Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Replying to a Steve Sailer review of the movie Her as a mischievous chain-yank of the exquisite sensibilities of white people who majored in humanities, commenter stari_momak pithily spits,

You notice how [as] America has gotten darker, white people have gotten fairer (or paler)?

One consequence of the CH axiom Diversity + Proximity = War is, ironically, a racial self-segregation that belies the media message drumbeat propagandizing the opposite. Her is very much a SWPL (Stuff White People Like) utopia: clean urban spaces, softening pastels, car-less mass transit, bicycle lanes, love affairs with an advanced Siri AI who sounds like the whitest white girl who ever whited, a noticeable lack of bling or vibrancy.

It’s almost as if the crushing weight of diversity (especially in LA) has freed upper middle class whites to wall themselves off in cultural compounds of their own making. Sure, they have to guss up their motives with doublespeak, but their actions — their revealed preference in economese — is strictly for a society of the whites, by the whites, for the whites.

It’s no longer affordable for liberal whites to walk their talk. The days of mingling with a token or two, or adopting some affect of the underclass, and patting oneself on the back are rapidly coming to a close. Diversity has expanded its reach to dangerous levels, threatening a core reactor meltdown. Its ominous, suffocating presence reminds leftoids on a daily basis the reality of a world that is being reshaped into what they have claimed is progress. In their personal lives, where chucks hit the ground, they recoil at this progress, and retreat to insulated social bubbles that align more closely with predilections formed by their genetic heritage.

Like the vast expanse of outer space, as America on the whole becomes less white, the pinpoints of whiteness glow more brightly.

Gaming Attention Whores

Commenter MercifulBoss asks,

I was daygaming at the mall a while ago, got this girls number and took some photos with her and me in the photo for social proof. She opened me on facebook we talked for a bit, I tried to get her out but she found excuses and never went out with me.

Today I was fucking around on Facebook and she opens me saying, “like my photo of me getting kissed?”, its a photo of her sitting at her computer while some random dude kisses her on the cheek.

I didn’t reply (seems like an attention whore to me — I don’t like enabling attention whores).

Was this the correct move, or should I have said something non-commital like, “cool”? The silence could be interpreted like butthurtedness?

All indicators are that she’s a) taken or b) totally uninterested in anything but getting her ego stroked by a chasing beta. I don’t think you have a deep mystery on your hands here. The correct move was moving on.

However, it sounds like you wanted an exploit that would ignite the possibility of slipping the PIV. If so, there are many effective ways you could have replied to her taunt. Examples:

her: “like my photo of me getting kissed?”

you: “you’re real close with your dad/brother/cousin, aren’t you?”

you: “more tongue next time”

you: “presentation: 7, execution: 2”

you: “goddam, dude is slobbering on you like a hungry dog” [boyfriend destroyer subroutine]

you: *popcorn pic* “awesome. steamy lesbian sex” [another boyfriend destroyer PLUS sneaky neg]

you: “you call that a kiss? i’ll show you a kiss.” *send her pic of a Hershey’s kiss*

you: “how cute. you’re looking for my approval” [flipping the native sex script is powerful game]

you: *send her pictogram of birthday cake cat*

The point with these replies is that it’s paramount to communicate an aloof, outcome independent, devil-may-care, toes-a-tappin’ alpha male attitude. Amused mastery, in PUA parlance. The best way to do this is through an amalgam of cavalier humor and edgy teasing.

This method is probably the only really results-replicable, reliable, game-savvy response to an attention whore dropping beta bait into the Facebook tank and fishing for nibbles or whole chomps from desperate orbiters. She’s already put you on the defensive; therefore most replies, like “cool”, will carry a whiff of butthurt.

Radio silence of course is your next best option, but that doesn’t leave much room for burying the beef hatchet in that ratchet. Silence is a very passive opt out of an attention whore feeding frenzy. It isn’t butthurt — men tend to overestimate women’s ability to read spite into silence — but it isn’t a proactive game tactic, either. At best, it leaves her wondering what you really think and leaves you free to spend your valuable time on other less emotionally needy women.

Just follow the patented CH Maxim of Seductive Interaction:

Maxim 5: Charisma before silence, silence before self-incrimination.

The Good Gelding Project

A writer, Andrew Smiler, for the e-zine ‘The Good Men Project’ has unintentionally parodied the mission statement of that blog with such zeal that one expects their next post to advocate mass castration. Titled “A Guy’s Guide to The Gender-Minimized 1st Date“, Smiler offers suggestions to men for how to date without being a man. You think I’m joking. I’m not. The intro paragraph is auspicious:

It’s not possible to have a completely gender neutral date. Gender, our cultural and personal notions of how people should act based on their biological sex, influences too many aspects of our behavior to be completely neutralized. In the dating context, gender roles provide an outline of how things “should” work. But in a day and age where equality is the expectation, why stick to a rigid outline based on your genitalia?

Weighing the efficacy of mocking the puffboy’s pretensions or spelling out in tiresome detail where his premises are wrong, I am stuck deciding between low effort fun or high effort usefulness. *flips a coin* The latter it is.

1. Gender is not a synonym for sex. Only appeasing nancyboys throw around the word gender like candy, ostensibly to ingratiate their feminist overlords.

2. There’s no such thing as a sex neutral date. The point of dates is to bring together the two sexes and determine if there is enough shared attraction, based upon sex-particular needs, for a romantic entanglement. The sexes’ differing reproductive goals, especially the woman’s, require a relatively lengthy courtship period to override natural trepidation.

3. Cultural and personal notions don’t influence people to act “based on their biological sex”, (is there any other type of sex?). Rather, the innate biological foundation of sex differences influences cultural and personal expressions of dating behavior.

4. The moral presumption that sex differences should be neutralized is a feature of the warped mind of losers who compete poorly in the organic sexual market.

5. “Gender roles” don’t provide an outline of how things “should” work; instead, sex roles emerge naturally and unbidden from primal biological impulses that are activated and sustained in the most intractably evolved parts of the brain like the limbic system.

6. “Equality” is only an expectation in the stifling prison complexes of liberal arts universities and on the broadsheets of leftoid propagandists. Among normal people, concerns for equality are about the last thing on anyone’s mind during a date.

7. The genitalia produce no dating protocol outline, rigid or otherwise. The brain is primarily responsible for the phenomenon of sex differences in courtship behavior. A man or a woman don’t follow rigid outlines only after they locate and identify their genital package. (For Smiler, this could take hours.) They follow sex-specific behavior patterns because their brains are wired differently, and this wiring began at the moment of conception, and before that at the moment the human race was conceived.

Now you see why low effort glibness when dealing with these fruits is so tempting.

I’m trying to write this guide to apply across all genders, masculine, feminine, trans*, etc.

There are two sexes. Anything else is an escapee from nature’s discard pile.

 If I’ve missed or something is very wrong, I have faith someone will let me know in the comments.

Good sire, I think yee’ve forgotten the thimblepeeners. Inclusiveness is job one, chop chop!

The butch asks some version of “I’d like to take you out to dinner, a movie, coffee, etc.,” does all the logistical work to make that date happen, initiates physical/sexual contact, and is responsible for starting conversation the next day if “he” wants the relationship to continue.

“He” is in nuance quotes because I suspect this pastry impersonating a man has relinquished the butch role to his morbidly obese feminist dates to take the lead jamming antique walking sticks up his rectum.

Hetrerosexual American guys assume they’ll pay for the first date, regardless of whether they endorse traditional or egalitarian gender roles.

More precisely, beta males assume they’ll pay for wallet-busting dates. Savvier men know the smart play, if a free date isn’t an option, is to pop for a cheap drink and tease the girl about buying the next ten rounds.

This role means the femme becomes the “sexual gatekeeper” because “she” is the one who accepts or rejects the butch’s sexual advances.

These “roles” you speak of are intractable properties of evolved human sexual psychology. They aren’t tasteful dresses you slip on in the privacy of your masturbatorium before an enthusiastic audience of Realdolls and brony onesies.

Very little of this requires sexually dimorphic genitalia.

Technically, this is true. You could lop off a man’s junk and he’ll still have a male mind, with the suite of behaviors that entails. I’m sure pudding bowl here has a wealth of experience in the matter.

Talking to someone, kissing and groping, and asking to see someone again (or not), requires a heart, a brain, a mouth, and the ability to communicate.

Well fuckin knock me over with a feather! Here I thought disembodied telepathy was all the rage.

Your genitalia—and your partner’s genitalia—are only relevant if you prefer some types of genitalia over others.

Trying to parse this, getting nowhere. I think he means a vagina is optional on a date. Her vagina, not his.

To minimize the impact of gender roles,

you’ll need to think about this now so you know what you want to do before you start doing it.

Hmm, sounds like… game!

Before you can do something new, you’ll need to get past the messages that have been beaten into your head by American culture.

“Cultural conditioning.” Define this “cultural conditioning” without resorting to circular shamanistic chanting. Use of any mathematical formulae in your presentation of evidence for cultural conditioning discernibly influencing sex specific mating behavior earns you bonus points. Stamping your wee feet doesn’t count as evidence.

Male feminists so funny thinking they can wave away biological reality by uttering two words ad nauseum. Which antediluvian “messages” have been beaten into American men’s heads the past sixty years? The gay marriage message? The black doctor message? The fat is beautiful message? The Lena Dunham is hot message? The white privilege message? The you go grrl message? If I didn’t know any better I’d say the cultural messages percolating throughout the entirety of the media and academia complexes extols a qausi-androgyny and sex role reversal. Funny, too, how *this* cultural conditioning has been so effortlessly rebuffed by all those men and women who continue to adhere to outmoded sex norms.

One part of this is learning to adopt the other role, at least at times.

“I’m wearing panties. The lace tickles my scrotum!”

Given how many times most guys hear some version of “don’t act like a girl,” that may not be the easiest way to approach it.

Maybe men are advised to not act like a girl because it’s a turn-off to women? Just a thought.

Instead, think about being asked out as someone paying you a complement and offering to buy you dinner in exchange for the chance to get to know you better.

If men wait around to be asked out by women they are gonna be pulling their puds alone for a long time. I suppose to get around this minor obstacle, you could taser women until they agree to your enlightened terms of engagement.

If a woman asks a man out or puts the sexual moves on him, it doesn’t mean she’s a slut (and it never did), it just means that she was ready for those things to happen before he was.

Leftoid reductionist thinking. Women don’t usually make the first move because it leaves them feeling less attractive, and it robs them of the need to gauge a man’s ardor and his drive. A man, of course, will take a pussy freebie if it’s thrown his way, but he won’t prize a woman as much as if she had retained her womanly prerogative to play coy and coax his initiative. These are fundamental principles of human value assessment that exist because the reproductive goals of men and women are different, and that transcend lazy, vapid platitudes about “being ready” first.

 If a guy doesn’t initiate, it doesn’t mean he’s a wimp.

A leading indicator of gutless lapdog faggotry is a penchant for using the word “guy” in place of “man”, yet maintaining the use of “woman”. As some readers might have perspicaciously noticed, CH combats this puling media trend by using the terms “man” and “girl” with bracing regularity. The upturned prolapsed rump of the anklebiterrati must be balanced by the forces of righteous phallocentrism.

He might be shy. Or maybe he doesn’t trust his ability to read your nonverbal messages and has adopted a “better safe than sorry” approach.

No nuts, no glory.

In any dating scenario, you’ll need to decide if and how much sexual contact you want to have with this person at this time. Remember,guys are allowed to refuse,

This is how eunuchs like Andrew Smiler rationalize their never ending procession of sexless dates.

even if you’ve never heard one admit doing so.

The universal cheat code of the SMV reality denier. Something about the sexual market that bothers you because it highlights your inability to compete? Just claim the opposite happens all the time, but no one admits to it. It’s super secret and stuff.

If you’re not sure, you can always say something like “I’m not ready to [fill in the blank] yet. Can we go back to what we were doing?”

A man who says “I’m not ready to get a blowjob yet. Can we go back to what we were doing?” as the girl is unzipping his pants has to think seriously about his sexual orientation.

Some of this is inevitably influenced by those gender scripts we’ve all learned

Present a hard copy of this gender script for examination.

If you want to get out of gender-land quickly, share some of your “gender atypical” interests.

“I masturbate into doll houses.”

Or, if you’re really bold, talk about the fact that you don’t really (or only partially) buy into gender stereotypes. Heck, you could even send the link for this article.

Along with a restraining order form she can fill out at her convenience.

Interestingly, there is a subgenre of game that implicitly mocks the new age sensitive gumbo that is especially effective on overt feminists. By adopting a pose of antipathy to “traditional” sex stereotypes that will be taken as intellectual flattery by the feminist, the sneaky player can breach her perimeter defenses and then seal the deal later by acting like an unreconstructed cad. The feminist will have to square contradicting paeans to her worldview with behavior that speaks directly to her libido. The enticement to “understand this wild man” will be insuppressible.

When you ask someone on a date, it means you make all the plans. Start by selecting an activity (e.g., dinner, bowling, movie) and asking your partner if they’re ok with that choice.

Never ask a girl if she’s ok with your date suggestion. Make a plan, and leave it to her to nix it if it’s something she really doesn’t want to do. If she demurs, make a counter offer, and if she nixes that one, sarcastically admire her spontaneity and adventurism.

I firmly believe that whoever does the asking is also responsible for paying.

How conveeenient, since it’s men who will have to do the asking if they want to get anywhere with women who aren’t desperate, purple-haired fatties.

When I’ve initiated a date, the bill comes, and my date has asked to split the cost, I’ll usually just say “why don’t you pay next time?” But if it’s going poorly and I don’t want there to be a next time, I will accept that offer to split the cost.

If the date is going really poorly and the girl turns out to be a first class cunt, slip out the back Jack, and leave her with the bill.

If I’ve asked someone out, I never ask them to pay for half, even if it’s going poorly. I asked, so I pay.

This is why if you’re going on a date with the expectation you’ll be paying, just go for drinks. May as well liquor the girl up on your dime and make a dent in her inhibitions.

You’ll need to get ready before the first date. That means getting dressed in a way that shows who you are and may—or may not—mean emphasizing the parts of your body that are sexually desirable.

I’m trying to think of a scenario where emphasizing the parts of one’s body that are sexually repulsive is the winning move. I suppose men can get away with the tactic as part of a game of signaling overconfidence by self-handicapping, and making light of it. Women should not pursue this strategy under any guise.

Given that our standards of attractiveness are closely connected to gender, this is one place where you probably want to get all gendered up.

How conveeenient, part 2.

Then again, “getting all gendered up” might be confusing if you’re mostly not following the standard gender script.

I could carve a straighter man out of Andrew McRawGlutes Sullivan.

Beyond this, there’s no formula. You can maintain one roll (leading or following)

You *can*, but it would be personally advantageous, if you’re a man and not a castrate, to lead rather than to follow, because the overwhelming majority of women prefer men in the former role to the latter role. So yeah, switch sex roles around all you like; just don’t expect to avoid the consequences.

Although it can be awkward, I recommend having at least a little conversation about gender roles—especially as they apply to dating and sex—during the first date.

Do NOT talk about “gender roles” on a first date in anything but a humorous, self-aware tone. I can’t think of a faster way to deep six a date than droning about society’s pressure on women to conform to cross-legged sitting positions. If you’re gonna game a hardcore feminist by pretending to be sympatico with her dumb beliefs, at least choose topics that are tangentially related to sex, so that the idea of sex with you gets lodged in her brain.

If you 1) have a disagreement about one of these topics and 2) it’s a topic that you both feel strongly about, it may be a sign that you’re not supposed to be with the person. Personally, I’d rather know sooner than later. If the two of you are able to find common ground and resolve that difference, that’s also good to know.

Older men with abysmally low testosterone levels become more interested in finding “common ground” with women at the expense of getting laid. Then they upsell it as enlightened thinking when all it really reflects is an inability to get aroused by the wrinkly cougars they’re stuck waltzing to arid dinner dates.

If you’ve been leading the whole time, then momentum says it’s your job to follow up.

How does momentum say this? Citation number counts toward your final score.

If you enjoyed the first date, tell the other person;

Because no woman worth pursuing ever liked a little bit of ambiguity in a man.

From here, it’s back to flirting and you’ll need to make a decision if you’re going to initiate the second date or wait for your partner to do it.

Never have so many words said so little with such dullness.

The key here is that you don’t need to stick to a set of gender-based rules that are older than you are.

These rules are ancient for a reason, you dumb fuck. You shitlapper. You Facebook mom.

You and your partner can structure your romantic and sexual life—who is responsible for what and when—any way you like.

You can live in your home any way you like.
You can take care of your body any way you like.
You can shit in public parks any way you like.
But that doesn’t mean women want to live in pig sties, bang soft manboobs, or date men who crap into water fountains.

Actions have consequences. Repeat until your misfit rage against reality consumes you.

Apparently, to the desiccated male specimens at The Good Men Project, a good man is a gelded man. This Andrew Smiler and his ilk are the mirror image of the fatty feminists who assert with no real world evidence besides apocryphal anecdote that fat women are just as desirable to men, and women should stop worrying so much about staying slender. The gelded man asserts an equally pernicious and debilitating reality warp about the appeal of asexual psychological neuters that would, if taken to heart, contribute to the total repository of ugliness and unhappiness in the world, both by men suffering romantic rejection and by women suffering the disappearance of alluring men.

One wonders what motivates these modern manlets. Are they sincere, or are they fly by night viral marketers for page views? Are many of them in the midst of sexual identity crises that collaterally drive them to public forums in outsized numbers to broadcast their self-hate? Is there really some kind of a gender-bending parasite, or a chemical, that has seeped into the rivulets of Western society and shriveled the nut sacks of millions of men?

Whatever they are, whatever their origin, CH will stand as a bulwark against the anhedonic emasculati’s dangerous nonsense. The Shiv of CH will disembowel their id viscera and display the mess on the operating table for the world to ridicule as mercilessly and joyously as we turn out the vitals of the freak feminists and malign equalists.

A grateful reader writes to say thanks to the demidongle of CH for changing his love life for the better,

I have to start out by saying thank you for this site. It has certainly opened my eyes and cured me of my societal conforming. Like most men I have had a couple good relationships, a couple bad, and some flings, ons’s in between. Your typical guy if you will. To preface this e-mail I had a 7y relationship as a young man and a couple year and a half ones up until this point. The first one taught me a lot about life, love etc. the ones that followed them were shit. In July of this year I met my current gf. After assessing this relationship time and time again I realize she is one of those girls that needs a guy in control, but if you’re not, she fucking hates you and the resentment infects her body like the plague. Ive seen both sides of it. Her undying affection and love; and her seething resentment. Her dad was absent in her life therefore she tends to overcompensate with the “control” of her life. She’s never trusted anyone to take care of her but herself. A wall to break through for sure.

Im one of those guys who learned to not care too much about the women I didn’t care about (naturally), and care a lot for the ones I do care for. So an aloof alpha when it didn’t matter, and a beta when it does. [ed: a common male malady] So I got into this relationship and things went fantastically for a few months and then she started in on me about things. From how we were before in the honeymoon phase I just figured well I’ll do what she wants and Ill be fine. Wrong. I couldn’t figure out why she was still requiring more from me after doing what she wanted. She was still unhappy. “you aren’t doing this”, “you aren’t doing that” “I cant live like this”… So I supplicated more, and more, until my brain was going to explode from the confusion. We had a few blow out fights that was basically my frustration for her unhappiness exploding, and her continuing to complain. I told her “you ask me to leap and I fucking leap, what the hell else do you want me to do?”.  But she would still tell me that she loved me even though at the same time she was telling me she was unhappy and treating me like a doormat. She never stopped telling me she loved me. Which probably confused me more. My fight or flight response was on FLIGHT but something kept me there..

So I was fed up, had no solution to the problem, I do love her and with my mr fix it attitude in full effect along with my commitment and resiliency.. I needed a solution. So I found your site… read the commandments. Read the beta/ alpha posts. Keeping attraction in a relationship. The story about the experiment with the husband and wife was especially eye opening. So from reading a lot of the posts that pertained to myself I decided to do what seemed counter intuitive. I chilled the fuck out, mentally strengthened myself and decided to love her fully even through her storm of emotions. One of the commandments states:

“Her emotions are a hurricane, her soul a saboteur. Think of yourself as a bulwark against her tempest. When she grasps for a pillar to steady herself against the whipping winds or yearns for an authority figure to foil her worst instincts, it is you who has to be there… strong, solid, unshakeable and immovable.”

So I stopped supplicating to everything. I started defending myself. She’d ask me what I wanted and then shit test me with “well why would you do it like that, that makes no sense, that’s stupid” So I said “you asked me what I wanted, I told you, and you aren’t happy with that. Don’t want my opinion, don’t ask for it” she just about fell over. I stood my ground. She left for work pissed but I didn’t go after her. I ignored it. She called me about 2 hours later to make sure everything was ok and was overjoyed to talk about what we were going to do that night for dinner. It was peculiar but I just went along with it. She came home and was like an excited girl again. A small victory. And a promising insight into her psyche. There have been many times since then (about 3 weeks ago) that she’s done the same and I’ve stood my ground. In that time she’s gone from seething resentment to joyful love again, which I enjoy along with the increase in fucking that has come because of it.

The last thing I’d like to say is that the guy I’ve been for the last month since finding your site is the guy I have always been.  I just thought that since I cared so much that I needed to conform to her wishes to make her happy. But she just wanted a man who was a fucking man and was going to put her back into her place. In turn that made her love even more, and come after me. She was testing my ability to lead the relationship and I was failing. She knows exactly what shes doing, and so do I, I just didn’t understand it. She was shit testing me every fucking day. So I stopped coming after her about what is wrong, why she’s quiet, just let her fucking be. The other day sitting on the couch she looks at me and says “I need you” I said “ok”, “no like I need you, I don’t know what I would do without you”…

Shes crazy. But my ultimate success is taming her, it’s a fucking game. It always is. I get off on it as sadistic as that seems.

Thanks Chateau Heartiste. You rock. You can use my story but please no personal information. And just because I know you get a lot of trolls I can tell you I most certainly am not. Hopefully some shit made sense in my rambling. Thanks again.

When strangers seeking answers amble across Chateau grounds and peer into its dusty libraries, two kinds of reactions follow:

1. Screeching and shrieking about the horror of this place, or

2. Solemn thanks of appreciation for saving a life.

Some people you just can’t reach. But some… they’re ready to be happy. The door is always open for them.

Future Fatty Game

You can use the 4 Tests of Future Fatness as a premise to run Future Fatty Game, which is really a form of teasing neg that challenges women to prove they won’t get fat on your watch. For a prime example of FFG, see this by commenter Knowbody,

Man I love that the wrist thing has blown up ’round here. Tell all my dudes to look at the wrists…..and the girls I’m gaming on hahaha. Here’s a fun game..when they send selfies via text..

Your Reply: show me yr wrists
Her: whaat? why lol
You: so I can see if yr goin to be a big fatty
Her: omgosh!! your such a jerk lol 😛
then dont reply till you see wrists…..

Fellas, she WILL send the wrist pix. Provided they are 25 or younger, any older, this silly game doesn’t work as well. Why are you even messing around with 25+ anyway bro?

This is the kind of youthful exuberance that girls love. Eat it right up, they do!

Now, this wouldn’t be CH if we didn’t parse every jot and titty of this exchange for your edification. (Not that there aren’t times when we prefer to let the mack daddy morsel float on your screens unmolested.) This is a great text exchange, because it packs so much game into so few words.

Him: show me yr wrists

Aloof punctuation. A challenge. An unpredictable reply to a selfie, (most women would expect a comment about their more conspicuous body parts). It’s out of left field, and girls love men who keep them on their dainty painted toes.

Her: whaat? why lol

Sploosh protocol activated.

Him: so I can see if yr goin to be a big fatty

Makes no apology for his natural male desire. Fearlessly pushes the envelope of acceptable discourse, revealing an outcome independent mindset. The more you clue a girl into the notion that you can take it or leave it, the more she’ll want you to take it.

Her: omgosh!! your such a jerk lol 😛

Houston, the oyster has splashed down on the barbershop floor.

then dont reply till you see wrists…..

It is required.

Future Fatty Game won’t work as well on older broads because they keenly feel the encroachment of unsightly fat on their post-prime bodies. Unlike choice hotties with sky high self-esteems, the aging beauty is one teasing stab referencing her porker potential from an emotional breakdown. Younger and hotter women adore edginess from flirtatious charmers; older and uglier women often mistake that edginess for sincerity. If a woman has more to offer, the jabs of cads don’t cause a core meltdown. If a woman knows her best years are behind her, edgy teasing can strike with the force of an ego cleaver.

Aristotle expounded on the fall of Sparta at the hands of their women. It’s brisk reading and, to CH readers, offers familiar theories about the sexes. The ancients knew more about the nature of women than do our modern, plugged in Wiki warriors with the world’s PC knowledge at their fingertips.

Again, the license of the Lacedaemonian women defeats the intention of the Spartan constitution, and is adverse to the happiness of the state. For, a husband and wife being each a part of every family, the state may be considered as about equally divided into men and women; and, therefore, in those states in which the condition of the women is bad, half the city may be regarded as having no laws. And this is what has actually happened at Sparta; the legislator wanted to make the whole state hardy and temperate, and he has carried out his intention in the case of the men, but he has neglected the women, who live in every sort of intemperance and luxury. The consequence is that in such a state wealth is too highly valued, especially if the citizen fall under the dominion of their wives, after the manner of most warlike races, except the Celts and a few others who openly approve of male loves. The old mythologer would seem to have been right in uniting Ares and Aphrodite, for all warlike races are prone to the love either of men or of women. This was exemplified among the Spartans in the days of their greatness; many things were managed by their women. But what difference does it make whether women rule, or the rulers are ruled by women? The result is the same. Even in regard to courage, which is of no use in daily life, and is needed only in war, the influence of the Lacedaemonian women has been most mischievous. The evil showed itself in the Theban invasion, when, unlike the women other cities, they were utterly useless and caused more confusion than the enemy. This license of the Lacedaemonian women existed from the earliest times, and was only what might be expected. For, during the wars of the Lacedaemonians, first against the Argives, and afterwards against the Arcadians and Messenians, the men were long away from home, and, on the return of peace, they gave themselves into the legislator’s hand, already prepared by the discipline of a soldier’s life (in which there are many elements of virtue), to receive his enactments. But, when Lycurgus, as tradition says, wanted to bring the women under his laws, they resisted, and he gave up the attempt. These then are the causes of what then happened, and this defect in the constitution is clearly to be attributed to them. We are not, however, considering what is or is not to be excused, but what is right or wrong, and the disorder of the women, as I have already said, not only gives an air of indecorum to the constitution considered in itself, but tends in a measure to foster avarice.

The mention of avarice naturally suggests a criticism on the inequality of property. While some of the Spartan citizen have quite small properties, others have very large ones; hence the land has passed into the hands of a few. And this is due also to faulty laws; for, although the legislator rightly holds up to shame the sale or purchase of an inheritance, he allows anybody who likes to give or bequeath it. Yet both practices lead to the same result. And nearly two-fifths of the whole country are held by women; this is owing to the number of heiresses and to the large dowries which are customary. It would surely have been better to have given no dowries at all, or, if any, but small or moderate ones. As the law now stands, a man may bestow his heiress on any one whom he pleases, and, if he die intestate, the privilege of giving her away descends to his heir. Hence, although the country is able to maintain 1500 cavalry and 30,000 hoplites, the whole number of Spartan citizens fell below 1000. The result proves the faulty nature of their laws respecting property; for the city sank under a single defeat; the want of men was their ruin.

Translated into New Shivvian:

“Hordes of pampered, ballcutting, materialistic, meddling, careerist, status whoring, slutty Spartan women riding the cock carousel and riding their hapless hounded hubbies, became self-sufficient property owners and heiresses of a few very wealthy aggrandizing men, thereby robbing Sparta’s beta males of the opportunity to establish affordable families of their own, leaving the city down the road with too few men to defend itself against invaders who themselves didn’t give a shit what proto-feminist Spartan women thought.”

CH is fond of recapitulating the axiom that women are perishable and men are expendable, and this is true in the whole and assessed over discrete blocks of time. But perturbations in the male population caused by long term fluxes in the expendability side of the equation will lead, as observed and noted by Aristotle, (a thinker so great you could jam the writings and wailings of all of history’s leading feminists and mangina suck-ups into a single fold of his cerebellum and it would scarcely amount to more than a fleeting musing in his daily mental output), to the ruin of a nation.

Biologically, men are indeed the expendable sex. A population group (i.e., a nation in the old timey sense of the word) can withstand short term shocks to its total number of men; it doesn’t take but one man to munch a few celery stalks and pop a few zinc tablets and carry on in his duty to impregnate an army of patriotic women and repopulate the countryside.

But given enough male expendability over time, and the first order axiom of fundamental sex difference starts to break down. For although a single man can, conceivably, star in a version of Boogie Years and spread his seed to the four corners of the country to rebuild a stricken population, that single man is also critically vulnerable to overrun by hungry barbarians who get word of a land where they can dine on honeydew and drink the milk of paradise for the low low price of one man’s scalp.

Feminists, equalists, open borders nutjobs, and assorted degenerate misfits ought to keep in mind that their beloved “progress” comes prepackaged with the seed of their destruction. CH (and Aristotle) will slap on the warning label; now it’s up to them to heed it.

Occasionally, barely concealed incipient concern trolls will ask why CH gives so much shit to obstreperous fatties instead of just leaving them to their moribund misery.

The answer — besides a vigorous reminder that CH is not a camp of saints — is that loud and proud fatso promoters deliver a caustic, soul destroying message that will increase the total amount of ugliness and unhappiness in the world should women reading their lies start to believe them. Fat apologist feminists who insist on writing manifestos excusing or rationalizing or glorifying their fatness, or slandering anti-fat crusaders, will get, and do very much deserve, both barrels of the shivgun. Call it environmental activism. Call it the penile erection protection program.

Lies must be met with truth. Ideally, that truth comes packaged in stylistic ordnance that explodes in a shower of entertaining dazzle for fence-sitting gawkers and liquidates the central processing egos of the blubbery lie machines. Utterly annihilated, their demolecularized fatty essence scattered to the wind, the suffering fat chick (and it’s almost always a chick claiming fatness is fine, which should tell you something) howling in pain and impotent indignation serves as an example for the others: If you spread filthy lies that cause, intentionally or consequentially, women to be stripped of their beauty and thus men deprived of their happiness, CH will be here at the ready, the tip of its nimble hate spear plunging deep into your ululating hindbrain, probing, excavating, and finally stabbing with the force of a thousand unleashed hells the heart of your scarred, coal black id.

Fat shaming now, fat shaming tomorrow, fat shaming forever! MOOAH!

%d bloggers like this: