Feeds:
Posts
Comments

It’s time for a sequel to the original “International Truth Day“.

– the ugliness of the world is proven by the energy devoted to hiding that ugliness under mountains of platitudes and self-deluding hokum.

– i have yet to see an exception to the rule that fat men who lose weight promptly start dating thinner girls than they dated when they were fat.

– the specter of options, or lack thereof, is always haunting one’s choices, despite any assertions to the contrary.

– christie brinkley at 60 beats lindy west at 220.

– christie brinkley at 20 beats christie brinkley at 60, no matter how good 60-year-old christie “looks for her age”.

– eventually, money, or space, will run out. when either does, liberal pieties will vanish in a puff of smoke, as if they had never existed. don’t underestimate the flimsy nature of post-industrial morality.

– female “natural beauty” is spoken of with sentimental reverence, because it is so rare, and the rarer still not long past the teenage years.

– nearly all women look better with strategically applied make-up. maybe one in a thousand women are equally attractive without cosmetic illusion.

– the numbers of women who look just as good without makeup are dwarfed by the numbers of women who ruin their looks with too much makeup. this proves that women universally understand the critical importance of artificially improving their appearance to remain attractive to men.

– a woman will fish an alpha male’s used condom out of the trash to impregnate herself. she’ll demand her beta boyfriend wear a condom.

– guilt is a man’s second wife.

– later marriages = passionless marriages. the marital norm is shifting to less passion.

– fat men desire the same thing that thin men desire: slender babes. ugly old women desire the same thing that hot, young women desire: sexy alpha males. the demand far outstrips the supply. in economic terms, sexual desire is inelastic while the stimulants of sexual desire are a scarce resource.

– in the trade-off between inelastic sexual desire and scarce desire stimulants, we find the innumerable losers starved for affection.

– there will never be a post-scarcity sexual economy. not even one in which beauty and charm are genetically engineered to perfection. in the gattaca of the future, all it takes is one man trying to get a leg up on others for the equalist utopia to shatter.

– “diversity is our strength” is the Prime Lie of our age.

– Liberal Race Creationism is the Totalitarianism of our age. like Totalitarianism, Liberal Race Creationism is destined to fall.

– fathers provide confidence, mothers provide comfort. when parents attempt to reverse those roles, their children suffer emotional distress.

– the ideal long-term relationship dynamic is one in which the woman is (if such an intersex comparison could be made) more physically appealing than the man, and the man is more socially appealing than the woman.

– options = instability.

– the WAR (Wins Above Replacement) stat in baseball is useful as a sexual market analytic. the higher a man’s WAR (Women Above Replacement, or the number of additional women he could get above the number of women the average man is expected to get), the more valuable he will be to women scouting for mates.

– the only pro-natalist argument that makes any philosophical sense is the hedonistic argument: that is, the true pleasure of having and raising kids over a lifetime outweighs their psychic, social and material costs and the opportunity cost of giving up pleasures derived from other sources… unless the premise of an illimitable black void after death is wrong, in which case competing pro-natalist arguments gain currency.

– philosophy is nice, but unfalsifiable human emotions will have the final say.

– if nonwhite immigrants become more patriotic and flag-waving, expect to see white natives become less so. tribes demand differences, even if those differences must be paid in a sacrifice of civic fellowship.

– if a wife or girlfriend calls you her “best friend”, start looking for replacement pussy. you’re already pushed halfway out the door.

– synthetic vaginal lubricant is the tribute frigid wives pay to their beta husbands.

– it’s easy to control the frame once you stop giving a shit. corollary: you will almost always cede the frame if you care more than the other person.

– when you observe naturals to learn their ways, you will fortuitously learn more about women than about naturals.

– discretion is the better part of seduction, but the conventional wisdom is wrong: women are often the ones to break the code of silence first, especially when they have developed strong feelings for a man.

– a man’s romantic love for a woman fades in direct proportion to the fade of her looks plus the time spent in a monogamous relationship with her.

– in every successful, long-lasting relationship, romantic love was replaced by companionate love.

– kink is just a desperate attempt by unattractive has-beens to recapture the sexual passion of youth.

– a big penis is like PEDs; it’s prohibited from use in precisely those circumstances when it could be most useful.

– the meaning of life is still to fuck.

– politeness never defeated an existential threat.

– men in long, happy marriages to first or second loves can never give insightful advice about women. for that, turn to cads with recent experience and a high N sample size.

– strong evil beats weak good every time.

– SJW hate merchants make the fatal mistake of assuming their hate can be limited to those targets with whom it is hard to empathize. but hate is a fragmentation grenade. blowback is inevitable.

– a dead lion is worth more to white liberals than a million aborted black fetuses.

– eventually, in every relationship, terms of endearment and professions of love become as perfunctory as belching. and about as meaningful.

– cynicism is the handmaiden of experience; hope is the burden of innocence.

– a rapist (bill clinton) and a community organizer (barack butt naked) were elected president twice.

– a lonely woman inspires sympathy. a lonely man inspires contempt.

– racism is normal, natural, healthy… and most evident in the actions of those claiming otherwise.

– when women aren’t openly adoring cruel men, they are sleeping with them.

– women who shun men with standards are the women who can’t live up to them.

– a man with strict standards is like a beautiful woman; both make their lovers feel like they have acquired something priceless.

– fake it till you make it, and once made you will no longer be faking it.

– this, too, shall pass, but you’ll probably be dead before then.

– love is easily missed, carelessly denied, fleetingly intense, nakedly vulnerable… and for all these reasons it is more precious than anything else in this world.

There is a relatively new class of troll who bears a striking resemblance to the well-known “concern troll”, but who is in some respects far more insidious in his methodology and ability to derail comment threads on blogs devoted to the teachings of the charisma arts. I call this new breed the “game contradictions troll”.

A classic example of the game contradictions troll is this comment by “The Shrike” (who may not necessarily be an insincere troll, but whose complaint nonetheless serves as an ideal representative of the sort of comment a game contradictions troll would leave).

A lot of sound advice in this post. It looks like the author is slowly shifting away from the unabashed, detached Lothario pose to a more conservative outlook on life. Conservative values are not my own, but it seems that this is a more consistent approach when it comes to the opinions often professed by the author and most of the commenters here. A recurrent theme is the impending collapse of the Western civilization, largely caused by female hypergamy. The majority seems to abhor the fact modern women ride the proverbial “cock-carousel”, seemingly forgetting that no amount of game would be effective against uptight prudes who only ever do it after marriage, and only to procreate.

Game contradictions trolls thrive on a studied ignorance or disavowal of the true fact of life that there are different standards for the sexes, and that these standards are not set by men, but by nature, and men merely conform to these sexual market standards and rationalize their fairness (or unfairness) when it suits them, (we are not a rational species, we are a rationalizing species).

No one on this board has claimed that female hypergamy is the prime cause of Western decline. Female hypergamy is one of those differing sexual market standards that apply to women and not to men, and that can’t be wished away. The assertion often made at CH is that female hypergamy is a real phenomenon, and it is best to accept the reality of it and MAKE IT WORK FOR YOU rather than shake your fist ineffectually at it in hopes women magically cure themselves of their evolved desire to mate with, and extract the commitment of, the highest status men that their looks can realistically afford.

Riding the cock carousel is NOT necessarily a manifestation of female hypergamy. The cock carousel is the consequence of socially atomized anonymous urban environments coupled with contraceptives and economic self-sufficiency providing cover and incentive for women to indulge the part of their sexuality that yearns for dominant, charming, jerkboy cads who are hard to pin down into committed relationships. This is not female hypergamy fulfilled, but female hypergamy THWARTED, as it is the Darwinian directive of every woman to land the most desirable alpha man and to KEEP HIM AROUND.

There is an interesting clash of contradicting attitudes here. Not arguments between different posters, but internally inconsistent opinions voiced by the same people. Game is still a hallowed topic, not to be touched with a mortal hand, but it runs counter to the otherwise conservative leanings of the commenters. A stable family-unit, also much cherished around here, is mutually exclusive to widespread promiscuity exemplified by men who “game” women, and women who are willing to play along.

Another category error made often and reliably by trolls and anti-game haters. “Game” is not synonymous with promiscuity, although game certainly aids the pursuit of promiscuity if that is what is desired. A man could just as easily use game — aka learned charisma — to meet, seduce, date, and when the time is right, marry the most beautiful oneitis he has ever laid eyes on. I wouldn’t recommend it, but there you go.

Ultimately, there is a choice to be made if a man is to be congruent at the most basic level. Either champion a virtuous society where loyalty matters a lot, and people pair up with the intention of forming serious relationships. Or support the cad lifestyle where jumping from one woman to the next without any consideration is the norm.

Men have a longer SMV window than women and bear a smaller cost for each act of copulation than do women, which means in practice each man can, and should, get some romantic experience under his belt (heh) and then marry, if he wishes to marry, a younger woman. The fact of biologically grounded sex differences which aren’t going anywhere means that cadding about is always going to be less psychologically, reproductively and emotionally expensive for men than slutting around will be for women.

If it’s the latter, then it’s difficult to blame women for trying to do the same.

First, most women aren’t interested in doing the same, despite transparently try-hard protestations to the contrary by fat, bitter feminists. Second, it’s not difficult to blame the women trying to emulate the lifestyle of the alpha male cad for their short-sightedness. Different sex-based standards in the sexual market, and different sex-based psychosexual temperaments, are an emergent fact of life, not a directive handed down by the invisible pimp hand of the patriarchy.

If it’s the former, then much of the game concept goes out the window, though some aspects of getting a chosen female interested presumably are still useful.

How about, “game gives men the tools to successfully attract and keep women in sexual and emotional relationships.” There. That’s not so hard now, is it?

NPR Shitlibs And Pit Bulls

Commenter Dr Giggles passes along a funny real-life confirmation of the CH observation that pit bulls have become a save-a-thug-dog accessory for SWPLs who just can’t stop status whoring by redirecting their overcharged altruistic impulse past fellow badwhites (and the dogs preferred by badwhites, such as labs) and onto blacks and the dogs most resembling blacks in scowl and tendency to spontaneous violence.

I’d like to point out that this isn’t the first time CH has called out Shitlib High Priest Ira Glass on his mewling, manlet mannerisms. Years ago CH wrote about a trend involving SWPLs (predecessors to SJWs and Shitlibs) adopting rescue pit bulls. CH thoroughly dismissed their selfish intentions as nothing more than a savior complex gone sideways.

https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2013/02/10/pasty-spotted-ass-chipmunk-cheeked-herbling-swpls-and-pitbulls/

Well, guess who owns one and then did a story about how disastrous it has been for him? Not only does Glass’ pit bull, Piney, ruin his social life by attacking visitors, but the damn thing attacks him and his wife regularly. On top of that he has to buy exotic food, like kangaroo meat because Piney gets allergies. The dog also gets prescribed Valium by the vet. Glass puts up with it on account of his wife, and with the help of some monster sized hamster pellets.

http://m.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/480/animal-sacrifice

A part of me would love it if more SWPLs adopted rescue pit bulls and had their faces torn off in the middle of the night because their pit bulls inexplicably went on unprovoked chomp-outs. But then there are the SWPL kids, innocent bystanders to their parents’ warped delusions about the world and need to preen for other SWPLs by taking on dog cuck projects, with whom one must sympathize. Pit bulls are known to have a real taste for yummy infant meat.

Predictably, after the shitlib gets his face eaten off, he’ll blame dog discrimination and his knapsack of white dog owner privilege, and say that although he was disappointed in his pit bull, Flaytavious, more needs to be done to lift this misunderstood breed out of poverty and hopelessness.

***

hosswire adds a comment about dog breeds so full of shitlib pants-wetting implications for humanity that it’s a wonder the Ministry of Hateful Anti-Hate Censorship didn’t flag it for “disappearance”.

Before 1835, the most vicious dog breed around was probably the Bulldog. It was bred to fight, or bait, bulls for entertainment. With an aggressive temperament, underslung jaw and thick neck, it attacked bulls in a ring, latching its teeth onto the bull’s nose and hanging on until the bull collapsed.

Once bull-baiting was outlawed in the UK, some called for the eradication of the breed. Instead, breeders deliberately bred the aggressiveness out of the breed, selecting the most gentle and calm specimens and eliminating the rest. Today, the English Bulldog is a pretty safe choice for a family pet.

The same thing could happen with pit bulls, if breeders and owners chose to do it. But it’s unlikely, as long as people continue to deny that it is inherently aggressive to start with.

The first step in progress is to stop telling lies. The rest of the steps are a piece of cake after that first step.

A recent cross-cultural study with a large sample size has found… or, rather, re-found… that men and women have radically different mate-preference psychologies, and that these differences are even larger than previously thought. (Parenthetically, the study also found that feminists are still idiots.)

Men’s and women’s ideas of the perfect mate differ significantly due to evolutionary pressures, according to a cross-cultural study on multiple mate preferences by psychologists at The University of Texas at Austin.

The study of 4,764 men and 5,389 women in 33 countries and 37 cultures showed that sex differences in mate preferences are much larger than previously appreciated and stable across cultures.

The sharp reader may ask, “Ah, but does this study suffer from a WEIRD bias?” The answer:

“Many want to believe that women and men are identical in their underlying psychology, but the genders differ strikingly in their evolved mate preferences in some domains,” said co-author of the study and psychology professor David Buss. “The same holds true in highly sexually egalitarian cultures such as Sweden and Norway as in less egalitarian cultures such as Iran.”

No WEIRD bias.

The researchers suggest that these patterns of mate preferences are far more linked to gender than any individual mate preference examined separately would suggest.

Thus confirming the CH ugly truth that attractiveness standards for men and women are universal and sex-based, and that the hope of everyone being a special snowflake having equal sexual market value is a myth.

Researchers found that they could predict a person’s sex with 92.2 percent accuracy if they knew his or her mate preferences.

WOW. Think on that. The implications are far-reaching, and VERY discomfiting to believers in the sex-based blank slate.

According to the study, men favor mates who are younger and physically attractive. Women seek older mates with good financial prospects, higher status and ambition.

Amanda Marcotte’s id just emitted a death wail.

“Because women bear the cost of pregnancy and lactation, they often faced the adaptive problem of acquiring resources to produce and support offspring, while men faced adaptive problems of identifying fertile partners and sought cues to fertility and future reproductive value,” Conroy-Beam said.

These sex-based mate preferences are evolved over millennia and deeply embedded in our hindbrains, so even in a modern environment where women are coddled by the State and pregnancy is easily avoided or terminated by technology interventions, and where women are bloating up into disfigured pigbeasts hiding fertility cues under layers of blubber, we still find that the old evolved preferences continue to exert the primary influence over our desires and preferences.

But, it is possible that some powerful modern sexual market disturbances, such as the Pill, may alter certain preexisting mate preferences which are more flexible in nature, wired for adaptability to changing environmental pressures. Women in a state of nature prefer men with good financial prospects 3/4ths of the time and sexy PUAs during ovulation, but women in a manufactured state of existence where the Pill is widespread and cheap may more frequently, or more intensely, favor the layabout alpha cad over the dependable, resource-rich beta provider, because the cost of pregnancy has been obviated, (a change in their environmental reality which would register subconsciously in women).

Which mate preferences varied the most by sex?

Of the 19 mate preferences that researchers considered, five varied significantly based on gender: good financial prospects, physical attractiveness, chastity, ambition and age.

Chicks dig:
well-off men,
ambitious men,
older men.

Men dig:
beautiful women,
younger women,
and (this is my favorite anti-feminist ugly truth) chaste women who haven’t ridden the cock carousel until the gears fell off.

Four other preferences — pleasing disposition, sociability and shared religious and political views — were not sex-differentiated.

What men and women share in common can be just as interesting as where they diverge. While “pleasing disposition” is a bit vague to get a proper CH-ian handle on — many a charming jerkboy would be asserted by women to have a “pleasing disposition” — it’s not at all surprising that men and women prefer lovers who agree at least in part with their own values and religious views. Sex is great, and love better, but after a few years if you love Jesus and she loves Shiva, or you’re Team Trump and she’s Team Cuck, that’s gonna cause some friction. Unless you’re in the minority of people for whom a conventional value such as religious affiliation doesn’t serve as a personal identifier.

I’d like to know exactly what the study authors were measuring with “Sociability”. Does this mean extroverts, of either sex, tend to prefer extroverted lovers, and introverts likewise? I wonder about that. I could see an extroverted drama queen getting exasperated with an introverted man who hates drama, but I’ve also seen a lot of couples where that combination of extrovert-introvert seemed to produce a balancing force that kept each of their worst instincts in check. And left unspoken, they understood how that dynamic benefited them.

“Few decisions impact reproduction more than mate choice,” Conroy-Beam said. “Mate preferences will therefore be a central target and driver of biological evolution.”

The sexual market is the one market to rule them all.

…and the results cause the men to burst into tears.

Via his poasting career, one of the funniest stories I’ve read this year.

After all of the usual caveats (unemployed T levels higher than employed T levels, testosterone does not correlate with success, etc) and complete blackout of obvious confounding bix noody variables we get to the point:

It turns out that the gay Jew has the highest testosterone level at 274. The other four men are clustered around half of that (144)

“In general, the normal range in males is about 270 to 1070 ng/dL with an average level of 679 ng/dL. A normal male testosterone level peaks at about age 20, and then it slowly declines.”

144. Male shitlibs are LITERALLY low T manlets.

One thing that jumped out at me, though, was the longing for normalcy. The two of the three women wanted to be low testosterone and feminine. The (almost uniformly whiny) straight(ish) men wanted to be high T. Even in the heart of poz. As creeped out as I was by the entire segment, I managed to extract a tiny grain of hope.

Hope or not, though, after listening to this segment I needed to move leg day up to lift away the poz.

Biomechanics is God, and He rules over even self-deluding shitlibs.

Lift away the poz. gentlemen. Your balls will grow three sizes with every new 1 rep max at the squat rack. Then you can enjoy the whiny spectacle of a sniveling, sneering leftoid disingenuously snark about why you want White men to be more aggressive like black men.

Nine million dollars.

[Marie] Holmes, of North Carolina, decided that she was going to accept her $188 million winnings in one lump sum, meaning she was awarded $127 million. After taxes, she received $88 million. And while Holmes announced that she had plans to pay her tithes and set up college funds for her children, she’s ended up doing something entirely different with her riches.

Shortly after she won the money, Holmes posted $3 million bond for her boyfriend Lamarr McDow. McDow was in jail, facing heroin trafficking charges. McDow was implicated after an investigation unearthed more than 8,000 bags of heroin. […]

She then spent an additional $6 million to get McDow out of prison. He was released with a GPS monitoring device.

Meanwhile, everywhere in America a beta provider niceguy buys dinner for a lovely 31-year-old educated woman with an encyclopedic knowledge of ethnic and racial penis shapes, who dumps him via text one week later.

Two other people in the house were also charged with simple possession. Three children were present at the time of the arrest, McDow said they were his children.

But he wasn’t sure, just a guess, he later told the reporter.

Marie Holmes, “the 26-year-old, single mother of four, [who] had won the Powerball lottery”, is not bad-looking for a nubian princess.

Naturally, there is the race angle. It’s very impulsive to splurge for a jerkboy’s bail to the tune of $9 mil, so we can expect to encounter more measured judgment from a white or asian woman. So let’s say the white woman coughs up $4 mil for her white jerkboy inmate, and the asian woman pays $200 for her asian jerkboy.

In other “grrlpower gone wild” news, a bindi feminist ran a marathon purposefully dripping period blood out of her gross vaganges and down her legs the whole way. Photos are at the link. Even I, the Great Shivver, cannot bring myself to inflict this level of intestinal distress on the CH readers by posting pics here on the hallowed grounds of Le Chateau.

Thanks to her overriding femcunt need to whore for attention, no man will touch this mahatma menstrual show with Amanda Marcotte’s dick. Maybe she’ll get lucky and attract some creepy pervert who’s into “blood stuff”. It puts the curry in the basket…

Reader Alex has found Kevin Williamson of National Review behaving rudely and acting very, very disrespectful toward women.

Kevin Williamson of National Review called Melania Trump a “plastic surgery disaster wife.” Haven’t yet found a Goldberg column condemning this rude sexism.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/419853/witless-ape-rides-escalator-kevin-d-williamson

Jonah Goldberg is on record condemning Donald Trump’s rudeness and lack of respect for women. I wonder what Jonah Fatberg, arbiter of polite discourse, has to say about his colleague’s violation of cherished conservative principles?

You see, NR cucks, when you play the “how wude!” card don’t be surprised if your weak hand gets trumped by a pair of sadistic shivs.

***

Trump: 1, Cucks: a great big glory hole. Cuck News chieftain Ailes tells the MegYnites to back off Trump. MMmmm… I taste the tears of unfathomable cuckery.

***

Reader Robert What? asks,

Am I the only one who thinks that NR is sounding more like NPR every day?

No, you’re not. This is crisis and observation. The crisis is the apt cuckservative label, which has wonderfully focused the minds of the cocktail party conservatives who are its target. Now, sadistic interpreters of the id like yours truly observe their response. It is a clarifying moment, and as expected the cucks are showing their true colors, dispensing with their usual cuck and hive “standing athwart history mewling ‘not just yet'” and fully embracing their inner shitlib.

The sooner these phonyfucks are tossed overboard by fed-up voters, and readers, the better.

%d bloggers like this: