America, Then And Now

Via.

Social Scientists Are Discrediting Themselves

A recent survey of 100 social science studies discovered that 60 of them failed to replicate. (I’d like to reproducibility with that girl on the left.) In scientific terminology, that’s called a “poor showing”.

The new analysis, called the Reproducibility Project, found no evidence of fraud or that any original study was definitively false. Rather, it concluded that the evidence for most published findings was not nearly as strong as originally claimed.

The reasons given for the… oh what shall we call it… INCOMPETENCE of social scientists are:

1. Pressure to publish novel research and “make a splash”.
2. The misuse of replication studies by (often younger) scientists who want to attack the original author.
3. Small sample sizes.
4. Small methodology differences between the original and reproduced studies. (This would sometimes redound in favor of the original study’s findings.)

I’d like to offer another two possibilities for the wretched state of social science, that I believe more parsimoniously explain the weak and sometimes utterly useless “discoveries” that the field generates on a near-daily basis:

Diversity™ and Equalist Bias.

Diversity is the King of All Moral Crusades in 2015 America, which in practice means that too many non-Whites and women of dubious talent are replacing White men with obvious talent. Corruption, incompetence, and ethnic nepotism are fast becoming the rule rather than the exception in the West as the fields most susceptible to the Diversity™ siren call fill with diversity-quota hires and empty of skilled White men.

Equalist Bias corrupts a field that is dominated by Leftoid Equalists. Social Science has some good eggs (David Buss) but most social scientists are flaming liberal cranks and feminists who simply entered the field eager to co-opt a creeeeeedentialist imprimatur for their preexisting blank slate race and sex creationism religion. This is why CH has said that one’s working assumption should be that 99% of any social science research which comes out of a university with a large and well-funded women’s studies department is worthless drivel. The source matters. Shitlib emotional bias isn’t something the modern social scientist tries to overcome; it’s something she tries to back-rationalize with her work.

The cure for social science is clear: Less Diversity™, More Realtalkers. Hope this hurts.

Why Is Anna Merlan Still Employed?

Anna Merlan has a post up at Jizzebel about Trump, Hitler, Nazis, White Nationalists, and Hitler. That’s really all you need to know. In full, it is as stupid and incoherent and rife with empty-headed aging Millennial snark as CH’s executive summary makes it sound. Basically, shitlibs are flooding their diapers that Whites are starting to do what other racial groups have always done: embrace a race-aware political identity.

But the real story here, as is usually the case with these indignant witch burning histrionics from the thin-skinned bluehair nosepierce generation, is the circus sideshow that defines the life of the author. Let us recall that Anna Merlan is the acid-blooded feminist xenomorph who helped breathe life into the UVA fraternity rape hoax (a hoax roundly exposed by numerous media outlets), who was rightly condemned for her poor journalistic standards (i.e., libel), who lashed out in a vengeful rage and initially refused to own up to her part in the lie, and who finally was forced to issue a snide apology for her efforts at menstrually smearing the reputations of innocent men.

Merlan the Lizard

A huge cunt, all in all.

Anna Merlan’s been lying her whole life. She’s a Nimrod Class sociopath and attention whore, who uses lies to construct her glowing self-conception. A sane society would shun her kind to the icy wastelands, and never allow her to sully any respectable organization.

Given the well-known background on Anna Merlan — her lying, dissembling, malevolence, man-hating, and unethical, incompetent journalistic practices that make mockery of the field — why is she still employed? How is it that she is still able to have a platform to vomit her lies and libel after everything that is known about her?

Could it be………

NEPOTISM?

Comment Of The Week: The Thousand Yard Shiv

COTW winner is LongWhiteCon, on the id-soaked reality facing White women who bear mixed race kids.

I don’t know too many men who dream about having kids (our nature is different, and it’s a vague abstract thought, mixed with necessary battle-wariness). However, ALL women dream of having kids, from the days they’re 18 months and playing with dolls and gurgling ‘aww, look at the baby-so cute!’. As slightly more mature women (slightly) their thoughts lean towards wanting to see some of themselves in the child they bear. As opposed to the father, they KNOW they’re the mother, and are assuming everything will go to plan. At first, they’re enthralled with their little mocha baby, with blonde hair and green eyes, but at 6 months, they’re aghast at how much the dark gene has taken over, laying to waste all the mother’s traits. A comment from a friend at the ‘caffeecleek’ (peer-group very important) along the lines of ‘she has such lovely brown eyes’ can really be a devastating shiv.

Like CH has said (and something which anthropologist Peter Frost has echoed in his writings), the White European aesthetic, behavioral and physical, is the result of a few thousand years of specialized, highly circumstantial selection for exquisitely refined traits that exist nowhere else in the world. Turning one’s back on that genetic heritage is akin to crapping on the Mona Lisa.

PA adds a painful twist,

That shiv is not for the squeamish, but in perverse times an acid bath of truth can save others from making a horrible mistake.

Another such built-in shiv lies in the word “beautiful.” Sarah Palin called her Downs Syndrome baby that. No scorn on her, as a sick child is a tragedy. But the point is, that nobody calls a normal child “beautiful.”

I see distant acquaintances and occasionally their friends-of-friends on FB post their children’s photos. In the rare cases that it’s a mulatto child of a White woman, there will invariably be a “beautiful” or similar words posted in comments. Almost never, in the case of a White child of a White woman (or a Black child of a Black woman, for that matter.

Intra-female dialogue has its own subtle rules. One of those rules is, I surmise, to appear generous and giving, while distancing oneself from any association with befoulment, as understood by her within the rules of her millieu.

This comment reminded me that I had recently heard a SWPL chick use the word “beautiful” to describe the mystery meat issue in a photo of a mixed race family (white father-black mother). The infant was about as far from “beautiful” as possible, she must have known this, and her little signaling game to her fellow SWPL whites wrested a pursed lip and a curt “hm” from me. Women have an amazing tolerance for these kinds of mincing, passive-aggressive status cues.

Open Letter To A Loser In Love

This is an open letter to a loser in love, a beta male who has become bitter about women through repeated romantic failure. You find yourself here, at the Chateau, seeking answers. I am your Prophet and because you are in the Flock I will share with you my field-tested wisdom.

I say this with no malice but you will not like it. But I am going to say it anyway because it is the truth and that’s what you’re looking for. You are projecting all of the characteristic traits of a LOSER. You want to associate with LOSERS for succor, because they don’t threaten the comforting bubble of your whiny persecution complex. You complain about your health, money, job, height, weight, datelessness. You complain that you’re being forced to dance like a monkey for girls. You look in the mirror and complain that you aren’t a Hollywood hunk, and you use this as an excuse for your failure to act with the women you desire. You complain about everything!

This is the key to understanding your problems with women.

Men don’t complain, they ACT. A woman wants to give herself to a man who emanates power and decisiveness and brass balls. A man who says “It’s my way or the highway, baby!” A man with no money, who is fat, who is stupid, who is clueless in every way EXCEPT that he radiates those zero fucks given alpha attitude vibes will get laid all the time.

You bitch about this jerkboy antagonist so you know that this happens. You’ve seen it happen. And the jerk doesn’t just bang out club skanks either. Cute, confident SWPL chicks get horny in the presence of such power. Even a feminist ideologue will beg such a man to fuck her up the ass just to have him pay attention to her for a minute.

Loser in love, your attitude sucks. If you want to start fucking hot girls with sexy bodies, be a MAN. The key to power is not cash or looks or cars or any of that conventional crap you read about in Maxim. Those things are incidental and are only important insofar as they alter your state of mind. The mind is the ultimate weapon. The power is within you. All you have to do is decide to tap it.

Shiv Of The Week: A Pretender Gets Real

Chrissie Hynde, the lead singer of The Pretenders (their heyday was in the 1980s), sounds like she’s partaken of the nourishing well of Chateau Heartiste wisdom.

The former chart topper claimed in a Sunday newspaper interview that scantily clad women were likely to “entice a rapist” and that it is their “fault” if they are attacked.

It’s not entirely the skank’s fault, but she bears some personal responsibility for her safety. It’s like if you decide to take a pale stroll through the blackest ghetto at 2AM and get mugged, no sane person will excuse your attacker, but everyone will think you’re quite daft for doing what you did.

She also claimed that pop stars who call themselves feminists but use their sex appeal to sell records were effectively just “prostitutes”.

Hi, Miley!

“If I’m walking around and I’m very modestly dressed and I’m keeping to myself and someone attacks me, then I’d say that’s his fault.

“But if I’m being very lairy and putting it about and being provocative, then you are enticing someone who’s already unhinged — don’t do that.”

She added: “You know, if you don’t want to entice a rapist, don’t wear high heels so you can’t run from him. If you’re wearing something that says ‘Come and —- me’, you’d better be good on your feet… I don’t think I’m saying anything controversial am I?”

No, you’re not Chrissie. This woman is great. She’s speaking truth, girls, listen to her.

“A pop star who’s walking around, parading themselves as a porn star and saying they’re feminists.

“They’re prostitutes.

“I’m not making a value judgment on prostitutes, but just say what you are.”

“Just say what you are.” No, the degenerate freak mafia can’t do that, or they’ll have to face exactly what they are, and they can’t have that. Instead, lovable vivisectors like your truly will do it for them, gleefully.

May As Well Call It Aaron Mendelssohn

We’ve all heard the story by now: Ashley Madison, the website that claimed to help cheating spouses hook up with each other in complete discretion, was hacked. The hackers released a huge user data dump and it was revealed that 90-95% of AM’s actual users were male, and the remaining were mostly fake female profiles.

Ashley Madison was a scam. But anyone who has the least understanding of sex differences would not be so gullible to think that there are just as many married women interested in anonymous internet sexual liaisons as there are married men interested in the same. Apparently, there are so few married women willing to go online specifically to find an extramarital lover that Ashley Madison could barely crack the 1,000 men:1 real woman ratio.

This is not to say that married women aren’t infidelity risks. But when women, legally taken or otherwise, want to have an illicit affair, their preferred method of target acquisition is a logged-off, face-to-face whirlwind romance, not a lifeless keyboard hunt for a collaborator who will make her feel like the whore she’d rather forget about herself.

A reader writes,

Can hypergamy explain [Ashley Madison’s fake female profiles]? One way to interpret that is, “women have no qualms about leaving their husbands”.

That’s one reason. The dearth of live wives seeking extramarital affairs on Ashley Madison is a consequence of:

1. the nature of women to prefer their seduction be veiled behind flirtatious feints and parries (as opposed to arid, conspicuous match-ups with equally debased men)
2. the disposition of wives to simply leave their husbands when they want to start new romances (husbands — and single men in relationships — can better tolerate balancing illicit lovers with a wife or steady girlfriend, even over long periods of time).
3. the fact that women are not as promiscuous as men.

These are the big three explanations for AM’s 95% man/4.9% fake woman ratio. A fourth explanation — that going online for the explicit purpose of finding a sex partner in crime — is too much for most women’s anti-slut defenses. I suspect the Ashley Madison creators knew this, and figured that the male urge for poosy variety is so strong they could get away with scamming millions of men with impunity. They were right.