Feed on
Posts
Comments

Liberals Have A New Slogan

Shitlibs going all-in for warmongering hillary while crying hysterically over Trump’s pussyhound sex banter have flipped their ’60s credo on its back. Their new rallying cry:

MAKE WAR, NOT LOVE

This slogan reversal is the logical consequence of the liberals’ primary ethos: WHO, WHOM?

MAKE WAR, NOT LOVE

Calling all shitlords to spam shitlib accounts, on whatever platform, with this new shitlib slogan. Ask them if they like being bloodthirsty Puritans, then chuckle as they slink away in defeat.

***

Not unrelated, there’s video out today of cuckryan getting publicly shamed by a jeering crowd in Wisconsin. GOOD. I hope he wakes up in a cold sweat tonight knowing how much he’s despised by the people.

The timeline of the released 2005 recording of a private conversation Trump had with Billy Bush in which Trump bantered casually about picking up women, and the subsequent canned and coordinated nature of the responses from the usual GOP establishment cucks (the whole Party as of this writing), lead me to believe thecunt (“hillary clinton” for you new readers) was not the primary operative behind this ambush, (although I believe thecunt campaign worked closely with the GOPe to strategize an ideal time for release of the tape and their responses). It’s likely instead that the BUSH family orchestrated this tawdry distraction from their looting of heritage America. MPCer Hateful Heretic explains,

As I was out blowing my salary on hipster artisanal brunch with my wife, it became to me patently obvious this was a coordinated hit by the GOP, not the Clinton campaign, on the Donald. This is revenge for him calling Jeb Bush a f****t until he cried right on live TV.

Remember, the original plan was to have Jeb run against Hillary. All these people belong to the same social circle, and Democrat loyalists would have been most comfortable with Hillary, who is legitimately disliked by everyone, losing to another Bush. The reverse was the same as well. Hillary-level corruption is something the upper leadership of the GOP knows how to play ball with. As the GOP field expanded, Rubio became Plan B. The Democrats had no Plan B, which is why Bernie’s surprising popularity was met with such panic.

Now, if you believe that Jeb Bush’s cousin had this tape for 11 years, but no one in the family knew about it until yesterday, you’re a half-witted chromosomal aberration who needs a full-time caretaker to help you not piss all over the bathroom every time you’ve gotta go. Of course they knew about it. The original plan was to use this to knock out Trump when he was the last man standing against ¡Jeb!, but it became obvious within about six hours of the primaries actually getting underway that no one was going to vote for George’s uglier, dorkier brother. Li’l Marco imploded immediately afterward, meaning the Bushes’ Plan B also failed.

If you remember the end of the primary, there were a number of articles written about how the GOPe loathed Ted Cruz as much or even more than Donald Trump. By the time we were halfway through the primaries, it was obvious that Trump was the favorite to win with Cruz as a long-shot second. Neither of those two men are people the Bush-Chamber of Commerce complex had any interest in risking the presidency to. Even though Cruz had less of a shot than The Donald, Hillary Clinton is such a toxic, vile witch that neither man was certain to lose on his own. And while Cruz is a craven opportunist, he had a vested political interest in actually implementing at least some of Trump’s agenda that he had co-opted, such as actually securing the border. Plus, Cruz enjoys making leftists and centrists hate him.

No doubt the Bushes had dirt on Cruz, but everyone knows that nothing you have on Cruz is ever going to be as salacious as a good Trump story. That’s why, at the Convention, the GOP moved aggressively to shut down #NeverTrump rules shenanigans, particularly the bit about unbinding delegates, many of whom were Cruz loyalists. There was a risk that they might actually work, Cruz would steal the nomination, and then the Party would be unable to take him down in time to ensure a Clinton victory.

So they moved to block Ted Cruz’s hail Mary pass, ensured Trump’s nomination, and held onto this juicy piece. This has all the appearance of a coordinated hit. The guys expressing their shock and horror are guys who knew Denny Hastert was f**king boys, didn’t think Bawney Fwank’s homo brothel was a big deal, and rented vagina from Deborah Palfrey. Paul Ryan’s endorsement of Trump was half-hearted from the beginning, and Jeb had canned outrage cued up and ready to go. The Republicans rescinding their endorsements are the usual suspects whose voting record shows they would rather have Clinton than Trump in charge even if our guy was still on his first wife, never viewed a porno, and waited until marriage.

I don’t think Ted Cruz was in on it. Ted Cruz isn’t in on things. Cruz is just sitting there, looking like a retard, not knowing what’s going on. If he pulls his endorsement, he’s not going to be let into the GOP Klub 4 Kool Kidz.  If he doesn’t, his legions of Principled Suicide Cultists won’t forgive him. His career is over. I wouldn’t be surprised if the GOPe pushed him into this endorsement specifically so that he’d take maximum collateral damage when they dropped the tape.

The goal isn’t to take out Trump in some quixotic quest to win with a True Conservative in 2020. That’s #NeverTrump-level retardation, and the Bushes aren’t retards. The goal is to stop saboteurs from f**king up this global world order they think they’re just a few boatloads of Somali rapefugees away from perfecting, an order they want to be on top of regardless of which party wins.

There isn’t enough [REDACTED. HI NSA!] in the world for these scummy, back-stabbing GOPe cucks and their globohomo Bezosian paymasters. God willing Americans wake up soon to the malevolent machinations of the GOPe traitors, and swallow the Vengeance Pill so that they are steeled for the necessary job ahead. Please clap (for the gallows).

An alternative (or perhaps complementary) theory is that thecunt campaign first got hold of the tape and then informed the GOPe they were running with it, to which the GOPe happily cosigned seeing an opportunity to take down Trump. This theory assumes that yesterday’s WikiLeaks dump of thecunt’s Goldman Sachs speeches influenced the campaign’s timing of the tape release. They were probably aiming to release it closer to election day (to maximize its gotcha power) but WikiLeaks happened and they had to rush the release to distract from that very bad news for thecunt (and ofc the media shills are dutifully falling in line with this plan).

CH commenter hitrestart1 adds,

Ryan scheduled the rally with Trump only after he found out about the audio. He colluded with the Dems and media to ambush Trump with this audio, then publicly revoke the invitation in an effort to humiliate Trump.

I’d curse your soul if you had one, Ryan.

The good news is that no matter how much you corrupt traitors plot and collude you STILL can’t take Teflon Don out.

pussygrab

PS The Wall Street Journal for Endless H-1B Visas confirms that the “pussygrab” tape was an inside hit job by GOP establishment cucks looking to deep-six The Trumpening and siphon money from his campaign. This is clarifying. Better to have our enemies shooting us in the front than stabbing us in the back. It wonderfully focuses minds on the scum traitors who have outed themselves.

The woman who was the subject of Trump’s private “pussy grab” bro banter with Billy Bush is seen here in a 2005 interview discussing her time with Trump when he was on the set of her soap opera to make a cameo appearance. Start at 5:30:

“You recently worked with Donald Trump. Did you flirt with Donald?”

“I did flirt with Donald. He is so cute and charming.”

Arianne admitted that since she had gotten married, she became a lot flirtier with other men.

This video puts the lie to those wilting flowers, cucks and manlets and white knights in particular, who think that an alpha male’s locker room banter means he “hates” women. Nothing could be further from reality. The brash alpha, like Trump, is one way in (assumed) confidence with male friends and another way with female love interests. Anyone who doesn’t understand this social dynamic is a shut-in or an outcast. Or a disingenuous fag, like cuckryan.

Anyhow, while fake phony fraud cuckryanistas bleed out of their wherevers lamenting Trump’s “objectification” of and lack of “reverence” for a flirty soap actress who revered Trump and enjoyed his objectifying charms which left her with good memories of his company, normal psychologically balanced heterosexual men and women get that beautiful starlets will throw themselves at a famous rich man like Trump and that this doesn’t mean an oppressive patriarchal rape culture is about to descend on America, nor does any of it indicate that Trump is a misogynist any more than it would indicate that Arianne is a misandrist.

Bottom line, this latest outburst by the betabitch crybullies is nothing but the release of suppressed resentment at alpha male Trump for reminding the cucks what failures they are with women and reminding the feminist cunts what failures they are at attracting men like Trump.

PS Keep in mind these cucks mewling about Trump’s raunchy private sex talk are the same degenerate hypocrites marching in gay pride parades and supporting slut walks. BAKE THE DAMN CAKE, BIGOT.

PPS A massive spontaneous rally of support for Trump erupted today in NYC when the God Emperor himself appeared outside his Trump Tower. thecunt will never feel this kind of love. Never. And it eats her up inside, what little is left to eat up.

PPPS Here’s video of thecunt and gross fatbody lena dumpham discussing Lenny Kravitz’s dick.

Comment Of The Week: #GALA

Troll or not, grg just won the coveted COTW.

We’re gonna grab the world by the pussy! We’re gonna grab China’s pussy! We’re gonna grab Mexico’s pussy! We’re gonna grab Russia’s pussy! You’re going to be so tired of pussy, you’re going to beg me. You’re going to say, “please, Mr. Trump! we can’t handle it. we’re tired of winning”. But we’re gonna keep winning, and grabbing, and the world is gonna just let us grab her by the pussy, and we’re gonna GET AMERICA LAID AGAIN

GALA 2016!

Drudge On Cuckryan

You’ve gotta hand it to Drudge. The man (or his team) know how to wield the imagery and lede shivs. Drudge has a knack for choosing the perfect photo to accompany the main story.

Above the headline “PUSSY-WHIPPED” is this candid shot of cuckryan:

cuckryan

The lede is hilarious, but the photo is sublime. Yes, you can bet it was chosen because cuckryan looks like he is giving the universal face signal for sucking a dick.

And why not? He’s metaphorically sucked the gay mulatto’s dick so much his mug may as well be frozen in a dicktus rictus.

Answer: Marry a younger, hotter, tighter babe. You’ll never want to leave her. (“the best thing about high school girls….i get older and they all stay the same age”)

Less succinctly, a blogger by the handle Free Northerner put together a fact sheet compiled from CDC data to help men reduce the chance they’ll get ground up in the remorseless gears of the divorce industrial complex.

Looking at all this, it’s easy to see the two best determinates of her divorcing you are her education and whether she has had sex prior to marriage.

A bachelor’s degree is a 40-point decrease in the odds of divorce over a high school graduate.

A women having sex with one other partner is an instant 25-point increase in the odds of divorce, with another 10-point drop for a second partner, and another for a fifth. Related to this, her having sex before age 18 is another major risk factor. Marrying her before she’s 20 is also a risk factor, but not as great a one as her having had sex with someone else; if the choice is between a virgin under 20 and older non-virgin, the young virgin is less risky*. Do not marry a slut.

I don’t disagree with any of Free Northerner’s prescriptions for a divorce-free life, (except that the best defense is eternal bachelorhood). The data are clear, insofar as the data go.

The problem is that the data mask a deeper undercurrent that primarily influences divorce risk: spouse options.

Recall the infamous CH maxim:

Options = Instability.

A wife who feels like she can do better, or who has numerous suitors of equal or higher SMV than her husband, is a divorce-via-infidelity-and-boredom waiting to happen.

Similarly, a husband with lots of sexual market options will be greatly tempted to stray, or even abandon his wife, if his bang options on the extramarital market are better than his authorized intramarital outlet. The main difference between the two scenarios is that a husband with options is less likely to nuke his marriage than a wife with options, the husband preferring instead by the harem-building nature of his maleness to maintain marital appearances and a loyal wife at home while satisfying his carnal urges with side pieces.

Female sluttiness (measured by premarital cock count) and female education are the two biggest factors governing divorce risk for men, and both factors are emergent properties of the CH Options Theory of Divorce Odds.

Female sluttiness may not immediately strike the reader as necessarily an indication of female options, but it is in both direct and roundabout ways. First, remind yourself that the majority of women in the middle of the SMV belle curve have as a condition of their sex far more *sexual* options than do men. A 7 can spread her legs and have a thousand men lined up to take her to pound town. A male 7 has no such surfeit of options; he has to work for the few he gets. Even a male 10 unzipping in a roomful of horny broads won’t have as many willing participants as a female 7 would have unzipping at a closeted homosexual National Review loveboat cruise.

Given this inherent biological difference in the sexes, female sluttiness is therefore best understood as the interaction between a woman’s SMV and her sociosexuality (i.e., her willingness and urge to fuck around for the pleasure of it).

So, a woman has to have sufficiently high SMV to have the options to screw around AND she has to have a (probably inherited) disposition to want to avail herself of those options. The former — sufficient SMV — is the direct relation to the Options Theory, while the latter — aggressive sociosexuality — is the roundabout indication that a woman has options.

In short, if a sufficiently attractive woman is eager to fuck around, by definition she has options. I know it sounds like a tautology, but great truths are sometimes revealed by tautology. And the validity of the tautology is apparent by the nontransitiveness of it. If we try to apply it to men, it fails. A man of average SMV who is eager to fuck around does not necessarily have options. Unlike women, a man’s eagerness to wantonly fuck does not increase his available options as it would do for a woman.

The education variable — the other crucial risk factor for divorce — is really a proxy for female age at first marriage. The more education a woman obtains, the older she’ll be when she (finally) abandons the alpha fux highstyle for the beta bux homestyle. As we Crimson Pillers know, advancing age decreases women’s sexual market options exponentially. If female education lowers a man’s risk of divorce, it’s less to do with the woman’s erudition or grasp of the intricacies of patriarchal hegemony, or even her IQ and related impulse control. It’s mostly to do with the fact that overeducated women are older when they marry and thus have fewer men chasing after them, which certainly contributes to these age 28+ women magically discovering devoted marital bliss and avoiding justifications for divorce.

Vox adds to the debate an idea with which I have a rare disagreement,

It won’t show up in the statistics, but based on my observation, there is also a relative aspect to the divorce risk. For example, the statistics indicate that a woman with 15 prior sexual partners has a divorce risk of 70 percent, but how that applies to the specific marriage will vary greatly between the man who has had one prior sexual partner and the man who has had 100.

For the former, the knowledge that his wife has been with 15 other men is likely devastating. For the latter, that sounds like the summer after graduating from college and is of no concern to him. And given the way in which hypergamy works, it probably shouldn’t be, as it’s almost certain that she will, rightly, worry far more about his faithfulness than he does about hers. Rank and relativity are not easily accounted for, but they do matter.

Vox is right to figure that a woman married to a high notch count cad has more to worry about regarding his fidelity than he has regarding her fidelity. Where I disagree is his assertion that men who’ve bedded lots of women wouldn’t be disgusted with a slutty wife prospect with the same intensity that a relatively inexperienced man would be disgusted. In my meanderings through the tingle trenches, I’ve found the opposite to be true: womanizers who’ve sexed lots of ladies are MORE put off by a serious LTR prospect who has herself a history littered with discarded lovers.

Why? It sounds like a double standard. More precisely, it’s a different standard, and it exists because men who do well with women have the alpha jerkboy leverage to demand chastity from the women they intend to wife up, (said female chastity being much more relevant to a man’s Darwinian success owing to the fact that slutty women are bigger cuckold threats in a state of nature unoccluded by the distorting effects of birth control and abortion). And pushin’ come to cushion, almost all men will, if the option is available, prefer a wife with less sexual history baggage than the modren norm.

Ironically, Vox would be onto something if he had swapped the men in his example. It’s much more likely that a weak, sexually inexperienced beta male with few options would tolerate (happily or insincerely) a wife prospect with a double digit telegonic cock count. And in fact that’s pretty much what I see happening in real life: weak betas marrying older, former sluts who may still have a little gas left in their dilated crevasse for a rode hard trip.

*Free Northerner writes, “if the choice is between a virgin under 20 and older non-virgin, the young virgin is less risky”. I concur. The under-20 virgin objectively has more mate options based on her resting SMV, but like I wrote above a woman’s options are a function not just of her SMV but also of her willingness to indulge the sexual attention that her SMV brings her.

If you’re a man looking for wife, always bet on inexperienced youth over slutty maturity. More men may eye up your virginal blossom, but the wilting slut is more apt to allow interlopers to take a surreptitious sniff of her musky overripe aroma.

The GloboHomoBezos Hivemind is pulling out all the stops to prevent a populist uprising. The latest is a mic’ed recording of Trump engaging in some fratty sex talk in 2005 while on the set of a soap opera in which he had a cameo. The bawdy line that has thecunt in a schoolmarmish tizzy is when Trump says, “when you’re a star… they [women] let you do anything”.

Trump is right. Fame Game is the most powerful aphrodisiac a man can unleash in the world of women. I’ve no doubt actresses on that soap opera eagerly welcomed Trump’s inquisitive probings.

I for one welcome a realtalking, truth-telling, ZFG juggernaut steamrolling our vile ruling class. I also welcome Trump reminding thecunt at their next debate of her husband’s rapes and abuse of power to curry sexual favors from female underlings while she protected him and slandered his conquests.

I didn’t think the sniveling leftoid freaks running the circus at Twatter headquarters would go so far as to censor a presidential candidate’s tweets one month before the election, but the evidence proves they have gone ahead and done it.

Specifically, Twatter has shadowbanned (made tweets invisible to most of the reading public) and even deleted Trump’s tweets encouraging voters in battleground states like FL to register to vote before the deadline.

This to me seems illegal in the sense that Twatter is now actively interfering in a national election and thwarting the democratic process, but maybe any lawyers reading this blog can confirm if Twatter’s censorship is actionable.

By my tumescent shiv, if this news means Twatter goes the way of Gawker, I will jizz so hard the space station will need birth control (and a cigarette).

Reviewbrah’s Tight Game

Reviewbrah (YouTube account: TheReportOfTheWeek) has tight Game. Watch him DQ a sarcastic hottie and earn the lubrications of the women and the admiration of the men.

reviewbrah

If you don’t know nothin’ ’bout Reviewbrah, WAYSA? Here’s a primer, (and I have it on good word that Reviewbrah is a secret alt-righter).

I would be honored if Reviewbrah was a lurker here at Le Chateau. What alias/alter ego would he be? PA? whorefinder?

GBFM?!?

Peacemaker Putin notes the importance of the same sex parent-child relationship.

The impact a Father has on his son cannot be overstated. Same goes for the Mother on the daughters. Modeling is powerful.

Behavioral modeling by children of parents is a bit of a sketchy proposition given what we now know about the large contribution of genetic inheritance and the relative paucity of shared environment (i.e. parental) effects on kids’ outcomes.

But in my opinion there is something to the notion that parents have different, and unequal, impacts on their same-sex versus opposite-sex kids’ development. Parents exert their influence (however little it can be quantified by current measurement systems) through two ways: presence and modeling (or what could be called “character appropriation”). The former is predominant in the development of opposite sex children and the latter on same sex children.

For example, a father’s presence shields daughters from becoming cock carousel femcunt mudskanks, and a mother’s presence guides sons towards social engagement. The parent-child interaction gets much more interesting and subject to vulnerabilities from disruption when the sexes are the same.

In the realm of modeling, fathers are a crucial decanter from which sons imbibe so many valuable lessons: toughness, grit, confidence, spirit, and the fulfillment of the all-important need of a son to look up to an older man. Mothers likewise impart their daughters with the wisdom of chastity and faithfulness, and the power of femininity and sexual guardianship.

The above formula requires unpolluted input variables. A slutty single mom isn’t going to impart anything good to her daughter, and a violent, disparaging, AWOL father will activate all sorts of negative gene-environment feedback loops in a young son’s spongiform brain.

Perhaps this presence-modeling theory of sex-differential parenting explains the social phenomenon of the association between longer-lasting marriages and birth of sons. Fathers instinctively and subconsciously know that their steady and reliable guidance will be a lot more critical to their sons’ positive development than to their daughters’.

Btw if CH is the first Shivmaester to come up with this theory, please feel free to lavish me with oodles of ego canoodles.

***

Commenter tteclod adds something with which I can find no fault,

CH: You may not have considered the interaction between heritable traits and learned adaptation of heritable traits, or at least didn’t say anything about it.

Let’s put it this way: the difference between the 90% heritable success and the extra 10% parental contribution is the difference between an A student and a B student, or a star athlete and an also-ran teammate. In a competitive environment (all of planet earth), these differences define social strata.

My son is smart. That’s genetics. My daughter is also smart, but not as smart as my son. Also genetics. However, the success of both my son and my daughter is augmented by my participation in the education of each, most especially because they are very much like me (nature) and I know how to be like me successfully (nurture). Without me, each child fumbles through life not knowing how to succeed except through learning from experience. That’s stupid. Every man knows it is best to learn from the mistakes of others, not his own.

Throw in incremental generational improvement in nature (slow) and nurture (fast), and you have the difference between r-selection and K-selection. K-selection assumes the opportunity to build incrementally upon civilizational augmentation of progeny, whereas r-selection hopes for some success among much failure. I prefer the putting my finger on the scale in favor of my children.

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Also reachable over Tor: roissyrwpgxawb3etwznvay4eelbws4lkdtr4tt2r7wxb6adq6pajtqd.onion