Feed on
Posts
Comments

It used to be that a father’s job was clear and understood by all: To guard his daughters’ chastity and to teach his sons to stand up for themselves. For all his kids, a father’s duty also encompassed control and guidance over their peer groups, assuring that his kids wouldn’t wind up with “the wrong crowd”.

But times have changed. We are in the Post-White America Era, and a father’s number one job now is to defend his children’s minds from infection by the poz (shorthand for degenerate leftoid culture) and anti-White indoctrination. Reader and father Corvo explains by way of example from his own life:

My 8 year-old son and I were at the library this morning. He picks out several books to borrow and shows them to me: 2 of them were some variant of “Shaneequa has to sit in the back of the bus” / “Darflavius wanted to vote” libtrash propaganda.

I told him to put those two back because they’re full of lies and half-truths all about making white people look bad; when he finds one that shows that without white people Darflavius would be living in a mud hut and shitting himself to death of cholera in Africa or living as a slave to some black slavemaster in the Congo, then he can read about how bad that seat in the back of the bus is by comparison.

Hard truths need to be introduced early if we’re going to inoculate our kids against the anti white hate out there.

The stream of anti-White filth has gushed into a torrent, washing away the edifice of America like limestone under assault from the ocean surf. I know it’s tempting for parents to pacify their kids by hooking them up to iPhones, iPads, and the TV, but this “plug and pray” method of lackadaisical parenting is a surefire way to fill their heads with lies and equalist antiracism garbage. Parents who want to instill self-pride in their charges, to cultivate in them a strong identity that, yes, includes pride in their racial pedigree, will have no choice but to take a more active role policing how their kids entertain themselves.

Parents may have to lead by example. Trash your TV and limit your cell use. Ban the tentacles of social media from your household. Tell the race cucks of the predominant culture to go fuck themselves, in other words. Hey, here’s a suggestion: substitute all that electronic memetic warfare with some blood and soil activities. Go outside and toss a ball around with your kids. You’ll shed a few flabbo pounds in the process.

Why not involve mothers in this? Well, practically, I don’t see mothers having it in them to do this job. This is one which fathers are temperamentally equipped to handle. How many mothers do you know who seem ready and willing to ditch their access to 24/7 gossip generators? Certainly, there are exceptions, and if you happen to know a mother who takes seriously the job of protecting her children from anti-White cultural messages, then by all means compliment her for her foresight, because in the social sphere women need and thrive on words of encouragement that enable them to defy the womanly herd.

PA adds,

Well done. If you had a country of your own, you could be hands-off and let society help you shape your children. That’s what countries and cultures are for. It does take a village.

But under an occupant, parents have to be proactive and vigilant. Every occupied nation in history had understood that, and “the hand that rocked the cradle” quietly told the child who he is. The tragedy of Murka is that many parents do not know that they are a conquered nation under an enemy occupant.

“A country of your own”. This is the tragedy of Post-America. There was a time you could hand your kids off — to other kids, to other parents, to schoolteachers, to the bosom of mother earth and her bounty of adventures — and rest easy knowing that they would receive a real life education that would meet your approval.

We no longer have a country of our own, haven’t had for a while, but many parents are still unaware of how entrenched the official anti-White narrative has become, and they allow, blindly, fruitlessly, another hand to rock their children’s cradles.

There is always when observing massive cultural shifts a peculiar lag time between the establishment of the new paradigm and the recognition of the existence of that paradigm by the masses, and during this period of ignorance malevolent forces run wild with the zeal of revolutionaries. But they always overreach, and the masses always wake up. When the awakening happens, the brutality of the vengeance meted upon the enemy will be commensurate with the length of delay between the onset of hostilities and the acceptance by the targets of those hostilities that they are indeed under attack.

Corvo continues,

I noticed that the anti-white indoctrination has started even in elementary school. We haven’t hit the haul-my-cost yet but I’m sure it won’t be long.

Last year, in second grade, my son was happy he could skip doing one of his assigned December homework worksheets when he learned that our family’s position is that “Kwanza is not a real holiday.”

Small, individual acts of defiance embolden the anti-White enemy to stamp out rebel agitators, which they do with glee and awful effectiveness. Small acts of defiance multiplied by a million.. and then a million more… now you’re cooking (the Hivemind) with gas.

This MPC thread about The Trumpening is a great read. The latest news: the Trump campaign has released his immigration reform plan and, not to put too fine a point on it, he just delivered a roundhouse kick to the groins of GOP cuckservatives, which would hurt them if they had any balls to begin with.

When politicians talk about “immigration reform” they mean: amnesty, cheap labor and open borders. The Schumer-Rubio immigration bill was nothing more than a giveaway to the corporate patrons who run both parties.

Real immigration reform puts the needs of working people first – not wealthy globetrotting donors. We are the only country in the world whose immigration system puts the needs of other nations ahead of our own. That must change. Here are the three core principles of real immigration reform:

1. A nation without borders is not a nation. There must be a wall across the southern border.

2. A nation without laws is not a nation. Laws passed in accordance with our Constitutional system of government must be enforced.

3. A nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation. Any immigration plan must improve jobs, wages and security for all Americans.

The cost of building a permanent border wall pales mightily in comparison to what American taxpayers spend every single year on dealing with the fallout of illegal immigration on their communities, schools and unemployment offices.

Trump, or his team, have been reading Dissident Right blogs. Good.

Triple the number of ICE officers. […]

Nationwide e-verify. This simple measure will protect jobs for unemployed Americans.

This one will send libertardians and cuckservatives into hysterics, but of course they conveniently ignore that we already live under a police state (hi NSA). Trump is saying let’s use our police state for some good, namely, preventing America from turning into Brazil.

Mandatory return of all criminal aliens. […]

Detention—not catch-and-release. […]

Defund sanctuary cities. […]

Enhanced penalties for overstaying a visa. […]

Cooperate with local gang task forces. […]

End birthright citizenship. […]

This ALONE — ending birthright citizenship — would be enough to vote for Trump.

Increase prevailing wage for H-1Bs. We graduate two times more Americans with STEM degrees each year than find STEM jobs, yet as much as two-thirds of entry-level hiring for IT jobs is accomplished through the H-1B program. More than half of H-1B visas are issued for the program’s lowest allowable wage level, and more than eighty percent for its bottom two. Raising the prevailing wage paid to H-1Bs will force companies to give these coveted entry-level jobs to the existing domestic pool of unemployed native and immigrant workers in the U.S., instead of flying in cheaper workers from overseas. This will improve the number of black, Hispanic and female workers in Silicon Valley who have been passed over in favor of the H-1B program. Mark Zuckerberg’s personal Senator, Marco Rubio, has a bill to triple H-1Bs that would decimate women and minorities.

Trump trolls shitlibs. You’ve been TrumpTrolled!

Immigration moderation. Before any new green cards are issued to foreign workers abroad, there will be a pause where employers will have to hire from the domestic pool of unemployed immigrant and native workers.

Trump knows which way the populism winds blow.

Mexico must pay for the wall and, until they do, the United States will, among other things: impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages; increase fees on all temporary visas issued to Mexican CEOs and diplomats (and if necessary cancel them); increase fees on all border crossing cards – of which we issue about 1 million to Mexican nationals each year (a major source of visa overstays); increase fees on all NAFTA worker visas from Mexico (another major source of overstays); and increase fees at ports of entry to the United States from Mexico [Tariffs and foreign aid cuts are also options].  We will not be taken advantage of anymore.

Trump’s immigration plan is almost perfect. It’s just a short step from this to the CH plan for an immigration moratorium for twenty years, followed by a system that heavily favors White immigrants from Europe.

Donald Trump would reverse President Obama’s executive orders on immigration and deport all undocumented immigrants from the U.S. as president, he said in an exclusive interview with NBC’s Chuck Todd.

“We’re going to keep the families together, but they have to go,” he said in the interview, which will air in full on NBC’s “Meet the Press” this Sunday.

Pressed on what he’d do if the immigrants in question had nowhere to return to, Trump reiterated: “They have to go.”

“We will work with them. They have to go. Chuck, we either have a country, or we don’t have a country,” he said.

“They have to go.” “We either have a country, or we don’t have a country.”

Trump is leveling race-aware Realtalk right into the solar plexus of quivering cucks and anti-White leftoids.

The Trumpening… it’s happening!

Scott Adams wrote a couple of short essays on The Trumpening that are basically recitations of core game concepts (some of which are retrofitted from ideas first introduced by Robert Cialdini in his book Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion). You will find many of Scott’s points, and Trump’s tactics, explained in depth in the CH archives.

Would Trump use his negotiation and persuasion skills in the campaign? Of course he would. And we expect him to do just that. […]

As I said in my How to Fail book, if you are not familiar with the dozens of methods of persuasion that are science-tested, there’s a good chance someone is using those techniques against you.

For example, when Trump says he is worth $10 billion, which causes his critics to say he is worth far less (but still billions) he is making all of us “think past the sale.” The sale he wants to make is “Remember that Donald Trump is a successful business person managing a vast empire mostly of his own making.” The exact amount of his wealth is irrelevant.

When a car salesperson trained in persuasion asks if you prefer the red Honda Civic or the Blue one, that is a trick called making you “think past the sale” and the idea is to make you engage on the question of color as if you have already decided to buy the car. That is Persuasion 101 and I have seen no one in the media point it out when Trump does it.

“Think past the sale” is the same as the game technique known as “assume the sale“. The results of this form of persuasion/seduction are just as predictable: the customer/woman is groomed to believe he/she has already chosen your product/you.

The $10 billion estimate Trump uses for his own net worth is also an “anchor” in your mind. That’s another classic negotiation/persuasion method. I remember the $10 billion estimate because it is big and round and a bit outrageous. And he keeps repeating it because repetition is persuasion too.

I don’t remember the smaller estimates of Trump’s wealth that critics provided. But I certainly remember the $10 billion estimate from Trump himself. Thanks to this disparity in my memory, my mind automatically floats toward Trump’s anchor of $10 billion being my reality. That is classic persuasion. And I would be amazed if any of this is an accident. Remember, Trump literally wrote the book on this stuff.

Anchoring is another insidiously effective game technique. In seduction, anchoring is most effective when a good feeling or evoked emotion is purposefully coupled with a physical touch, so that the woman associates her positive state with her seducer’s presence.

You might be concerned that exaggerating ones net worth is like lying, and the public will not like a liar. But keep in mind that Trump’s value proposition is that he will “Make America Great.” In other words, he wants to bring the same sort of persuasion to the question of America’s reputation in the world. That concept sounds appealing to me. The nation needs good brand management, whether you think Trump is the right person or not.

In game parlance, “branding” is called “creating an identity”, which means adopting some sexy persona that appeals to women.

Trump also said he thinks Mexico should pay for the fence, which made most people scoff. But if your neighbor’s pit bull keeps escaping and eating your rosebushes, you tell the neighbor to pay for his own fence or you will shoot his dog next time you see it.

Scott Adams definitely reads Chateau Heartiste.

On a recent TV interview, the host (I forget who) tried to label Trump a “whiner.” But instead of denying the label, Trump embraced it and said was the best whiner of all time, and the country needs just that. That’s a psychological trick I call “taking the high ground” and I wrote about it in a recent blog post. The low ground in this case is the unimportant question of whether “whiner” is a fair label for Trump. But Trump cleverly took the high ground, embraced the label, and used it to set an anchor in your mind that he is the loudest voice for change. That’s some clown genius for you.

In game parlance, “taking the high ground” means “Agree&Amplify“. Donald F’ing Trump is a skilled Game practitioner. No wonder the women in his life are so beautiful and adore him so deeply.

When Trump raised his hand at the debate as the only person who would not pledge to back the eventual Republican candidate, he sent a message to the party that the only way they can win is by nominating him. And people like to win. It is in their nature.

Trump is a winner. This is why he bugs cuckservatives so much.

And what about Trump’s habit of bluster and self-complimenting? Every time he opens his mouth he is saying something about the Trump brand being fabulous or amazing or great. The rational part of your brain thinks this guy is an obnoxious, exaggerating braggart. But the subconscious parts of your brain (the parts that make most of your decisions) only remember that something about that guy was fabulous, amazing and great.

Game concept: DHVing (demonstrating higher value).

Now that Trump owns FOX, and I see how well his anchor trick works with the public, I’m going to predict he will be our next president.

I don’t know if we’ll have a President Trumpening (in’shallah), but if we do it’ll be because Trump has TIGHT GAME. And balls.

Now, if you can become president using game, imagine how much game could help you clean up with women!

Here’s Scott’s second essay on Trump’s power of persuasion.

My main point is that intellectual arguments lose to visual arguments and to powerful associations such as “America” and “great.” You think Trump is spouting calorie-free non-policies because he’s an idiot who hasn’t done his homework. The reality (as far as I can tell) is that he’s playing three-dimensional chess with two-dimensional opponents.

Beta spergs take note: you will never logically or intellectually stimulate a woman into bed. You have to learn to speak the language of hotnsexynsteamynsensual romance, which is, in fact, as learnable as any rule of logic inquiry.

***

Scott Walker is a niceguy who for the most part has his head on straight, compared to the rest of the cuckservative field. But he is weak. Listen to him feebly try to reason with some mud invader who wants the US to do nothing less than bend over and take his burrito up the keister.

Commenter “Original” writes,

Trump reframes children of illegal immigrants as: “It’s an issue of our countries policies encouraging this behavior.”

Here’s a more powerful reframe: “Anyone who breaks this country’s immigration laws for their own benefit is a delinquent. Shame on all illegals for breaking the law, but especially shame on all illegals who drag their children into their criminal activity.”

The anointed GOP contenders are weak. This is why they fail. And this is why Trump wins.

Does Roosh have any recourse to sue this feminist, Haley Yael, into submission?

Posting flyers with a man’s photo and an accompanying “sexual predator” libel seems to me to violate some basic international legal protections, not to mention common decency. Not that I would ever expect common decency from feminist cunts, but it’s always helpful to remind people how deranged the mouthpieces for the “social justice” movement have become.

Upside: This will immeasurably boost Roosh’s infamy, which will not coincidentally increase the pool of women, feminist or otherwise, who secretly and not so secretly want to experience his Bang philosophy firsthand.

PS Kudos for the trolling operation here.

Canada… where the men put things up their butts and the women fantasize about being attractive to rapists.

Although rare, one does occasionally encounter the younger grown man-older woman couple. (I specify “grown man”, because there is room in the sexual market for inexperienced teenage and early 20s beta males to pop their cherries in the easy and uncomplicated, if road-worn, guiding folds of older woman orifice.)

The married younger man-older woman is a coupling that seems to defy not just evolutionary theory but also common sense. Why would a man so ludicrously work against his reproductive interests? There is already a built-in preference among women to date and marry older men than themselves, and a woman’s fertility window is much shorter than a man’s. One would have to be either a fetishist who gets his GILF freak on, or a complete loser lacking any confidence in his ability to marry at least a few boner-inspiring years down the poon market.

While fetishists of every stripe exist, they are so rare — much rarer than the noise their advocates make on SJW comment boards where all that matters is parroting the Pantywaist Line — that it’s safe to compartmentalize them into a box full of Darwinian exceptions who don’t violate the general rule governing sex interactions.

More common are the lesser beta and omega male losers who have so little to offer women, or who believe they have so little to offer, that they settle, with a sad resignation they have spent their lives expertly concealing under self-soothing bromides and plastic smiles from public inquisition, for older broads with short shelf lives and lowered standards.

If the numbers of these loser husband-older wife couples are increasing, (anecdotally, there does appear to be a slight uptick in their numbers, mirroring the slight uptick in the numbers of white women-black men couples. I invite the reader to make the relevant connection), we can identify a number of social changes that may be contributing to the odd pairings.

Reader corvinus explains,

CH: and then marry, if he wishes to marry, a younger woman.

This. About 10 years younger.

As to why it’s considered the norm to marry a woman the same age as you, I have a couple of ideas:

1) Social pressure, especially from the women.
2) Online dating, which has a stronger age-homogamy bias than IRL.
3) Lack of game on the men’s part.

Interestingly enough, apparently during the recession, the age at first marriage has gone up faster for men than for women, suggesting that women are more willing to consider marrying somewhat older men than they were before.

During times of economic hardship, women smartly choose established men with more resources (betas). The inverse is also true: during times of female economic self-sufficiency, women vaginally choose charming jerkboys with or without resources.

Corvinus has hit on the big three reasons why younger man-older women marriages continue to exist and offend good taste.

Social pressure is a big deal, because women are the lemming sex and bend to the will of the group more readily than do men. If more older women are getting locked out of the chase for older, resource-rich men, then they will seek succor from their misery by propagandizing the wonderful wonderfulness of fucking younger men in short-term flings. (We here at CH know better. These women hurt badly on the inside.) The lies of feminism can have an impact on how socially comfortable women feel about dating older men.

Online dating does create a sex market skew against the intangibles of courtship. That is, women who try to find a man exclusively online will subconsciously bias the crude, artless markers of a man’s SMV — his listed age and profile pic — at the expense of the complex, refined cues of his seductive prowess (amply explored in the CH archives). Luckily, there are plenty of smooth moves a man can execute to evade this age-homogamy bias of online dating.

Lack of game. This is the big pink tuna. In my travels around the world of women, I’ve come to observe that younger man-older woman relationships are invariably of four kinds:

– The older woman was preternaturally attractive and slender, and competing in a local market filled with chubby younger women and off-the-market married men. In this milieu, an older woman (but not too much older) will capture the interest of younger unmarried men fed up with the feeding schedules of their female peers.

– The younger man was a beta male to the core. This is the explanation for 90% of younger man-older woman marriages. You take a lesser beta with little experience bedding women, add an older, sexually aggressive broad with her talons out for contractually locking down an indentured servant a husband, and you’ve got a combustible situation the beta has no hope of exerting any control over its direction. These couples flout natural law because the beta male has few sexual market options, or believes in his heart he has few options. Scarcity mentality is the soulkiller of masculinity.

– The younger man was black, the older woman a flabby white. For biomechanical reasons I don’t feel like hammering into submission yet again, it is an observable fact that black men are simply more tolerant of SMV hideousness in the women they screw, and this goes double when black men date white women. A black man will spear white land whales or go down on the wrinkled vag flaps of old white women that no white man would touch.

– The older woman was rich. Many of the younger men in these relationships are closeted gays on the psychopathy spectrum.

tl;dr: There’s a reason we feel an emotional swell of harmoniousness when we see older man-younger woman couples, and we feel a jolt of emotional discomfort when we see the opposite.

Update

I forgot to mention sex ratio skew as a potential cause of increased younger man-older woman marriages. In a prime nubility market in which men outnumbered (against the historical average) the available hot young minxes, there would be immense pressure at the younger male margins to tragically settle for older women who are the sexual and/or marital discards of older alpha men in the process of trading up to younger lovers. An ahistorical sex ratio skew can introduce plenty of tumult and “black swans” into the normal functioning of the sexual market.

It’s time for a sequel to the original “International Truth Day“.

– the ugliness of the world is proven by the energy devoted to hiding that ugliness under mountains of platitudes and self-deluding hokum.

– i have yet to see an exception to the rule that fat men who lose weight promptly start dating thinner girls than they dated when they were fat.

– the specter of options, or lack thereof, is always haunting one’s choices, despite any assertions to the contrary.

– christie brinkley at 60 beats lindy west at 220.

– christie brinkley at 20 beats christie brinkley at 60, no matter how good 60-year-old christie “looks for her age”.

– eventually, money, or space, will run out. when either does, liberal pieties will vanish in a puff of smoke, as if they had never existed. don’t underestimate the flimsy nature of post-industrial morality.

– female “natural beauty” is spoken of with sentimental reverence, because it is so rare, and the rarer still not long past the teenage years.

– nearly all women look better with strategically applied make-up. maybe one in a thousand women are equally attractive without cosmetic illusion.

– the numbers of women who look just as good without makeup are dwarfed by the numbers of women who ruin their looks with too much makeup. this proves that women universally understand the critical importance of artificially improving their appearance to remain attractive to men.

– a woman will fish an alpha male’s used condom out of the trash to impregnate herself. she’ll demand her beta boyfriend wear a condom.

– guilt is a man’s second wife.

– later marriages = passionless marriages. the marital norm is shifting to less passion.

– fat men desire the same thing that thin men desire: slender babes. ugly old women desire the same thing that hot, young women desire: sexy alpha males. the demand far outstrips the supply. in economic terms, sexual desire is inelastic while the stimulants of sexual desire are a scarce resource.

– in the trade-off between inelastic sexual desire and scarce desire stimulants, we find the innumerable losers starved for affection.

– there will never be a post-scarcity sexual economy. not even one in which beauty and charm are genetically engineered to perfection. in the gattaca of the future, all it takes is one man trying to get a leg up on others for the equalist utopia to shatter.

– “diversity is our strength” is the Prime Lie of our age.

– Liberal Race Creationism is the Totalitarianism of our age. like Totalitarianism, Liberal Race Creationism is destined to fall.

– fathers provide confidence, mothers provide comfort. when parents attempt to reverse those roles, their children suffer emotional distress.

– the ideal long-term relationship dynamic is one in which the woman is (if such an intersex comparison could be made) more physically appealing than the man, and the man is more socially appealing than the woman.

– options = instability.

– the WAR (Wins Above Replacement) stat in baseball is useful as a sexual market analytic. the higher a man’s WAR (Women Above Replacement, or the number of additional women he could get above the number of women the average man is expected to get), the more valuable he will be to women scouting for mates.

– the only pro-natalist argument that makes any philosophical sense is the hedonistic argument: that is, the true pleasure of having and raising kids over a lifetime outweighs their psychic, social and material costs and the opportunity cost of giving up pleasures derived from other sources… unless the premise of an illimitable black void after death is wrong, in which case competing pro-natalist arguments gain currency.

– philosophy is nice, but unfalsifiable human emotions will have the final say.

– if nonwhite immigrants become more patriotic and flag-waving, expect to see white natives become less so. tribes demand differences, even if those differences must be paid in a sacrifice of civic fellowship.

– if a wife or girlfriend calls you her “best friend”, start looking for replacement pussy. you’re already pushed halfway out the door.

– synthetic vaginal lubricant is the tribute frigid wives pay to their beta husbands.

– it’s easy to control the frame once you stop giving a shit. corollary: you will almost always cede the frame if you care more than the other person.

– when you observe naturals to learn their ways, you will fortuitously learn more about women than about naturals.

– discretion is the better part of seduction, but the conventional wisdom is wrong: women are often the ones to break the code of silence first, especially when they have developed strong feelings for a man.

– a man’s romantic love for a woman fades in direct proportion to the fade of her looks plus the time spent in a monogamous relationship with her.

– in every successful, long-lasting relationship, romantic love was replaced by companionate love.

– kink is just a desperate attempt by unattractive has-beens to recapture the sexual passion of youth.

– a big penis is like PEDs; it’s prohibited from use in precisely those circumstances when it could be most useful.

– the meaning of life is still to fuck.

– politeness never defeated an existential threat.

– men in long, happy marriages to first or second loves can never give insightful advice about women. for that, turn to cads with recent experience and a high N sample size.

– strong evil beats weak good every time.

– SJW hate merchants make the fatal mistake of assuming their hate can be limited to those targets with whom it is hard to empathize. but hate is a fragmentation grenade. blowback is inevitable.

– a dead lion is worth more to white liberals than a million aborted black fetuses.

– eventually, in every relationship, terms of endearment and professions of love become as perfunctory as belching. and about as meaningful.

– cynicism is the handmaiden of experience; hope is the burden of innocence.

– a rapist (bill clinton) and a community organizer (barack butt naked) were elected president twice.

– a lonely woman inspires sympathy. a lonely man inspires contempt.

– racism is normal, natural, healthy… and most evident in the actions of those claiming otherwise.

– when women aren’t openly adoring cruel men, they are sleeping with them.

– women who shun men with standards are the women who can’t live up to them.

– a man with strict standards is like a beautiful woman; both make their lovers feel like they have acquired something priceless.

– fake it till you make it, and once made you will no longer be faking it.

– this, too, shall pass, but you’ll probably be dead before then.

– love is easily missed, carelessly denied, fleetingly intense, nakedly vulnerable… and for all these reasons it is more precious than anything else in this world.

There is a relatively new class of troll who bears a striking resemblance to the well-known “concern troll”, but who is in some respects far more insidious in his methodology and ability to derail comment threads on blogs devoted to the teachings of the charisma arts. I call this new breed the “game contradictions troll”.

A classic example of the game contradictions troll is this comment by “The Shrike” (who may not necessarily be an insincere troll, but whose complaint nonetheless serves as an ideal representative of the sort of comment a game contradictions troll would leave).

A lot of sound advice in this post. It looks like the author is slowly shifting away from the unabashed, detached Lothario pose to a more conservative outlook on life. Conservative values are not my own, but it seems that this is a more consistent approach when it comes to the opinions often professed by the author and most of the commenters here. A recurrent theme is the impending collapse of the Western civilization, largely caused by female hypergamy. The majority seems to abhor the fact modern women ride the proverbial “cock-carousel”, seemingly forgetting that no amount of game would be effective against uptight prudes who only ever do it after marriage, and only to procreate.

Game contradictions trolls thrive on a studied ignorance or disavowal of the true fact of life that there are different standards for the sexes, and that these standards are not set by men, but by nature, and men merely conform to these sexual market standards and rationalize their fairness (or unfairness) when it suits them, (we are not a rational species, we are a rationalizing species).

No one on this board has claimed that female hypergamy is the prime cause of Western decline. Female hypergamy is one of those differing sexual market standards that apply to women and not to men, and that can’t be wished away. The assertion often made at CH is that female hypergamy is a real phenomenon, and it is best to accept the reality of it and MAKE IT WORK FOR YOU rather than shake your fist ineffectually at it in hopes women magically cure themselves of their evolved desire to mate with, and extract the commitment of, the highest status men that their looks can realistically afford.

Riding the cock carousel is NOT necessarily a manifestation of female hypergamy. The cock carousel is the consequence of socially atomized anonymous urban environments coupled with contraceptives and economic self-sufficiency providing cover and incentive for women to indulge the part of their sexuality that yearns for dominant, charming, jerkboy cads who are hard to pin down into committed relationships. This is not female hypergamy fulfilled, but female hypergamy THWARTED, as it is the Darwinian directive of every woman to land the most desirable alpha man and to KEEP HIM AROUND.

There is an interesting clash of contradicting attitudes here. Not arguments between different posters, but internally inconsistent opinions voiced by the same people. Game is still a hallowed topic, not to be touched with a mortal hand, but it runs counter to the otherwise conservative leanings of the commenters. A stable family-unit, also much cherished around here, is mutually exclusive to widespread promiscuity exemplified by men who “game” women, and women who are willing to play along.

Another category error made often and reliably by trolls and anti-game haters. “Game” is not synonymous with promiscuity, although game certainly aids the pursuit of promiscuity if that is what is desired. A man could just as easily use game — aka learned charisma — to meet, seduce, date, and when the time is right, marry the most beautiful oneitis he has ever laid eyes on. I wouldn’t recommend it, but there you go.

Ultimately, there is a choice to be made if a man is to be congruent at the most basic level. Either champion a virtuous society where loyalty matters a lot, and people pair up with the intention of forming serious relationships. Or support the cad lifestyle where jumping from one woman to the next without any consideration is the norm.

Men have a longer SMV window than women and bear a smaller cost for each act of copulation than do women, which means in practice each man can, and should, get some romantic experience under his belt (heh) and then marry, if he wishes to marry, a younger woman. The fact of biologically grounded sex differences which aren’t going anywhere means that cadding about is always going to be less psychologically, reproductively and emotionally expensive for men than slutting around will be for women.

If it’s the latter, then it’s difficult to blame women for trying to do the same.

First, most women aren’t interested in doing the same, despite transparently try-hard protestations to the contrary by fat, bitter feminists. Second, it’s not difficult to blame the women trying to emulate the lifestyle of the alpha male cad for their short-sightedness. Different sex-based standards in the sexual market, and different sex-based psychosexual temperaments, are an emergent fact of life, not a directive handed down by the invisible pimp hand of the patriarchy.

If it’s the former, then much of the game concept goes out the window, though some aspects of getting a chosen female interested presumably are still useful.

How about, “game gives men the tools to successfully attract and keep women in sexual and emotional relationships.” There. That’s not so hard now, is it?

NPR Shitlibs And Pit Bulls

Commenter Dr Giggles passes along a funny real-life confirmation of the CH observation that pit bulls have become a save-a-thug-dog accessory for SWPLs who just can’t stop status whoring by redirecting their overcharged altruistic impulse past fellow badwhites (and the dogs preferred by badwhites, such as labs) and onto blacks and the dogs most resembling blacks in scowl and tendency to spontaneous violence.

I’d like to point out that this isn’t the first time CH has called out Shitlib High Priest Ira Glass on his mewling, manlet mannerisms. Years ago CH wrote about a trend involving SWPLs (predecessors to SJWs and Shitlibs) adopting rescue pit bulls. CH thoroughly dismissed their selfish intentions as nothing more than a savior complex gone sideways.

https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2013/02/10/pasty-spotted-ass-chipmunk-cheeked-herbling-swpls-and-pitbulls/

Well, guess who owns one and then did a story about how disastrous it has been for him? Not only does Glass’ pit bull, Piney, ruin his social life by attacking visitors, but the damn thing attacks him and his wife regularly. On top of that he has to buy exotic food, like kangaroo meat because Piney gets allergies. The dog also gets prescribed Valium by the vet. Glass puts up with it on account of his wife, and with the help of some monster sized hamster pellets.

http://m.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/480/animal-sacrifice

A part of me would love it if more SWPLs adopted rescue pit bulls and had their faces torn off in the middle of the night because their pit bulls inexplicably went on unprovoked chomp-outs. But then there are the SWPL kids, innocent bystanders to their parents’ warped delusions about the world and need to preen for other SWPLs by taking on dog cuck projects, with whom one must sympathize. Pit bulls are known to have a real taste for yummy infant meat.

Predictably, after the shitlib gets his face eaten off, he’ll blame dog discrimination and his knapsack of white dog owner privilege, and say that although he was disappointed in his pit bull, Flaytavious, more needs to be done to lift this misunderstood breed out of poverty and hopelessness.

***

hosswire adds a comment about dog breeds so full of shitlib pants-wetting implications for humanity that it’s a wonder the Ministry of Hateful Anti-Hate Censorship didn’t flag it for “disappearance”.

Before 1835, the most vicious dog breed around was probably the Bulldog. It was bred to fight, or bait, bulls for entertainment. With an aggressive temperament, underslung jaw and thick neck, it attacked bulls in a ring, latching its teeth onto the bull’s nose and hanging on until the bull collapsed.

Once bull-baiting was outlawed in the UK, some called for the eradication of the breed. Instead, breeders deliberately bred the aggressiveness out of the breed, selecting the most gentle and calm specimens and eliminating the rest. Today, the English Bulldog is a pretty safe choice for a family pet.

The same thing could happen with pit bulls, if breeders and owners chose to do it. But it’s unlikely, as long as people continue to deny that it is inherently aggressive to start with.

The first step in progress is to stop telling lies. The rest of the steps are a piece of cake after that first step.

A recent cross-cultural study with a large sample size has found… or, rather, re-found… that men and women have radically different mate-preference psychologies, and that these differences are even larger than previously thought. (Parenthetically, the study also found that feminists are still idiots.)

Men’s and women’s ideas of the perfect mate differ significantly due to evolutionary pressures, according to a cross-cultural study on multiple mate preferences by psychologists at The University of Texas at Austin.

The study of 4,764 men and 5,389 women in 33 countries and 37 cultures showed that sex differences in mate preferences are much larger than previously appreciated and stable across cultures.

The sharp reader may ask, “Ah, but does this study suffer from a WEIRD bias?” The answer:

“Many want to believe that women and men are identical in their underlying psychology, but the genders differ strikingly in their evolved mate preferences in some domains,” said co-author of the study and psychology professor David Buss. “The same holds true in highly sexually egalitarian cultures such as Sweden and Norway as in less egalitarian cultures such as Iran.”

No WEIRD bias.

The researchers suggest that these patterns of mate preferences are far more linked to gender than any individual mate preference examined separately would suggest.

Thus confirming the CH ugly truth that attractiveness standards for men and women are universal and sex-based, and that the hope of everyone being a special snowflake having equal sexual market value is a myth.

Researchers found that they could predict a person’s sex with 92.2 percent accuracy if they knew his or her mate preferences.

WOW. Think on that. The implications are far-reaching, and VERY discomfiting to believers in the sex-based blank slate.

According to the study, men favor mates who are younger and physically attractive. Women seek older mates with good financial prospects, higher status and ambition.

Amanda Marcotte’s id just emitted a death wail.

“Because women bear the cost of pregnancy and lactation, they often faced the adaptive problem of acquiring resources to produce and support offspring, while men faced adaptive problems of identifying fertile partners and sought cues to fertility and future reproductive value,” Conroy-Beam said.

These sex-based mate preferences are evolved over millennia and deeply embedded in our hindbrains, so even in a modern environment where women are coddled by the State and pregnancy is easily avoided or terminated by technology interventions, and where women are bloating up into disfigured pigbeasts hiding fertility cues under layers of blubber, we still find that the old evolved preferences continue to exert the primary influence over our desires and preferences.

But, it is possible that some powerful modern sexual market disturbances, such as the Pill, may alter certain preexisting mate preferences which are more flexible in nature, wired for adaptability to changing environmental pressures. Women in a state of nature prefer men with good financial prospects 3/4ths of the time and sexy PUAs during ovulation, but women in a manufactured state of existence where the Pill is widespread and cheap may more frequently, or more intensely, favor the layabout alpha cad over the dependable, resource-rich beta provider, because the cost of pregnancy has been obviated, (a change in their environmental reality which would register subconsciously in women).

Which mate preferences varied the most by sex?

Of the 19 mate preferences that researchers considered, five varied significantly based on gender: good financial prospects, physical attractiveness, chastity, ambition and age.

Chicks dig:
well-off men,
ambitious men,
older men.

Men dig:
beautiful women,
younger women,
and (this is my favorite anti-feminist ugly truth) chaste women who haven’t ridden the cock carousel until the gears fell off.

Four other preferences — pleasing disposition, sociability and shared religious and political views — were not sex-differentiated.

What men and women share in common can be just as interesting as where they diverge. While “pleasing disposition” is a bit vague to get a proper CH-ian handle on — many a charming jerkboy would be asserted by women to have a “pleasing disposition” — it’s not at all surprising that men and women prefer lovers who agree at least in part with their own values and religious views. Sex is great, and love better, but after a few years if you love Jesus and she loves Shiva, or you’re Team Trump and she’s Team Cuck, that’s gonna cause some friction. Unless you’re in the minority of people for whom a conventional value such as religious affiliation doesn’t serve as a personal identifier.

I’d like to know exactly what the study authors were measuring with “Sociability”. Does this mean extroverts, of either sex, tend to prefer extroverted lovers, and introverts likewise? I wonder about that. I could see an extroverted drama queen getting exasperated with an introverted man who hates drama, but I’ve also seen a lot of couples where that combination of extrovert-introvert seemed to produce a balancing force that kept each of their worst instincts in check. And left unspoken, they understood how that dynamic benefited them.

“Few decisions impact reproduction more than mate choice,” Conroy-Beam said. “Mate preferences will therefore be a central target and driver of biological evolution.”

The sexual market is the one market to rule them all.

…and the results cause the men to burst into tears.

Via his poasting career, one of the funniest stories I’ve read this year.

After all of the usual caveats (unemployed T levels higher than employed T levels, testosterone does not correlate with success, etc) and complete blackout of obvious confounding bix noody variables we get to the point:

It turns out that the gay Jew has the highest testosterone level at 274. The other four men are clustered around half of that (144)

“In general, the normal range in males is about 270 to 1070 ng/dL with an average level of 679 ng/dL. A normal male testosterone level peaks at about age 20, and then it slowly declines.”

144. Male shitlibs are LITERALLY low T manlets.

One thing that jumped out at me, though, was the longing for normalcy. The two of the three women wanted to be low testosterone and feminine. The (almost uniformly whiny) straight(ish) men wanted to be high T. Even in the heart of poz. As creeped out as I was by the entire segment, I managed to extract a tiny grain of hope.

Hope or not, though, after listening to this segment I needed to move leg day up to lift away the poz.

Biomechanics is God, and He rules over even self-deluding shitlibs.

Lift away the poz. gentlemen. Your balls will grow three sizes with every new 1 rep max at the squat rack. Then you can enjoy the whiny spectacle of a sniveling, sneering leftoid disingenuously snark about why you want White men to be more aggressive like black men.

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Also reachable over Tor: roissyrwpgxawb3etwznvay4eelbws4lkdtr4tt2r7wxb6adq6pajtqd.onion