The Wickedest Links

1. Is low fertility hereditary? Francis Galton thought so. He analyzed English peerages (excerpted from R. A. Fisher’s The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection) and found that those high ability men who had married heiresses — who are the “sole issue of a marriage” — produced fewer children. Thus, the genes of men in high social classes were mingled with the genes of women with a tendency to sterility. Infertility then “gains social promotion”. Sound familiar? Money quote (from Fisher):

[I]n a barbarous society, in which the heroic qualities do possess an intrinsic tribal advantage, the power to appreciate and the proneness to admire such qualities will be enhanced, so long at least as reproduction is actually greatest in the predominant families. The reader who will candidly compare the current attitude towards rash actions in any long civilized society with that among the peoples under discussion, will scarcely doubt that the hero-worship of barbarous peoples was in fact a mental attitude which, however useless to modern man, played in their lives a very essential part. Changed conditions which have reversed the advantage of the heroic qualities, have also reversed the advantage of being able to recognize and appreciate them. It is obvious that the barbarous element in the tradition of our culture is that which emphasizes and indeed exaggerates, the natural inequality of man, whereas the religious and legal elements emphasize his civil equality. From the fact that the barbarians valued more highly certain qualities of human character, it is a fair inference that they perceived such differences more clearly than do civilized men.

Fisher agress with the CH diagnosis of the postmodern West that the end days of a civilization are characterized by an exaltation of deviancy (equalism) and a debasement of normalcy (sophism). We in the West long ago abandoned our barbarian ethos. In return for this “moral progress”, we have limitless pleasures of the flesh and material comforts. But we also have complacency, self-annihilating moral universalism, and infertility. Perhaps a return to barbarian values is just the medicine to save the West from a long walk in the shadow of the valley of death.

The patented CH solution to dysgenic fertility is to break the stranglehold of assortative mating by IQ that is currently aided and abetted by the helicopter parent ethos, and return to traditional pairings of powerful, high ability men with pretty but less educated and accomplished women. Call it the CH boss-secretary sexual strategy to renew Western vitality. This will increase fertility, increase total happiness, and decrease the degenerate SWPL culture monolith that is at the lead of decivilizing and ethnically cleansing great Western nations.

2. Another impolite stereotype confirmed: Girls with daddy issues are easier to bed. This experiment is interesting because it seems to affirm a causal effect that runs from absent dad -> slutty daughter through the use of a psychological technique known as “priming”.

Researchers found that students primed to think about paternal disappointment were more likely to complete the word stems in a sexualized way (SEX for S_X, NAKED for _AK_D) than those who were conditioned to think about fatherly support.

They also revealed more sexually permissive attitudes on the questionnaire.

Miss DelPriore and her team write that their ‘results provide the first true experimental evidence supporting a causal relationship between paternal disengagement and changes in women’s psychology that promote risky sexual behavior.’

Jayman will be interested in this study. Prediction: the coming population explosion of teen daughters of bitter single moms will transform the American dating landscape into a coast-to-coast r-selected plunderland for sociopathic badboys with no scruples. *cracks knuckles*

3. “There will come a time when patients stop asking their doctors to make them thin. It will either be because fatness is rare again, or because it has become entirely accepted.” Fat city. Memo to fatties: you eat too much. Get off your fat asses and stop shoving so much crappy food into your pieholes. That’s the cure for obesity. #FatShamingForever

4. Liberals are more likely to kill a white person than a black person to save 100 people. So it’s not that liberals are more moral than conservatives, it’s that they’re “differently moral”. I suppose if you like living with people you can trust, you’d want to stay the hell away from liberals, who obviously suffer from a mental disease that compels them to aid in the extinguishment of their own tribe. It’s a shame they have the run of the place at the moment. On the upside, their disorder guarantees that their power has an expiration date. Heh.

5. The liberal rationalization of discrimination.

In other words, people don’t seem to have an issue with the idea of using useful data to discriminate amongst groups of people itself, but if that discrimination ended up affecting the “wrong” group, it can be deemed morally problematic. As Tetlock et al (2000) argued, people are viewing certain types of discrimination not as “tricky statistical issues” but rather as moral ones. […]

Accordingly, one manages to create a “better” victim of discrimination; one that is proportionately more in need of assistance and, because of that, more likely to reciprocate any given assistance in the future (all else being equal). Such a line of thought might well explain the aforementioned difference we see in judgments between racial discrimination being unacceptable when it predominately harms blacks, but fine when it predominately harmed whites. So long as the harm isn’t perceived as great enough to generate an appropriate amount of need, we can expect people to be relatively indifferent to it. It just doesn’t create the same social-investment potential in all cases.

This is why leftoids won’t countenance the data — real world and scientific — showing that their religious equalism is a fraudulent belief; once they accept that premise and abandon their old faith, the emotional justification for their discrimination in favor of out-groups evaporates.

6. A reminder what an open borders America, courtesy of Bryan Caplan and Cheap Chalupas, would resemble. Yes, the ghetto underworld is as bad as your most fevered nightmares can concoct.





Comments


  1. aside from the barbarous favoring the heroic, think of how many weak beings we keep alive that procreate here, all feelings aside. we just can keep much weaker genetically beings alive long enough to pass them on.

    Like


    • on November 15, 2013 at 9:29 am The Burninator

      Aye, our civilization is geared towards allowing, nay, actively promoting, non-fit genes to propagate. Our science, our politics, our laws, all meant to preserve those who would perish if forced to fend for themselves. Is it any wonder then that we find fewer and fewer men around these days? Not only do we have a constant shrill whine of feminism in every aspect of our lives, but the strong are literally being out-birthed by the weakest amongst us. Throw in a faux unconstitutional “war” every five years to cull out the few strong younger men and badda bing, Wuss Land 2013 is at our doorstep.

      Like


      • good post

        Like


      • fascinating theory

        Like


      • We’re certainly promoting the propagation of genes that are fit for something. Unfortunately, that something bears more resemblance to a Hobbesian war of all against all than to anything we think of as civilization.

        Like


      • I often wonder how deep this rabbit hole goes – and I often suspect it is the one from which all the others radiate.

        Seinfeld, YKWishness aside, had a way of making pretty funny jokes out of profound issues that really aren’t funny.

        I remember one where Jerry muses about how many women are “dateable”. I think he said it was maybe like 20%. Heh, maybe in the mid 90’s…

        Why would that be, if not for dysgenics? Why would our collective loins only burn for a small subset of the female population, the rest being generally repulsive to anyone who has options?

        I know what its like to hook up with a once-in-a-lifetime gorgeous 20 year old – it sticks with you. This is not a trivial matter.

        The same is true for women, as Burn points out above. Maybe even more so for women. But, they aren’t really attracted to beauty, so of course sexual divergence further complicates the issue. Not to mention other, uh, demographic factors in sexual attractiveness.

        If you look at antique photography, well, it’s clear this isn’t a recent development. I wonder what women really looked like in pre-agricultural Northern Europe…

        Like


      • Seinfeld never really took his YKWishness seriously… and his writing buddy, überJude Larry David, was one of those over-the-top-shit-in-even-your-OWN-nest types who would happily skewer his own as well as others.

        Like


      • Correction: It’s our government that is allowing the non-fit to live. It’s been like that for the past 70 years. Civilization tends to favor more docile but more intelligent men and women. Evolution at work.

        Like


      • The mentally strong don’t fall for the line that we are “defending our freedom” or whatever to sell the newest war over in Outer Fuckistan.

        Like


    • Soldiers run in my family.

      Like


    • on November 15, 2013 at 10:31 pm Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM)

      “[I]n a barbarous society, in which the heroic qualities do possess an intrinsic tribal advantage, the power to appreciate and the proneness to admire such qualities will be enhanced, so long at least as reproduction is actually greatest in the predominant families. ”

      Ummmm so Jesus was unheroic because he didn;t stick his cocoakskz into llsoats otsas lotsas gina hoelz nadbutthzozozlzizlzizlzo? zllzlzloz

      “The reader who will candidly compare the current attitude towards rash actions in any long civilized society with that among the peoples under discussion, will scarcely doubt that the hero-worship of barbarous peoples was in fact a mental attitude which, however useless to modern man, played in their lives a very essential part.”

      Actually the barbarous peoplez senteced Jesus to die, while freeing babbrays babbaurus the barbarous hero. This is because babrbabaous poplelovemurdereres andhate Jeussuz zlzlzzo just like da ebenrnekanifieirz zlzozlo and feministsz barbabrous feministz hate jesuusu good strong heroic manly code of honorjesus fmeinsist hate fmeinssa barbrbarbaous fmeinsstz lzlzo

      Changed conditions which have reversed the advantage of the heroic qualities (thebankersz fmeinist movemetz), have also reversed the advantage of being able to recognize and appreciate them (YES ! THE?Y HATE ?J?EUS ANDTHE LAW OFMOSES AND THE HEROES OF THE GREAT BOOKS FORMENLIKE ACHILLES ANDOD:YSSEUSS!). It is obvious that the barbarous element in the tradition of our culture is that which emphasizes and indeed exaggerates, the natural inequality of man (THE DECLARATION OFINDEPENDNENCE AND JESUS AND GREAT BOOKS FOR MAN ALL ACKNOWLEEDGE OUR UNEAUAL UNEQUAL INEAUALITY, BUT YET WE ARE EQUAL UNDERTHELAW MEANING DAT POOOOR CAN’T STEAL FROM RICH AND WOMENZCAN’T KILL BABIEBS ZLZOZOZOZO WOMENCANT BEBARBAAROUS AND KILL BABIES WHICH IS WHY DA FMEISNSITS

      GOT RIDOFDA LAW AS DEY LOVEKILINGBABIEBKSLZLzizzkzk, whereas the religious and legal elements emphasize his civil equality (NO). From the fact that the barbarians valued more highly certain qualities of human character (ODYSUES HOMER SOCRATES ACHILLESZ WER ENO NOT BARBARIANS!! ARE YOU SAYING THATHOMER HOMER DID NOT VALUE chanhrehaatcerz CHARTASTCER> LOZOZOZOZIZIZZOZOZOZOZOZOZO), it is a fair inference that they perceived such differences more clearly than do civilized men.

      llzizzlzzozlzozzzo

      Like


    • on November 16, 2013 at 4:33 pm Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM)

      lzozozolzo

      HEY HEATERTEISTEZZ!! HEATRETEISTESZ!!

      da GBFM has found da TOP FIVE BETAS OF ETERNITYZ!!!

      zlzoozozozozzzolzlzlzolzolzol

      Like


      • Any woman who turns down a marriage proposal is retarded. It’s like turning down free money….get some good sex and be treated well while you feel like it then split and divorce theft him.

        Like


  2. 6. A reminder what an open borders America, courtesy of Bryan Caplan and Cheap Chalupas, would resemble. Yes, the ghetto underworld is as bad as your most fevered nightmares can concoct.

    We won this round.

    http://isteve.blogspot.com/2013/11/american-patriots-dodge-fifth-bullet-of.html

    Which means it is time to get ready for the next round. A short toast, then back to work.

    Matt

    Like


    • Are there still 30 million Mexicans living in the United States pumping out 4 kids per welfare and medicade / Obamacare dependent mother?

      We didn’t win shit.

      The whole amnesty debate is a sham.

      The sides are “legalize all aliens” vs “don’t legalize aliens (but let them all stay and keep breeding on the public dime”.

      As much as the mainstream demonizes the “don’t legalize” side they’re still a Cathedral approved side with Cathedral approved consequences.

      Like


      • Winning the battle versus winning the war was my whole point. No one said it isn’t a clusterfuck. But we just prevented it from getting even more clusterfucky. Neither the Amnesty crowd nor the Amnesty Harder crowd won this time. Status quo prevailed, which is near miraculous since the president, his entire political party, and the establishment of the opposition party were all pushing for something, anything, and now they have to eat shit. Because we didn’t roll over.

        Learn to appreciate victory, and to expect it. It might just become a habit.

        I have no patience for soi-disant allies who defeat themselves before they even begin. Your despair is subversive. The worst advertisement for the cause. The tone of losers.

        Matt

        Like


      • Wake up.

        Nothing was won.

        Nothing. Are there still millions of Mexicans living in this country? Yes. Do their children outnumber those of actual Americans? Yes. Are we still paying for them to breed? Yes.

        Even worse – do some suckers think “hey, we won one!”? Yep.

        From Plutarch:

        The armies separated; and, it is said, Pyrrhus replied to one that gave him joy of his victory that one more such victory would utterly undo him.

        Like


      • What does legalization mean anyway? Voting rights? They can vote anyway and their children are citizens.

        The whole debate is a scam and a distraction.

        Like


      • Your premise is incorrect. Mex birth rates in the USA have crashed since the recession. They’re actually down around replacement now. Having two kids per woman versus three is a distinct improvement.

        Also, all U.S.-born minorities have lower birth rates than non-Hispanic whites now. Black, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian. All of them.

        My source is the CDC. You have to dig a bit, but the data definitely shows it.

        Like


      • Wake up. Nothing was won. Nothing.

        We just made a goal-line stand that helped achieve a significant victory, and you’re bitching that we haven’t won the Super Bowl yet. Shut the fuck up and start prepping for next week’s game.

        These are not Pyrrhic victories, infantryman. We are one step closer to a firm anti-amnesty majority in the House after these near-run shenanigans. You have no conception of the long war.

        Kill the enemy your generals put in front of you and stop hurting your brain with strategic fantasies.

        Matt

        Like


      • You are delusional.

        Wow, nearly have a firm anti-amnesty majority in the house???

        That close to a win?!?!? AMAZING!

        The debate is amnesty (official) vs amnesty (invaders get to live here, reproduce and have it be paid for by welfare and Obamacare, and vote) and you think winning option B is victory. Option B is what they present to you so fools like you don’t do anything effective.

        So in 10 years when the wave of invaders has great-great grandchildren – all of whom are citizens then you’ll be able to pass a law saying “that’s it no more immigration”.

        Oh wait, that’s exactly what exists now it’s just that the anti-immigration laws are ignored…

        and you’ll never be able to vote in another House majority again.

        But don’t worry, voting for Kang over Kodos is a real victory. Nice work “General”.

        Like


      • All you have is wailing and moaning. One can argue the merits of this latest development, but that’s all a separate issue from your bloody-tampon “wows” and triple question-marks.

        In other words, we can assess the situation rationally, but we can’t assess it rationally with you. Nor apparently can we even speak about it in your presence, what with your permanent widow’s temperament and songbook of Funeral Dirges for Every Occasion.

        You’re so fatalist that you can’t even fathom the concept of contextual victory. Maybe a temporary bank of sandbags is just delaying the inevitable. And maybe it is giving us enough time to build more permanent fortifications.

        In any event, sobbing like a sissy in the corner about how WE’RE ALL GONNA DROWN DON’T YOU GET IT WE’RE ALL GONNA DROWWWNN!!! and making references to cartoons is helping nothing. Your brilliant strategy is to piss all over morale by calling every possible good sign chimerical by definition. That fagitude just irks me, and we are all better off without your knee-jerk eschatological incontinence wetting your panties into the stink of eternal crotch rot.

        Matt

        Like


      • “Secondly, I believe we should expand legal immigration, reduce the barriers, reduce the waiting periods and I’ve introduced two amendments to significantly expand legal immigration, to double the caps on legal immigration from 675,000 to 1.3 million and to increase temporary high skilled workers by 500%.” – U. S. Senator Ted Cruz

        Say it with me, Matthew: “controlled opposition”

        Like


      • Mr. Brasky:

        We all know that the GOP are a bunch of equalist tards who think any immigration is good, despite the fact that it’s overwhelmingly Dim-voting brown people. What we have on our side is the logjam that they have with the Dims over details such as amnesty. We need to keep that up.

        In the meantime, we just have to wait for the birth rates of Marxist brown people to continue crashing and for them to head into a demographic death spiral.

        The East Asians are going through this right now. Their worldwide TFR is now actually lower than it is for Europeans. On deck are the Latin Americans and South Asians. Cuba and Puerto Rico have hit the iceberg, and Mexico is down to replacement and continuing to drop. Wait for it…

        Like


      • You ever wonder if the Mexicans are being imported to counteract the black plague in some sort of swallowing a snake to catch the frog to catch the fly way?

        Like


    • quis•ling (ˈkwɪz lɪŋ)

      n.
      a person who betrays his or her country by aiding an invading enemy, often serving later in a puppet government.

      World War Z (the book, not the movie) nailed these people. A Liberal’s brain is so damaged that they’d try and join up with the zombie horde.

      Regarding the Liberal/Conservative actions towards the trolley problem: note that there was no significant correlation between race and a Conservative’s action. Conservatives actually are “colour blind” – it’s the Liberal mind that obsesses with race, and sides with anyone who’s against their own.

      Like


      • Conservatives are becoming less and less colorblind by the hour. We are increasing, the white cuckolds are becoming the rump constituency.

        Everybody is “colorblind” until their first real encounter with “vibrancy.” That’s our ace of spades in the hole.

        Like


      • on November 15, 2013 at 9:35 am The Burninator

        Hence the real meaning behind the conventional saying:

        “Everybody is liberal until their first mugging”

        Tad, Biff and Charles aren’t out mugging folks.

        Like


      • In addition, white leftoidism is literally self-annihilating. Pretty soon, the only leftoids will be brown.

        Like


      • Everybody is “colorblind” until their first real encounter with “vibrancy.” That’s our ace of spades in the hole.
        ^^^^^^^^^

        Mr Thwack, paging Mr Thwack! Please report to this thread to make a complaint about racism! Thank you!

        Like


      • What racism?

        Your statement is true.

        No one is more tired of n166ers than constructive black people; I know cause Im one of em.

        http://sotomayortv.com/new-jersey-nigglets-playing-knockout-game-unsuspecting-whites-others-walk-past/

        Like


      • The Republicans or Tea Party will never kick out the illegal immigrants. To do so will ruin their lead in the House.
        Texas gets more Representatives and electoral votes for each illegal that comes in, brings over his wife, and has 3 kids. Few of these people vote, or care. And yes, illegals count in the census.
        Both sides have an incentive to keep them here and illegal immigration is decisive issue that keeps old white people voting red.

        Like


      • > “We are increasing, the white cuckolds are becoming the rump constituency.”

        Remember that, in 2008, amongst college-edumakated whites, McCain won a narrow 1% victory over the Obamster.

        Then in 2012, amongst college-edumakated whites, Romney widened that to a MASSIVE 18% LANDSLIDE victory over the Obamster.

        So, by and large, smart whites are with us.

        Of course, the Frankfurt School won’t allow this unpleasant little factoid to see the light of day.

        Because, among other things, an exceedingly powerful tool in the Frankfurt School’s arsenal is the systematic demoralization of the Shkotzim.

        Can’t allow the Shkotzim to see even the slightest ray of hope in their darkest hour.

        But, nevertheless, it’s true: Conservatism is now the province of smart whites, and by a really huge margin.

        Like


    • on November 15, 2013 at 9:25 am The Burninator

      The problem is that this not a linear game. The same “round” will be back “around” soon enough. They are playing a circular war of attrition, while we continue to act as if we’re playing a game of golf with 18 holes shot in linear fashion, where you can advance from hole 9 to hole 10 without having to re-shoot hole 9 again in that particular game.

      Like


      • We are getting inside that OODA loop. The influence/accommodations of sites like these is just one indicator. The fact that you and I are speaking freely to each other and exhorting each other will be decisive.

        We are disparate, they are concentrated. Networking is destroying our disadvantage (cf. tea party spontaneity/longevity). Our enemies are frail. Paper tigers.

        It’s going to be a walkover, but not without its sadistic amusements.

        Matt

        Like


    • Did you actually watch the whole video? It is so odd for me to see a simian holding an AR-15 based weapon. It is just a very weird disconnect of two things that shouldn’t go together at all. I’m fine with the AK, the weapon of third world toilets for the last 5 decades, but those ARs look so out of place with all the rest of the TNB / monkeyshines in that vid.

      Like


    • @matt. what do you think of this fellow matt? http://www.salon.com/2013/11/15/is_this_the_new_david_duke_partner/

      Like


      • David Duke followed me on Twitter for a while. I’m not going to say I was perturbed.

        Like


      • wha’s wrong with david duke?

        Like


      • I think that My Fellow Matt is an exquisite bogeyman exaggerated for the purpose of exciting excitable leftish trolls like you.

        I have no enemies on my right. The left is too far off the deep-end and we need all the counterweight we can muster. One of the classic purposes of public (political) philosophizing is to always be drawing the polity back towards the golden mean (sophrosune or temperantia).

        This young hustler Matt seems to be no more radical than any of tens of thousands of Marxist-atheist multiculti tenured professors poisoning young minds in a sophocidally systematic fashion. He is just the beginning of a corrective.

        But of course the presence of a single one of them sets off klaxons on the totalitarian left. I rather like the men who set off those klaxons in the vein of, “Bombers catch the most flak when they are over the target.”

        Matt

        Like


  3. “The patented CH solution to dysgenic fertility is to break the stranglehold of assortative mating by IQ that is currently aided and abetted by the helicopter parent ethos, and return to traditional pairings of powerful, high ability men with pretty but less educated and accomplished women.”

    I believe there is already very little dysgenic pattern in white male reproductive patterns for IQ from 100 up. Meaning men with IQ 140 don’t tend to have fewer children than those with IQ 100. Maybe Jayman or someone can let me know the correct stat on that.

    However, higher female IQ is destructive to fertility. More IQ is dysgenic for women. We can sit here and say that high IQ men can just have children with secretaries and maybe that would be ok if they all had 3 or 4 kids. But no matter how you slice it, in every subsequent generation something very valuable is lost if high IQ women do not reproduce at replacement. In our society that needs innovation and abstract reasoning to progress and be competitive, it is tremendously beneficial for high IQ women to reproduce, preferable with high IQ men, but at least doing it with anybody with be better than not reproducing at all.

    I do not think traditional pairings necessarily had high IQ men paired with less intelligent women even if those women never did anything more than become secretaries (you also did not imply there was an IQ disparity). What matters here is not what these women do but how much innate potential they have. Still, it’s probably not ideally useful to have high IQ women doing secretarial work.

    One thing that “HBD” can help people understand is that helicopter parenting garners minimal benefit. Right now, there is no proof that the kid turns out any more capable in the long term when genetics are considered. The proof may never arrive. I hope this will help high IQ women understand that it is worthwhile to have a child even if they cannot or will not put that much effort into raising it. It’s much much better for future society than not having a kid at all.

    Like


    • I agree. I know a lot of the higher iq and intelligent black women are the ones that should be having more children, but they aren’t, or they are having kids with low iq black men. Black women who are educated and who would make great mothers and more likely raise more productive children are not the ones producing children compared to the rates of lower class lower iq black women. But it’s many of the lower iq ones who are pumping out children who will suffer with the same fate, continuing generations of this kind of breeding.

      I do think society takes a hit when the more intelligent women if a group are not breeding with intelligent men.

      Basically intelligent peopje should be breeding with other intelligent people.

      Like


      • Blacks fertility is more IQ dysgenic than white fertility with smarter blacks reproducing least.

        In the short term, it might be easier for society to put low IQ blacks in projects and pay their bills so they are not out on the streets stealing from good neighborhoods, but in the long term, it is clearly bad to keep subsidizing these people to reproduce.

        Like


      • Subsidizing needs to be revamped for sure. It should have never simply been about paying the bills for the poor without making them WORK. IOWs if subsidizing the poor is necessary, then it should be in the form of a check FOR WORKING and helping them with gaining job skills. I wouldn’t be so against government subsidizing of the less fortunate, if the money was only paid to those who are actually working and being productive members of society.

        I guess I never understood the whole concept if paying people monthly to do NOTHING, and them paying these same people for having children they cannot raise or teach proper skills to succeed.

        In the end it hurts the children in these cases and productive members of society whose tax dollars pay for people who don’t have to work.

        The only people I’m in favor for, for getting government assistance and NOT working are the disabled and elderly.

        Like


      • so are you saying you want to taste the vanilla?lol…

        Like


    • “Still, it’s probably not ideally useful to have high IQ women doing secretarial work.”

      Agreed. She should be making my sandwich instead.

      Like


      • I believe there are plenty of squat mestiza women with hairy moles on their faces taking care of your sandwiches.

        Like


    • Very little attention has been given to the effect that standardized testing, especially college entrance exams, has had on sorting. There was a time when bright kids stayed in their part of the country and married people with more variation in IQ than you get when you pack all the bright kids into the elite schools.

      They also remained in their part of the country, went to church, and set an example for other people. They also interacted with people who had some common sense instead of cocooning up in Blue echo chambers on both coasts.That whole system is shot through now.

      Like


    • High IQ women should definitely reproduce, but should they reproduce with high IQ men? There’s been a lot of work on assortative mating and Asperger’s, and it kind of makes sense that having too many nerds sleep with each other could produce useless retards rather than Newtons and Einsteins.

      This is probably only a problem at the extreme upper end of the IQ distribution, but CH may have a point. A damaging aspect of feminism may have been convincing male nerds (who we will always have with us–no alpha male invented the bow and arrow) they want female nerds instead of bimbos like the rest of guys.

      Like


      • I am like this. So smart no one understands my mutterings amidst the clattering of the subway wheels. So invested in the abstract, I care not about my filthy, disintegrating overcoat and the scowls of the drones headed to their day of enriching Goldman-Sacks [sic]. Smrt girls give me a boner, but our kids would be even more unsuited to this loathsome, endless feeding of a world.

        Like


      • This may be very harsh, but when I read this you came off as very insincere and insecure. Try-hard. Self-pitying.

        Like


  4. on November 15, 2013 at 9:27 am Hector_St_Clare

    Re: Prediction: the coming population explosion of teen daughters of bitter single moms will transform the American dating landscape into a coast-to-coast r-selected plunderland for sociopathic badboys with no scruples. *cracks knuckles*

    That seems unlikely. It seems more likely that teen daughters with absent fathers would be more interested in snagging high-status older men, who can provide them with resources and a quasi-parental figure, rather than playing around with ‘sociopathic badboy’ types. Your study indicates that girls with absent fathers are more sexually open and risk-taking (which has been hypothesized for awhile), but it doesn’t tell us anything about what sort of men they go for.

    In general, I’d expect women with more shaky economic and emotional prospects, to be more willing to trade sex for support and status.

    Like


    • I draw no conclusions till I see the behavior of teen daughters of mothers who never married the father vs teen daughters of mothers who got divorced while the daughter was a child vs daughter of widows whose husbands died of natural causes vs daughters of married parents.

      Like


    • It seems more likely that teen daughters with absent fathers would be more interested in snagging high-status older men, who can provide them with resources and a quasi-parental figure, rather than playing around with ‘sociopathic badboy’ types.

      Some topical evidence:

      Like


    • False. And it is interesting that CH is predicting this as a future event. We’ve been in this mode for at least 2 decades now. Some of my most memorable bangs and short term flings were with these pitiable and easily manipulable creatures. You are attributing decidedly male traits to not only women but young women / girls. Big mistake. Logic and common sense of the type you are positing doesn’t reside in the bosom of this being.

      They see Mom w/o Dad. They see Mom w/ bad boy who pumps and dumps her. They see Mom with next bad boy who P&D’s again. Lather. Rinse. Repeat. They now emulate mom, and become raw clay in the hands of a master manipulator.

      I’ve been dating/banging “this girl” since I was a teenager. She is a very known element to me, and I don’t see it changing whatsoever.

      Like


      • on November 15, 2013 at 7:03 pm Subarctic Hillbilly

        Dunno. I, too, have banged out “this girl” on many occasions over the past 30 years, I concede your point. And yet I’ve seen a level of cold-calculatedness in sum dese beetches that shocks me. Truly alpha fux beta bux.

        And yet … having dabbled in dom-sub relationships, I can honestly say that some of the freakiest girls have come from solid families with strong fathers.

        One was 18 years my junior (less than half my age at the time), and from a prominent Mormon family. Got so I had to end it because the demands for choking out and caning escalated to the point I feared some busybody would pry and I’d be vulnerable to all kinds of abuse charges.

        Another was 22 years younger (exactly half my age at the time) and graduated with honors from an Ivy, and was very close to both her polished professional parents. Didn’t stop her from craving bondage and punishment. The role play verged (and by verged I mean violated) even the vanishingly small standards of decency to which I hold myself.

        The feminine imperative to be dominated by a strong man runs deep, deep down to the cellular level. It just takes some teasing (often literally) to bring it out.

        The reason why I’m in a more vanilla relationship at the moment is that it just takes too much work to constantly feed the freak beast for more than a few months at a time. But bringing that dom energy into even the most conventional relationship works wonders with even the most seemingly well-raised girlies.

        Like


    • I think this has a lot to do with maternal conditioning.

      Girls raised without a father present in the house grow up hearing their mom bad-mouth men like their fathers (almost always supplicating betas) and extolling the virtues of fantasy men who are, in fact, nightmares to actually have a relationship with (alpha bad-boys). They’re also denied the experience of witnessing healthy relationship dynamics. I’d bet such mothers are also more promiscuous themselves, which is going to be another influence undiluted or corrected by a male presence in their lives.

      Ergo, they aren’t going to be going for men who are suited to LTRs.

      Like


  5. high IQ females are only not breeding because of the girls gone wild effect feminism has had and the era of peak woman.

    in every other 60 year span of human history, women couldn’t act like this. it’s a construct that is failing, and everyone knows it. reversion to the mean is an immutable truth.

    as i heard someone here once say brilliantly, a woman without a man is already dead. except in this narrow speck of human history, our contrivances allow them not to internalize that simple and again, immutable truth.

    those men that do realize, and adapt to this anomaly have their agenda’s rewarded handsomely. the women (the practical totality of American females say 18-35) of 2013 are then necessarily losing on every front, but they haven’t realized the loss.

    what eventually comes is a kitchen sink quarter, or beta redemption lol.

    Like


    • Today’s women have no clue how they are being taken out.

      From mirror of the soul:

      The Queen Gets Trapped

      Looking at the chessboard, we see life and its dynamics before us. Novice chess players make fatal mistakes and lose accordingly. Their tactical rush to acquire material pieces, and failing to focus on the strategical game that chess is, causes them to always lose.

      One such mistake is using the power of the queen’s movements to capture wing pawns (or poisoned pawns as they are called) that reside along the edges of the chessboard. In the novice’s attempt at tactical success, he fails strategically – and when he uses the queen to take wing pawns – the chessmaster will trap his queen, dispatch her accordingly, and win the game in grand style.

      In similar fashion, we see women in the Anglosphere rushing to capture the poisoned pawns (the bad boys, the thugs, the players, etc., and note that players are not connaisseurs, for connaissuers pick and choose women at a time and place of their discretion [that’s called strategy] – in polar opposite to players and their constant obsession with getting laid – the citizen dildo pawn to say), and then we see Anglosphere women moaning and lamenting that there are no good men left or men are in a suspended state of adolescence.

      When the queen takes a poisoned pawn, she opens herself up to the grand plan of the chessmaster, to be trapped, and dispatched. Once she is out of the way, the victory is quick – this is actually what feminism did for the average man (the chessmasters have always known what women really are, but the average man was always deluded in his Niceguy mentality – for the queen raised him to be such) – it exposed the queen, and now average men can see clearly what women are, were, and will be.

      Thus we see before us, and always increasing, the chessmaster trapping the queens around him, and it is only a short time before she is taken out of the game (left with cats, old age, irrelevancy, and a bad attitude on the sideline of life).

      While the chessmaster is focusing on strategic success in the game of life, the rest of the novices (men and women) are focusing on tactical successes to which a loss will always occur in the grand scheme of things. You can win a battle, but lose the war – as the common cliche goes.

      Needless to say, don’t be a knight (and chivalrous at that) and save the queen in her entrapment, because the chessmaster will take you out as well.

      It is far better to realize, if you are going to act like a chesspiece, to act like the king. The queen might be the most powerful piece on the chessboard, but the king is the most valuable piece – and that is something to consider yourself as.

      Like


      • And do You Know Who the chessmaster is?

        Like


      • The Jews, of course! (exit sarcasm mode)

        Like


      • You had it right up until after the !

        Like


      • Yes, we know…

        Like


      • Jooz! Jooz!

        Rolling on the carpet, foaming slightly at the mouth

        JOOOZ!

        Like


      • Since you’re one of the Remnant, I can get you another carpet, wholesale.

        All seriousness aside, you apologists truly should come up with a compromise strategy and admit that there is at least somewhat of an issue when YKWs dominate media, PACs, etc., etc., corrupting the culture and body politic of a given host nation.

        Your credibility is no better than those you attempt to ridicule or castigate when you act as if said dominance and corruption is a “move along, nothing to see here, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!” chimera.

        Indeed, your opponents at least have some semblance of rationality when, invariably, at the fore of nearly every antiWest/antiWhite affront and article there appears the schozz of a usual suspect.

        Like


      • No! The Frankfurters! It’s the -” pffft.

        Like


      • I don’t give the credit to the non-Gentiles. I go straight to the source.

        Satan…the father of all lies, and the uncle of all tricks.

        Like


      • And who is the “source” of your “satan” fantasy object of misdirection?

        You were born to be a slave, earl

        Like


      • And slave I shall!

        Like


      • The yoke is light, and the burden easy to bear.

        I’m betting that YOUR god (and we all have one, be it animate or inanimate) is a helluva harsher taskmaster.

        Like


      • As Jesus said to the Sanhedrin and other machers of His time:

        “Ye are of your father, the devil.”

        Like


      • Yes, and I’m sure this was all real.

        Like


      • Impious jackanapes. More real than your pismire existence and inane ramblings… thou thimble… thou thread… eunuch jelly, thou.

        Like


      • Fair enough re the no-real-atheist point. And of course, I was born to be a slave too. I just resent it.

        Though I can’t think of any personal gods of mine that I like, or would dignify with the label. They seem kind of involuntary…what’s left of my ambition, basic survival drive…Is obsessing over how f*cked up the world is a god? I don’t know.

        Anyway, you have to admit, modern day Christianity enables the very kinds of evil that it used to keep in check.

        Money changers and out of control children come to mind.

        Like


      • No argument there… but Scripture itself predicted “many false Christs” during the End Times… and it tells us that Satan himself is an expert in Bible use, and often disguises himself as an angel of light, his original standing.

        Like


    • “high IQ females are only not breeding because of the girls gone wild effect feminism has had and the era of peak woman.”

      This is not likely. More gender traditional high IQ Asian countries that never had a “girls gone wild” era have even lower fertility rates than any western country. Within the west, the most gender traditional countries have lower fertility rates, not higher. And again, some of the Eastern European countries with extremely low fertility rates never underwent a grrl power cultural revolution. High IQ women are not breeding well in the US. But they do even worse in cultures with traditional gender expectations in present global economic conditions.

      “in every other 60 year span of human history, women couldn’t act like this. it’s a construct that is failing, and everyone knows it. reversion to the mean is an immutable truth.”

      I also think this is unlikely. The default state of animal species is for the male to provide minimal contribution to the offspring. With humans, dependency on male contribution is not observed consistently throughout different ethnic populations. I am not sure if it’s actually ever been observed in traditional sub saharan African societies- meaning I am not sure if any of those societies demonstrate fathers providing a contribution to their offspring that are actually necessary for their survival. So, it seems that our model of children depending on fathers is something that was developed either entirely or to a much greater extent outside of africa.

      As for females ending up dead without men, also probably not the case. Is there any other mammal where the adult female cannot live with an adult male providing for her? I think if you left a bunch of adult women in the wild, they probably would not end up dead. I think they would be able to fend for themselves just like every other animal.

      My thinking is that the western victorian notion of a male provider and a female that is taken care of isn’t at all equally applicable to all societies. I do not think it is a universal human tendency that society will automatically revert to.

      Like


      • the hamster now commands 4 paragraphs and excerpts to say “NAWALT” and place an internalized and solipsistic bent on the following:

        “I do not think it is a universal human tendency that society will automatically revert to.”

        just to make itself feel less insignificant.

        i normally don’t like to acknowledge snowflaking but this is AFOG and should be a post.

        Like


      • Holy shit that is beyond hamster. That’s a 566 pound Guiana pig

        Like


      • Mutant Capybara… it’s appeared numerous threads before, and always enervating.

        Like


      • Someone swallowed a dictionary.

        meow

        Like


      • Seriously.

        Between this propped-up-mental-eight-year-old, and that “look at my blonde hair” mudshark Amy, you wonder why the f*ck some sensible gender based discrimination isn’t enforced around here.

        Like


      • Bill Brasky

        Seriously.

        and that “look at my blonde hair” mudshark Amy
        ————————————————————————–

        Why do you call her a mudshark?

        Like


      • Geez, Louise… Amy’s a mudshark? And here I liked her puns so.

        And finding out cynthia was a part-time rug-muncher, well…

        All the women I thought were tolerable turn out to be equally as useless as the usual negress/YKWess suspects.

        Next thing you know, we’ll be finding out that Lara hasn’t detoxed one GasButtox.

        Like


      • Who said I’d ever *actually* done anything about it? ;p

        Like


      • The thought alone taints you… get thee to a nunnery!

        Like


      • Which is worse; a mudshark or a rug muncher?

        Like


      • @Greg, in all seriousness, the queer community in America interests me in the same way that the shark tank at the aquarium is; fascinating from an unbiased academic point of view, nothing I would ever want to go diving in.

        And nunneries are like, 100% women. I couldn’t handle that. Women are fucking crazy.

        Like


      • fascinating from an unbiased academic point of view,

        When you study evil, evil studies you right back.

        Mark my words, woman… for I have gazed into the Abyss, and the Abyss looked back at me…

        And neither of us liked what we saw.

        Like


      • @Greg

        Yeah, and by and large, I stay the fuck away from that these days. One of the reasons I just left a blue state for a red. IMHO, though, the problem we’ve got in America today is too many of the good people have no idea of what’s motivating the bad people. How can you fight something you don’t understand? (and unfortunately, sometimes understanding something means going down in the sewers to hunt it down)

        Like


      • Yes, Greg. Amy is a mudshark and is so because her father was absent emotionally and/or physically, though she’ll deny it as she has previously.

        Her mudsharkery is evidence the television has taught her that Africans and mulattoes are White men with darker skins just more dominant, powerful and masculine. And here we discover her father’s primary failure.The myth of black dominance and masculinity was never contradicted by her white(small w) father, only confirmed by his lack of leadership and fecklessness.

        A weak father in a White girl’s life plus unfettered access to television and its ugly lies is a recipe to rewire a her attraction mechanisms to favor those dominant individuals and groups–read Africans–who populate her pseudo-reality, even if that dominance has no basis in the real world.

        She rejects feminism and embraces equalism. This contradiction is prevalent in the manosphere.

        Like


      • In the end, affluence is still the primary cause of low fertility. I remember in a Japanese survey on child-rearing attitudes, most males responded with “I don’t want to raise a brat”, and females responded with “I want free time to do what I like”, which is really just a nicer way of saying the former.

        Of course, if you combine this with endless immigration and constant pandering to victims, you have a recipe for self-annihilation.

        Like


      • Japan does not have endless immigration though. It hardly has any immigration.

        Like


      • WTF are you talking about with Asia? Gender roles, for all intents and purposes, have been all but destroyed in the East Asian countries. Women, and especially the educated ones, there are deliberately choosing to never have kids. In a lot of ways, it’s WORSE than the situation we have here in the US, where women delude themselves into thinking they can have it all and realize too late they can’t.

        Like


      • Interesting observation that the great techno-leaps of the last 200 years have been in societies where men have adopted a much higher investment strategy. This probably coincides with higher education driving a massive technological sea change with widespread development.

        One might fore see that this strategy ( caring more for kids who then are smarter and drive innovation more) would continue, but there also are other scenarios. One I see is the .01% grabbing hold of the increased centralization and control that these innovation provide ( see FacewhoreMatrixCombineBigBrotherTwitter) and retaining their own super-luxury while “keeping down” the drones that work the slimy levers of food prep and war.

        Like


  6. Girls with daddy issues are easier to bed. This experiment is interesting because it seems to affirm a causal effect that runs from absent dad -> slutty daughter through the use of a psychological technique known as “priming”.

    Ah, no. That sort of study is completely incapable of demonstrating causation (only a twin, adoption, or a genomic study – GCTA – can do that).

    All that shows is that r-strategist (slutty/high sex drive) kids comes from r-strategist dads (cads), which we already knew.

    [CH: i don’t think so. did you read the article? random women were “primed” to think of absent fathers, and this priming influenced their answers on a questionnaire about feelings toward casual sex. the subjects weren’t chosen from particular families, broken or otherwise.]

    That’s of course aside from the horrible study design (e.g., small sample size, college kids – and did it even control for race?)

    [that’s a better criticism than your all-purpose reply above (which doesn’t even apply here).]

    Like


    • Hmmm, why am I on moderation? I haven’t commented here in God knows how long…

      You’re right, I didn’t read the whole article. I hit the description of an obvious correlational study in the first few paragraphs and dismissed it as above.

      That said, this:

      That sort of study is completely incapable of demonstrating causation (only a twin, adoption, or a genomic study – GCTA – can do that).

      …still stands – more on that in a moment.

      Now I will criticize this particular study. I have looked at the paper. Yes, sample sizes were small, and were all college students (likely Psych 101 students taking the study for credit as with many psychological studies). Most were White but there were a smattering of non-Whites in the study. First, let me say that “priming” is faring poorly with the evidence currently.

      [CH: the evidence i’ve seen concludes the exact opposite about priming.]

      As for this particular series of experiments, because their sample sizes were small, their effect sizes were correspondingly small. They didn’t give the 95% confidence intervals (CI), which is fishy, and suggests they did so to cover up the fact that their CIs overlapped, meaning their results wouldn’t be statistically significant. One of the two they did give showed just that – overlapping CIs.

      Of course, the most basic criticism is do they seriously expect us to believe that some slightly skewed results on psychological tests based on slight differential treatment before hand is proof that father absence during all of childhood causes more “sociosexual” behavior in the real world? Seriously.

      [no, but like i noted below to another commenter, the study gains more traction as something legit to pursue for further exploration when you include it with the constellation of real world evidence that daughters of broken families are sluttier.]

      As noted before, the only way to prove it is with the closest one can come to a controlled trial here – and that is behavioral genetic studies. Of course, when you do that, you find that father absence – as with parenting in general – hardly matters.

      [so certain r u? i checked out a behavioral study you linked and it seems the conclusion allowed for more parenting influence than you’re claiming here.]

      That, by far, is the key problem such a study runs up against: it has to explain the behavioral genetic evidence showing no effect.

      [i don’t doubt genetics plays a big role, but you may be underplaying the env angle. nevertheless, we’ll soon have a better grasp on this question in the coming decades, because a horde of broken families is about to explode onto the demographic scene. if it’s all genetics, then the children of the single moms that have massively grown in number as a proportion of the total population will turn out better than predicted by “parenting influence” advocates. if, otoh, family structure does influence children’s behavior, then we will see a hell of a lot of dysfunctional brats storm the landscape.

      ps before you reply, do remember that the rate of white single mommery has historically been a lot lower than it is now.]

      I have some ideas on the IQ-fertility thing. Now while it’s your blog, if you’d like to have my thoughts on some of the stuff discussed in this post – which it seems you do since seemed to be specifically soliciting my input in the post – please take me off moderation, if that’s the case, thanks.

      [regardless of the IQ-fertility nexus, i think fewer leftoids in america will be a good thing in the long run, so their collapsing fertility rate doesn’t bother me.]

      Like


      • As noted before, the only way to prove it is with the closest one can come to a controlled trial here – and that is behavioral genetic studies. Of course, when you do that, you find that father absence – as with parenting in general – hardly matters.

        [so certain r u? i checked out a behavioral study you linked and it seems the conclusion allowed for more parenting influence than you’re claiming here.]

        And I answered you there. As I tell people who aren’t versed in the sciences, don’t listen to what researchers say, look at their data. What do their data say?

        [CH: so the researchers lied in their abstract? their wording was pretty unambiguous.]

        In that particular meta-analysis, the shared environment term isn’t much different from zero, which is the case across the span of behavioral genetic evidence.

        [no, but like i noted below to another commenter, the study gains more traction as something legit to pursue for further exploration when you include it with the constellation of real world evidence that daughters of broken families are sluttier.

        The weight of the evidence clearly shows that parenting is a lot less important than it is commonly believed, and that includes the presence or absence of a father. This type of study here is a piss-poor way of researching the matter, for the reasons I stated. There’s quite a bit we still don’t know, but the situation is hardly as mysterious as you’re making it out to be here.

        if it’s all genetics, then the children of the single moms that have massively grown in number as a proportion of the total population will turn out better than predicted by “parenting influence” advocates. if, otoh, family structure does influence children’s behavior, then we will see a hell of a lot of dysfunctional brats storm the landscape.

        ps before you reply, do remember that the rate of white single mommery has historically been a lot lower than it is now.

        (I will note that single motherhood, at least among Whites, still isn’t the rule.) Did the trend towards single parenting trend begin yesterday?

        [no, but it accelerated in the past 10-15 years. what is it now for white women w/ children, something like 40% single moms?]

        No, at least one whole generation plus has grown up post sexual revolution. Further, we have the behavioral genetic evidence: no effect. We have more than enough evidence at present to declare this one busted.

        [get back to us in ten years. there’s a whole lotta real world experimentation about to happen, good and hard, that’ll help illuminate this subject with more clarity than we’re getting now.]

        That said, more research – genetically informed research – not the crap study cited here – is indeed underway and will yield new insight. So far, it is broadly unknown – for example – what constitutes the “unique environment” term, the the variance left over when you’ve partialed out genetics and the shared environment (parents). Further, we don’t know how genes go on to make a person the way they are. These and other things will be exciting new discoveries, but the parenting thing is (as far as the evidence goes, not necessarily social acceptance) a settled issue.

        [you’re getting ahead of yourself. the only thing that can conceivably be called settled is that paernting has *less* influence than previously believed by social scientists. give it another ten years and we’ll see if it’s equally settled that parenting has *no* influence. you won’t even need the lab to perform the experiments. real life is about to supply an ample data set.

        ps i don’t think genetics caused all these white women to (relatively) suddenly choose poor mates (or no mates at all) and the single mommery lifestyle, such as it is. i think destigmatization and government largesse and female economic self-sufficiency created incentives to become single moms, perhaps even incentivized them enough that it altered their genetic expressions.]

        Like


      • [you’re getting ahead of yourself. the only thing that can conceivably be called settled is that paernting has *less* influence than previously believed by social scientists. give it another ten years and we’ll see if it’s equally settled that parenting has *no* influence. you won’t even need the lab to perform the experiments. real life is about to supply an ample data set.

        No. I’m stating the case with the confidence afforded by the evidence, which is clear and unambiguous at this point.

        [CH: i disagree with your certainty, and yes i have read the evidence. for one, how can you trust data from researchers who lie in their abstract? not being snarky, this is a genuine concern. two, as you noted, unique environment is poorly understood. it may come to light that parents regulate the functioning of this unique environment in ways which researchers are not yet familiar.]

        We’re talking decades of behavioral genetic work – which now includes direct genomic analysis – that comes to the same conclusions (roughly, genes 40-80%, shared environment 0%, “unique environment” the rest).

        Repeating the claim that somehow higher rates of single motherhood (on that, do you have a reference for the current prevalence?)

        [check the CDC. i don’t have time right now to get into a searchbox adventure for relevant links. perhaps later.]

        will have this huge impact will not make it so.

        [i didn’t say it *will* have a huge impact. i said, based on past evidence, it’s a good bet that increased single mommery, ceteris paribus, will produce more dysfunctional sluts and thugs, but that we will know with more clarity in ten years or so, once the children of the single momhood demographic bulge reach sexual maturity. it may very well turn out to not be as bad as past performance suggests it will be. or it could be worse. the “good” news is that, thanks to this awesome enlargement in the single mom demo, scientists are gonna have a lot of REAL WORLD DATA, the best kind of data, to work with.]

        CH: so the researchers lied in their abstract? their wording was pretty unambiguous.

        They were wrong. It happens. A lot. That statement was completely unjustified and shown as such by their own evidence.

        [it makes one wonder what else they’re lying about.]

        For the record, a change in future generations with respect to previous generations would hardly be a good test of the effects of “family constellation variables” (e.g., fatherlessness), not for the least reason being evolution. You’d need, at the very least, matched sets of parents-offspring to compare within family. And even that will be of limited ability to answer the question, because the ambient environment would have changed (e.g., the class of forces that led to more single motherhood in the first place)

        [we’ve been through a similar argument re: obesity. there’s no way, in 10 or 20 or even 50 years, that, say, putative alleles for behavior that raises the risk of a woman falling into single momhood can spread so wide and far throughout a large population of tens of millions within such a short time span. obviously, something happened in the culture (or, cutely, in the water) to create this dysgenia in family formation now bedeviling the US. you would reply, like you did when i made the same argument concerning fat assery, that single mommery, based on the available evidence, is mostly if not entirely hereditary.

        so let’s say you’re right. single mommery (or rather the behavior profile that encourages single mommery), like fat assery, is mostly hereditary. where does that get you? you are still left with the cultural explanation for the rapidly rising rates of both. obviously there were far fewer fat asses and single moms in 1960 america than there are now, before leftoidism became the dominant social ideology, so given the sensible premise that the genes of american cohorts in 1960 weren’t very different from the genes of those cohorts today, we circle around to the conclusion that a cultural or social force existed back in 1960 that helped suppress the expression of those incipient single mom and fatty genes, which no longer exists today to do the same job. and so what we have is the full manifestation of land whales and tatted sloots.

        do note that i am by no means a blank slatist or cultural conditioning kind of guy. if anything, this blog loudly champions the gene-centric point of view, because we feel it gets short shrift in the national conversation.]

        Like


      • Jayman, I have some suspicion that the general lack of parenting effect seen when genetics are considered means that the measurement standards are too blunt. What I mean is that it seems these studies ask what is your highest education level or what is your income and leave the highest answer range as “graduate degree” and income 100k or more. In that categorization , someone with an ma in communications is equal to a heart surgeon.

        Genetics matter enough so that your measurement may need to be pretty granular to caprure the effects of parenting. When I see studies of twins separated and raised in different environments that show equal long term outcomes, I wonder if the outcomes would look less equal with a more sensitive gradient of life outcomes.

        [CH: this is a good point. for an example of a more sensitive measurement of life outcome, think of the twin who marries a 6 while the other twin marries a 5. this is the sort of small difference that means a lot to each twin (the sex and love will feel much better for the twin married to the 6) but is too small or considered by third parties too unimportant to be captured in the results of arid studies.

        also, in how many of those raised apart twin studies were the twins raised in radically different family environments? i mean, was one twin raised by a white educated couple in the burbs and the other raised by a ghetto mom? an asian family? a self-sufficient single mom? there aren’t that many twins to go around to conduct studies like this, though there may be in the future, thanks to IVF and desperate childless cougars.]

        Like


      • @little spoon:

        Jayman, I have some suspicion that the general lack of parenting effect seen when genetics are considered means that the measurement standards are too blunt. What I mean is that it seems these studies ask what is your highest education level or what is your income and leave the highest answer range as “graduate degree” and income 100k or more. In that categorization , someone with an ma in communications is equal to a heart surgeon.

        Major life outcomes, even the “specific” and “important” ones show zero shared environment impact. This includes odds of divorce, criminality, religiosity, etc.

        This even includes how much money you make as an adult, even when 5-year averaged.

        Like


      • As well, the pattern we see is precisely the reverse of what you suggest. The more “concrete” the trait under question is, the higher the heritability estimate and the smaller the shared environment impact (when there’s one at all).

        Like


      • “The more “concrete” the trait under question is, the higher the heritability estimate and the smaller the shared environment impact (when there’s one at all).”

        I’m skeptical about this. I’ve seen studies of separated twins that note completely random attributes like “both had a wife named betty” (literally- I’ve actually seen that one). Basically, if you take 1000 measures of character between two people, you will find similarities. Sure, on an individual level, the attribute of liking jazz is more common among twins separated at birth than it is among random adults. But I have not seen that a study compares these random similarities found in twins with a comprehensive personality comparison of two other adults of the same age raised in comparable environments. Twins may be 70% similar on these measures of random concrete items, but 2 random individuals of the same IQ raised in the same region may be 60% similar and the items where they are different may show . Hence, even when we are looking at a similar pattern of answers for liking jazz, I am not sure we are really removing shared environment as a contributing factor.

        On which questions of concrete items were twins raised apart significantly different? I realize that major outcomes like having kids out of wedlock or graduating high school have significant genetic components, but what I wonder is if there is a difference between minor outcomes that could be reliably predicted by major environmental variables such as the presence of a father.

        Like


      • @little spoon:

        “I’m skeptical about this. I’ve seen studies of separated twins that note completely random attributes like “both had a wife named betty” (literally- I’ve actually seen that one). Basically, if you take 1000 measures of character between two people, you will find similarities. Sure, on an individual level, the attribute of liking jazz is more common among twins separated at birth than it is among random adults. But I have not seen that a study compares these random similarities found in twins with a comprehensive personality comparison of two other adults of the same age raised in comparable environments.”

        Apparently, you haven’t looked at much behavioral genetic literature. This is precisely what behavioral genetic studies do, and how heritability estimates are derived. This is particularly the case with studies that compare identical twins with fraternal twins and with adoption studies. In both cases you are looking at individuals with similar environments who differ in their level of genetic relationship.

        Of course, genomic identity-by-descent studies look at ordinary siblings and perform such measurements while controlling for directly measured degree of genetic similarity.

        You can see a description of the process here:

        All Human Behavioral Traits are Heritable – JayMan’s Blog

        For many of the rest of your questions, please see that post, the studies linked within, and the comments.

        “In the case of adoptive parents, I think it has been determined that certain factors, like likeliness of divorce, have no correlation with the adoptive parents and are only connected to biological parents. I am not sure which personality traits tend to depend on the environment in a way that clear enough that you could predict those traits reliably from knowing about the environment.”

        See the title of the above post (all human behavioral traits are heritable). In general, shared environment influences (parents and family environment) are absent.

        “With the rise of single motherhood, is this just that a greater percentage of women are choosing to be single mothers or is it that a greater percentage of mothers are single mothers because those who would have been married mothers are not mothers at al?”

        Likely both. See my post “Who’s Having the Babies.”

        “For determinists, macro culture will end up mattering more than family life. A society with 70% single mothers will be different than a society with 20% single mothers even if the genetics of those two societies were somehow equal.”

        A fine hypothetical. But could such happen across populations that were genetically identical? That’s not at all clear.

        Like


      • “also, in how many of those raised apart twin studies were the twins raised in radically different family environments?”

        I have never heard of one where they were raised in environments that disparate though there is much greater sample in plain adoption studies that compare outcomes of adopted children to their adoptive vs biological parents.

        There is a famous case study of twins whose major difference seems to be that one was raised in a well off family while the other was raised in a working class family. http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/w/wright-twins.html
        Not surprisingly, the difference in personality and capability seemed very small, but again, the difference in their families is pretty small in the grand scheme.

        In the case of adoptive parents, I think it has been determined that certain factors, like likeliness of divorce, have no correlation with the adoptive parents and are only connected to biological parents. I am not sure which personality traits tend to depend on the environment in a way that clear enough that you could predict those traits reliably from knowing about the environment. Which factors depend on genetics seems to be a lot clearer. For ex, it is well understood that IQ depends very largely on genetics in first world settings.

        With the rise of single motherhood, is this just that a greater percentage of women are choosing to be single mothers or is it that a greater percentage of mothers are single mothers because those who would have been married mothers are not mothers at al? It’s only if the former is occurring that one would expect any improvement in outcomes from subsequent generations raised by single mothers.

        Otherwise, the macro culture is a driver in outcomes. For determinists, macro culture will end up mattering more than family life. A society with 70% single mothers will be different than a society with 20% single mothers even if the genetics of those two societies were somehow equal. Even if having a father makes no difference on an individual level, it could be that everyone will behave differently if the group has 80% growing up without a father regardless if the individual had a father or not.

        Like


      • I’m with Jayman here. You have to be very very very careful about all modern research that purports to prove stuff like this. You get shit like this: http://climateaudit.org/2013/11/13/another-absurd-lewandowsky-correlation/

        ” Even with fraudulent responses, only 16 of 1145 (1.4%) purported to disagree with the proposition that HIV caused AIDS, and of these 16, only 2 (12.5%) also purported to endorse the CYAIDS conspiracy. These two respondents were the two respondents who implausibly purported to believe in every fanciful conspiracy.”

        and this http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2013/09/19/fredrickson-losada-positivity-ratio-paper-partially-withdrawn/ thanks to this http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.7006, wherein

        “Thus, even if one were to accept for the sake of argument that every single claim made in Losada (1999) and Losada and Heaphy (2004) is correct, and even if one were to further accept that the Lorenz equations provide a valid and universal way of modeling human emotions, then the ideal minimum positivity ratio that Fredrickson and Losada (2005) claimed to have derived from Losada’s “empirically validated” nonlinear-dynamics model would still be nothing more than an artifact of the arbitrary choice of an illustratively convenient value made by a geophysicist in Hartford in 1962.”

        Like


    • Scratch the bit about moderation. It seems I’m good to go… :p

      Like


  7. on November 15, 2013 at 10:09 am AlmostAnonymous

    Re: 6

    Lord! Mexican immigration seems like a real benefit compared to the barbaric animals growing in our midst.

    Like


    • I hate to admit it, but truth will out…

      I’m finding more and more Hispanics a damn sight more respectful and God-fearing than the South Park snarkers and SWPL pusillanimous dastards I’ve been running across lately.

      Like


  8. The increasing subsidization of all things female can be seen in microcosm in the continued evolution of their high-heeled shoes, which are really nothing more than a prosthesis of sorts, designed to close the traditional gender height gap, pushing them closer to their tall alpha male apex ideal, while simultaneously allowing them to make a pretense of superiority to other men who, if not for the high heels, would tower over them.

    Makeup, tanning, plastic surgery, all these things are better reckoned as prosthetic, rather than aesthetic, enhancements.

    Like


    • An ideal tall alpha male still towers over any given high heeled woman he decides to place on his arm for the evening. Better, it brings their head a bit closer to its easy to kiss them or put your finger over their mouth when they begin yapping too much.

      What prosthetic advantage does a woman gain over the tall ideal alpha male by going to a tanning booth, precisely?

      Like


    • “gender height gap, pushing them closer to their tall alpha male apex ideal, while simultaneously allowing them to make a pretense of superiority to other men who, if not for the high heels, would tower over them.”

      lolol. Come on. You have to be kidding here. Women wear high heels because they think it makes their legs look sexy.

      Or because they didn’t bother to get their pants hemmed (which is why I wear heels sometimes).

      Like


      • Word. High heels were invented by a man (an Italian, I believe) because it makes women’s calves look hotter. I also think it’s because females often flex their feet during arousal and sex, so putting the foot in a flexed position subtly and automatically puts her in a sexual mode.

        Like


      • Yes it makes their legs look better, that is the main function of high heels but many women I have dated have told me the high heels serve a dual purpose; it helps make them feel more “equal” to the tall men around them.

        Like


    • Aye little spoon. Plus it places a pretty woman’s ass into a fine “fuck me now” position, while simultaneously causing her to thrust her chest out a bit more. It’s a way to make an average woman more attractive, and a beautiful woman appear imminently fuckable at a given moment. Would that more women would wear heels (and skirts) instead of flat shoes and Hillary Pants Suits.

      Like


      • Heels are a shit test for a short man.

        Like


      • Legs, yes, ass, also yes.
        Plus, high heels also push the woman up into an even higher level of male height-craving.
        All fantasy spouted to the contrary, EVERY woman secretly (or openly) desires men to be at least 6’2 – and there’s NO SUCH THING as a man who is too tall.
        Height of woman completely irrelevant.

        Like


      • As a now short guy 5’9″ I mostly agree. There is too tall though and I think that’s borne out by research. It WAS 6’4″ but I think that’s become pretty common, so maybe 6’7″ or more might be too tall for women, especially a 5’0″ one.

        In a college town with a fresh crop of taller-than-ever white and Indian dudes, almost every 8.5+ I see is with a guy 6’2″ or more. 6’3″ isn’t very rare these days, and women always want the latest!

        Like


  9. Burn-
    I think you misread my comment. Note the use of the word “other”.

    Like


  10. Had a interesting situation last night with a long term orbiter. This woman always tries to get with me when I’m not in a LTR. This goes back to 2004. Back then I actually gave her a shot but she burned me. After that incident she orbits and tries to reel me in to no avail.

    Last night she invited me over for dinner. She starts telling me how I’m “too closed off and have my walls up and am too afraid of getting hurt” goes on this shaming rampage it was actually cute. After 30 mins of her trying to convince me of getting with her I straight tell her “after what you did to be back then I’ve put you in the box of people that can’t be trusted” boom she was livid. Practically whining how she doesn’t want to be in the box lol. I told her there’s nothing you can do, I give people one chance once you cross that line there is no going back.

    It was fascinating watching her hamster spin out of control. Her all powerful ego was crushed as she was told in a direct manner that “she wasn’t good enough” watching her qualify herself through pleas and shaming was comical.

    As she walked me out the years began to flow almost as if on cue. Telling me “how can you be so cold” by response “I’m not cold just honest”

    It’s amazing the power that truth can have over a woman. Last night was once again confirmation to me that women are adolescents

    Like


    • Call placed to local police: “I…I…sob..I just been…RAPED…”

      Like


    • The adolescent is you, in fact, with that way of thinking that because some few naive women you know most women are like teenagers.

      Like


      • Bullshit. That box contains multitudes. The woman who can hear the truth about her character without going into hysterics is rare, most likely the beneficiary of a traditional moral education and quiet and unassuming by nature. The tenor of the age, which you so proudly represent, girl, is narcissistic hysteria, intolerent of criticism, impudent, hostile to personal betterment and relentlessly adolescent. Your halfwitted commentary is the verbal equivalent of a tramp stamp, a manifestation of an incomplete upbringing deficient in hygiene and firm discipline. The best thing you could hope for, in addition to your much needed spanking, is that when you’re doing penance and baking cookies for the man you love, you discover that it makes you feel good and you know in your heart that your newfound happiness owes absolutely nothing to feminism. Your welcome.

        Like


      • Well, I can’t speak for the rest of the crew here at the chateau, but I, for one, feel roundly chastised. :-p

        More than one famous thinker from the past said that it’s best to treat women the way you would an intelligent teenager.

        Like


    • The manufactured outrage is ridiculous.

      All he was saying was what every pre-Boomer mother and grandmother would say to teenage girls: If you don’t respect yourself no one else will.

      Like


  11. So basically Steven Hawkins should be burned or at the very least sterilized.

    Like


    • Dafuq?? First of all, if you are going to swim in the deep end of the pool, at least get the name right FFS. HAWKING dimwit. And this comment was so out in left field against anything said above I’m not exactly certain why you made it.

      Like


  12. #4 should come as no surprise, but it should come with a few questions.

    -With the recent study that linked political orientation to genetics by some 60%, then would this preference for an out-group be genetic as well? If so, what sort of evolutionary advantage would this really offer? The traitor trait would have had to have developed for a reason.

    [CH: an educated guess: the “traitor trait” may have “worked” (i.e. been fitness enhancing) in a mostly homogeneous tribal environment, where exposure to Others was limited, and extracting some good alleles (or good trades) from the occasional neighboring tribe was a net benefit. but now, the Other is everywhere, and the Otherness is more extreme, so the traitor trait is no longer fitness maximizing for the group, and may not even be so for the cosmopolitan transnational elite anymore. the costs now outweigh the benefits.

    ps don’t expect a liberal to understand this line of thought at all. and even if the liberal did understand it, don’t expect him to change his mind to accommodate the discomfiting thought.]

    Like


    • Thing is, most leftoids don’t believe they’re being traitors to their own identity groupings. They believe they’re merely being altruistic to others, and that such altruism costs them nothing and does their own interests no harm (false). Like we say, empathy is the first refuge of the traitor.

      In the end the problem trait is emotionalism, the inability to balance compassion with self interest, and the separation of feelings from reason.

      Like


  13. “The patented CH solution to dysgenic fertility is to break the stranglehold of assortative mating by IQ that is currently aided and abetted by the helicopter parent ethos, and return to traditional pairings of powerful, high ability men with pretty but less educated and accomplished women. Call it the CH boss-secretary sexual strategy to renew Western vitality. This will increase fertility, increase total happiness, and decrease the degenerate SWPL culture monolith that is at the lead of decivilizing and ethnically cleansing great Western nations.”

    Money quote here, and I fully endorse and pursue this strategy. Remember also that there are many domains of intelligence, IQ being only one. Further, beauty, being a proxy for reproductive fitness, also correlates with overall neural function. So often these beautiful young non-SWPL, non-degreed secretaries offer other forms of intelligence–creativity, art, cooking, emotional intelligence, etc.

    Another part of breaking the SWPL cultural chokehold will be to assert the importance of non-collegiate, non-professional achievement, including child rearing and the domestic arts.

    Like


  14. Once again, I think people are having trouble understanding metaphors, and the idea of microcosm.

    The point is to demonstrate the concept of rampant equalism, and the various physical, social, and political mechanisms designed to enforce it.

    Like


    • US $60/hr hooker / stripper who doesn’t have to get naked or be groped? My hat is off to her. If someone is that fucking stupid to pay for this, by all means, make it happen.

      Like


      • You have no idea. There is an entire market ready, already now. Guys (betas) who don’t need sex (not yet), they need attention, affection. Go look up ASMR videos on Youtube: it’s full of girls dying to have their own man, and men dying to have their own girl. People need social/private bonds, and it’s probably worth even more than 60$/h.

        Like


      • Sounds and looks like (yet) another yenta trying to ride a gravy train, without forking over the price of a ticket.

        Like


  15. It figures that Fisher, being one of the Sultans of Statistics, would be a red-pill guy.

    By way of contrast, Amanda Marcotte, wrote a defence on Slate of the Obamacare posters. Even more irrational than usual.

    Like


  16. But DC & NYC gentlemen have little respect for the importance of non-professional achievement in child-rearing. All the dudes in my circle– if they happen to be the marrying kind– want a wife who will work and contribute financially to the household. A wife who would stay home with the children would be burdensome. They would rather have two live-in nannies from the developing world then have their children’s own mother, their wife, raise the children. Dudes are too worried about job insecurity, cost of living yadda yadda.

    Like


    • Because DC & NYC are filled with ‘alpha’ males in business who are beta in all other regards in their life. There are manifold posts here about this concept.

      Pro tip: Don’t go to trendy clubs full of metrosexual faggotry when looking for a life partner.

      Like


      • Simpler explanation: these cities are expensive. Unless you are really, really high up, it’s hard to support yourself on even a high single salary.

        Most CEOs have a stay-at-home wife who arranges their social events (which are an important part of high-level business.)

        Like


    • on November 15, 2013 at 1:47 pm Hector_St_Clare

      Celimene,

      You should meet a different set of men. Or just move to a part of the country where people are more traditional in their world views.

      Like


    • They were brainwashed by feminism too

      Like


    • I don’t care how many alpha men want to reserve their reverence for child-rearing, the fact is that the tasks that revolve around sexual reproduction are NOT respectable anymore in today’s world. Earning money is much more respectable. High IQ women understand this and that is why they are not breeding.

      Like


  17. “It seems more likely that teen daughters with absent fathers would be more interested in snagging high-status older men”

    I was raised in an area where girls started having sex at 13, 14, 15.

    They became hookers and drug addicts and looked decrepit and worn-out at 30. I never saw one snag “a high-status older man.”

    I owned a taxi for five years and ran a lot of hookers around. It was those “high-status older men” who asked for 16-year-olds.

    Like


  18. CH I wouldn’t expect you to woozle. A survey of 64 chicks at a christian school hardly counts as a great study

    [CH: normally, you’d be right. but when you remember the mountain of real world evidence that we have demonstrating the deleterious effects of absentee fatherhood on daughters, a study showing the same thing with a small sample size earns added weight.]

    Like


  19. This guy reads CH, and he passed on the lessons to high schoolers. Mistake. Kids can only handle so much #RealTalk.

    On the one hand, the man is speaking truth. On the other hand, I’m starting to believe that women will naturally adopt these behaviors in the face of a man who demonstrates sufficient masculinity, vis a vis them. Regardless of whatever ideology floats around, real life facts are king.

    If a woman acts like a shrew around you, either demonstrate more value and dominance or leave her. Seems simple enough to me.

    Like


  20. Here is a great link for today….. a dumb broad wrote an an article about an eye contact study conducted by two Cathedral dumb broads saying that lo and behold strong eye contact doesn’t work and is intimidating…….uh huh.

    cultural shit testing for the business elite anyone?

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2013/10/02/the-power-of-eye-contact-its-a-myth/

    [CH: don’t trust any study by a feminist psychologist coming out of an “elite” institution. it’s almost guaranteed to be an exercise in self-bias.]

    Like


  21. “Memo to fatties: you eat too much. Get off your fat asses and stop shoving so much crappy food into your pieholes.”

    There is more to it than that. Once you are metabolically deranged(fat or obese), you must get proper sleep, exercise, and restore insulin sensitivity by means of dieting. Eliminating simple sugars, or in extreme cases lower carbohydrate diets may be necessary Ala Atkins and Gary Taubes.

    Most people( fat chicks) lack the education or are misinformed. Eating less and exercising more doesn’t necessarily mean less fat in the fat cells.

    [CH: that’s why i used the qualifier “crappy” to describe the typical fatty’s food choices. it’s not enough to eat less if the calories that remain come predominately from snacky cakes.]

    One’s hormones must be in order first. Once someone possess the basic knowledge for adiposity reduction and does nothing to thwart it, then they are lazy and may be shamed at will.

    Like


    • It’s not that they are misinformed or lack education, it’s that the process — like you said — involves more than just eating less and exercising more. It is a lifestyle change. You are slowly, and painfully, remaking your internal chemistry.

      It’s a crock of shit that you start ‘liking’ the gym after about 2-4 weeks. Bullshit. More like 4-5 months of steady dedication before your internal balance starts to favor activity. And it’s very easy to give up during that time.

      Like


      • Exactly, lifestyle change that most people don’t want to go through.

        Like


      • Yeah, it’s difficult. Once you come out the other side though, as a man, the benefits are great. It’s way easier to act boldly and to remain graceful under pressure. And the muscles…I mean, they look cool, but honestly…you just feel strong. People — especially women — pick up on that vibe.

        Like


  22. on November 15, 2013 at 2:36 pm Amanjaw Marcuntte

    Video of the week: Rob Ford is Alpha.

    Witness the perfect confluence of casually talking about pussy, strutting off in a fucking personalised football uniform and leaving behind a flabbergasted porcine feminist reporter.

    There are few things more entertaining than a politician who has stopped giving a shit.

    Like


  23. The fate of nations is intimately bound up with their powers of reproduction. All nations and all empires first felt decadence gnawing at them when their birth rate fell off.

    – Benito Mussolini

    Like


  24. Me (about our daughter’s defiance): “What would YOUR pop have done if he told you not to call so-and-so any more, and you continued talking to him?”

    Wife: “That’s why Pop raised roses. He used them for switches.”

    Heavy handed fathers make daughters that become good wives. It’s a fact of human evolution.

    On the other side of that coin, I was a totally limp wristed pansy of a father, not discovering the Manosphere until I was 40, and my daughter is a flaming lesbian militant feminist as a result, while my son is 20 and hasn’t even fantasized about kissing a real girl yet.

    Procreation fail.

    Like


    • Then take ur grand-dad job seriously.

      Like


      • Read again exactly how is he going to become a grand dad he has a better chance to have more offspring…

        Like


      • More offspring of his own, sure, and his now 2 kids will come around (some). When grandkids come, he should be ready to pounce, and not in Florida jacking off on a golf course or somesuch. .

        Like


      • All my hopes lie with my son. He likes girls and he has been smart enough to ignore the manboobery spewing from my emasculated mouth over the years, and observe my reality. Problem is he’s hardcore MGTOW because he equates having sex with ending up in the same pile of dog shit I did.

        It’s slow going. He has Oneitis from hell. Some girl he’s been friends with on the net since puberty, and he thinks he’s in love with her. Kid has a job now, and more money than I do. He needs to go get on a plane and either fuck that girl or get over her.

        I’ve thought about starting another family with some other woman. I don’t know yet. I did force my wife to get her tubes tied, and specifically did not cut my nuts. There might have been a reason for that.

        Like


      • He’s still your son. If you are still on speaking terms with him, you can talk to him and explain to him where you’ve gone wrong and try to set him in the right direction.

        If he’s 20 you may be able to speak to him as two adults. Could even be a source of father-son bonding–even if you’ve not made the best use of your responsibilities as of late, it’s never too late until you’re both dead, and that sounds a long way off.

        The daughter, well, if she’s a feminist you won’t be able to reach her. Unless anyone here has ideas…

        Like


      • Girls can go through a “militant feminist lesbian” phase. Try to rekindle or maintain a relationship with her, also. (It would be devastating to have your dad show interest in your brother but not you.) If some guy with some hunting skills and a bit of confidence decides he is interested in her, she may decide she is no longer a militant feminist lesbian.

        Like


      • I’m on very intimate speaking terms with him, and talking about where I went wrong is exactly what we’ve been talking about. He has a good game plan now, but he doesn’t want to play the game.

        The longer I think about it, the less I blame him. Is white pussy really worth it gentlemen? Game can get you laid, and game can keep you married, but if you ever slip up, and most of us will (bring the movies guy and skittles guy don’t read this blog, because they have no need), women are vicious back-stabbers that turn on a dime, and they have the entire power of the Cathedral behind them.

        My buddy with the cute foreign wife has the right idea. Me getting through my divorce go to follow his lead is just more than I want to bite off right now.

        My son, now, I should have thought about this a lot sooner. Let him keep himself virginal for now, and avoid any chance of getting lured into the baby daddy trap. Let him finish college and establish a decent income, and then my boy is the one who needs to go on that trip to the Philippines.

        If the stories are to be believed, and I basically do believe them, he will have his pick of hundreds of pretty young girls whose parents are more than happy to marry them off and send them over here. They have one less mouth to feed that way, and a rich son-in-law. Keep her at home like my buddy did, and you get fucked and sucked and a clean house for about $100 a month diverted home via Western Union. Most American women spend more than that on shoes.

        Yes, I like this plan. I will have grandchildren. I’d rather they were solid white, but western civilization is extremely fucked up right now, and this seems like reasonable damage control.

        Like


      • Lead by example.

        I don’t discuss red pill anything with anyone. Me and a few like-minded individuals talk about tactics, game, and shit that works, and we all have a collective red pill understanding…but we don’t talk about any implications beyond scoring puss.

        You don’t have to talk about it. Just act. People will get the message, and they will start to realize that you’re doing your own thing.

        Like


      • Yeah, but your offspring are one of the few cases where you actually do have to lay things like that out.

        Like


      • If there is one thing that women’s fetishes teaches us, women respect authority over everything else.

        Like


  25. The Fat City article was goooooood! the writer is a doctor and half her paragraphs take on the form:
    “Shiv shiv shiv..shiv, shivshiv. I hate writing these sentences. they are ugly”

    “I sit in front of a 280-kilo patient and I keep my tone light and my questions broad: What do you tend to snack on, when you snack? Is it sweet stuff or salty stuff? He reads from his diary: Mid-morning snack: small green apple and two rice crackers. I continue: Do you ever feel full? Do you ever keep eating even though you are full? Have you ever eaten to the point of vomiting spontaneously and then kept on eating?”

    Holy crap, I never knew there were fat people who ATE AFTER VOMITING because they ate too much. Thats fucking insane….like a bulemic who throws another finger down her throat just after passing out from vomiting too hard.
    “B..B..but being fat is a lifestyle choice” Yeah, like slitting my wrists.

    Like


  26. “the only thing that can conceivably be called settled is that parenting has *less* influence than previously believed by social scientists.”

    So after they’ve learned the rudiments of language and to control their sphincters children are crammed in huge barns away from parents and are exposed to uniform indoctrination during their thinking-forming and socialization years.

    And household structure don’t matter, that much? And soon not at all (if our OverLords’ wishes be fulfilled?)

    Really? I mean … really?!?

    Well, that’s wow, just wow.

    Like


    • That guy’s eyes are pleading with the camera, saying, “Please kill me.”

      Like


      • Better:Please kill HER!!!!

        Like


      • And kill the editor/reporter who found it oh-so-necessary to include a graphic negro-on-white picture as representation of “Othello Syndrome”…

        Which has little to do with this actual vercackte story of some fat broad being overly jealous of her man…

        Then again, these days ARE bizarro-world topsy-turvydom… especially on based-on-a-kind-of-fagdom Albion.

        Like


    • That’s a preview of real-life Idiocracy right there, right down to the shirt covered in advertisements.

      Like


  27. ?

    Like


  28. Third time being the charm …
    As to the household situation not holding that much sway over the children, given that they spend most of the 5-18 years away from the family, and that most of the little time they spend awake at home is spent watching TV and doing homework (busywork), it’s a wonder the family situation matters at all. SOON, say the OverLords. Allahu Akhbar respond the unconvinced ones.

    Like


  29. Niggers suck. And rape!

    Like


  30. Field report:

    Go to this classy bar with two buds, both are very good wings (each have over 100 lays) so I know it was going to be a good night.

    We get there and the ratio is brutal, literally 10 to 1. I don’t let that bring down the mood. Two nubiles walk in and they are near us at the bar. As I get ready to do my approach this pretty tight cougar starts touching my face saying “you look like Robert Downey jr”
    Lol I let her play with me for her own pleasure and for the preselection effect. It does its job as the women start to look. I start playing back with the cougar for a good 10 mins then I walk over to the two nubiles and say “cougar attack…man she’s got her claws in deep” they say what do they want I say “sex of course. Not that I’d ever do it but why not let her feel young again”

    Immediately the sexual tone is set, as their eyes open wide on hearing the word. I start talking to the blonde who seems more conservative. After a few mins I look at the both and say “from the two of you, I say that you are the conservative one” I said this to the brunette that was obviously the sluttier one. Slight neg on her for my buddy while I put mine to the test. Now the hair twirling takes off. She tells me “most guys like her look” I tell her “you know you aren’t my normal type but I have to tell you, I kind of like you”
    I literally see her vag get gushy. Now she having trouble containing the smile. I see her phone her man texts her i caught the name. She sees that I looked at her phone and immediately hides it away from me. The little whore.

    The last bomblet I drop is this as she was a ginger I tell her “you know, our children would look striking ginger” at this point it was over. The ASD was on high alert I literally watched as she was battling herself. As we are leaving I tell her “I’m taking you out this week. Tell me when you are free” and blurts out “I have a boyfriend!!” Which of course I figured by the name on her phone which kept popping up through the night. I say “well that’s a shame” she says “I gave you my number, hit me up”

    Obviously the door is open for me to fuck her. But my morals won’t allow me to go down that path. At least she was honest last night. Watching her mood change and fight her own desires as I flipped her switches was incredible. She was getting turned on as she even said “most guys I meet talk about themselves, they try to brag about all their achievements” I said “nah, I’d rather talk about you. I’m curious to learn about you” lol fun

    Like


    • Pretty good. I would have worked some kino in there too once you had her on the hook. “Curious to learn about you”, sounds bad though. She has utter frame control after that statement. I’m wondering if you’d have gotten the date if you’d have dropped that whole line of reasoning.

      Like


      • I don’t think there was much negative effect with that. The conversation was flowing smooth thereafter. It was simply ASD on her part. The door is open I can always be an alpha orbiter when things go bad with her bf boom I’m in.

        My brother is pro with this. There’s girls he meets like this sends them intermittent texts and when the inevitable break up happens they blow him up and he bangs them. He literally has a dozen of outer circle orbiters like this that he bangs when they are available.

        Like


  31. on November 16, 2013 at 11:22 am Holden Caulfield

    In regards to the CH twitter post:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/10441027/Don-Jon-how-porn-is-rewiring-mens-brains.html

    What about women who only orgasm after vibrating some inanimate object against their clits? How many women would be happy if during or after you fucked them, you had to vibrate an object against your cock to orgasm?

    Like


    • ” … How many women would be happy if during or after you fucked them, you had to vibrate an object against your cock to orgasm?… ”

      Not one damn woman would tolerate that.

      Then they would ask Obama to create a new tax to pay for their aroma therapy or something…

      Like


  32. on November 16, 2013 at 11:34 am Holden Caulfield

    There is some sweet hamster pellets in this article:

    http://www.dailylife.com.au/life-and-love/love,-sex-and-relationships/dear-young-woman-whos-dating-a-jerk-20131111-2xbqb.html

    My personal favorite gem: “we put up with dating assholes so that later on we can dine out on the tales of all the things they did that defy human understanding. ”

    lolzlozlzolzz…they like the lotsa cockas and don’t even understand why

    Like


  33. on November 16, 2013 at 12:51 pm Abelard Lindsey

    I like the “Halloween” background music to the hood video.

    Like


  34. on November 16, 2013 at 1:05 pm Abelard Lindsey

    The patented CH solution to dysgenic fertility is to break the stranglehold of assortative mating by IQ that is currently aided and abetted by the helicopter parent ethos, and return to traditional pairings of powerful, high ability men with pretty but less educated and accomplished women.

    Highly unlikely. The bifurcation of humanity into separate cognitive classes, aided by high IQ assortive mating, is inevitable. This is a trend I saw starting in the late 70s. I think it will continue into the indefinite future. The emergence of the transhuman age (radical life extension, intelligence increase, bio-engineering) will reinforce this trend and make it permanent.

    Like


    • on November 16, 2013 at 1:43 pm Armchair Observer

      Radical life extension….ah, finally someone gets it. Not factored into a lot of discussion despite its revolutionary impact. Plus 100

      A topic which deserves more attention here CH.

      Like


      • Yes!!!!!111!! Life extension is VERY prominent now, in the TWENTY FIRST centureez. We have, the FROZEN HEADS of high millionaires, and low billionaries, waiting for the technology to ‘thaw them out’. Thus, has it been since the early 70s…

        Cryogenic freezing is old schoo. Cryogenic THAWING is future tech and will be for a long long time. Freeze your fucking brain all day long. But— cells fracture and lyse (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lyse?s=t) in low temp, this is not news.

        No one, has figured out yet, how to return a human brain to ‘room temp’ without the horrific ‘freeze fracture’, aka, lysing of cells. When you do this and prove it. I’ll invest in your company. As you will be on the narrow road to human immortality.

        Like


    • God Abelard Lindsey! It all sounds soooo goood when you parrot it back to us, the unwashed masses. You have all the right words bifrucation, cognitive, assortive, inevitable. SUCH frontal cortex functionality! When the ‘singularity’ comes, I’m sure your mind will be the first uploaded to our GodHeadComputerTyrant.

      Myself, I’m not even that smart or literate. My IQ measures in the ’20s, not the ’40s. But maybe CH or M.King could bury you under a mountain of diatribe and diction, the likes of which… I simply don’t possess. In FACT! Them niggas could TAG TEAM you maybe. Like Rowdy Roddy Piper and Jesse “The Body” Ventura. Who may become the next president, if we are lucky.

      Said a different way— You should probably move to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcosanti where most 70s reject with a three syllable vocabulary eventually landed.

      Like


  35. How about this one in England: metro.co.uk/2013/11/14/ive-passed-with-horn-ors-elina-named-britains-most-promiscuous-student-after-sleeping-with-three-men-a-week-4187761/

    Litterally giving women awards for being sluts..

    Like


    • Silly bint thinks it will give her good job prospects too, lol.

      Maybe as a “PA” for a male business owner with no HR department..

      Like


  36. Does anyone want to explain the rampant overuse of the term “lady parts” among the femcunt crowd lately? Have we really suffered through over a decade of Vagina Monologues only to regress to the most cloyingly bashful neo-Victorian term for genetalia?

    At first I thought it was being used sarcastically but it’s completely in earnest.

    Like


    • Because “the c word” as they like to say, is OH MY GOD YOU CAN’T SAY THAT!!! You fucking prick pulling dickhead!!!!

      Like


      • I’m just wondering if it’s starting to dawn on Eve Ensler that after all these years of axe grinding, maybe the reason women still don’t want to use her beloved V-word isn’t so much PATRIARCHAL CONSPIRACY as it is the fact that vagina is a cumbersome, clinical sounding word. As Jim Goad has pointed out, it’s not like “penis” rolls off the tongue pleasingly either.

        Like


    • I use “lady parts coverage” as shorthand for “abortion, contraception, and maternity care” when smacking liberals over the head about 0bumblercare.

      Like


  37. Maybe someone with less brains and than I have can answer why this site seems partially devoted to white fetishism. As anyone with a passing knowledge of history knows, “white” describes an extremely large collection of different types of people, who, like all others groups throughout time, tended to fight and slaughter each other.

    If you went back in time and told the Romans they should stop slaughtering and enslaving the Gauls because they both have white skin, you would be thought of as completely insane. Same thing if you went back to Denmark and told the Vikings to stop raiding England.

    The main point is that “white” does not describe very much other than skin color – both Poles and Irish were technically white but considered practically subhuman not too long ago.

    [CH: no they weren’t. this is a leftoid myth.]

    If the entire point of wanting a strong country/society/civilization, why not invite the best of every race and try to stop the scum from breeding? Why single out only “whites”?

    [because people are different. heyo!]

    Like


    • This post was the best that that alleged “big brain” of yours could devise?

      Meh… and pffft.

      Like


    • Jim

      Maybe someone with less brains and than I have can answer why this site seems partially devoted to white fetishism.
      —————————————————————————————————

      Jim, as the resident “less brains” of this site, I offer this theory:

      The “white fetishism” you describe being practiced on this site is an attempt by certain white males to limit competition to the shallower “gene pool” of individuals expressing this particular trait; pale skin.

      I understand your frustration because it stands in direct contradiction with game; you can’t game a woman when you put her on such a gigantic pedastal. Ive tried to ridicule it with my “attraction to old or fat white women” routine… but like Greg Eliot quips, they often fall flat.

      Indeed, Ive stated before (with no response) that white women may intentionally seek out precisely those white males who do NOT attempt to limit competition between themselves and nonwhite males; as a strategy to determine the best white male to mate with?

      White girls got game.

      For all the scientific HBD talk on this site, these white guys sure know how to forget it when they most need to account for it.

      Like


  38. Highly unlikely. The bifurcation of humanity into separate cognitive classes, aided by high IQ assortive mating, is inevitable. This is a trend I saw starting in the late 70s. I think it will continue into the indefinite future. The emergence of the transhuman age (radical life extension, intelligence increase, bio-engineering) will reinforce this trend and make it permanent.

    An anecdote. I have (had) a high-140s IQ. My wife, who can be a challenging PITA, has a 140 IQ. My son is at an Ivy League school and my teenage daughter wants to be a neuroscientist. My brother married a cute bimbo who has been easier to live with and more of a traditional wife. His son dropped out of a mediocre college and is now a machinist.

    So who made the better choice?

    Like


    • The world will last 1000 more generations without women neurowhatevers…

      It won’t last three without mothers.

      A man happy with his cute and unassuming wife, and a son doing an honest days work creating actual useful product… and able to fix the toys of the Ivy Leaguers, or keep them mobile when the grid goes down.

      Hmmmmm…. better choice? 20 years ago I may have said the guy who may spawn the future curers of cancer…

      Today, I’m not so sure the brother with the “bimbo” wife and the blue-collar son isn’t holding the better end of the stick.

      Like


  39. Quite a long while ago, There was a post about women feeling free to slut it up with foreign men, and the hypothesis was that this gave a chance of a hybrid vigor, thus increasing fitness.

    But women are risk adverse, and the risk of an ugly mongrel far outweighs any risk of a hybrid vigor. Could it be that around foreginers they won’t be judged for their sluttery?

    Could it thus be that immigration is not just high class against lower class warfare, or women voting with their cunts, but a case of middle class complacency, and Jewish peddling of the ‘economic benefits’?

    Like


  40. That girl born with no vagina…

    She still has a mouth and an ass.

    Like


  41. Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    translation: you’re black

    Like


  42. Another very interesting link, science backing again some of your assertions, This time about beauty on the outside, beauty on the inside: http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21589845-what-makes-beautiful-visage-and-why-may-have-been-discovered-accidentally

    Like


  43. […] came across this from Chateau Heartiste. Liberals are more likely to kill a white person than a black person to save 100 people. So it’s […]

    Like


  44. I believe you will find the comment reposted here further proof:

    http://classicalvalues.com/2013/11/nearing-the-expiration-date/

    Money quote:

    we will soon controll the police not you! And they shoot minorities now ;but they will shoot who ever is in power tells them to shoot! When we get in power and tell them to shoot rich old white conservitives

    Like


  45. […] 1. Is low fertility hereditary? Francis Galton thought so. He analyzed English peerages (excerpted from R. A.  […]

    Like


  46. Associative mating a failure? Then ask yourself why a certain ethnic group controls the world? And they appear to have a pretty good military too.

    They do have the advantage of getting the weaklings frequently culled by the larger civilization.

    IQ differences of more than about 20 points make LTRs difficult.

    Like