Apparently I'm not the only one pointing out the obvious

There's some anonymous blog run by anonymous peopleⁱ generally and collectivellyⁱⁱ and brave-sir-Robin-y identifying as "CH". For instance :

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).

Actually... Fisher does not agree with CH. Fisher can't agree with CH, inasmuch as CH isn't someone, not having a name. Fisher could at most agree with Smith, or Wesson, or Clinton. Fisher can not now nor can he ever agree with xXxC0d3rN1nj4xXx. It's CH that agrees with MP (who in turn agrees with Fisher) and with Fisher outright. And with a bunch of others.

But that minor bit of self-centered infantilism brushed aside, the point stands quite well on its own : egalitarism breeds failure both in the direct (because if better isn't better rewarded than worse then worse will run better out of circulation) and in the meta sense (because the discursive contortions necessary to justify the entire pile of nonsense pretty soon render the entire system unworkableⁱⁱⁱ).

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”.

Priming isn't a psychological "technique", at least inasmuch as the author means the implicit memory effect^iv, and I'm entirely unsure what innovative constructions like "causal effect" or "affirming a causal effect" are supposed to mean.

But if this infantile infatuation with big words and giving off a pretense to absent learning is brushed aside, the point stands quite well on its own : for a multitude of very good reasons, evolutionary, socioeconomic, psychological and so on, absent father figures will cause daughters to take more cock. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is entirely a different discussion, probably largely influenced by how much cock you've got to give. All that aside, nature tends to revert to means and girls can make their own males. Big whoop.

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*

The funny thing is, of course, to observe in practice the difference between what the exponents of a degenerate society represent as "barbaric" and what barbarians actually are. Here's a hint : Roman bad boys of Senatorial descent thought they're pretty fucking hardcore cca 460, just as the Byzantine bad boys of 1450s thought they're pretty hardcore. They all cracked their knuckles, just before being worn as a human prince Albert by the 21 yo Mehmets who turned out to be the real-real deal.

Incidentally, do you know how I know ? Simple, really. Mehmet has a name. The bad boys are all anon.

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

Totally.

It may get a little iffy once you own women that aren't actually fat yet have a lot of trouble coming to terms with all the social pressure, but hey. You're the owner, in your infinite power you're going to definitely find a solution. Cross the bridge once you get to it and all that.

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.

For one thing, liberals briefly had the run of the place, and they already fucked it up. Currently they're mostly here as comedic relief (a role in which I hope they may be maintained for many decades, there's nothing funnier than twentysomethings with firm convictions and large piles of debt^v.)

For the other, the problem here isn't that they want to kill "their own tribe". They're not part of white people tribe, in spite of being born white to fair skinned mothers. They're niggers, like it or not, in ways and to degrees actual black people born to actual black skinned mothers usually are not. It's all a cultural construct, and the word nigger is there to describe social and personal failures exactly like the libertard of today. Which, at least to me, is at least as funny as the previous paragraph. So, to keep it short and sweet : stay away from niggers, they're dangerously idiotic, and be advised that most niggers today are actually fair as birch.

Yes, the ghetto underworld is as bad as your most fevered nightmares can concoct.

This, of course, is a good thing. It gives some people the opportunity to emerge as actual alphas, rather than the self-appointed pseudo-sort we see everywhere on the web today.

But anyway, the guy's blog's not nearly as bad as all this makes it sound. I'm the guy that can make von Mises sound confusedly socialist after all. If you can brush aside a good helping of infantile whining and pretense, the CH thingee is quite readable. Have fun, and don't break too much shit around there.

1. Seriously, what's so hard about stating your name is Joe Dork and adding your mug to your about page ? What exactly is going to happen, are the coworkers going to snicker ? Is some dweeb going to ring your doorbell and run off one evening ? What exactly is everyone on the Internet afraid of ?

   You can't all be supersecret superspies in supermissions, lay off it. It's one thing when I identify as alpha from atop a large pile of tearful hurt butts carrying my initials affixed in solder around the rim. It's another when some anon on the internets pretends to the same, perhaps on the even weaker basis that "heh our friends know who we are derp". You know, like that Romanian writer-dragon-lolguy. Or like any one of the thousand-odd examples littered all around here that I'm too lazy to dig up (but do not despair, for entirely unrelatedly three girls have been working for nine weeks at a complete compendium of all the times anyone was wrong towards my PR on RetardsTalk (tm), the Bitcoin Forum & Musical, which is now about halfway done, and soon shall be published in all its five hundred page glory). [↩]

2. There must be made clear the distinction between this collective approach and any form of socialism such as for instance promoted by the libertards. It's totally not the same thing at all. [↩]
3. 2009 Romanian article, explaining one of the reasons socialism can never work in practice, exactly this meta-problem. [↩]
4. The classical example is that if you make people read a list of 500 butter sauces and then ask them to come up with an example of a sauce, they'll usually come up with a butter sauce. This happens to be about half of all the "hard science" at the basis of libertard behaviour, incidentally : after four to eight years in US colleges the only thing they can think when confronted with a winch or a pot of boiling water are variously race issues, gender issues and other such "issues". The other half, if you're curious, is rolling your eyes. Seriously, truth through agreement, that's what it is : rolling your eyes. [↩]
5. Not least of which debt comes in the impalpable yet quite real form of "having tooled their being to work in a different society from that in which they will live". Think about it this way : when you forego actual existence to go through US alleged "higher education" you don't simply take on the costs of the adventure, usually as interest-generating debt (direct costs) and you don't simply forego all the benefits you could have derived otherwise employing your time and energy (costs of opportunity) but most importantly as you tool yourself into a particular cog you lose the ability to have tooled yourself into a different sort of cog.

   To best grok this, consider you're a block of prime steel on the 1880s Western frontier. Should you decide to turn yourself into a steel cast of King George's cock and balls, you will expend the cost of being so turned, whatever that may be, plus you will forego all the benefits you could have accrued doing something else with that time, such as falling on Santa Ana's head in a most comedical fashion. But chief of it all you also lose the ability of doing something else with yourself, such as having been turned into guns, as no block of steel is more valuable as a statue of King George's cock and balls than it would have been as guns in the 1880s frontier.

   The common model of valuation assumes spherical cows in a vacuum, incompresible fluids and adolescents as adults, but none of this could be further from the truth. If you think you as a NY lawyer could make as much as a NY armless handyman you're just a wee bit on the naive side. And if you think once you've made yourself into a NY lawyer you can turn back the time ten-fifteen years and start over making yourself something else... heh. Maybe if you're lucky and there's WW3. [↩]