Feed on
Posts
Comments

New research shows that fat shits who are offered a financial incentive to lose weight… lose weight! And keep it off.

The research study by researchers at Mayo Clinic suggests that weight loss study participants who received financial incentives were more likely to follow the weight loss program strictly, and they noticed a reduction in their body weight when compared to those participants who didn’t receive any incentives.

Prior to this, a study showed how financial incentives help people lose weight. This study had a lesser number of participants who were followed for 12-36 weeks, while the latest study was conducted on 100 participants who were followed for one year.

The participants in the new study were employees of Mayo Clinic or their dependents belonging to the age group of 18-63, with a BMI of 30-39.9 kg/m2. These participants were divided into four groups, out of which two groups received financial incentives and two groups didn’t receive any financial incentives. […]

The researchers noticed that 62 percent of the participants in the incentive group achieved the goal, while just 26 percent from the non-incentive group hit the target. The mean weight loss of participants from the incentive group was 9.08 pounds and the mean weight loss for the non incentive group was 2.34 pounds.

With enough incentive — financial, romantic, pain avoidance (heh heh heh) — fatties can slim down. The problem is that there aren’t enough incentives to stay thin in modern America. “Fat acceptance” and “thin privilege” excuse mongers are sprouting up everywhere, like bloated weeds. Feminists and their suck-up manboob Pusstorian Guard have been on the shrieking rampage for decades trying to shame women away from staying thin and sexy. Fat craps are accommodated just about every place they steer their load bearing scooters.

People have more or less willpower, but everyone, barring a few unsalvageable outliers, has it. How much willpower a fatty brings to the buffet will depend on her attitude toward health, aesthetic pride of self, and desire to please the opposite sex. Those fatties who understand the consequences of their blimpage and don’t flirt with destructive self-annihilating ideologies of lies like feminism which propagandize the elevation of self-esteem and the ego and the debasing of biological reality and sexual attractiveness standards will do best at resisting the path of feast insistence. For the others… their eternal torment is my sadistic pleasure.

Fatsos: It’s not in their genes. It’s in their hearts.

And their double-wide parachute pants.

Piles of evidence already exist that women are a distinct species characterized to varying degree by their predilection for scampering after the love of badboys, jerks, assholes and, on occasion, imprisoned drug lords, murderers, serial killers and terrorists. So there’s no need to continue vindicating the Chateau worldview by adding yet another sordid story of pussy perfidy to the heap. At this point, noticing it is just depressing.

But the latest confirmation of the corrupted, careless nature of unleashed female sexuality offers a chance to examine a common refrain heard from those who in good faith contest the scope of the theory that chicks dig jerks. From the “Why the hell are we letting women become guards in male prisons?” file,

Thirteen female corrections officers essentially handed over control of a Baltimore jail to gang leaders, prosecutors said. The officers were charged Tuesday in a federal racketeering indictment.

Sex, drugs and prisoners were all involved in this recent FBI sting. The Washington Post’s Ann Marimow explains what was happening behind the prison walls.

The indictment described a jailhouse seemingly out of control. Four corrections officers became pregnant by one inmate. Two of them got tattoos of the inmate’s first name, Tavon — one on her neck, the other on a wrist. […]

According to an affidavit for search warrants for the homes of the prison guards, who were arrested Tuesday, gang leaders strategically recruited female officers who they thought had “low self-esteem and insecurities.”

Ya give the ladies the keys to the clink, and they turn it into a concubinage. Good job, beneficiaries of feminism! So who was the Big Man who ruled over his armed and willing sex slaves who were supposed to rule over him?

 ”the ringleader of it all, according to the indictment, is Tavon White, a four-year inmate charged with attempted murder. He reportedly made $16,000 in one month off the smuggled contraband. Four corrections officers–Jennifer Owens, Katera Stevenson, Chania Brooks and Tiffany Linder, [ed: ruh roh, a couple of those names sound like white wimmenz!] who are also facing charges — allegedly became impregnated by White since he’s been in jail. Charging documents reveal Owens had ‘Tavon’ tattooed on her neck and Stevenson had ‘Tavon’ tattooed on her wrist.”

“But he was really a nice guy! I could see that in him.”

So much for the conventional wisdom that female prison guards are boxy dykes. Or maybe they were lesbians, but the overwhelming musky aroma of the alpha male prisoners converted them back into the hetero fold. Another possibility: All the lezbo guards work in female prisons. Zip it up, Grandmaster Fap. If you’ve seen female prisoners you’d know that the reality doesn’t come close to meeting the porno fantasy.

It would be understandable if you were to inquire about the quality of the women that upstanding citizen Tavon was banging and roping into his prison crime syndicate on the strength of his irresistible ghetto charms. While photos haven’t been forthcoming, odds are fairly good these women were less than stellar specimens of female beauty and femininity.

Obviously, female quality matters when judging a man’s alphaness. A man who pulls one hot babe is more alpha than a man who pulls fifty biodiesel dirigibles.

However, within the confines of some peculiar arrangements, and past a certain proportionality, quantity is its own quality. So how alpha was Tavon? First, he was working with a restricted (and self-selected) pool of candidates. On the streets, who knows for certain what quality of women he could get, but given his proven skill at seducing female prison guards to do his bidding, it’s a good bet he was probably pulling better quality outside than his available selection within prison.

Second, Tavon managed to convince four of the women to get pregnant by him (or convince them to not worry so much about protection). That shows he’s got the game to take it to the next level.

Third, even if Tavon was boffing ugly women, that’s still thirteen ugly women who decided to pass on loving, intimate relationships with omega or even lesser beta freemen for illicit harem duty with an attempted murderer in jail. No matter how ugly the woman, there’s gonna be some desperate omega male playing by the rules and clocking in at his nine to five who could’ve used that ugly woman’s company to rescue him from total loneliness.

But, poor omegas and betas… they’re not just competing with free alphas, they’re competing with alphas ostensibly removed from societal circulation.

There’s really nothing to learn from this story beyond that which we already know:

1. Chicks love dominant men.
2. Women in love with assholes will rationalize anything.
3. A core concept of game is asserting your dominance over women by displaying higher status and/or undermining a woman’s relative status.
4. A charming, violent inmate will leave more descendants to suckle on the state teat than a diligent, law-abiding beta male will leave to contribute to the state teat.

With this swirl of good news, perhaps now is a time to remind each other of the beautiful, inclusive, and downright revolutionary history of the season we call Spring, when girlie tops get sheerer and skirts get shorter. Go forth, happy hour imps, and be the asshole women adore!

So Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the older Muslim Boston bomber brother, had a loving white American wife of WASPy lineage who donned his approved Islamic head coverage and bore him his hell-spawnage. Some have asked, where was Katherine Russell’s father during her descent into badboy servitude? If the photo of the dad after news of Tamerlan’s death is any indication, the guy is giddy that his son-in-law is no longer for this world.

Arranged marriages don’t sound like much fun, but one problem with moving as a culture toward exclusively love-based marriage is that it neuters the ability of parents to exert any control over their daughters’ instinctual romantic compulsions. The ancients knew that women’s libidos were dangerous when left unchecked. But a culture that prizes doe-eyed love as the be-all and end-all of legitimate marriage must come to terms with the fact that many women love the wrong kinds of men. It’s in their genes.

When lust-fueled love as a basis for forming putative lifelong marital unions crowds out all other considerations, the influence that parents wield over their daughters’ mate choices gets winnowed as well. After all, who is a parent to say what his or her daughter feels? Love knows no reason. And so what you get is fathers like the one above, powerless to stop his daughter’s stupid decisions, and overjoyed when fate steps in to excise the cancer from his family that he wished he could excise himself, but never had the guts nor the informal societal support to do so.

Love makes betas of men, in more ways than one, and it would be wise to remember that some of those men are fathers whose authority has been gutted by the awesome power of love.

Vignettes Of Game

Vignettes of Game is a new series featuring brief real-life episodes of what most skilled allurement artisans would consider tight game. This is not an alpha male assessment series; it is instead a snapshot in time and space of game being flawlessly executed. The purpose is to educate readers about the power of game using practical examples rather than abstruse theory as a guide.

Our first vignette of game comes from reader “M.L.”:

Small anecdote – inane game vindicated.

walking with girl #1 into our building (we work together). it’s a cold morning. as we walk in she remarks “i don’t know how you don’t freeze in the winter, the tips of my ears are frozen and your hair is so short.”

response: “i knew you’re self-absorbed, but it’s unnecessary to demean my ears for attention”

her : (laughs) “i think you’ve got incredible ears…(eyes light up)…no part of you isn’t incredible”

response: (laughs) (shoves her away from the door as we approach.)

her: (laughs) (grabs me and jumps up to kiss me) “i’ll see you later?”

response: smirk and walk away.

texts come in an hour later…etc. any feedback appreciated, but i thought this was properly executed.

Start with a tease (unpredictability), follow with a playful physicality (kino), end with a deft handling of beta bait (signal of non-neediness). This game is solid, tight, unimpeachable. Would pick-up again.

When you’re walking or standing in a large space with a group of men, say friends or work colleagues, and you’re talking to one or more of them, look straight ahead instead of at the person(s) you’re addressing. (If you feel it necessary, you may quickly eyeball your intended audience to lock their attention, then look away while talking.) To outside observers — and some of these outside observers will be pretty women subconsciously evaluating your mate quality —  the “look straight ahead while walking and talking” pose appears more alpha. This is especially true if the person you are talking to is looking at you with rapt attention while walking or standing at your side. This social construction pings the leader-follower dynamic.

The worst pose is to be seen walking and looking at the person you are addressing, while that person is looking straight ahead. It doesn’t matter if he’s studiously listening to you, or if he thinks you’re The Man. You will appear like Igor obsequiously yapping at the side of his mad scientist boss.

The actual hierarchy of your group is irrelevant; a woman unfamiliar with you and your acquaintances will perceive your alphaness or lack thereof based on subtle body language and social interaction cues. So if you want to widen the pool of female mating prospects, it’s in your interest to get in the habit of projecting alphaness as often as you can, and there’s no excuse not to when the cost for doing so is low.

A kind of prisoner’s dilemma does arise in these situations. You have to bank on the expectation that your addressee will continue looking at you while you talk. If he turns away as well, some of the alphaglow that would accrue to you will be dimmed. If you look back at him to recapture his attention, he may look away, and you are left appearing beta Igor-ish. Nevertheless, as a general principle, the “look straight ahead while walking and talking” affectation will in most scenarios and most times redound to your benefit.

The one caveat is when you are sitting with your group, or standing in a small space (indoors, instead of outdoors). There it will strike those around you as strange and awkward if you can’t look people in the eye when talking to them.

The Wickedest Links

1. Often the best way to judge a man’s sexual market value is by the lengths to which his lover will go to please him. And by that measure, Tamerlan Tsarnaev was one hell of an alpha male. Cute Katherine Russell, The Muslim Bomber’s enraptured lover, once dreamed of going to college and joining the Peace Corps (LEFTOID ALERT). Instead, at age 21, she married Tsarnaev, bore him a vibrant spawn, converted to Islam, started wearing a hijab, and essentially surrendered her identity to submit, completely, utterly, to the man she loved. Her love did not dim even after he assaulted her in 2009. White nationalists who never miss an opportunity to white knight for white women in putative distress should take the lesson of this sordid tale to heart: You will never win the Western white woman’s loyalty by polishing her pedestal; you can only take her loyalty by showing her you can win. Chicks dig a winner.

2. Violent criminals are biologically different than the rest of us. Evidence is mounting that criminality has a physiological basis. For instance, violent criminals and psychopaths have lower resting heart rates. Causation is murky, but the correlations are strong, and it leads one to wonder if, or how, this knowledge that criminals have different brain structures than non-criminals will affect the dispensation of justice. Prediction: The lawyers will smell chum in the water and, like they have done for low IQ murderers, will manage to wrangle reduced sentences for killers on grounds of impaired volition. Alternate scenario: Minority Report.

3. Cross-cultural differences in newborn behavior (via West Hunter). Watch the video. This is the kind of inarguable evidence for innate behavioral differences in human races that should, in a sane world, send equalists who believe in cultural conditioning phantasms scurrying for shelter under rocks and in caves. But we no longer live in a sane world; it’s their world now, and that means more insanity, more sophistry, and more cheap status whoring.

4. Farming allowed civilization to flourish, but it came with costs, which we are still paying today. Question now is, do we try to recreate as feasibly as possible our ancient hunter-gatherer environment, or do we wait out the limitless suffering of the maladaptive losers until evolution has finished its culling for those who can withstand the peculiar stresses of modernity?

5. A ruling class leftoid says the freedoms enshrined in the American Constitution must be changed to help protect American freedoms. Orwell wept. Then laughed. Then spun in his grave. Remember when liberals used to be champions of American rights? Not anymore, now that the globalist leftoid prime directive is soft genocide against the white majority.

6. “[A] common border between two countries actually reduces the communication density between them, perhaps because of increased tensions.” Evidence for the CH maxim that diversity + proximity = war. Bryan Caplan’s bubble hardened.

7. The zipless fuck has become the new norm. First they scoffed. Then they sputtered. Then they knelt before the Lord of the Chateau, and sucked his cock in tribute. It should be no surprise to anyone reading here that mothers of boys are the realist of female realtalkers.

8. Krauser (a fellow traveler in the appreciation and love of women) has had some good posts lately. Here’s one on setting the frame in Skype. Here’s an interview with Daygame.com about “long game” and international pick-up. And finally, here’s an interesting post about what your video gaming habits say about your SMV rank. (Before you ask, yes, alpha males do occasionally play video games. There are some downtime enjoyments that are so essentially male they are an irresistible draw to men. Like the draw of banging farm fresh poosy. Or shooting cans off tree stumps.)

In this post, we discussed a study which showed that women with longer legs appear more attractive to men. (and men with relatively shorter legs and longer torsos are more attractive to women).

A reader speculates about what that sex difference could mean for men seeking to efficiently scour the mating market for effortless bangs.

Just as a strong jaw is masculine, short legs in a woman is also masculine (http://www.femininebeauty.info/leg-body-ratio).

You can easily see in those pictures short legs are masculine and long legs are feminine, and this true for both sexes. This is probably comparable to facial width and finger digit ratio as a “nurture neutral” indication of masculinity.

Women with longer legs prefer alpha males too, but apparently have greater beta male tolerance. If you look at supermodels, and other women with extremely long legs, you’ll see most don’t automatically swoon for bad boys, although they have access to them. A lot of them have photographer, artist and otherwise effeminate boyfriends. However, you rarely see a short stripper type with anything less than a standard bad boy.

I guess I’m saying a heterosexual masculine woman will have a stronger preference for masculine men, or that she has masculine men in her ancestry. The question then becomes, do her masculine genetics increase her attraction to alpha males?

Examples:
Cameron Russell (supermodel) with her boyfriend Andrew Elliott (photographer)
http://www.twylah.com/CameronCRussell/topics/andrew
http://www.fashionfreude.com/2012/11/06/victorias-secret-show-2012/vs/

Bibi Jones (porn star, stripper, etc) with Rob Gronkowski
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gameon/post/2012/09/19/rob-gronkowski-porn-star/70000681/1
http://wickedimproper.com/2011/11/now-wait-just-a-god-damn-minute/

As you can see from the full-length photos, Cameron is 50% legs to body whereas Bibi is 40% or less.

This reader is touching on something real. While studies are sparse (nonexistent?), it does appear to be the case that, anecdotally and observationally, masculine women tend to go for very masculine men. (Recall that “masculine” does not necessarily mean “alpha“, as we can see by the fact that many effeminate artist types do quite well with cute women.)

So the rule generally expressed is as follows:
Given the axiom that most women prefer men more phenotypically and behaviorally masculine than themselves:

a. Masculine women will prefer very masculine men and avoid feminine men, and

b. Feminine women will prefer men of average to slightly higher than average masculinity and tolerate feminine men.

As a rule, this makes some sense. Sexual polarity is the cosmic force that breathes life into all other psychodynamic human motivations. When the sexual polarity is weak, or reversed (i.e., wimpy, soft men with hard-charging, hard-edged women), any nascent attraction is incapable of being sustained, and any relationship that results from such unions will have more obstacles to overcome and higher risk of infidelities than relationships that are sufficiently polarized by conventional male and female attributes.

Therefore, women will want to choose masculine men to retain that all-important polarity, but the degree of male masculinity required to reach a suitable level of polarity will vary based upon the woman’s own inherent masculinity.

This rule of what I will call “Shifted Female Masculinity Preference” — that is, the idea that the preference of women for masculine men is shifted to greater masculinity in men relative to the women’s own masculine attributes and psychological traits — has plenty of exceptions, and so I would not set my watch to it, nor should you, the efficient pursuer of women, rely on it exclusively to streamline your seduction operations. It’s a loose rule you can use to winnow a lot of prospects to a manageable number.

For instance, if you are a brooding emo WHO DOES NOT EVEN LIFT, you should focus your attention on long-legged women, but never dismiss short-legged women outright. Mesomorphs and “act first, think later” types should tune their radars for short-legged chicks with a twinkle of mischief in their eyes.

Another potential flaw in the rule (besides its lack of robust predictive power) rests in its premise: Are shorter legs and longer torsos really indicative of greater masculinity in women? Manjaws certainly are, but lots of short-legged women have very feminine faces. One way to resolve this issue is to determine if manjaws and short legs correlate in women.

If the rule is accurate and indicative of broad sexual market mating outcomes, we can expect to see greater masculinity in the children of short-legged women, and greater femininity in the children of long-legged women. And, inferring from Satoshi Kanazawa’s (unproven) theory that feminine couples produce more daughters, the former will bear more sons (and perhaps shorter sons) and the latter more (and perhaps taller) daughters.

One other thing we can infer is that less masculine men who date feminine women will compensate for their lower aggression and muscularity by being more psychologically dominant. And in fact one does find that the artist lovers of model chicks tend to be masters in the art of emotional manipulation. The more physically masculine men rely on their presence to assert dominance, but are often weak in the arena of subtle mental persuasion, and have a habit of ostentatiously mate guarding their women, leaving them susceptible to female machinations. This is why more masculine men get used as cat’s-paws by their girlfriends while more feminine — in both body and mind — men are tougher to manipulate. This imperviousness in some men to female manipulation is attractive to many women, and helps create an impression of dominance that fuels the necessary sexual polarity.

A reader passed along this infographic showing the online nodes that constitute what is termed the “Neoreactionary Space”, which you can read about at the source.

I don’t have anything to add, except to say that the Chateau node should be bigger, hairier, and swinging insouciantly.

Take a look at this image capture of a search engine auto-fill:

80% of the questions asked by men are selfless in nature. They are questions about how to please a woman and make her happy. 70% of the questions asked by women are selfish in nature. They are questions about how to get noticed by men, and how to manipulate men’s affections.

These are the male and female ids auto-exposed. Female solipsism is powerful and is an inextricable part of their nature as sexual beings. Women are hard-wired from the womb to turn their focus inward, because their eggs are biologically more valuable than sperm. Men are hard-wired to turn their focus outward, because that is how they acquire status and how they win the love of constitutionally diffident women.

As a man who understands the raw, vital power of game, it behooves you to accept female solipsism for the unalterable fact it is, and to avoid its traps and leverage it for your own ends. Women, selfish at heart, will be driven to QUALIFY men for adherence to women’s personal preferences. Selfish people want to know what others can do for them.

Selfless people want to know how they can please others and win their favor. That’s a crucial difference between women and men. And this difference stems from the essential sex difference.

Many beta males will take the lesson to mean they should bend over even farther to appease women’s selfishness. But that is exactly the wrong conclusion to draw. Abiding a woman’s natural selfishness will only create more selfishness. That’s a beast you don’t want to feed.

The correct response to women’s selfishness and concomitant compulsion to qualify men is to sidestep their efforts to derive your mate value and turn the tables on them, effectively using women’s own psychological inclination against themselves. Instead of relinquishing to her judgment, YOU become the manipulator of romantic yearning and the keeper of mate standards.

Women love this, because this is what alpha males with options do. A man who is in some sense LIKE A WOMAN — a man who judges prospective mates and qualifies them according to his whim — is a man who signals to women that he has loads of options in the sexual market. And as we all know, women can’t resist the allure of the preselected man.

So instead of wondering “how do I make a girl feel special”, start thinking “how can I make this girl miss me”. It’s a subtle shift in thought that will accrue enormously satisfying rewards. Because the sexual spoils go to the selfish pricks.

One Blessing Of Outbreeding

The Boston Marathon Muslim bombers (see what I did there?) were identified and corralled relatively quickly. The reason for the quickness is this: Outbreeding.

To put it more conventionally, a cultural-cum-genetic predisposition toward love-based monogamous marriage that strengthens outbreeding and restricts inbreeding is what helped authorities identify and track the bomber suspects.

By limiting inbreeding, a phenomenon which usually occurs via cousin marriage, the circle of trust is widened. When police ask for tips, this built-in higher level of trust is effectively an enlarged witness pool, ready to jump in with assistance.

Clannish societies, like Chechnya, are more inbred societies. People there look out for family first, the general public good a distant second. Had the Chechen Muslim brothers (see what I did there again?) committed their murderous act in Chechnya, where clan blood is thick and civic-mindedness is thin, it is likely that they would be on the run for a long time, because family members, 2nd, 3rd, or 10th removed, would be all omertá and the cops, such as they are, would get nothing but cold leads.

America has, until lately, been an outbred society (but still mostly inbred as a continental race). White Americans are mutts of mixed Northwest European ancestry. The circle of trust is generally huge in Anglo nations, and that’s why cops can do their jobs there. Family is still important, but there’s a greater degree of cooperativeness and fellow-feeling than would be found in places like, say, Iraq.

That of course, is all ending now. Diversity and the resentful enclaves spawned in its wake are destroying fellow-feeling. Clannish people are setting up shop in the most American of towns. Cognitive and cultural stratification as described by Charles Murray in Coming Apart is further contributing to the shrinking circle of trust.

Soon now, very soon, the day is coming when future Tsarnaev brothers will get to enjoy a life on the lam in America for many, many years, protected by inner circle insiders who don’t give a shit about the fate of America as a cohesive nation.

PS One curse of outbreeding: Pathological altruism. The kumbaya genes spread out of control until wishful thinking, instead of reality-based thinking, push the stricken population into self-destructiveness.

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Also reachable over Tor: roissyrwpgxawb3etwznvay4eelbws4lkdtr4tt2r7wxb6adq6pajtqd.onion