A Dying Culture’s Malignant Tumors

Prepare to glimpse into the belching maw of the Dystopia Abyss…

‘For reasons unfathomable to the court,’ BethMarie Retamozzo, 34, ‘would rather have [her boyfriend] in her life than to reunite with her children,’ judge wrote in Aug. 8 order.

The background:

A white single mom (if photo is accurate) has amassed a grand total of seven children by at least three different men, one white, one hispanic, one black.

This model mom is trying to regain custody of two of her bastard spawn, who are now under the care of her parents.

Her current boyfriend is a Class A badboy who has hit one of the kids with a belt and exposed himself to another.

She ignored her own protection order which she had against her boyfriend to be with him, and lied to the court about it, thus violating a court order barring the boyfriend from being present during her visits with the children.

WIth the help and/or incompetence of her visit supervisor/landlord, single mom abducts her kids and heads for a truck stop in South Carolina, where cops eventually catch up with her thanks to the trail of texts she sent to her boyfriend along the entire trip.

This is dysgenic idiocracy accelerated to warped speed. Every one of these losers is a cancer feeding on the soul of a once-healthy culture, which we all pay for the pleasure. And the elite, safely ensconced behind private schools, egregious zoning laws and sky high rents, mock from a safe distance, unwilling or unable to grasp how their policies and ideological pronouncements encourage the downward spiral, or how their sanctuaries shrink by the day, their overrun imminent.

I met an orphan from a deracinated land
Who said, ‘A mother and a judge in robes
Stand in family court. Near them at the table,
Half mad, a sadistic lawyer lies, whose greed
And rubbing hands and sneer of cold command
tell that its benefactor well its interests read
Which yet survive, stamped on these broken wards,
The handout that enslaves them and the heart that is bled.
And on the chamber door these words appear:
‘My name is Feminism, daughter of Equalism:
Look on my works, ye merry, and despair!’
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that cultural wreck, shameless and bare,
The lone and empty homes stretch far away”.

The Pretty Girl’s Dilemma

A (possibly foreign) girl writes about a dilemma that should be familiar to any pretty woman with dreams of alpha males pledging devotion dancing in her bed,

I am writing to ask you a question related to dating and marriage. Just what you wanted to and so rarely hear 🙂 First, to introduce myself, I am what most men would rate as an 8, or on a really good day perhaps a 9, [ed: legit] am 26, and really only date alpha males. I can’t help it, I like the fire that can burn me. My last two boyfriends were both extremely charismatic, successful, magnetic et al and I spent a year with each before I realized they had something in common: aversion to marriage. Both were around 33, an age when many men begin to consider that stuff, in my opinion. My question is this:

As I am 26 and not going to be more attractive in five years, and I would like to get married within that time frame, how do I go about eschewing the alphas who are not interested in me for marriage? Should I start directing my attentions to the ones around 40 and up? Right now I can have my pick of most men, though it will not always remain thus, but as alphas are harder to marry than other men and commitment is what I want, should I redirect my attentions towards betas?

Of course perhaps it was just me that neither wanted to marry, but it was the reason for both breakups, and really I would rather not waste my time/energy/looks/emotions on men who just want to enjoy me for a year or two….

Anyway I appreciate you taking the time to read this and if you decide to post this and answer it on your website, feel free to, but please alter my name. Thanks 🙂

A critical detail remains unanswered: Did you initiate your break-ups with the last two alpha boyfriends? If not, you are probably dating out of your league — that is, you are fucking men who don’t think you have the goods to persuade them of an early retirement from the field — and the men decided your marital ultimatum, or innuendos of marital ultimatums to come, was a cramping of their style they couldn’t tolerate. So they dumped you while the dumping was good.

If, however, you did initiate the break-ups, it suggests your exes thought well enough of you to stick it out for as long as possible, holding out the hope of nuptial rewards until you called their deceptive feints. In this scenario, you are not dating out of your league so much as you are experiencing what it’s like to be with men who have the hearts of cads, but love you nonetheless.

My advice, should you choose to accept it:

Yes, dating older men is a solution. An older alpha male begins to feel two pressing awarenesses: his posterity, and his mortality. In this psychological stew, the love of a younger, loyal woman beckoning him to surrender his bachelor freedoms is a temptation hard to resist. But, if this is not an option…

Pursue the greater beta male. Often, the only notable differences between an alpha male and a greater beta male are the former’s superior charisma and the latter’s superior commitment. If you can suffer the even-temper and placid mood of the greater beta for his gift of marital capitulation, you will live a happy life. If not, prepare for my final piece of advice…

Continue your Sisyphean quest for the magnetic alpha male who inflames your ichor yet who is also willing to abide your peculiarly female constraints on his vital energies. These men do exist, but they’re rare. Not quite phantoms, but you’ll have to hunt them down. To start, you must identify warning signs of flightiness, and hopeful auspices of lifelong devotion.

– Is he a social king? The man who holds court, holds the love of many women. Try to date men who are less extroverted. The alpha introvert is socialy savvy, but he also prefers his solitude. This desire for solitude is correlated with conscientiousness, low impulsivity, and affinity for home and hearth.

– Are his parents still together (if alive)? The faithful apple doesn’t fall far from the tree of fidelity. Don’t underestimate the influence of genes on behavior.

– Has he dated and dumped a lot of beautiful women? Red flag.

– Are you better looking than his exes? You may be the one to quell his urge to wander.

– Is he willing to wait more than three dates before having sex with you? Hopeful auspice.

– Does he go out of his way to learn things about you? He’s smitten. (Or he’s a grandmaster player.)

– Does he have a (big) dog? He’s got an incipient paternal instinct.

– Is he politically conservative? If so, he’s more likely to want to marry and raise a family.

– Are his friends womanizers? He’s sympatico with the swinging scimitar lifestyle.

– Is he an epicurean of food, drink and art? He might also be an epicurean of women.

This is a partial list to get you started. One other thing. Beware prowlers bearing charming wit. Unlike men you meet within your social circle, the lone wolf does not come favorably endorsed nor does he fear betraying your friends’ trust.

Generational Decline In Testosterone Levels

Chateau Heartiste was on top of noticing and alerting the public to this trend of feminizing men a long time ago. And now ♥science♥ is providing the ammunition for CH’s mighty Guns of Pattern Recognition.

During the past two decades, testosterone levels in American men have rapidly declined.

This information comes from a long-term prospective study that evaluated changes in serum testosterone on a population-wide basis.

The study was published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

“The interesting thing we discovered was that, on average, when we measured the testosterone in the blood of a 60-year-old in 1989 it was higher than that in a different 60-year-old measured in 1995,” said Thomas Travison, PhD, of the New England Research Institutes, Watertown, Mass. “We observed the same phenomenon over a wide range of ages.”

At baseline, the median serum testosterone level was 501 ng/d; at the first follow-up it was 435 ng/dL and at the second follow-up it was 391 ng/dL.

The estimated cross-sectional decline in total testosterone level was 0.4% per year of age (95% CI, –0.6% to –0.2%). The longitudinal within-person decline was about 1.6% per year (95% CI, –1.8% to –1.4%). The age-matched time trend was 1.2% lower per year (95% CI, –1.4% to –1.0%).

The decline was age-independent. “It is a little troubling,” Travison said. “The average differences are not very large, but they are big enough and occurring over a short enough time period to be the cause of some concern.”

These demonstrated population-level declines are greater than the cross-sectional declines typically associated with age, according to the researchers.

So American men really are becoming more physiologically pussified, emasculated, manboobed and womanish. And this hormonal change is expressing itself psychologically. Cf., John Scalzi.

The million milliliter question: Why?

“This population-level decline in testosterone concentrations in men is not explained fully by the usual suspects: increasing BMI and prevalence of obesity, certain other co-morbid conditions or decreasing incidence of smoking. Although the analysis by Travison et al did reveal significant age-related increases in adiposity and medication use and a welcome decline in smoking, the age-matched decline in testosterone concentrations persisted even after adjusting for these variables,” Shalender Bhasin, MD, of the section of endocrinology, diabetes, and nutrition, Boston University School of Medicine, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

He voiced concern over the decline and its public health impact on American men.

“This magnitude of change during such a short period is disquieting,” Bhasin wrote. “Although increasing adiposity and lifestyle factors that were recorded in the [Massachusetts Male Aging Study] could not account for the secular trends in testosterone level, it is possible that other lifestyle factors, such as increasing use of tight-fitting underwear, increasing room temperatures in American homes and offices during the past three decades, decreased physical activity with increased body mass indices and decreased smoking could have contributed to the declining testosterone levels in men.”

Answer: No one really knows.

May I humbly suggest some other possible causes for the scalzification of American men?

1. Aggro tankgrrls

When the land fills up with aggressively posturing, careerist feminist shrikes on the divorce court warpath, aided and abetted by Cathedral man-haters, the collective response by society’s testes is to ascend behind the sheltering bony plate of the pubis. You could call it the “Junk Tuck and Shuck” theory of increasing faggotry. How this works on a biochemical level is hard to pinpoint, but it makes some intuitive sense that as women gain more cultural power through their own means or a Big Daddy government check, men rationally respond by becoming either smooth talking cads or mewling beta suck-ups. Do women like this state of affairs? Probably not, but as long as men can get the pussy this way, that’s what they’ll give women. The sexual polarity will find its opposing balance, by whatever means necessary.

2. Estrogen in everything

Soy is in everything. So is the effluvium of the Pill. It seems we can’t go a week without some new study touching down with evidence of increased estrogen in our food and water supplies.

3. Lack of a cleansing war/too many men

A culture’s men get soft in the arms of materialist decadence. Never more so than today with so many hindbrain-targeted pleasure stimulators acquired for a relative pittance. Too many men accumulating from a lack of natural (or unnatural) culling means that, thanks to the cosmic directive of female hypergamy, a lot of dispensable, reproductively useless men are piling up. Combine the softness with the uselessness, and it’s a small leap to infer that the male sex would respond, at least at the margins, with a growing acceptance of testosterone-challenged and sexual marketplace-abstaining gayness, broniness, tranniness, and general supine self-flagellating leftoid-ness.

4. Dem friggin fat cows

Maybe male obesity can’t explain much of the trend toward lower T among men, but perhaps FEMALE obesity can explain it. What’s the point of manning up when all your women have womanned down? After all, you don’t have to be much of a man to jerk it to a digital dreamgirl. Fat chicks and porn everywhere have reduced the pressure to find a sexy babe to love, and testosterone levels have responded in kind. What doesn’t get used, atrophies.

There are three guaranteed means available to you, the big swinging CH reader, for battling this scourge of testosterone shrinkage.

– Lift weights
– Approach and hit on cute girls
– Avoid prostrating yourself at the feet of freaks and whiny grievance whores

That’s really all there is to it. And yet, America the Raisin-balled continues bursting with fruit cup flavor, an army of marching manboobs pegging themselves on the cock of feminism, taking orders from prissy, level 99 nancyboys ashamed of the impudence and pale hue of their own peek-a-boo micropeens.

I say screw that labially-wrapped lifestyle. Live loud, live proud, live turgidly aroused. Humiliate the buttercups. Slap your claymore against their tear-stained cheeks. And enjoy the howls of their crippled pain.

Comment Of The Week: Hurty Hurty Hippos Edition

HerewardMW proposes a sterling idea,

Lets actually have a prison for fat people. The perimeter wall will be five feet high and the bars three feet apart. The prison will have a gym. If you can escape you’re free to go.

What percentage of fat feminists do you think would stay locked up for life, bitching and moaning the whole time about thin privilege and the unfairness of denying them prison bars five feet apart? 99%?

Runner-up comment winner is Dirk Johanson,

I once read a novel where there was a scene where a circus fat lady on the verge of death got fucked to death in a gang-bang – she enjoyed it so much, eventually her heart gave way. Its a pretty disgusting thought to me – especially the part where the guy was describing that her shit-smell was permeating the circus tent- but for guys that are really undersexed and can’t afford a good-looking hooker, that type of thing could be a revenue-generator for the concentration camps.  After all, all that food won’t be cheap.

It’s this kind of creative free association that makes the Chateau so respectable among mainstream media outlets.

A Man’s Perceived Physical Attractiveness Is Fluid

Men and women are psychologically, temperamentally, physically, and, as ♥SCIENCE♥ is now showing, perceptually different. How men and women perceive the opposite sex’s physical attractiveness varies greatly. What follows is a gem of a study that essentially vindicates the foundational elements of game and lends support to an understanding of the world that accounts for innate psychosexual differences between the sexes.

The abstract:

From an evolutionary perspective, beauty is regarded as an assessment of fitness value. The fitness value of a social partner can be influenced by both physical and nonphysical traits. It follows that the perceived beauty of a social partner can be influenced by nonphysical traits such as liking, respect, familiarity, and contribution to shared goals in addition to physical traits such as youth, waist-to-hip ratio, and bilateral symmetry. We present three studies involving the evaluation of known social partners showing that judgments of physical attractiveness are strongly influenced by nonphysical factors. Females are more strongly influenced by nonphysical factors than males and there are large individual differences within each sex. In general, research on physical attractiveness based on the evaluation of purely physical traits of strangers might miss some of the most important factors influencing the perception of physical attractiveness among known associates.

Reread for comprehension.

“Females are more strongly influenced by nonphysical factors than males…”

That’s the sex difference reality that pumps lifeblood through the heart of game. This is game set match for the losing “Only looks matter” psychosexuality reality denialist dorks, aka bedroom hermits.

We’ll unpack some of this badboy because it’s just that good.

A few studies have examined the effect of nonphysical factors on the judgment of physical attractiveness. Early studies that were not inspired by evolution include Gross and Crofton’s (1977) paper ‘‘What Is Good Is Beautiful,’’ written in response to Dion, Berscheid, and Walster’s (1972) landmark paper ‘‘What Is Beautiful Is Good,’’ and Nisbett and Wilson’s (1977) demonstration of a ‘‘halo effect’’ in which evaluations of one attribute of a person are generalized to influence evaluations of other attributes (see also Feingold 1992; Felson & Bohrenstedt, 1979; Owens & Ford, 1978). The famous ‘‘closing time effect’’ (Gladue & Delaney, 1990) demonstrates that simple availability can influence the perception of physical attractiveness. More recent studies inspired by evolutionary psychology show that social status (Townsend & Levy, 1990) and prosocial orientation (Jensen-Campbell, West, & Graziano, 1995) enhance perception of physical attractiveness.

The evidence in the bolded part is likely capturing the effectiveness of social status and social savviness to a man’s perceived attractiveness.

Another problem is that most studies on physical attractiveness—including the few that examine nonphysical factors—are based on the evaluation of strangers. Moreover, ac- cording to Langlois et al. (2000, p. 408), ‘‘most of the research we reviewed categorized people into two levels of attractiveness, high or low.’’ Comparing the ends of the dis- tribution exaggerates the consistency with which people rate others as physically attractive based on physical traits. These widespread methods are problematic from an evolutionary perspective. In ancestral social environments, interactions took place in small groups of people whose physical attributes were roughly average and whose nonphysical attributes were intimately known to each other. The psychological mechanisms that evolved to integrate these factors into an overall assessment of physical attractiveness might not be engaged by the artificial conditions of psychological experiments, even those that attempt to examine nonphysical factors.

This will be no news to men who routinely hit the field to meet women. Artificial psych experiments are simply inadequate at picking up those subtle nonphysical cues of social status that women find so enticing in men. That’s why there are so few lab experiments testing the real world efficacy of game; it’s just hard to replicate that feedback intensive environment and those high level psychological interactions in a lab.

We present three studies that were conducted in this spirit. The first added a twist to the method of evaluating photographs by having people evaluate the photographs of known individuals in their high school yearbooks. The second and third studies were conducted on actual groups of interacting individuals. In the second study, evaluation by group members was compared to evaluation by strangers based on photographs. In the third study, group members evaluated each other when the group was initially formed and again after a period of interaction, providing the strongest test of the effect of nonphysical factors on the assessment of physical attractiveness.

This part is quoted for informational purposes. The third study looks the most interesting from a game perspective.

To summarize the results of our first study, the perception of physical attractiveness appeared to be highly influenced by knowing the people and their nonphysical traits. It was not familiarity per se that was important in most cases—otherwise familiarity would have been the most important independent variable in the multiple regressions—but what is known and how it is evaluated in terms of liking and respect.

The authors discuss causation and correlation problems, and how they solved them, which you can read at the linked study above. Bottom line: If a girl doesn’t like you or respect you, she will perceive you as uglier than you really are. Likewise, the inverse. This is why girlfriends and wives in happy relationships often feel their men are better looking now than when they first met them.

A description of two team members will make the results of [the second] study more vivid and intuitive. One of the five males was a ‘‘slacker’’ who obviously was not pulling his weight, either literally or figuratively. He was the primary object of negative gossip and social control efforts, such as teasing and inspecting his bedroom window when he failed to show up for practice. He was uniformly rated as physically ugly by team members. Another of the five males was the opposite of the slacker, working so hard that he was discussed as possibly a contender for the U.S. Olympic team. He was uniformly rated as physically attractive by team members. This large difference in perceived physical attractiveness did not exist for raters who knew nothing about the contributions of the two men to the team.

This is direct evidence that when a woman is aware of a man’s high social status, she will find him more facially attractive. But the most conclusive evidence for status-based and tractable male physical attractiveness (and conversely, intractable female physical attractiveness) comes in part three.

[In the third study], initial rating of physical attractiveness accounted for only 9.3% of the variation in final rating of physical attractiveness for females rating females, 19.2% for females rating males, and 62% for males rating females. The remaining independent variables were highly correlated with each other and with the residual variation, as in our other two studies. Liking was the next variable to be entered in all three analyses and none of the other factors explained the residual variation after the addition of liking.

First impressions are way more important to men (as a function of women’s ability to attract men) than they are to women. If a man thinks a woman is hot, he’ll pretty much still think that after he gets to know her, no matter how bad her personality. Women, in contrast, will vary a lot between their first impressions and later impressions once they get to know the man.

Our third study is methodologically the strongest by avoiding the use of photographs and employing before-and-after ratings of physical attractiveness by the same person rather than ratings by a separate stranger. Nevertheless, the results of our third study are fully consistent with our other two studies. Among people who actually know and interact with each other, the perception of physical attractiveness is based largely on traits that cannot be detected from physical appearance alone, either from photographs or from actually observing the person before forming a relationship. The effect of nonphysical factors on the perception of physical attractiveness is strongest for females rating females, females rating males, and males rating males. It is weaker but still highly significant for males rating females.

The weakest effect of nonphysical factors on physical attractiveness is among males rating females, which is evidence validating evolutionary psychology theory that men are more looks-focused and women are more holistic in their appraisals of the appeal of the opposite sex. Nevertheless, men do think women can look a little better if they are also charming and likable, which proves the CH precept that femininity can boost a woman’s SMV by a half point. (Not insignificant when you consider that SMV is measured on a 10 point scale.)

Our studies were designed to address two shortcomings in the literature on physical attractiveness: (1) a relative paucity of studies that examine the effects of both nonphysical and physical factors on the assessment of physical attractiveness and (2) a relative paucity of studies that involve people who actually know each other. All three studies demonstrate that nonphysical factors have a very potent effect on the perception of physical attractiveness, which can persist for decades in the case of the middle-aged participants of our yearbook study.

Alert the manboob media! Science ♥proves♥ that GAME WORKS, and continues working right into the later years of life.

Physical traits per se are especially important in sexual relationships because they will be partially inherited by one’s offspring. Thus, it makes sense that males are more influenced by physical features when evaluating females than when evaluating males, although the comparable asymmetry did not exist for females.

Men dig beauty.
Chicks dig power.
Feminists wept.

Our studies also reveal individual differences within each sex that rival between-sex differences and that merit further study. In particular, individual differences are increasingly being studied in game theoretic terms as alternative social strategies, such as cooperation versus exploitation (Wilson, Near, & Miller, 1996, 1998) or high-investment versus low-investment mating strategies (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000). In future research it will be interesting to see if people who differ in these respects also differ in the factors that influence their perceptions of physical attractiveness.

Otherwise known as r-selection versus K-selection. Yes, it would be interesting to see which way the sexual culture is blowing. I kind of have an idea.

For example, are women from father-absent homes, who appear to adopt a reproductive strategy based on low male investment (Draper & Harpending, 1982, Ellis, McFadyen-Ketchum, Dodge, Pettit & Bates, 1999), more influenced by purely physical traits in males than those from father-present homes?

Answer from my purely observational, unscientific point of view: Yes. Or: Game — aka the nonphysical aspects of attraction — works better on smart, emotionally stable chicks from intact families. Now there’s a counter-intuitive that’ll really stick in the craw of anti-game haters!

In conclusion, thinking of beauty as an assessment of fitness value leads to the prediction that nonphysical factors should have a strong effect on the perception of physical attractive- ness. In addition, naturalistic studies are needed to fully understand how physical and nonphysical factors are integrated in the perception of physical attractiveness. If we were to state our results in the form of a beauty tip, it would be, ‘‘If you want to enhance your physical attractiveness, become a valuable social partner.’’

Game, the art and leisure of becoming a valuable social partner.

As you can see from this study’s results, women trick themselves as much as men “trick” women using game. Remember that the next time you hear some feminist or manboob shrieking about how game is manipulative and deceptive. A woman deceives herself just fine without any help from a pick-up artist. Of course, she’ll get the help, because that’s what she wants.

Hate Mail Of The Week

This one comes from “Roger Rabbit”,

So you guys have your opinions and all.  Is this like a website just for trolling? What’s with all the anger? because i cant figure out who gives enough of a shit about fat chicks, omega males, or anything else presented here to create a whole site about it.  You don’t respond to anyone that challenges you with anything more than a fuck-off or “you must be a fat chick/omega male/feminist bitch” – take your pick.  Which is fine, that’s your right as the alpha male gorilla, chest-beating idiots you are.  But it’s so ridiculous I think it’s gotta be just a place for you to troll.  Are you actually like 12?  That’s rhetorical. By the way, I’m sure you already guessed it, but I am a 520 pound white chick with a dark mustache, slimy stinky cheese growing in my fat folds because I can’t bathe properly, hairy arms, legs, & pits because – well for obvious reasons.  I’m so pathetic I let my dog lick my cunt and clean the curdled scum nestled in my fat folds while I eat cheese puffs, smoke, and look at porn of gorgeous 18 year old girls I will never look like and can never have.  As a favor to you and everyone who knows me (that’s not many people) I think I will try to end my miserable existence later on tonight.  No thanks necessary.  I can imagine your appreciation even as I type.  Thank the good lord for survival of the fittest.  Oh before I die, I’d like to leave you with this idea – why not start fat camps but when us fatties get there, you shame us and over feed us and insult us while torturing our fat-asses in the most sadistic ways you can come up with.  Almost like concentration camps.  Instead of the gas chamber, lead us to a room promising a huge buffet, then force us to eat to death.  Keep up the good work on this site, encouraging all of us disgusting low-lifes in whatever form we take to off ourselves and therein paving the way for the rise of your super breed of men and women.  Better save a few of us though, just so you’ll have someone to kick around.

You ever notice how deeply unaware the equalist losers in life appear to be to their own psychological projection? It’s similar to how the first commenter to drop the n-word in a thread about a racially-charged news story is often a leftoid saying “Yeah, you wingnuts want to off the niggers and spics, just come out and say it.”  The id revealed, indeed.

For the record, “Roger Rabbit”, fatties and other assorted misfits who know their place aren’t the primary designated targets of CH’s very special lessons. It’s the loser apologists and degenerate freak mafia claiming the equal worth of medusas, monsters and manboobs who earn the privilege of serving as voodoo dolls to poke with pins and laugh at as they twist convulsively from searing psyche pain. Twisting which you have illustrated quite spectacularly here, for the sadistic pleasure of all reading.

So, yes, CH will continue making an example of you and your ilk to serve as a warning for the others who might get it in their heads to propagandize equalist bullshit that makes the world an uglier, fatter, gloomier place.

How To Defeat Realtalk

A modest suggestion for the Cathedral and her foot soldiers. You know you can’t win on the facts. And you know you can’t win when there’s an army of independent broadsheeters (aka bloggers) more than willing to call you out on your lies. Not only willing, but happy to do so.

Realtalk is now a thorn in your side which will soon become a Poe-ian swinging blade pendulum whooshing over your noodle neck. You sense this, which is why you are in panic mode, squealing loudly like a cornered pig about to get mortally stuck.

So here’s how you take back the night. It’s quite simple, really. Deprive the truth-tellers of their power. Strip them of their online anonymity. Make it so that they can easily and quickly be identified by your PC Stasi and forthwith excommunicated from polite society and lawful employment. Do this while you still have a stranglehold over the collective consciousness and uncontested rule over the societal, bureaucratic and cultural apparatuses.

Gather your silent shock troops — the NSA, the CIA, PRISM, Google, Microsoft — and reveal the underground resistance that may one day explode into a full-blown revolution out of your control. But hurry!, before the enforcers that man your expensive military hardware wake up as well and point their gun turrets back at you. You know what to do. I’ve given you the keys to victory. Get cracking. Heh.