Where pretty lies perish.
Sep 15th, 2016 by CH
A minute of staring at this friendzone logo and it starts to make sense: A beta male half-heartedly burying his real feelings to receive an asexual thumb’s up from his oneitis who green-lights his blue balls.
I think the girl’s hand is supposed to translate as “up yours”, or “I rip your heart apart with my dual-edged thumbnail”.
In this photo we see the straight man on the left friendzoning the gay man on the right.
[crypto-donation-box]
Sep 15th, 2016 by CH
The Daily Mail wonders if we Westerners are living through a time period when the numbers of aggressive, unfeminine, caustic, ball-busting battle-bitches are on the rise.
I think we are. And I’ll tell you why it’s happening. First…
So seemingly serene is the 51-year-old that she even soothes others in the course of her career as a reiki therapist. [ed: wtf?] But, like an increasing number of respectable women, Jo has become so consumed by rage that even a simple trip to buy the weekly groceries can lead to frighteningly aggressive outbursts. Recently, she completely ‘lost it’ when another driver tried to take the space she wanted in a Tesco car park.
Jo’s response was instant, and utterly disproportionate. ‘I was there first. So I got out of my car as he approached and shouted: ‘F*** you, a*******, I’m staying here until I get this space.’
‘The driver was a man much bigger than me, but I wasn’t intimidated. I told him we’d be stuck there all day if he didn’t move — which eventually he did.’
There’s the problem right there. If the Gynocratic State didn’t leash men, women wouldn’t be testing men’s patience like this cunt did.
Worryingly, it would seem this is a dangerous trend, seen by many as yet another dark side of equality.
Equalism is a false prophet heralding decay, misery, and eventual capitulation to nonbelievers.
Stories of professional women drinking themselves into ill health, trying to keep up with male colleagues are well documented.
Nothing good comes from reversing the sexual polarities.
But they are now matching men on the aggression front, too, putting themselves in physical danger — risking their good name, career prospects and relationships. In 1957, men were responsible for 11 violent offences for every one perpetrated by a woman — today, that is four to one.
Some of this shift towards more female violence (if accurate) is owed to the race replacement pogrom in Western countries. White women are fairly pacifist by world woman standards.
Add to the mix long hours, pressure juggling work and family life, plus fluctuating hormones caused by the menopause, PMS or childbirth and it’s no wonder so many women are exploding with rage.
I would’ve said “childlessness”. Failing at their most important life job has got to make careerist tankgrrls feel a little peeved.
Indeed, earlier this month it was reported that Oxford-educated Jocelyn Robson, a company director, 40, etched the word ‘c***’ in capital letters on two of her former boyfriends’ cars after they broke up.
“Oxford-educated”. “company director”. I guess it would be redundant to add “Maestro of Manjaws”.
And last month BBC presenter Jeremy Vine released footage of a woman — smartly dressed and driving a top-of-the-range car down one of London’s most expensive streets — who swore at him to ‘get the f*** off the road’ and allegedly kicked his bicycle.
These are the kind of women that men pump and remorselessly dump. And then these masculinized women have the gall to wonder why they have trouble finding a husband.
Research has also found that women are significantly more likely to be verbally and physically aggressive to men than vice versa — something physicians are seeing more of in their clinics.
Correction: BETA men. Since it’s obvious to anyone who has trawled a social media account that the ranks of weepy supplicating beta males in the West is at an all-time high, it’s no wonder women are lashing out at them. Weak men are like fat women: each defies the opposite sex’s romantic needs.
‘We are treating more women than ever who are struggling to regulate their emotions and express themselves appropriately,’
Sounds like the typical problem of men. This is what it looks like when the modren woman’s estrogen level are as low as the modren nümale’s testosterone level: bitterness, spite, aggression, acting out from an uneasy feeling that the world ain’t right.
And why is this anger afflicting so many upstanding women, the sort you might hope would be immune to, or too ashamed of, having outbursts?
“Upstanding” translated from the equalist leftoid mewlspeak means “over-credentialed careerist shrew”.
Some experts suggest women believe that such outward displays of aggression allow them to seize the initiative from traditionally dominant men.
NOPE. That’s not it. The usual feminist answer to these sorts of social changes is never the right one.
The right answer is that power abhors a vacuum. And nobody abhors the loss of male power more than a woman, who will rush in to fill it with nagging, passive-aggressive bitching, and closed legs.
Whether it’s in the workplace or around the dining table, shouting, swearing or throwing things are increasingly viewed as valid methods for women to assert themselves.
Aggrocunts aren’t interested in asserting themselves. What they’re doing is crying out for a chance to be a feminine woman again who doesn’t have to assert herself.
Such outbursts can also become addictive, a form of almost animalistic release.
Women who are regularly dicked by a self-entitled ZFG jerkboy feel no need for further animalistic release.
But as well as this rush, Jo also admits to feeling under constant pressure to provide for her family.
Economically self-sufficient gogrrls betray the essence of their sex.
Thankfully Steven who works with disabled children,
Nümale pussy.
has learned how to cope with her outbursts. As mild-mannered as Jo is volatile, he’s found that the best thing to do is to walk away and let the tantrum burn itself out.
Wrong answer.
Right answer: SHUT THE FUCK UP JO *readies pimp hand*
Her stepchildren, too, have learned to walk away from her outbursts.
Mix-and-match broken family. Cunt stepmom. Shit writes itself.
‘Our relationship is still strained, which is a shame, but I feel convinced she is as much to blame as me.’
Pathologically narcissistic BPD supercunt spotted.
And when, last year, she decided a driver was too close behind her as she kept to a 30mph speed limit, she braked suddenly and got out of the car. ‘I asked the driver, a young man, what the hell he thought he was doing driving up to my bumper,’ she says. ‘My heart was pounding as he called me a bitch and drove off.’
A young shitlord, to be precise.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, she has upset family and friends with her behaviour. In restaurants, she has embarrassed loved ones by high-handedly sending back food she considers isn’t good enough.
By the way, if a woman ever does this on a first date, you have complete license to exit through the kitchen and leave her with the bill.
Executive Summary:
DIVERSITY + FEMINISM = UNLOVABLE CUNTS
[crypto-donation-box]
Sep 14th, 2016 by CH
The sexual market is the one market to rule them all.
That’s a classic Chateau maxim. But reader Daffyduck thinks there may be evidence of a Current Year contradiction of the maxim.
My question to the proprietors is this: if the sexual market is the primary market, why do so many women (the vast majority of women where I live in the UK), do everything they can to lower their SMV? Tattoos, obesity, single mummery – all so ubiquitous now it’s close to impossible to find a woman that doesn’t have some dire self induced SMV cratering characteristic. Thank you.
On the face of it, this does strike one as a refutation of the primacy of the sexual market. But digging a little deeper into the mechanics of mate acquisition in postmodern Western societies, we find that the maxim holds as true as ever.
It’s a fact that obesity lowers every single fat chick’s SMV, often dramatically. 99.9% of men would choose a slender babe over a fat chick if they had the option to do so. (78.4% of black men)
Tattoos generally ding female SMV, although this self-induced body modification has mixed results depending on the woman sporting them. On hot babes, tattoos that don’t occupy much skinscape have a neutral to occasionally positive effect on their SMV. And don’t neglect the handicap principle, which postulates that prime nubility girls get tattoos as a way to advertise they have excess SMV to spare (The “Look at me, I’m so hot I can afford to defile my body and you’ll still love me” whore’s brag.)
Single mommery lowers female marital market value (similarly, their long-term relationship worth). As with tattoos on hot babes, single mommery won’t detract much from a woman’s SMV, but it will severely penalize a woman’s value as a long-term partner.
So as we can see, of the three SMV-altering inputs, only obesity reliably craters a woman’s SMV. Tattoos and single mommery are best avoided, but if a woman has a super tight bang-able body, most men won’t let a butterfly tat or a screaming sprog stop them (at least for the night. heh).
Here’s where we get to the grist explaining the source of Daffyduck’s confusion: Sexual markets are vulnerable to changes in the incentives for paternal investment. (Paternal investment itself is a crucial aspect of the sexual market.) As women become more economically self-sufficient and sexually liberated their mate acquisition algorithm begins to emphasize the targeting of men for sexual and romantic validation and to undervalue men who would make dependable resource providers.
Likewise, men who are less interested in commitment and family formation would seek out women primarily for sexual thrills rather than their maternal instinct or faithfulness.
If this is the operative sexual market, then tattoos and single mommery would not only have little effect on women’s SMVs, they may very well raise their SMVs by advertising a greater willingness to go all the way right away, (and to not make much of a fuss when she’s dumped post-chaste).
Now ask yourself, where do you see women with lots of garish tattoos and bastard spawn? The lower classes. And where do you see less dependable fly-by-night men? The lower classes. In the upper classes single mommery is still rare and tattoos, though more common than they once were, are tastefully inconspicuous. Obesity, too, is rarer among upper class women.
So it’s in the lower classes (now gradually expanding into the working and middle classes) where the sexual market has responded to the changing incentives and women have resorted to more “slut signaling” accoutrements like tattoos, skimpy trashy clothes, and yes even bastard spawn (a single mom is a slutty mom).
In the upper classes, paternal investment is still important, so we see less of this among the women who have kept to the traditional SMV norms of their sex: slenderness, clear skin, and childlessness.
Ok, you ask, if tats and single mommery are slut cues to men on the make, what about obesity? No man wants to boff a blob if he has a choice.
Female obesity does present a difficulty for the theory of sexual market primacy….until we realize that very very few women voluntarily choose to be fat (unlike the many who choose to get tats or bear the devil bastards of one night stands). Most fat women want to be thinner, so they know, whether they admit it to anyone or drown their egos in a vat of fat acceptance platitudes, that fatness kills their SMV dead.
Larger societal and chemical forces have conspired in modern societies to accelerate and amplify the gaining of many pounds of fat. Unless you’re careful and actively avoid sugars, grazing and processed foods (all of which increased exponentially sometime in the mid-20th century) then you will likely get fatter than your ideal peak performance weight. (Reminder: For women, peak SMV performance is a 17-23 BMI, 0.7 waist-to-hip ratio, and an age that is roughly half the age of gogrrl feminists looking to conceive their first and only autistic child.)
The relatively recent explosion (heh) of obesity among Westerners suggests that the existence of all these female fatties is not a refutation of sexual market primacy theory, but is rather evidence of a rapidly changing input variable that is causing immense (heh) volatility in the sexual market, as men respond by “dropping out” to amuse themselves with acceptable substitutes that are better than sleeping with a fat chick: porn, controlled substances, video games, and now even gainful unemployment.
So if you notice a lot of tattoos, obesity, and single mommery in the sexual market, you can deduce the following dynamics are in play:
None of the above redact the primacy of the sexual market. They are instead first responder symptoms of a sexual market in dire flux. In the final analysis, SMV remains king of human society, and any secondary markets (economic, social, political) that exert downstream pressures on the sexual market will eventually be reconfigured, even corrupted, by the unstoppable feedback loops unleashed by a primal sexual market convulsing from rapid transformation of the individual players and the higher order systems those players design.
[crypto-donation-box]
Aug 31st, 2016 by CH
Courtesy of elmertjones,
The class valedicktorian is preparing hard for her upcoming battle with the class wise-ass. The media has already declared her the winner, especially after her devastating George Santayana quote (to be delivered in the debate along with other killer platitudes). Everyone else is going to the party at wise-ass’s house.
That about sums it up. TheCunt is a spent shell entity who delivers her “killer” lines like an automaton in a gravelly dyke voice, and her wonking out on stage will go over about as well as the class nerd tediously explaining the logical fallacies of stuffing him into a locker.
[crypto-donation-box]
Aug 31st, 2016 by CH
This comment by consiliosus stands as one of the purest expressions of “proposition nation” idolatry I’ve read. I highlight it because Realtalkers should understand the imposing mental road blocks of the benighted that they have to hurdle if America is to be saved in any form that remotely resembles the historical America.
Respectfully, what CH is missing is that, what is unique about America, is it was the first nation or even first political organization of people NOT built on race or ethnicity, but on an ideal. Alt-Right/ethno-racial nationalism is based on European political thinking. The latter is a way of thinking that goes back to the beginning of Human history. America made a break from this. It showed that it was possible, even ideal.
Leftism, another European ideological import, exploits ethnic and racial groups for it’s benefit, seeking to be in power. The Alt-Right, being an ethno-racial ideology also, reacts to such, and fights back, also seeking to be in power. Both however are ethno-racial based, even more so the latter however.
America doesn’t deny the influences of bio-mechanics and race and ethnicity. It developed a new way to organize and benefit from such influences. We need Constitutionalism more than we need White Nationalism. The latter is just a European leftist ideology based on race, ethnicity and bio-mechanics. It’s a watered down Nazi Germany.
The fundamentally flawed premise in this earnest proposition nation belief system is the idea that America is an idea which can stand apart from her racial genesis and heritage and continue thriving with any sort of people constituting her population. “As long as the idea is embraced, America will survive”, is the core tenet of this “blank state” religion.
This religion is heretical in any American age but the one we live in now. It is historically ignorant and a disingenuous misinterpretation of the Founding Fathers intent — Vox does a good job dismantling the proposition nation lie here.
Like any effective lie, each is constructed around a fragment of truth, in this case, the section of the Declaration of Independence which declares: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
However, it is also self-evident that a secular atheist Jew, such as (((Ekaterina Jung))), who does not believe in a Creator, cannot credibly appeal to the Declaration in order to claim to be an American. And it is documentarily evident that, like the U.S. Constitution, the Naturalization Act of 1790, the writings of John Jay, Ben Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and other Founding Fathers, and the Alt-Right nationalist position, the Declaration of Independence itself is directly opposed to the revisionist interpretation, as the document also refers to:
To cite one phrase of a document in contradiction to the central theme of the entire document, which is that the People of the United Colonies are an English people, unique and distinct from foreigners, Indians, and the English people loyal to the King of Britain, is an outrageous attempt at deceit that relies entirely on the historical ignorance of the audience. To say that anyone can become an American because “all men are created equal” is a shameless lie. One might as readily cite it as evidence to claim it means anyone can become Chinese.
And here is MPC’s contribution to debunking the proposition nation myth and revealing the universalist idealists among America’s founders whose equalist fervor helped provide subversive rhetoric for the various tribes to come later who despised blood-and-soil legacy America.
So not only is the proposition nation shibboleth historically inaccurate, it’s biologically (and hence culturally, since culture derives from biological inputs) fraudulent. The principle simply cannot be severed from the people. And the people cannot be severed from their pedigree.
Principle from people from pedigree.
Ergo, Constitutionalist principle = racial pedigree.
Race is people is idea is culture is nation. Englishmen created the American Idea, and Englishmen are best suited to allow that idea to flourish and to sustain it over generations. Others came who were not too dissimilar from Englishmen — the Germans, Dutch, Swedes — and their genetic closeness did not radically undermine the American Idea. Later still, ethnic Whites and half-White/half-Semites — Slavs, Italians, Irish, Jews — arrived, and their genetic and cultural distance, relative to the Englishman’s, did begin to erode the American Idea and twist it into a monstrous apparition that could be turned against its father.
These later White ethnic waves opened the Pandora’s Box to the Hart-Cellar 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act, which has since overrun the nation with literally tens of millions of nonWhite hordes who are as genetically and culturally distant from the founding sons and daughters and their posterity as can be, and their presence on American soil now rapidly (and predictably) debases, poisons, and will shortly extinguish, the Proposition Nation ideal.
Of course, some misanthropes insist that turning America into an unrecognizable third world market bazaar teeming with violence, grime, corruption, hostility, incompetence, and tribalism, all of which left unchecked by a hollowed-out disappearing White middle class, is evidence of the victory of the Proposition Nation ideal.
Normal people say to that, “If that’s colorblind Constitutionalism, give me race-aware Nationalism.”
[crypto-donation-box]
Aug 30th, 2016 by CH
One of the better attempts to describe the occasionally shape-shifting alt-right political platform that I’ve read comes from an anonymous source who devised the following “Nine Theses” infographic.
All nine points are winning soundbites to quietly rebelling White (and black-American) voters. One could quibble on the details of each thesis — for instance, I wouldn’t say the alt-right rejects (or should reject) any immigration in perpetuity, so much as it rejects racially and religiously incompatible immigration in high numbers — but the general thrust of the Nine Theses alt-right message is unassailable.
I don’t think any anti-SCALE missionaries would find fault with this platform, either. It’s strongly anti-globalism (and against all related social upheavals that globalist traitors foist on societies) and, most importantly, gives no quarter to the blank slate, leftoid equalism forces of culture destruction and anti-White humiliation porn. It’s bold, brash, and unyielding, all traits from which the useless cuckservative me-too-ist establishment recoils, like they do from health inspector oversight of their favorite bathhouses.
CH appreciates the shout-out as well. After all, the inaugural Chateau post (pre-dating all thoughtcrime Realtalkers except the venerable Steve Sailer) could justifiably qualify as a proto-alt-right blast of social realism. So we Stewards of the Shiv have been feeling a little left out of the recent alt-right foam party, though on reflection we don’t mind too much. The low media profile of this ‘umble outpost keeps Hillary’s good squad off our backs.
[crypto-donation-box]
Aug 30th, 2016 by CH
The transparency of media hivemind antagonism to Trump and, by extension, to White America, got me thinking about a similar undercurrent that pushes along any successful seduction.
That there’s media antagonism to their audience is inarguable. Examples of media doublethink and contemptuously glib violation of journalistic ethics abound, and Twatter renegades do a bang-up job showcasing them. One that immediately comes to mind is how the MSM treated Trump’s visit to flood-wracked Louisiana compared to how they reacted to W. Bush’s post-Katrina performance. W was denounced for “missing in action”, while Trump is denounced for “exploiting a tragedy for a photo op”.
When you’re up against this kind of Numbnuts Class bullshit artistry, the only response is all-out flame war; show the media the mount of respect they show regular Americans: less than zero.
The take-home point is that the leftoid media are skilled rhetoricians who have mastered the art of the reframe. Reframing is, as it happens, also a crucial Game concept, deployed whenever a woman shit tests a prospective suitor for signs of his alpha male essence. The reframe is an invaluable pickup tool.
Interestingly, seductive reframing smoothly slips off the tongue when one isn’t emotionally invested in the girl (or group) being addressed. It’s the same reason the media is able to so effortlessly reframe everything they communicate through an anti-White distortion field; 97% of shitlib media whores actively despise half of their audience (and probably more). This intrinsic antagonism for the occupied rubes provides a fertile mental field from which reframing subconsciously springs to action, hardly requiring any forethought to achieve maximally effective execution.
Consider the opposite: the beta male whose heart beats like a drum for a cute girl. He stumbles and often fails entirely to properly reframe teasing challenges from the girl, often failing so badly that he acquiesces to the girl’s frame and loses control of the interaction, essentially reduced to apologizing for her accumulating negative impression of him.
Reframing is exceedingly difficult when your interrogator is a sexual prize you feel an incredible compulsion to appease. Every fiber of your being resonates with the urge to avoid reframing in favor of accepting an anhedonic frame from a cute girl.
Media antagonism and their ease of reframing thus offers insight to the field of romance. It’s sometimes helpful for striving betas who want to do better with women (but don’t yet have the state control to sublimate their growly horniness) to view women as neutral parties, if not antagonistic adversaries. Putting the pussy on a pedestal is widely regarded the kiss of pickup death; the inverse — knocking the pussy off the pedestal and sneering at it with a stir of contempt as it lays on the ground — is, sadly for romantic idealists, an effective psychological reconfiguration that ironically raises women’s awareness of a man’s desirability.
I want to stress that regarding women as adversaries worthy of condescension until proven otherwise isn’t necessary to successfully seduce them, but it is better than sucking up to women. If you are a beta male who struggles with practical application of the reframe concept, you would improve your results with a simple change to your mental outlook. View women as occupied rubes ready to lap up your agit-cock, and reframing their shit tests and princess-primed expectations will come as easy to you as does reframing every story through the anti-White filter to the duplicitous, vile media apparatchiks.
Once you have taken the Crimson Pill, you won’t any longer need this psy ops crutch of making enemies of who are in reality neutral parties to navigate the dating market and women’s limbic landscape. Your self-confidence will surge with each sparkle of a new girl’s eye and that will grant you a reservoir of effortless reframing that you can tap with every girl, even the special snowflakes who ping your major histocompatibility index.
[crypto-donation-box]
Aug 28th, 2016 by CH
Both are examples of the commonplace phenomenon of the bitter mulatto who spites his White mother’s heritage and yearns for his missing black daddy’s love.
Keepin’ it real, yo.
[crypto-donation-box]
Aug 25th, 2016 by CH
In honor of Hillary’s schoolmarm harangue against the alt-right today, I’ll jot down a few of my thoughts on the idea of White Nationalism (as a principle and as it would work in practice).
First, a word on vanilla (heh) nationalism.
Nationalism ultimately distills to racial nationalism, though the latter isn’t required to prompt the former (or to sustain it for a while). A polyglot, Babelized citizenry corrodes nationalist principles and practices. A multicultural nationalism is an oxymoron over a long enough timeline. This is self-evident once we take it as a given that culture (aka nation) is inherited from the genetic legacy of its people.
So in principle, White Nationalism is effectively a synonym for garden-variety nationalism, because a numerical onslaught of nonWhites would irretrievably alter the characteristics of a White-majority nation that followed a theoretically race-blind nationalist ideology (similar to Steve Sailer’s Citizenism).
In practice, though, avowed White Nationalism is a non-starter. Whites aren’t a monolith. Italy looks and operates differently than England which looks and operates differently than Ukraine. There are four primary continental scale races — White, asian, amerind, black — and a nationalism ideology that attempted to place those races under an all-encompassing umbrella term would be viciously mocked and rebuked by popular revolt. There can be no Black Nationalism or Asian Nationalism or Amerind Nationalism. Try telling a Mexican he’s indistinguishable from an El Salvadoran.
Likewise, a White Nationalism movement will fail.
Although I will say this in contradiction: If White Nationalism can work anywhere, it’s most likely to find purchase in a Euro-mixed nation like America, and at a point when American Whites fall below 50% of the total population. (Spot the irony.)
I’ll have more to say on this subject in future posts, but for now my conclusion is to leave White Nationalism alone in favor of regular Nationalism. The White part will work itself out organically as the nation becomes less globalist and more nationalist.
[crypto-donation-box]
Comment Of The Week: How Is A New Woman Like An Old Car…?
Sep 15th, 2016 by CH
stevetirone takes the COTW trophy (a ball gag for your woman) with this astute comparison between the declining US auto industry of the 1970s and the declining US woman industry of the 2010s:
You don’t even have to summon a waifu to make this similarity between the old auto market and the new woman market work. Any thin White chick who doesn’t apologize for her “thin privilege” is practically demonized by today’s bloated, rolling American woman market. Consumer shaming has turned into man shaming (ugly feminists loathe male desire for a reason), and governmental protection of the old auto industry has become governmental set-asides and largesse for the new Unlovable Feminist Prerogative Industry.
***
COTW runner-up winner is Space Viking, making the important point that some odd sexual market behaviors can be explained by the Freudian concept of psychological projection.
More evidence projection is at work in the sexual market:
Women thinking men value them for their smarts, humor, degrees, witty banter or, worst of all, sexual experience.
Men thinking women value them primarily for their muscular development, faithfulness, chastity, niceness or, worst of all, sensitivity.
[crypto-donation-box]
Posted in Comment Winners | No Comments »