies.