Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Commenting on a despicable article of jet-fueled anti-Gentilic chutzpah, BenKenobi writes,

They wanted evil White men. They shall have them.

Do not lament that we have come.

We are the culmination of the entire progressive philosophy.

We are the synthesis.

“You don’t have to believe in backlash, Clarice. It’s self-evident.”

Diversity Heretic adds,

Well and succinctly said, sir! That article absolutely drips with contempt for the white lumpen proletariat. I think the Bourbons had more respect for the peasants in 1789 and the Czar had more genuine concern for Russians in 1917 than our present elite have for us.

It’s a truism that a people who are always having to ask “why do they hate us?” are carried to this contemplation on a windstorm of their own hatred.

Via reader oldfury, a Chesterfield warning on the dangers of reorienting one’s foremost purpose to the objective of empowering women.

As women are a considerable, or at least a pretty numerous part of company; and as their suffrages go a great way toward establishing a man’s character in the fashionable part of the world (which is of great importance to the fortune and figure he proposes to make in it), it is necessary to please them.

I will therefore, upon this subject, let you into certain Arcana that will be very useful for you to know, but which you must, with the utmost care, conceal and never seem to know.

Women, then, are only children of a larger growth; they have an entertaining tattle, and sometimes wit; but for solid reasoning, good sense, I never knew in my life one that had it, or who reasoned or acted consequentially for four-and-twenty hours together. Some little passion or humor always breaks upon their best resolutions. Their beauty neglected or controverted, their age increased, or their supposed understandings depreciated, instantly kindles their little passions, and overturns any system of consequential conduct, that in their most reasonable moments they might have been capable of forming.

A man of sense only trifles with them, plays with them, humors and flatters them, as he does with a sprightly forward child; but he neither consults them about, nor trusts them with serious matters; though he often makes them believe that he does both; which is the thing in the world that they are proud of; for they love mightily to be dabbling in business (which by the way they always spoil); and being justly distrustful that men in general look upon them in a trifling light, they almost adore that man who talks more seriously to them, and who seems to consult and trust them; I say, who seems; for weak men really do, but wise ones only seem to do it.

-Lord Chesterfield in a letter to his son

Chesterfield here is essentially arguing for restricted female agency, and therefore the necessity to men of wisely shielding women from matters of true importance – like immigration policy – while pretending as if women’s counsel was desired.

Feminine women don’t really desire, as beta males are wont to believe, full egalitarian inclusion in serious business or political decisions. Having it bores them and they often rebel by deciding for changes that subvert the bounty for which they were charged by obsequious, supplicating men to protect and preserve. What women really love is the man who “trifles with them”, but also assuages their fear that their instinctive female predilection for flirtation and little passions won’t be exploited to embarrass them in polite company as frivolities.

Another shitlib hit piece on Trump has backfired and unintentionally elevated his stature. Related to the founding principles of this blog, more evidence emerges that Trump had tight Game before the PUA subculture formed to systematize the informal seduction rules that naturals obey without knowing it.

Donald was among a group of boys who pulled girls’ hair, passed notes and talked out of turn.

The hair pull encompasses so much of the Game oeuvre because it vice signals a man’s irresistible jerkboy boner fides. Every girl adores a rule-breaker.

“We threw spitballs and we played racing chairs with our desks, crashing them into other desks,” recalled Paul Onish, a classmate, describing himself and Trump as “probably the two worst.”

Donald spent enough time in detention, Onish said, that his buddies nicknamed the punishment “DTs” — short for “Donny Trump.”

Chicks dig a badboy in detention.

“He had a reputation for saying anything that came into his head,” said Donald Kass, 70, a retired agronomist who was a schoolmate. When Trump misidentified Rocca, the pro wrestler, Kass recalled, “We would laugh at him and tell him he was wrong, and he’d say he was right. The next time, he would make the same mistake, and it would be the same thing all over again.”

Poon Commandment XI:

XI.  Be irrationally self-confident

No matter what your station in life, stride through the world without apology or excuse. It does not matter if objectively you are not the best man a woman can get; what matters is that you think and act like you are. Women have a dog’s instinct for uncovering weakness in men; don’t make it easy for them. Self-confidence, warranted or not, triggers submissive emotional responses in women. Irrational self-confidence will get you more pussy than rational defeatism.

It’s no coincidence that Trump has tight Game, a hot wife half his age, and is meteorically rising to God Emperor status as leader of a reborn nationalist movement.

***

PS What about rational self-confidence? Theoretically, this should be the best emotional state as your self-belief would be grounded in factual achievement and thus reduce the putative cognitive demand of consciously projecting a specific positive characteristic, but practically it doesn’t make a lick of difference if the nature and immediacy of your achievements adheres to UI standards or if they’re subject to self-promotion guidelines, as long as you act like you’ve got the world in your hand.

The point of Poon Commandment XI is that if you had to choose between mediocre realistic self-appraisal and boffo irrational self-glorification, always choose the latter if its women’s love you want. The tragic reality is that most men default to the former, thinking (wrongly) it will buy them respect and admiration to be so honest about themselves to others. But seduction, like advertising, is not the art of brutal honesty; it’s the art of selling yourself (or your product). Honesty is nice but beside the point.

No, really. This post’s title isn’t an ironic invocation of leading cuckservative pundits. Esssra Klein and his merry band of (((voxlets))) love hissing about authoritarian conservatives; it’s one of their favorite pastimes, along with getting assaulted by dindus and post hoc rationalizing a way to blame )))White((( men.

Liberals have been trotting out the “conservatives are authoritarians” claim in one form or another for generations. It’s a Stalin-esque example of the rhetoric trick favored by leftoid radicals of pathologizing the normal, healthy instincts of one’s ideological enemies. Remote psychological diagnosis, and the Commies were very fond of its agit-prop utility.

Yet, all around us in the current year we are besieged with evidence to the contrary. Conservatives aren’t the ones crashing Trump rallies and stabbing people. Nor are they the ones leading modern-day witch hunts against crime thinkers like James Watson or Jason Richwine and getting them fired from their jobs. Nor are conservatives running gargantuan media conglomerates and information gateways dedicated to purging wrongthink. Nor are conservatives – actual conservatives as the word is commonly understood, not cuckboys like Paul Ryan – using extra-Constitutional executive privilege to foist hundreds of thousands (soon to be millions) of third world refugees on small town America and committing what in a sane world would qualify as treason.

When your lying eyes conflict with social science studies pumped out by tenured academics living the easy life in leftoid hothouses, and propagated by credulous media leftoids whose preexisting biases have been confirmed, the way to bet is that the leftoid study has the problem with accurately assessing reality.

And that’s the case with the flurry of “authoritarian Trump supporters” articles that have appeared recently in such esteemed publications as the Huffington ShitPost, the Washington Post-Op, and The New York Beta Times. A major retraction was issued, unsurprisingly, to very little media coverage, essentially overturning the cherished beliefs of smug liberals.

Conservative political beliefs not linked to psychotic traits, as study claimed

Researchers have fixed a number of papers after mistakenly reporting that people who hold conservative political beliefs are more likely to exhibit traits associated with psychoticism, such as authoritarianism and tough-mindedness.

As one of the notices specifies, now it appears that liberal political beliefs are linked with psychoticism.

WOOPS

When we asked Hatemi to elaborate on what that magnitude was — how much more likely were people who held conservative or liberal views to exhibit certain traits? — he said:

[T]he correlations are spurious, so the direction or even magnitude is not suitable to elaborate on at all- that’s the point of all our papers and the general findings.

If the correlations are spurious and unworthy of elaboration, then WHY THE FUCK DID EVERY GODDAMNED LEFTOID PRICK IN EXISTENCE run with the erroneously reported study results that conservatives are authoritarian?

Even if the errors don’t affect the conclusions of the paper, they matter, Ludeke told us:

The erroneous results represented some of the larger correlations between personality and politics ever reported; they were reported and interpreted, repeatedly, in the wrong direction; and then cited at rates that are (for this field) extremely high. And the relationship between personality and politics is, as we note in the paper, quite a “hot” topic, with a large number of new papers appearing every year. So although the errors do not matter for the result that the authors (rightly) see as their most important, I obviously think the errors themselves matter quite a lot, especially for what it says about the scientific process both pre- and post-review.

Amen. What it says is that a shitlib social scientist found out liberals are actually more likely to be authoritarian, but through partisan negligence or deliberate deception permitted the results of his study to be published and reported as if the exact opposite were true.

I’d ask Essssssra Klein for his thoughts on this retraction, but I fear he’d respond with midnight raids and one way tickets to the gulag.

In a study of paraphilia (obsession with unusual sexual practices), a curious sex difference poked out of the findings. See if you can spot it.

masojism

That’s right, men are over-represented in every sexual perversion except one: masochism. Women are the eager beavers of sexual masojism. It is to LOL.

Any regular Chateau guest would not be surprised by the discovery that women are more sexually masochistic than men. Women are attracted to dominant men, and one way male dominance is exerted is in the bedroom. Women therefore enjoy the masochistic pleasure of submitting to a dominant, takes-what-he-wants man, or will purposely assume a masochistic sex play role to fulfill their need for submission to a dominant, takes-what-he-wants man if such a man isn’t satisfyingly forthcoming with his dominance prowess.

Also, the fact that men excel at all sorts of sexual fetishes is indicative of their inherent “cheap sperm” reproductive status. Men are constantly on the lookout for mating opportunities, and expanding the field of sexual outlets beyond normie sex with an alt-right tradwife widens (heh) men’s scope of intercourse possibility. It is therefore hypothesized by your free-thinking host that very LSMV men will be found at the margins of sexual proclivity, hoping to snag some kind of scrotal relief that they are hard-pressed to achieve the normal way.

This fact is the “is” part of the “is, not ought” equation, and its existence should not be used as justification for social engineering to make sexual freaks more accepted by the general public.

Men love women who look happy. Women love men who look…. take a guess.

Women find happy guys significantly less sexually attractive than swaggering or brooding men, according to a new University of British Columbia study that helps to explain the enduring allure of “bad boys” and other iconic gender types.

Of course, if you were to ASK the typical woman in a public setting surrounded by her family and peers which kind of man she would rather date, she’ll say the smiling happy man. Women are loath to publicly admit romantic preferences that would expose the disturbing nature of their sexuality. But any man who’s lived a day in his life knows the special appeal that swaggering douchebags or mysterious brooding artists have to women.

In a series of studies, more than 1,000 adult

Nice N.

participants rated the sexual attractiveness of hundreds of images of the opposite sex engaged in universal displays of happiness (broad smiles), pride (raised heads, puffed-up chests) and shame (lowered heads, averted eyes).

The study found that women were least attracted to smiling, happy men, preferring those who looked proud and powerful or moody and ashamed. In contrast, male participants were most sexually attracted to women who looked happy, and least attracted to women who appeared proud and confident.

Careerist, manjawed feminists extolling the lean-in philosophy wept. Men prefer deferential, submissive, vulnerable women. I.e., feminine women.

“It is important to remember that this study explored first-impressions of sexual attraction to images of the opposite sex,” says Alec Beall, a UBC psychology graduate student and study co-author. “We were not asking participants if they thought these targets would make a good boyfriend or wife — we wanted their gut reactions on carnal, sexual attraction.”

The sexual market is the prime market because (among other reasons) it operates on the level of the human subconscious, where instinct and “gut” forge behavior before the frontal lobe pitches in to rationalize that based behavior as freely chosen and socially appropriate.

Overall, the researchers found that men ranked women more attractive than women ranked men.

Fashy coda! Affirms the “sperm is cheap, eggs are expensive” maxim. For those cucklets who insist that women only value men’s looks, remember that women are predisposed to valuing VERY LITTLE of men, even decent-looking men, BEFORE those men have approached and displayed their masculine boldness.

It’s been covered here at the Chateau many times…women are the more discriminating sex, and that extends to women’s perceptions of men’s looks. Which is implicitly good news for less Hollywoodian men, because if women only consciously value the top 5% in male looks then the reality that far more than 5% of men are dating cute girls proves that women must subconsciously value other traits in men. This study indirectly highlights a selection of those other attractive male traits: confidence, cockiness, inscrutability, danger, and dominance.

***

Nikolai adds an insightful comment about women’s seemingly weird attraction to shame-faced men.

This is the second study I’ve seen where ‘ashamed’ or ‘guilty’ was the second most popular look for men. I think I know why this is.
When I first started seeing multiple women, dates would ask me about it and I would look shamefaced. This would prove what I was up to and I was surprised to find that they reacted positively, like those female teachers who can’t help adoring the naughty boy.
Of course, haughty and nonchalant would have been even better. That’s why ashamed only comes in second.

Anything that communicates “I’ve been a bad bad boy” will fire up a woman’s libido.

Donald Trump calls the esteemed, conspicuously White, Senator from Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren, “goofy” and “Pocahontas”, (I prefer the term of art “Fauxcahontas”), for her Deformative Action system-gaming mischief of claiming American Indian blood to land a plum job at Harvard. So she’s just another corrupt White leftoid leveraging anti-White virtue signaling for her pecuniary benefit.

She’s in the news again for staging a social media-ready, attention whoring “sit-in” in Congress to protest lack of Congressional action on stripping the 2nd Amendment of all meaning. She’s a gun control nut (aka “take all means of power from law-abiding White men” nut), among other nuttiness, and looking at photos of her and reading her Twats, the “goofy” label is apt.

However, I would go farther than Trump. Rabbit Warren is no mere goofball. She’s a sociopath. A malevolent modern era witch burner. A fucking crazy-eyed SJW psycho carrying a viral load of civilizational death. Evidence:

rabbitwarren

Those soulless, fanatic eyes. Let’s zoom in for a closer inspection.

rabbitwarrenzoom

Unmistakable. We’ve seen those eyes thousands of times. It’s the Charles Manson-esque look of every high-strung, SJW zealot who was ever triggered into a fire and brimstone sermon about the evils of White privilege.

gotchashitlibface

Here’s the deal on these degenerate equalist freaks: once you understand that their religion is race creationism — and that any attacks on their religious belief using incontrovertible evidence to the contrary will be met with the same ear-plugging, gum-flapping storm of rage and denial and psychological projection that one will often see manifest when the strict adherents of any traditional religion are attacked — then you’ll know why sanctimoniously preaching about “gun control” is a big part of their liturgy.

The gun control (((debate))) is a classic case of negative transference. American Whites have a gun violence rate about on par with White Europe. The Rabbit Warrens know deep in their schoolmarmy, sooty hearts that blacks and Muslim migrants are disproportionate vectors of gun violence (either drive-by or mass-shooting), but they can’t abide that percolating reality. It clashes with their entire worldview. To own up to a racial reality would be to disavow their most cherished beliefs. It would be like an Evangelical renouncing Jesus or a Jew accepting Jesus. Sheer heresy.

And they can’t have that. So they transfer their cognitively demanding bad feelings about black and Muslim violence onto Whites, and most ludicrously onto lawful White men in particular, to help ease the pain of self-doubting waywardness from their religion. “Bad White man! Bad guns that White men love so much! Ahh, I’m a good Race Creationist again. I’ll still go to gated community heaven, where all signals are virtuous and all self-righteousness at the expense of BadWhites rewarded with a Godly smirk of knowingness.”

Trump, of course, is the hungry wolf who found the rabbit warren, and is busy tearing apart rabbit flesh as tufts of bloody fur fly in every direction. That’s why Elizabeth Warren looks like she escaped the funny farm recently. Trump knows, like we DGAFians of the shiv-right know, that there’s no reasoning with religious fanatics. There’s only mockery, derision, ostracism, and if things get bad enough, cleansing cruelty.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,574 other followers

%d bloggers like this: