Goodbye, America: Hosurance Edition

Our devolving culture is disaggregating into its origin slime so rapidly it’s hard to distinguish parody from reality anymore. Behold:

Do not adjust your vertical or horizontal. What you are seeing is real. It’s an Obamacare ad campaign, currently appearing in Colorado (which means Coloradan taxpayers may be funding this flagrant farce). As an astute reader noted, advertising can be pretty creative when there’s only one choice on the menu.

Just when you think you’ve got a handle on how low the US elite can go catering to the orc and pork armies, a new shit pit is excavated. Ponder the above.

– Ebonics website URL (doyougotinsurance.com? what’s next? muhfugginfreeshit.com?)
– Fat ass chick crushing her giant pink ball. This is the new rotund normal, you’d better embrace it, fucknozzle. I don’t care if your hands can’t reach past her second belly fold.
– The dispensing with any pretense that Obamacare is about anything other than a money spigot that no one (worth caring about) has to pay for.
– The ankle tattoos. Is that a “Z”? Did Zorro rapier her snatch and leave his calling card?
– Gotta love the wine and exercise juxtaposition. Yeah, that’s how you want to work out… drunk.
– Success in life is measured by how many good bottles of wine you can score.
– The whole scene is meant to evoke the livin’ LARGE lifestyle of the modern SWPL brunch-scarfing, egg-dying, government-idolizing liberal tart. I think the fat one is shitting Shonda Rhimes.
– Dat manjaw on the left one. In case you forgot that testosterone-charged women are now running the show… into the ground.
– Ali and Caitlin are not sweatin’ it, because women were not put on this earth to worry about how they’ll pay for all their nice shit. Who are you, some misogynist who wants to stop giving women freebies? *squaawk* War on women!

You want to rebuke the ruling class for assuming the average American woman is an idiot, but then they have a point. This is our culture now, and the lords of lies are merely speaking the primitive language of their degraded subjects.

Another one:

Why do ads that, by any reasonable suspicion, seem primarily aimed at the problems of minorities, feature white people? CYA? Revised expectations? Or is it that our new healthcare overlords know they need white people on board, because who else is gonna fund this free lunch extravaganza? We’re living in a banksters paradise, and you’re the sucker.

“OMG, he’s hot!”

OMG, the country is going bankrupt.

“Let’s hope he’s as easy to get as this birth control.”

Because men are hard to entice with sexual favors. 🙄

“My health insurance covers the pill, which means all I have to worry about is getting him between the covers.”

Slut pride. Daddy’s little girl is all growed up. The disclaimer is a riot. What’s this “common sense” they speak of? Not sleeping with every man who will dump a quickly forgotten fuck in her? Talk about a fine print buzzkill.

“Susie & Nate, Hot to Trot”

Girl: He doesn’t have to stick it in my pooper anymore! *thumbs up*
Guy: You mean I can cum in this sloot and get my Aunt Gertrude and that fat beta in accounting to pay for the privilege? *smirk*

CH has drawn up amended — and more bracingly honest — editions of these CO Obamacare “hosurance” ads.

Hold on… I’m getting an image in my head… a picture is forming… a picture of America in 2013. Ah, here it is:

Put her down.

The Feminist Push To Sanction Female Infidelity

Recall the Chateau Heartiste description of feminism:

The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.

If you examine feminist ideas in detail, most of them amount to justifications for the above formulation. A feminist utopia is one in which women, particularly ugly women, have limitless options in the sexual and economic markets while men’s options are curtailed to the fullest extent possible. (Which would necessarily have to be the case, since a low value woman can’t have increased sexual options — i.e., amplified hypergamy — without negatively affecting the options of a man with similar SMV.)

Eager to prove the CH elucidation of their ultimate goals correct, feminists and their psychotherapist allies are now pushing to sanction female infidelity.

But recently, a handful of therapists have started to push the idea that affairs can rescue a marriage and to define exactly in what instances that might be true. “People shriek and cry when they are confronted with an affair,” Brown writes in her essay, “The Affair as a Catalyst for Change,” which appears in the book Infidelity“Almost never do they realize that it might be the best thing that ever happened to them.”

Last year’s annual conference of the American Family Therapy academy allowed a panel about affairs called “From Trauma to Transformation,” which was the first time that idea officially entered the lexicon, says Esther Perel, author of Mating in Captivity and a couples therapist who is writing her next book on affairs. It was public and professional acceptance for the idea that an “affair doesn’t necessarily end a marriage and can possibly make it stronger.”

Ignore the psychobabble. It’s smoke and mirrors meant to distract from what the real intention of this change in judgment signifies. What feminists are attempting to do here is nothing short of legitimize the biologically innate female imperative to fuck alpha males during ovulation and extract resources from beta males during infertile periods of the monthly cycle. CH predicted it: Feminists and various “health professionals” would agitate to normalize the “alpha fux, beta bux” female mating strategy. As society becomes ever more feminized and emasculated, expect to see more of these rancid ideas percolate in mainstream discussion, as the pro-female directive and anti-male directive reach their demonic apotheoses.

You might say, “Well, this means men can be unfaithful without consequence, too!” Oh, ye of precious naivete. Men won’t be let off the hook. The divorce industrial and family court complexes are rigged against the interests of men, and getting more rigged by the day. An army of leftoids fed on the swill of legalese will barely break a sweat holding the contradictory beliefs that women cheat for good reasons and men cheat because they’re oppressive patriarchs.

Eventually, with the help of dazzling sophistry, the law will be twisted to such a warped geometry that the people will come to accept injustice as fairness and lies as truth. And those who bitterly cling to old-fashioned notions of justice will be scorned as rubes and cast out of polite society, their reputations and livelihoods destroyed with the ease of smashing an insect.

The irony of this feminism-inspired dross is that a case can be made that male infidelity might very well enhance marital stability, over the long term. Men are naturally disposed to seek and enjoy mate variety, and men are better than women at maintaining multiple lovers without sacrificing love or duty for any one of them. This is because men, unlike women, can easily sever sex from emotional connection. A cheating husband who gets his sexual needs met will feel less resentment toward his frigid wife. A cheating wife, in contrast, will feel more resentment for her beta husband who will assume the role for her of the man “keeping her from happiness”. There’s a reason “eat, pray, love” is marketed to the fantasies of women.

This isn’t to suggest that excusing male infidelity is good for the institution of marriage and the sustenance of an advanced, high trust civilization. Only that, if we are to set down this road of rationalizing the benefits of infidelity, it makes a lot more sense to grant husbands the generous latitude to pursue extramarital pleasures than it does to grant wives that same freedom. The consequences of wifely betrayal are a lot worse. (“but… the kiiid is not my son. woo hoo hoo”)

Feminism is the sick, wheezing spawn of its parent ideology, equalism, the belief in a magical flying spaghetti monster that imbues all humans with equal ability and equal worth, interchangeable flesh cogs that can as easily master astrophysics as lawn care given the right dose of self-esteem boosting pablum.

Whatever the self-professed noble intentions of their advocates, these ideologies are as wicked and destructive as any genocidal revolutions that have come before them. This is why CH, a citadel firm, guarded by sentries of ancient woods, illuminating a path to enlightenment, will never cease in its mission to utterly crush evil, sick ideologies like feminism so totally that there is no space for even the ashes of its immolation to gather in a stiff wind. Feminism’s proponents will suffer endless ridicule should they choose to fight, or they will retreat from the public square to lick their wounds in the comfort of their silent seething thoughts. And, if the spoils of victory are rich indeed, some will self-deliver to release the pain.

In related shivving, here’s a video of Hanna Rosin’s family engaged in a mock trial about the superiority of girls to boys. On the next episode of “The Hanna Propaganda Hour”: My boy’s first sexual identity crisis!

Caplanization

Swiped from the Boys from Brasil Norte, a neologismic mockery missile worthy of repoasting:

Caplanization is the process by which the proponents of a particular policy (in this case unrestricted immigration) argue for it in such a manner than virtually all reasonable people are attracted to the opposite position.

Related. You know how robots that get too close to looking human, but not close enough to precisely mimic humans, reach what is known as the Uncanny Valley, and creep people out? Caplan and his hivekind are like the reverse of that process, humans who get too close to robotic facsimiles of humans, but haven’t yet reached full robotization, and creep people out with their vertigo-inducing human-borg form. Only when his transformation is complete will normal people begin to enjoy Caplan’s company, putting the cat on him and sharing a laugh as he roombas around the family room.

Putting The Penis On A Pedestal

One of the biggest problems of our phallocentric culture is the constant pampering to the superficial behavior of men. The dating arena is a prime example of this. I won’t ridicule mainstream dating advice. That the “golddigger” strategy is dubious at best should be common knowledge by now. Instead, I want to attack a particular corner of the Internet that proclaims that they have the solution to the dating problem: the so-called “women’s issues” community. A lot of the criticism applies to the “glamourmagosphere” as well, though.

What struck me always as absurd was that those alleged relationship madams didn’t teach women to “woman up”. No, not in the “be a real woman and get a high-paying career so you can marry a grateful niceguy after you’ve had your fun”, but for real. They just don’t tell you to stand up for yourself. No, instead you are supposed to become an expert on cosmetology, fashion, exercise science, gossip, looking your best, behaving in a sweet feminine manner, and all kinds of frivolous nonsense. This alone should make any reasonably smart woman very skeptical. Even if this stuff worked — wouldn’t you want to have an at least halfway intelligent man instead, since as we know intelligence and primal biological sexual preferences are mutually exclusive?

That’s not all, because mainstream relationship madams also tell you how you should react to his ambiguous behavior. They call it “charming” when he’s acting flirty towards you, and tell you to “just keep making him chase you, girl!” Do you know what any girl with an inkling of self-respect would do? If he’s charming, you just move on, but if he’s really sexy and dangerous, you can just tell him to go fuck himself. Amazingly, some men are so damned sexy that they’ll get turned off by that and next you.

The men you’re interacting with are supposed to be adults, but if he behaves like a high value man with options, you have the choice of either confronting him or trying to change his behavior. Have fun with that! What also works is to not bother with him and looking for a more mature man instead. By “mature” I don’t mean some boring man with no game, but a man with a modicum of mental maturity who has a bug up his ass about the idea of having to impress the opposite sex. Mental maturity depends on a cultivated resentment that there exist two sexes with differing reproductive goals and psychologies that must be accommodated if one is to make it through life as something more than a loveless loser. There are plenty of shockingly immature normal people who don’t carry chips on their shoulders — men and women — around.

Let me just dwell on this topic a bit longer. Probably any girl who ever agreed to go out on a date with a man, or went along with it when he wanted to “hang out” will have experienced that some men just won’t commit. No, they don’t toss you out of bed. Instead, they just don’t show up three months later. A smart way of dealing with this problem is to make the man wait a little for sex so that you can tell if he’s the type just looking for a fun time or if he’s really into you and wants a deeper relationship.

It is not the case that men are unaware that they are cagey about commitment. I guess the “matriarchy” keeps them down so that they can’t pick out a ring and marry you, or just say “I don’t want a relationship” in the first place. What do those ridiculous dating madams aka your grandmas tell you, though? They talk about “getting Mr. Right”. You’re supposed to keep showing cleavage and dressing sexily and putting on make-up and watching your figure and flattering him to “build attraction”, and if he still won’t commit, you’re supposed to play hard to get and withdraw sex and generally act as if time is short and you need real commitment before your peak fertility window of desirability closes.

I mean, whom are those “relationship artists” kidding? Even if you managed to eventually win such a man over, what kinds of precedents did you set? If anything, the man now knows that you like him for more than sex (horrors!), and that you’ll work hard to pin him down in a long-term relationship. He knows that you’re a completely normal woman who happily gives up self-righteous celibacy for the remote chance to get some love. As if a man’s love was the solution to anything (*snort*)! Instead of calling him out on his foot-dragging, you invite him to remain indecisive, and you even make excuses for his normal male behavior, all for love!!! This is nothing but absurd. Congratulations, you’ve turned yourself into what they call a “lovestruck girl.” Yes, this — “relationship game”, they call it — is the supposed alternative to mainstream dating advice. It’s laughable.

“Relationship management” and “beautification” are just more elaborate forms of penis worship and pedestalization. Women will never earn their self-respect until they are ready to “go their own way”.

Many thanks to Paul Elam for publishing this post at his blog A Voice For Women.

Just A Reminder

“I say that inner beauty doesn’t exist. That’s something that unpretty women invented to justify themselves.” – Osmel Sousa, honored guest of Chateau Heartiste

Ellipsis Game Applied

A reader recently ran “ellipsis game” on a girl, and he sent screen shots of the results.

This is very good text game. For the edification of our beta and omega readers, we’ll examine the conversation in closer detail. (Alpha readers may nod their heads knowingly for the duration.)

HER: did you survive the weekend without my company?

Classic beta bait. The typical beta male would happily entrap himself in her frame, and effuse about how empty his weekend was without her. The alpha male takes a different tack:

HIM: hey V [ed: note intriguing lack of eagerness in this greeting] what you doing thur night…

Her frame lays supine to his eschewal. No acknowledgement of the weekend, only a pointed request for her time on Thursday.

HER: Hi… I might be meeting a friend then! Are you here?

HIM: Ditch your friend.

Alpha move #1: Statement > question. Alpha move #2: Adherence to the golden ratio. (He sent three words to her eleven words. These things matter subconsciously.)

HER: Do you have a good reason?

Shit test concealing a desire to rationalize meeting him for sweet lovemaking.

HIM: …

Get ready, a clustercock has just been dropped on her ladylock.

HER: How long are you here for?

Perineal defenses: obliterated. No good reason given, and she doesn’t care, because her hamster is running wind sprints.

HIM: Dont know hun

Absent-minded lack of punctuation, slightly demeaning term of endearment, “get it while it’s hot” sales pitch = hamster fuel.

HER: …Ok so what do you wanna do if I ditch my friend?

HIM: use you for my pleasure

The foundation of flirting is a refusal to take a girl seriously. The moment you assume a woman is your linear, logical equal is the moment you lose her emotional subservience.

HER: …Ok stupid question… Can’t wait until Saturday? 😉

She sounds apologetic. This is good. A girl who feels bad about making even the paltriest demands of a man is a girl who deeply, truly feels the irresistible pull of his higher value. Tingles are born in the defensive crouch.

HIM: How about late thursday

Stand Your Ground isn’t just a Florida self-defense law; it’s also an effective form of Socratic seduction.

HER: I meet my friend around 6…we can meet after

HIM: Awesome

Punish promptly, reward intermittently. The time to show a softening of your alpha armor is well after her heated interest has been established to your satisfaction. She spent the entire text exchange backing away from her initial intransigency, but it was only until the end, when she succumbed completely, that he soothed her with a metaphorical pat on the head and a glimmer of attainability. The rest of the convo is just more of her turning herself out to accommodate his juicy alphaness.

This was quite a clinic in how to flirt with and psychologically dominate a woman. A man who can do this will give her better sex than a thousand beta males promising a million gifts of myrrh. If this text convo was blasted on a Jumbotron in the public square, I’ve no doubt the man would feel no shame at all. Only pride, as the assembled mutter their grudging respect.

Gay Face Is Real

From the CH archives, an observation that gay men have something strangely distinctive about their faces,

There is such a thing as a “gay face”. Hard to describe, but you know it when you see it. Think big bright feminine eyes, full lips, and an all-around glow.

As usual, CH was ahead of the cultural curve. A new study supports the stereotype of a “gay face”.

Shape Differences Between the Faces of Homosexual and Heterosexual Men.

Previous studies have shown that homosexual men differ from heterosexual men in several somatic traits and lay people accurately attribute sexual orientation based on facial images. Thus, we may predict that morphological differences between faces of homosexual and heterosexual individuals can cue to sexual orientation. The main aim of this study was to test for possible differences in facial shape between heterosexual and homosexual men. Further, we tested whether self-reported sexual orientation correlated with sexual orientation and masculinity-femininity attributed from facial images by independent raters. In Study 1, we used geometric morphometrics to test for differences in facial shape between homosexual and heterosexual men. The analysis revealed significant shape differences in faces of heterosexual and homosexual men. Homosexual men showed relatively wider and shorter faces, smaller and shorter noses, and rather massive and more rounded jaws, resulting in a mosaic of both feminine and masculine features. In Study 2, we tested the accuracy of sexual orientation judgment from standardized facial photos which were assessed by 80 independent raters. Binary logistic regression showed no effect of attributed sexual orientation on self-reported sexual orientation. However, homosexual men were rated as more masculine than heterosexual men, which may explain the misjudgment of sexual orientation. Thus, our results showed that differences in facial morphology of homosexual and heterosexual men do not simply mirror variation in femininity, and the stereotypic association of feminine looking men as homosexual may confound judgments of sexual orientation.

Asscinating! Gay face definitely has feminine features (the small noses and childlishly expressive eyes) but they appear to be set against a backdrop of more masculine features, like a big jaw. One can only speculate how this discrepancy came to evolve, but if a combination of a gay germ and chimerism is responsible for full-blown gheyity, then it’s possible that whatever neural rearrangement molds the gay brain also leeches into facial morphology, resulting in mixed feminine and masculine traits.

I wonder what that huge… iconoclast… Andrew Sullivan thinks of this news? At first, I bet he would leap in his loafers, his burly bear arms outstretched to the skies, overjoyed that more evidence suggests his condition is biological and immutable. But biology is a dangerous ally for the leftoid flamer. Imagine a gay germ is discovered. Does he doubt parents, even squishy liberal SWPL parents who read his dull blog, would avail themselves of a remedy? If so, I have news for him. Should a “cure” for gayness ever be found, that will mean the extinction of homosexuality as we know it.