Feed on
Posts
Comments

Tucker Takes The Crimson Pill

Media Matters, a far left-wing “gotcha” opposition research outlet for the Democortez Party, found some old audio of Tucker Carlson dropping 100% TRUEFACT crimson pills on a call-in radio show, proving that ol’ Tuck even from his bow-tie days has more testosterone than the collected T level of the entirety of the Uniparty in our lifetimes.

During call-in segments on “Bubba the Love Sponge Show” between 2006 and 2011, the future Fox News host said that women enjoy being told to “be quiet and kind of do what you’re told” suggested that statutory rape isn’t like “pulling a child from a bus stop and sexually assaulting” them and described Martha Stewart’s daughter, Alexis, as “c–ty.”

[…]

In one 2009 audio recording, Carlson said, “I am not defending underage marriage at all — I just don’t think it’s the same thing exactly as pulling a child from a bus stop and sexually assaulting that child… The rapist, in this case, has made a lifelong commitment to live and take care of the person, so it is a little different. I mean, let’s be honest about it.”

[…]

He then mentioned reading a story about a teacher who molested her 13-year-old student “28 times in one week,” and asked Bubba, “Are you physically capable of doing that or do you take your hat off to this kid?” Carlson added, “So my point is that teacher’s like this, not necessarily this one in particular, but they are doing a service to all 13-year-old girls by taking the pressure off. They are a pressure relief valve, like the kind you have on your furnace.”

Other segments with Carlson on “Bubba the Love Sponge Show” had the conservative commentator suggesting the elimination of rape shield laws (“It gives the accuser all the power”), calling Martha Stewart’s daughter “very c—y,” and Britney Spears and Paris Hilton “two of the biggest white whores in America.”

Where are the lies?

The best Tucker quote reads like a classic from the CH archives,

CARLSON: By the way, women hate you when they do you wrong and you put up with it.

CO-HOST: Exactly.

CARLSON: Because they hate weakness. They’re like dogs that way. They can smell it on you, and they have contempt for it, they’ll bite you.

CALRSON: I mean, I love women, but they’re extremely primitive, they’re basic, they’re not that hard to understand. And one of the things they hate more than anything is weakness in a man.

Potent. Reminds me of this:

It is said of blind patriots that they follow “my country, right or wrong.” Well, for women, it’s “my alpha, right or wrong.” And what is a defining characteristic of alphaness? Boldness. Women love bold men, right or wrong. Women hate squirrelly men…

A reader jokes,

Tucker should have been more accurate and said,at least, TWO “EXTREMELY”s, and, put a ‘very very’ in front of “basic”,then, he would have nailed it!!!

In those radio interviews, Carlson sounds like he is practically cribbing from my blog.

My god, do you know what this means?

He gathers his family around to read CH blog poasts!

Tuck’s respectable T level status, confirmed:

Media Matters caught me saying something naughty on a radio show more than a decade ago. Rather than express the usual ritual contrition, how about this: I’m on television every weeknight live for an hour,” Carlson continued. “If you want to know what I think, you can watch. Anyone who disagrees with my views is welcome to come on and explain why.

No apology. Like a breath of fresh air. Ahhh….hear that? It’s freedom. Dignity. And ZFG. Trump reintroduced these masculine qualities to America. Tucker Carlson carries the banner forward.

PS More preening incoming.

Trump retweeted Chuck Ross.

This is yuge, because Chuck was once a commenter at CH.

So….President Trump is now officially one degree removed from personal acquaintance with greatness.

PPS Tucker is basically correct that women aren’t that hard to understand….once you know what to look for and accept the Rude Word in your life.

Women only seem complex to men because women think and strategize differently. After a man cracks the female code, the simplicity of it both astonishes and aggravates. (The latter caused by the regret of years wasted polishing a pussy pedestal that never needed polishing.)

And to be fair to the counter-argument, women are more complex — ie harder to read — early on in a courtship, because women are filtering for a host of high smv traits in a man, whereas comparatively men’s buttons are easy to locate and push — be young, hot, and slender.

However, the complexity differential shifts to a more equitable balance in longer relationships, because men start filtering for qualities in women that indicate faithfulness and mothering instinct.

The complexity of women is only a TROPE because relative to the mechanism and algorithm of male desire, female desire can seem inscrutable to men without disillusioning experience bedding women. Since more men, generally, have a harder time getting sex than do women, there are more men who falsely believe (partly to assuage their hurt egos) that women are deeply complex creatures that mere mortal men can’t fathom.

Men who insist women are “complex” traffic in a version of sour grapes.

[crypto-donation-box]

A conquering invader demands submission from the defeated native Swedes:

Notice the cowardly native male in the background averting his gaze, lest the victorious tribesman teach him a lesson as well.

***

West Virginia, the poorest or second-poorest state in the nation, is spending $87 million on new housing for moslem “refugees”.

God bless this Heritage American. He’s standing up for what is right and good. The righteous anger of one man could spark a revolution.

A reader,

This is happening everywhere across the USA. Sprinkling Muslim refugees in idaho, Maine, Minnesota, everywhere. The gov subcontracts the settlement to Jews, churches etc. America is going to explode. I guess that was the point.

The forced resettlement of alien invaders is a violation of the UN Geneva article on genocide.

The jewish and catholic immigration and refugee charities bear equal blame for foisting this evil on America.

***

In Michigan, the Attorney General, DANA NESSEL, wants to police the thoughts of Michiganers.

Nessel, in partnership with Agustin Arbulu, director of the Michigan Department of Civil rights, say they will create a process to document incidents of hate and bias that don’t rise to the level of criminal or civil infractions.

That could translate to speech or expressions of opinion that some may find offensive, but are protected by the First Amendment. Bias is protected by the Constitution until it infringes on the rights and freedoms of others, and hate is often in the eye of the beholder.

If what Nessel and Arbulu are targeting are words, thoughts and opinions, this could easily become a weapon to shut down groups they find abhorrent, but are operating within the law.

That’s not the charge of their offices.

There’s reason to worry that’s the direction this will take.

Nessel says she’ll start her surveillance with the 31 Michigan organizations that appear on the Southern Poverty Legal Center’s list of hate groups.

But the SPLC list is widely discredited as a political tool used to harass and discredit conservative groups.

Dana Nessel:

Physiognomy is rael. As is intratribal message amplification.

(I really wanted to photoshop a star of [specialness] in that infinity stone gauntlet.)

A reader,

I might add Anonymous Conservative has some good insights on reading these kids of faces. One side of the face is smiling, and the other is cringing. Never realized how common that was among our “leaders” until AC pointed it out.

The anvil-shaped manjaw is common among these masculinized specimens, as well. It’s no accident that modern feminism is almost entirely a [special lady]-led movement.

It’s ashkepathy all the way down.

Okay, quiz time. What do these news stories from Sweden, West Virginia, and Michigan have in common?

[crypto-donation-box]

Big State And Big Slut

An explosive 2014 paper authored by (from the look of the names) three White Gentiles finds that female economic independence or female dependence on the state as substitute beta provider husband decreases the stigma against and moral opposition to female promiscuity.

In environments in which female economic dependence on a male mate is higher, male parental investment is more essential. In such environments, therefore, both sexes should value paternity certainty more and thus object more to promiscuity (because promiscuity undermines paternity certainty). We tested this theory of anti-promiscuity morality in two studies (N = 656 and N = 4,626) using U.S. samples. In both, we examined whether opposition to promiscuity was higher among people who perceived greater female economic dependence in their social network. In Study 2, we also tested whether economic indicators of female economic dependence (e.g., female income, welfare availability) predicted anti-promiscuity morality at the state level. Results from both studies supported the proposed theory. At the individual level, perceived female economic dependence explained significant variance in anti-promiscuity morality, even after controlling for variance explained by age, sex, religiosity, political conservatism, and the anti-promiscuity views of geographical neighbors. At the state level, median female income was strongly negatively related to anti-promiscuity morality and this relationship was fully mediated by perceived female economic dependence. These results were consistent with the view that anti-promiscuity beliefs may function to promote paternity certainty in circumstances where male parental investment is particularly important.

[…]

Conclusion

Results of both studies were consistent with the theory that opposition to promiscuity arises in circumstances where paternity certainty is particularly important and suggest that such opposition will more likely emerge in environments in which women are more dependent economically on a male mate. Attempts to replicate these results in other cultures will be necessary in order to determine the robustness of this model under diverse social conditions. Further research will also be necessary to illuminate the psychological mechanisms that underlie the observed association between female economic dependence and opposition to promiscuity (e.g., the cues which shape individual perceptions of the local environment). One plausible mechanism is that people living in environments characterized by higher female dependence are more likely to learn about negative consequences associated with promiscuity (e.g., difficulties faced by parents and offspring in situations of high paternity uncertainty), a process which could generate a cultural opposition to promiscuity that is founded on biological concerns.

Now where have you read independently arrived meditations on this theme before? Oh yeah.

Here.

And here.

And here.

And here.

When women are economically self-sufficient (aka “leaning in”), or their needs are met by the State (i.e., welfare queens), the value of a beta provider husband goes down. Consequently, the value of paternity certainty drops. If women don’t need to convince a man to stay, they don’t need to convince a man the kid is his. And unconvinced men are less likely to want to stay, completing the dystopian circle.

Women who don’t need a man for his provisioning and protection are the backbone of the “slut pride” movement. Big State, Big Capitalism, and Big Slut reinforce each other. Moral opposition — itself a derivative of the disgust reflex — to sluttery decreases in gynarcho-tyrannies in which women can fend for themselves and can therefore survive as single mommies should they get pregnant by one of their fly by night lovers. Men adapt to this new reality of economically empowered women by emphasizing seduction and pump and dumps at the expense of monogamy or dependability signaling.

Women and alpha men benefit from this system, while beta males are left in the lurch. Predictably, what you’ll see in a gogrrl sexual market is the culture coming to be dominated by women extolling the slut lifestyle and alpha men happily obliging them, as beta men simmer. Women who can financially support themselves [cf, special ladies] will agitate for more sexual freedom and the relaxation of social norms that regulate female hypergamy. These women are making the subconscious calculation that if paternity assurance is passé because they don’t have to economically rely on a man to survive and vault the jobscareersgoals status ladder, then they’d be better off in a system that celebrated and encouraged cock carousel riding. Women get their cad chads without the worry of penury caused by abandonment.

Charming jerkboys are making the calculation that it’s better to drink the milk than to buy the cow, especially if the cow has a lot of miles on her and doesn’t inspire chivalrous adoration or romantic respect.

The Big State-Big Slut nexus is where we find the opposite of the debt-free virgins without tattoos maiden paradise.

Interestingly, the recent PleaseMeToo societal extrusion can be viewed as a clumsy reaction to the decades’ long primacy of Big State Big Slut. The flavor is still man-hating and exculpatory of female responsibility, but underneath the surface feminism one can see the faint outline of a female backlash against slut glorification and the destruction of paternity certainty and monogamy that it leaves in its wake.

Ultimately, Big State and to a lesser extent Big Capitalism will have to be dismantled and reined in to reverse the social trend toward Big Slut. Localism, decentralization, and if necessary secession and segregation, will be the cures that herald a return to Based Damsels.

[crypto-donation-box]

The males — and I use the term loosely — who would acquiesce to voluntary cuckoldry are the kinds of males no woman would want. And the females who would demand acquiescence to cuckoldry are the kinds of females who couldn’t get the man they wanted.

***

Second City Bureaucrat is my favorite Twatter account, which means he’ll be banned soon.

There are three things in life that are certain: death, taxes, and powerful Jews condescending to non-Jews about morality and the dangers of ethnonationalism. https://t.co/YDd2tRzeB5

— Second City Bureaucrat (@CityBureaucrat) March 8, 2019

***

Michael Tracey, an honorable leftist, has also been wielding the Twatter shivs,

Remember when Jennifer Rubin tried to insinuate that Rand Paul was anti-Israel and perhaps even anti-semitic because he failed to slap his hands together with sufficient vigor? pic.twitter.com/RJpho1dLnl

— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) March 9, 2019

For those unfamiliar with her character, Jennifer Rubin is possibly the most malevolent Stalinist in legacy punditry. Truly a sick piece of cunty shit. Oh, and she’s the house conservative for Cuck, Inc., but I repeat myself.

***

It’s time for Spot the Hypocrisy, a game you will always win as long as you have very special opponents.

Mark Kogan supplies the endless chutzpah today.

[crypto-donation-box]

the bolshevik left’s “war” on “hate speech”:

meet the people who determine what 2 billion people should think and say on the internethttps://t.co/PltGStkdcz

— Brannon (@The_Brannon1776) March 9, 2019

Blonde shrew, third from right:

A couple of great quotes from that Twatter thread:

“They’re a private company. Build your own internet.”

Also

“Christian bakers should be forced to sacrifice their time and labor to make something contrary to their values.”

***

“Okay, I’m going to build an alternative media network.”

“Call in his loans. Pull his advertising. Boycott his supporters. Shut it down.”

And this quote is so money it could be bernankified:

It used to be Talk Love, Act Hatefully from Globohomo, while the frog was boiling, but the mask is completely off and now it’s Talk Hate, Act Hatefully.

If they keep this up and the Dems go full retard and stay there, Trump could sit on his ass for the next two years and still win.

PS Alex Of-Color stumbles upon a Maul-Right truth at SXSW.

Yes, Alex, you’re right. A shrinking population of White Americans *don’t* want to pay for a welfare state that supports indigent POC.

A reader,

Welfare started as a program only for widows of Veterans. Look what a difference 60 years makes.

AOC thinks medicare for all, green new deals, and welfare queens as far as the eye can see is what “America has always been” and what we “need to return to”.

This is what happens when alien peoples take the reins of power from a nation. Historical perspective and an appreciation for the core populace’s ideals goes right out the window.

[crypto-donation-box]

Diversity And Elitism

I read (I think over at Sailer’s) an astute observation about diversity: the more diversity you have, the more elitism you get, because the shrinking pool of native stock Whites will create more barriers to entry for every American pastime and institution and recreational park and neighborhood just to keep out the “gifts of love” and the damaging impact they bring on their arrival.

A swelling population of behaviorally and culturally alien invaders tramples on carefully managed public spaces that natives responsibly enjoy and sustain in the manner that suits their own preference and temperament, provoking an elitist backlash that locks out not just the invader horde but also downscale native Whites who can no longer afford the price of entry.

Diversity is anti-egalitarian. Rapid and overwhelming and multiracial population growth exacerbates class divisions and widens the gulf between the haves and have-nots, both between Whites and non-Whites and between White classes.

Diversity + Proximity = Emergent Caste Systems.

Possibly this explains why well-off Whites support the Invasion of the Nation Snatchers; the ravages of Diversity provide an additional avenue to high SES Whites to flaunt their higher social and economic status over lower class Whites. The capability of fencing oneself off from the invited vibrancy is itself tacit proof of one’s high status, but first the vibrancy has to be brought physically close enough to trigger the escalating status contest among Whites proving they can buy safe haven from it.

That this lethal intra-White status whoring game will mean the destruction of the nation which has provided the means to accumulate that status matters not to these reckless, virtue aggrandizing Whites. The dopamine hit from flexing their elevated station in America — and sneering at “flyover rubes” — is worth more to them than bequeathing a livable homeland to their own posterity, never mind to racial cousins from less morally sophisticated towns in the countryside who are currently dying by the thousands in an auto-genocide of opioid-induced suicides of alienated despair.

The evil motivating this elitist White compulsion to leave less fortunate Whites at the mercy of a forced repopulation project and of a totally unnecessary and preventable imposition of hardships and miseries is almost too great to comprehend.

Wars have been fought to bitter, disputed ends for lesser crimes.

***

I picked this quote up from another source, and thought it was too good not to share,

Your greatest loyalty should be to your family and your folk, not to the needs of a stranger. It is more heartless to abandon those who place faith in you than it is to neglect the needs of an outsider.

This describes the corrupted relationship between elite and non-elite Whites. Noblesse oblige has devolved into noblesse malice.

[crypto-donation-box]

Irreconcilable Values

[crypto-donation-box]

A paper written by what sounds like three micks inebriated on decades of academia femcunt poopytalk has, in a roundabout way, corroborated the classic CH description of the sexual market as a barter system between cheap sperm and expensive eggs (or, more poetically, between expendable men and perishable women).

The expendable male hypothesis

Matriliny is a system of kinship in which descent and inheritance are conferred along the female line. The theoretically influential concept of the matrilineal puzzle posits that matriliny poses special problems for understanding roles of men in matrilineal societies. Ethnographic work describes the puzzle as the tension experienced by men between the desire to exert control over their natal kin (i.e., the lineage to which they belong) and over their affinal kin (i.e., their spouses and their biological children). Evolutionary work frames the paradox as one resulting from a man investing in his nieces and nephews at the expense of his own biological offspring. In both cases, the rationale for the puzzle rests on two fundamental assumptions: (i) that men are always in positions of authority over women and over resources; and (ii) that men are interested in the outcomes of parenting. In this paper, we posit a novel hypothesis that suggests that certain ecological conditions render men expendable within local kinship configurations, nullifying the above assumptions. This arises when (i) women, without significant assistance from men, are capable of meeting the subsistence needs of their families; and (ii) men have little to gain from parental investment in children. We conclude that the expendable male hypothesis may explain the evolution of matriliny in numerous cases, and by noting that female-centered approaches that call into doubt assumptions inherent to male-centered models of kinship are justified in evolutionary perspective.

Authors: Siobhan Mattison, Robert Quinlan, Darragh Hare

It’s a reflex in me now to check the names and phyzzes of the authors of feminist-friendly studies for an accurate gauge of the veracity of the study in question.

Siobhan Mattison. Vicious man-hating catlady face. Defying expectation, she claims to be a “wife and mother”, which she listed third in her profile bio, behind “demographer”.

The authors are of course framing their hypothesis as “strong empowered wahman don’t need no man!”, but the truth is far darker than that.

The worst societies in the world are marked by rampant polygyny (one man, multiple women, bitter incels). Black Africa is a prime example. In all societies, though, men are generally more expendable than women, because at the finest granularity of reproductive fitness, it only takes one man to impregnate a lot of women. The remaining men can go fuck off, evolutionarily speaking.

On a practical level, it’s easy to grasp the significance of this sex difference by noting how easy it is for societies (aka tribes) to rebound after a war in which mostly prime aged men are killed. A war which took the lives mostly of women would have a hard time repopulating, because wombs are the limiting factor.

That said, women have their own darwinian curse. Their precious eggs have a shorter shelf life than men’s abundant sperms. Post-menopausal women are useless as population regenerators, but one 70-year-old man could conceivably repopulate an entire tribe decimated by a conflict of attrition. This reproductive reality plays out at more concrete, higher levels of interpersonal dynamics, in everything from men’s better earning power later in life to the longevity of male actors’ careers in contrast to actresses’ careers.

Concerning the hypothesis of this paper, where women are economically self-sufficient, as in the modern West, beta male providers are rendered more expendable. And where sluttery, cheating, cuckoldry, and single mommery are rising, male parental investment declines because men are no longer confident in their paternity with any one woman.

We see both trends rising in Western strongholds that have existed the longest within an industrial and then post-industrial system. Naturally, what follows from the “expendable men, perishable women” hypothesis is a de facto if not yet de jure polygynous sexual market exemplified by women waiting longer to get married, spending a decade or more chasing degrees, paychecks, and cocks, and being freed from societal constraints on their ability to dupe men into cuckoldry or to soak men they have sexually abandoned with onerous child support garnishments, which is a form of institutionalized cuckoldry.

Men, for their part, are responding as would be expected in a sexual market returning to a primitive pareto-guided allocation of sexual rewards. 20% of men (alphas) are hoovering up 80% of prime nubility females, while 80% of men (betas) are left to romantic isolation or settling down with a road worn and tossed away wet aging slore.

Into this gynarchic efflorescence, we see men abdicating any trace of authority over women and losing interest in resource accumulation to attract women, while simultaneously women are actively encouraged to sexually roam and shun marriage and motherhood. It started in the lower classes, but is rapidly winding its way to the upper classes.

Feminist cunts may titter and preen and think an emerging matriliny is all fine and dandy, a blow for the sisterhood, until civilization collapses into an r-selected rabbit warren punctuated by a retreat from evolved beauty and bouts of incomprehensible violence.

[crypto-donation-box]

It’s a mirage.

What good is economic growth and low unemployment if all the benefits go to foreign invaders?

Trump won’t lose 2020 because of the Russia Hoax. He will lose because he’s touting jobs numbers that have primarily benefited non-Americans and unmarried women, two groups which wouldn’t vote for him anyhow.

PS The Dem House just voted to allow illegal immigrants to vote in US elections. We’re gonna need a new word for accelerationism, which simply doesn’t capture the rapid descent of America into a buttplug republic.

Suburban soccer moms are getting the House they voted for, good and hard.

Hey ladies, was losing your country worth sending a message about your distaste of Trump’s boorishness?

#THANKSFORNOTHING19A

[crypto-donation-box]

Your Daily Peacocking Tip

Courtesy of LeShitlourde,

How about [instead of slathering on sunscreen] just don’t char yourself in the sun, and wear a wide brimmed hat and some linen? Gives you an excuse to look exquisitely colonial as well, which is a flattering look on whites.

PS Enjoy this bitingly sardonic meme:

A reader,

The history of the Earth 1800-2100 AD

[crypto-donation-box]

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »