• Home
  • Diversity + Proximity = War: The Reference List
  • Shit Cuckservatives Say
  • The Sixteen Commandments Of Poon
  • Alpha Assessment Submissions
  • Beta Of The Year Contest Submissions
  • Dating Market Value Test For Men
  • Dating Market Value Test For Women
  • About

Chateau Heartiste

Feeds:
Posts
Comments
« The Pay Gap Is A Lie
Beta Male Body Language Giveaway »

The Psychology Of Feminists And Manboobs

April 18, 2012 by CH

Preface: I wanted to title this post “Monsters in our midst”, but thought that would be overkill.

Why do normal people feel a natural disgust for feminists and manginas? Make no mistake, normal women are as repulsed as normal men are by shrieking feminists and wimpy manboy pudgeballs. In public, well-adjusted people may mouth the PC platitudes that feminists and doughboys relentlessly cudgel into squishy groupthink minds, but in private the cool people generally shun the orc hordes and leave them to mingle with their own emotionally and often physically disfigured kind. This social outcast status is what fuels their eternal hatred for truth and beauty.

Feminism, whether dressed in ostensibly male or female cloak, strikes the hearts of healthy, self-confident people as inherently absurd and manipulative. Those who bother to closely examine the ideology find a minefield of lies and dissembling messengers. This naturally leads to questioning if there is something “off” in the aggregate with those who most vociferously preach the feminist word and harangue the heretics.

I have a theory that is perhaps the most politically incorrect thing you will read at the Chateau. The 800 pound bulldyke in the room that “””progressives””” of all stripes don’t want you to notice is that a lot of their radical regressivist shock troopers are comprised of biologically faulty men and women who are at the extremes of effeminacy and masculinization respectively. If it came to be widely understood and socially acceptable to acknowledge that, due to hormonal imbalance, genetic glitches, or gross environmental insult, 90% of radical femcunts are lesbians or manjawed atrocities, and 90% of manboobs are closet cases or soft, pillowy micropeens, the general population would be less likely to seriously entertain their insipid drivel. The mask would have slipped, revealing the feminist death underneath.

Think about the revulsion you feel when you see a grossly obese person. It’s instinctive, like the way you would recoil from a pile of dog shit. This revulsion is near universal. But why do we feel disgust for fat people? Hordes of obese have only been with us recently in evolutionary history. Instead of seeking an explanation in a “fat revulsion” gene, it’s better to think of our natural disgust for fat people as having its origin in a more general “abnormality” or aberration template deeply wired into our hindbrains.

This abnormality template — you could call it the monster mechanism — is easily triggered by the sight of anything which seriously deviates from its category’s normal phenotype range, provoking fear and disgust in the observer. You can find indirect confirmation of the monster mechanism hypothesis in the fact that it is limited to objects which exist in the state of nature, and therefore would have been around during the millennia humans evolved. For example, if you deform something that does not exist in the state of nature — a car, say — you may make it look really weird, but it won’t inspire visceral terror and revulsion.

But if you deform a human being by adding eyeballs, limbs or hundreds of pounds of fat, you get a nightmare creature that will make small children, who have not yet learned the proper polite restraint, cry. Similarly, masculinizing a woman or feminizing a man turns each into a monstrous aberration, the degree of perceived monstrosity and primally induced disgust proportional to the deviation from the normal sex phenotype.

Your typical outrage feminist and limp-wristed manboob flirts dangerously close to the monster threshold. Humans recoil from manjawed, mustachioed, beady-eyed, actively aggressive women and chipmunk-cheeked, bitch tittied, curvaceously plush, passive-aggressive men as if they were the human equivalent of dog shit. The farther your feminist or manboob deviates from the normal human template, in physical and psychological form, the more monstrous it becomes to the average person.

Now imagine you stomp through life as one of these howling feminists or putrid nancyboys, like Grendel disturbed by the sights and sounds of normalcy all around him. You sense, in your darkest secret thoughts, that most people are repulsed by you, want to have nothing to do with you, would be embarrassed to be seen with you. How do you think that would affect your mental state? First, you would seek out others like you. Monstrosity loves company. Then, you would lash out at anything normal, elevating the wicked and deviant while eroding confidence in the good and beautiful, twisting cherished moral standards that work adequately to sustain a normal population into bizarre, exaggerated facsimiles manufactured solely to do the bidding of your freak cohort.

Finally, you would attempt to do to the Other what you have felt from the Other your whole life — cast them into the icy wastelands. Due to a combination of hate-driven relentless energy as a perpetual outsider, plus elite co-conspiracy, you succeed… temporarily, always temporarily… at convincing large numbers of normals to blankly imbibe your warped truth. No one who is anyone would bother questioning your motivations, because that would be… unseemly.

And the Lords of Lies held dominion over all.

But that is changing now. The reflexive indulgence granted the monsters among us has lost its justification. Too many bleeding wounds from too many overzealous bites has rattled the slumber of the sleepers. A greater force than any sophistic monster in the world is about to bite back, viciously, lethally. Truth, as it always does, will claim ultimate victory.

Share this:

  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

Related

Posted in Biomechanics is God, Culture, Psy Ops, Ugly Truths | 263 Comments

263 Responses

  1. on April 18, 2012 at 3:45 pm Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM)

    lzozozlzozozlzozozozo

    heartsite we heart you: “But that is changing now. The reflexive indulgence granted the monsters among us has lost its justification. Too many bleeding wounds from too many overzealous bites has rattled the slumber of the sleepers. A greater force than any sophistic monster in the world is about to bite back, viciously, lethally. Truth, as it always does, will claim ultimate victory.”

    it won’t be long now, as the hyper inflaton sets in, all teh fiat dollarz tdat funded da bankestser pumpndump welath transfferring butcocking, family detsroying, amn-hating warmongering, fetus killing, preepeppmitive war zlzlzz feminissmsm will become worthless zlzozozlzlzlzo

    as heartiste & emerosn say, “Thus is the universe alive. All things are moral. That soul, which within us is a sentiment, outside of us is a law. We feel its inspiration; out there in history we can see its fatal strength. “It is in the world, and the world was made by it.” Justice is not postponed. A perfect equity adjusts its balance in all parts of life. {Oi chusoi Dios aei enpiptousi}, — The dice of God are always loaded. The world looks like a multiplication-table, or a mathematical equation, which, turn it how you will, balances itself. Take what figure you will, its exact value, nor more nor less, still returns to you. Every secret is told, every crime is punished, every virtue rewarded, every wrong redressed, in silence and certainty. What we call retribution is the universal necessity by which the whole appears wherever a part appears. If you see smoke, there must be fire. If you see a hand or a limb, you know that the trunk to which it belongs is there behind.”

    LikeLike


    • on April 18, 2012 at 4:15 pm Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM)

      this is why tucker maxth rhemes withgoldman saxth and his neocnth handlers hate cjohhny cash and love butthext and sectriev tapers of buttehxt lzlzzozo
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Comes_Around_(song)
      Symbols and references in the lyrics

      The phrase “There’s a man going around taking names” which begins the song is not merely a Biblical reference, it also refers to the song of that name popularized by folk singer Lead Belly.
      A spoken portion from Revelation 6:1–2 in the King James Version introduces the song. This portion of Scripture describes the coming of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, each heralded by one of the “four beasts” first mentioned in Revelation 4:6–9. The musical portion then begins with Cash reciting that a man will one day come to pass judgment. The chorus indicates that these events will be accompanied by trumpets, pipers, and “one hundred million angels singing”. The voice of the Lord in Revelation is often likened to the sound of a loud trumpet (Revelation 1:10; 4:1; and 8:13). Revelation 5:11 states that John saw that there are millions of angels in Heaven.
      The line “There’ll be a golden ladder reaching down.” references to Jacob’s dream of a ladder or stairwell (Jacob’s ladder) from earth to heaven and God’s subsequent blessing of Jacob in Genesis 28:12.
      “Or disappear into the potter’s ground” is a reference to the field that was purchased with the money Judas Iscariot received for betraying Jesus as recorded in Matthew 27:3–10. The field was purchased by the chief priests “as a burial place for strangers” (New American Standard).
      “It’s Alpha and Omega’s kingdom come” is a reference to the book of Revelation. Jesus Christ refers to himself as “the Alpha and the Omega” in Revelation (1:8; 21:6; 22:13). Alpha and Omega are the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet, hence God is, “the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.”
      The lines “Whoever is unjust, let him be unjust still. Whoever is righteous, let him be righteous still. Whoever is filthy, let him be filthy still.” is another reference to the book of Revelation (22:11).
      The chorus also repeats the point that “the whirlwind is in the thorn tree”. This reference is explained in Cash’s 1997 autobiography with Patrick Carr, “Cash” (HarperCollins). He writes that Queen Elizabeth II (whose coronation Cash witnessed while he was serving as a US Airman) appeared to him in a dream and said “Johnny Cash, you’re a thorn bush in a whirlwind”. Cash later found the same reference in the Book of Job, and was inspired to write thirty-three verses of what would become “The Man Comes Around”.
      In the line, “Till Armageddon, no Shalam, no Shalom,” Armageddon refers to the climactic battle between good and evil in Revelation 16:16. Shalom means “peace” in Hebrew. Shalam might reference Salaam, meaning “peace” in Arabic, or could refer to “Shalam” the equivalent word in Aramaic language spoken by Judean contemporaries of Jesus (and as Syriac language by Iraqi Assyrian Christians today). Or possibly it could reference the Hebrew verb Shālam meaning “to be in a covenant of peace.”
      “The father hen will call his chickens home” is a reference to a lament Jesus spoke regarding Jerusalem as recorded in Luke 13:34.
      One line says “The virgins are all trimming their wicks.” This refers to a parable told by Jesus in Matthew 25:7. The women who were “trimming their wicks” were ready for Jesus’ return.
      The line “It’s hard for thee to kick against the pricks” is from Acts 9:5. The apostle Paul also refers to the time when he was knocked to the ground by a voice from heaven in Acts 26:14. It reads, “And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.” The Weymouth New Testament in Modern Speech here reads, “You are finding it painful to kick against the ox-goad.” Saul had been hunting and killing Christians and was now being called to reform by Jesus.
      Cash then returns to spoken form, ending the song with a quotation from Revelation 6:6, 8 (just a few verses after the verses he quoted at the beginning of the song):
      And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts…
      And I looked and behold, a pale horse
      And his name that sat on him was Death
      And Hell followed with him
      The pale horse is the fourth horse.

      LikeLiked by 1 person


      • on April 18, 2012 at 5:11 pm Rick Derris

        That is indeed a great song. It was used to great effect in the “Sarah Connor Chronicles” Terminator TV show: http://youtu.be/NWZFkPiFlkE

        Thinking about the second coming or armageddon creeps me out.

        LikeLike


      • on April 18, 2012 at 8:39 pm Firepower

        gibfm,Your answers are uncharacteristically short – even transparent – this sad day. It will be difficult finding the usual workday time for your cogent observations – but this GSA thing WILL blow over.

        LikeLike


      • on April 18, 2012 at 11:45 pm attractionreaction

        “The chorus indicates that these events will be accompanied by trumpets, pipers, and “one hundred million angels singing”.”

        like this?

        or like this?

        LikeLike


    • on April 19, 2012 at 11:13 am Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM)

      HEY HEARTISTSEE!!!!!

      hey heartistse!!!! I AM MAKING GIRLS SQUEAL WITH DELIGHT, BUT ONLY BECAUSE THEY THINK I AM YOU!!!!!!!

      zozozoozzozlozozo

      yah and true story not so long ago i was with a freshamn girl i met at a college dance club i ground on her ass iwth my losttasss cockass and ended up taking her home and i’m pumping he rhard hard hard zllzoz hard hard hard zllzozzozozo and she goes “yes yes yes yes YES YES YES!!!! HEARTISTSE!!!!!!” zlzozozlzlzozzlz

      so like i ama making chcix orassmamss with my lotsass cockas and give dem orasmic orgasmsisn i do all the work all the heavy listifting and heartiste gets all teh credit zlzozozlzoz

      well, i guess that’s how da worlz works zlzozozozlz:

      http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2012/04/13/relationshipstrategies/contemporary-male-mating-strategies/comment-page-6/#comments

      “Emily April 19, 2012 at 3:22 am
      I don’t know why I find GBFM so funny. I literally squealed with excitement when I saw his first post over here.

      I’m pretty convinced that GBFM is CH, which makes his presence here especially intriguing.”

      lzozozozozllz i wish i could hook up smarteter so they would squael GBFM!! lzozlzlzozozlzo squeal GBDM!!! lzozlzozoz

      LikeLike


    • on April 19, 2012 at 4:32 pm Soulcraft

      Where’s all this anger coming from? Where you peg-raped by a rough-strap-on-wielding feminazi in your childhood?

      LikeLike


  2. on April 18, 2012 at 3:48 pm Blessent

    Looking forward to the day someone will tell that cripple Krauthammer that his schemes in the middle east aren’t worth crippling one more US soldier.

    LikeLike


  3. on April 18, 2012 at 3:55 pm Phil

    Wake up white man.

    LikeLike


  4. on April 18, 2012 at 3:56 pm J-style

    You sense, in your darkest secret thoughts, that most people are repulsed by you, want to have nothing to do with you, would be embarrassed to be seen with you. Monstrosity loves company.

    Straight up. These walking freakshows embrace their identity in order to falsely claim that “Society has not rejected me — *I* have rejected society.” And then they and their fellow travelers try to pretend that they inhabit an alternative, but equally valid, plane of existence. Deep inside, they know the score. The feminists reject convention/men because convention/men have rejected them. Their manboob lickspittle sycophants play along and reject game because they have none. The Occu-tards reject capitalism because they offer nothing worthy of monetary reward. And so it goes.

    As a fun mental exercise, try to picture what the author of this looks like. I guarantee you will not be far off:

    http://www.princeofpetworth.com/2012/04/dear-popville-i-miss-shaw/

    LikeLike


    • on April 18, 2012 at 5:04 pm William

      They’ve only rejected society to create a community, one that embraces them.
      Most problems come when the rules and ideas for their community collide with society’s.

      LikeLike


    • on April 19, 2012 at 11:41 pm King A (Matthew King)

      IOW, monstrum in fronte, monstrum in animo.

      LikeLike


  5. on April 18, 2012 at 3:57 pm Samuel

    oh, for the days when we relegated the disfigured to cold basements…

    haha dang that’s messed up.

    Survival of the fittest has been subverted, but not for much longer.

    LikeLike


    • on April 19, 2012 at 3:14 am Popfizzled

      It could be argued that anything goes in survival of the fittest. If someone can succeed in subverting it, they cant be that unworthy of passing on their genes. It’s like the smart beta chimp making a trap and dumping rocks on the muscular alpha’s head. If the brute is so fit than he has to prove it by not falling for such a trap. The smart chimp has proven his dominance with his intelligence and shown he has as much right to pass on his genes as the other chimp.There are no free rides in nature. Dominance/fitness is proven, not given.

      LikeLike


  6. on April 18, 2012 at 3:58 pm Firepower

    The Sleeper is slowly…slooooowly…awakening.
    Do not, however, put too much faith in the “righteous indignation” response of The Mass; they were stupified for too long.

    Successful eradication of these foul degenerates will be painful.
    And, to take issue with gbfm’s highly touted “wisdoms”
    do NOT expect an Emersonian God to ride in and kick ass, Johnny Cash style.

    Society will have to do the dirty work.

    LikeLike


    • on April 19, 2012 at 10:27 am Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM)

      lzozozozozoz

      dude–the emersonian god is society.

      when johnny cash sings “when the man comes around” he means you lzozozlzloz

      LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 2:05 pm Firepower

        That’s an intriguing thought.
        Still, I’ve been around and awake so long
        that I is tired/bored
        and ready for PoolSide

        Know any good recipes for Bloody Marys

        LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 11:44 pm King A (Matthew King)

        Tomato juice and hemlock.

        LikeLike


      • on April 21, 2012 at 11:00 am Firepower

        no thanks
        apparently
        it doesn’t work

        LikeLike


  7. on April 18, 2012 at 3:58 pm Nine Furies

    Do your part fellas. Whenever you see manboobed low T losers make sure to point, laugh, ridicule and reject and articulate just why they suck so bad.

    The same goes for the manjawed penis envying shrikes. Nothing gets to them more than reminding them just how much of a disgusting outcast piece of shit they are. Open disgust and disdain works well.

    This is the lords work gentleman!

    LikeLike


    • on April 19, 2012 at 7:58 am carolyn

      probably not an ideal policy in a ‘stand your ground’ state.

      there’s a reason there’s such a thing as common courtesy.

      LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 12:30 pm Jason

        Agreed. Just because you don’t want to mate with this person doesn’t mean that they don’t have the right to exist. And that’s where I see many of these comments heading.

        It’s a dangerous road where these hindbrain sentiments lead you, GENTLEMEN. Better jump off it. Manboobs and shejaws don’t present a clear and present danger to anyone, so if you can’t treat them civilly — and expect the same in return — better to just ignore them.

        LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 3:55 pm Tooters

        Nah, shame and mocking is better. If you don’t kill ’em with fire, they’ll lay eggs and multiply.

        LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 9:45 pm Dude

        Do not shame her directly – In a woman’s world, being a victim is power. It will backfire on to you.

        Learn from how they do it to each other…Women never shame each other directly. They go behind each other’s back. They use shaming and they use humor.

        And yes….make men aware of female bullshit. Once enough men know about the games women play….the bitches will lose their power.

        LikeLike


    • on April 28, 2012 at 11:26 am Plumnuts

      ^ Above dude has never been in a position of power. Can’t think of a worse way to win people over & bring them over to your side.

      LikeLike


  8. on April 18, 2012 at 4:01 pm Silly Putty

    If feminazis are so reviled and viewed with disgust by most people as you claim, why then, in this ‘free’ society, do the laws and public policy pander to feminazi demands to give women advantage at the expense of men and even children (divorce theft, false rape accusers protection, lack of fathers rights, leniency for female husband and child killers, draconian sex laws which criminalize male sexuality and preference for fertile young women, and men taxpayers who pay the majority of taxes while women receive the majority of public entitlements and welfare?

    If this is what it means to be unpopular (having all of your demands met) then sign me up to the social outcast list of effeminate nancy boys and bull-dykes.

    Democracy will always transform into a tyrannical police state and the criminalization of masculinity as soon as women are given the vote. This will be the fate of USA and every other ‘progressive’ Western country because you mindlessly denounce the wisdom of the East as oppressive when it comes to bitch management.

    LikeLike


    • on April 18, 2012 at 8:13 pm DarkByke

      Which is what MRA/MGTOW is. Not living in this feminist biased society we live in.

      So it is, stay single and just fuck bitches. I even get to keep all my income and assets!.

      Shame the rest for being fat cunts and single mothers.

      LikeLike


  9. on April 18, 2012 at 4:05 pm S. M. Sullivan

    More about hormones and departures form normal development: the female hormone estrogen causes breakdown of muscle tissue, which is why women athletes with normal hormone balances do not develop big showy muscles the way male athletes do. A condition called polycystic ovarian syndrome affects some women, cysts form in the ovaries and destroy them gradually. These affected women have low estrogen levels, and the symptoms of this disorder include obesity, sterility, amplified sex drive, hirsutism (hairiness) and aggressiveness. Cats and rabbits also develop polycystic ovaries when they are not allowed to breed. These female rabbits will attempt to mount other females. Omega-6 fatty acids may play some role in preventing ovarian disease and protecting reproductive health in general, but for females, pregnancy and childbirth also have this effect.

    LikeLike


  10. on April 18, 2012 at 4:07 pm Tmason

    Why do normal people feel a natural disgust for feminists and manginas? Make no mistake, normal women are as repulsed as normal men are by shrieking feminists and wimpy manboy pudgeballs. In public, well-adjusted people may mouth the PC platitudes that feminists and doughboys relentlessly cudgel into squishy groupthink minds, but in private the cool people generally shun the orc hordes and leave them to mingle with their own emotionally and often physically disfigured kind. This social outcast status is what fuels their eternal hatred for truth and beauty.

    Surely the men, but I dispute that normal women are “repusled” by feminists. Maybe indifferent but no way they are actively pushed away.

    What evidence or experiement can be done to prove your theory of that?

    LikeLike


    • on April 18, 2012 at 5:00 pm corvinus

      Surely the men, but I dispute that normal women are “repusled” by feminists. Maybe indifferent but no way they are actively pushed away.

      Actually, they are, in the same way nice white liberals still move out of town when there’s too much Section 8 housing around.

      LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 9:09 am Tmason

        Actually, they are, in the same way nice white liberals still move out of town when there’s too much Section 8 housing around.

        Doubt that. “Section 8” repulsion is for security/threat to way of life. Outright extreme lesbos and bulldykes, anyone would vomit on that.

        But Jessica Valenti types? Doubt that women would be even mildly annoyed by them.

        LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 2:35 pm corvinus

        Jessica Valenti is a typical young blue-stater woman. Note that she did get married and retired from managing Feministing after having a child. Depending upon the alphaness of her hubby, her feminazi activist days may be over, even if she’ll remain a liberal Dumbocrap.

        LikeLike


  11. on April 18, 2012 at 4:14 pm Island

    Buddha? More like Beta.
    http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-11733907/stock-photo-stone-buddha-statue-at-temple-in-xian-china.html

    LikeLike


    • on April 18, 2012 at 7:26 pm nowhere@nowhere.com

      buddha was NOT a chinaman. he was a thin, tall, indian prince, whose name was “gautam siddharth”. buddha just means enlightened and he was called that when he became an ascetic.

      the chinaman shown in your picture has nothing to do with buddha, chinamen are looked at with racial revulsion by most north indian people.

      LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 9:40 am Island

        dude, chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature

        LikeLike


      • on April 20, 2012 at 12:08 am Peter Johnson

        Well done.

        LikeLike


  12. on April 18, 2012 at 4:17 pm Redleg

    This is a simplistic read of feminism. Sure, perhaps core of modern feminism is a squadron of uglynauts, fatties and manjaws, but that group of freaks on its own would not grow widespread because no one would be able to empathize with it.

    They are granted legitimacy by every princess who has ever re-interpreted an event in her life as the result of male oppression. THATS the diabological strength of modern-day feminism, that it allows women to rewind their lives and blame their misfortunes on men.

    Feminism is USEFUL to women. As a result I doubt very much they are actively repulsed by it. Maybe subconsciously.

    LikeLike


    • on April 18, 2012 at 4:34 pm Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM)

      zozolzlzzo

      yah feminism is USEFUL to womenzz lzozozl

      like the 25 million woemnz who have been aborted by feminists zlzoozozooz
      like all the aging cat spinsters who got buttcocked out of a family and husband and truth and beuaty

      like all the berankified, debt-saddled, std-addled post-college buttockcoed pre-spinsers riding da buttckcokcing caroussoul express on towards spinsterhood lzozozzoooz

      i luvs you allls o ye of little faith

      to all the buttcoked spinsters with cats
      who teh fed tricked into spinsterhood/serving buttcocking debt lxolllozlzl
      to all the fanboys in ther single mom’s basements
      whose dads they never knew because the fed tookawy fatehrhood lzozlzl
      to all the broken familes
      who were split up by the need to make two salaries to feed the kids
      to all aging necon womenz celeberating secretive tapings of butthex without teh girlths conthent lzozllzlzozlzl they tircked you too
      to all the spinster chix again i am sorry they sdesouled you
      in asscokcing sessins drugged you up on prozac
      told you to abort your kids no wonder your’re d[pressed and all fucjked up no lozlzlzlzling here
      my heart goes out to you while tucker max & goldman sax laugh zlzolzlzl
      too all the aborted fetushes we ask for forgiveness we deserve not and to all those tricked into aborting the gift of life lzozllzllzl we forgive u too and pray for teh fethuses, but not in school as prayer is illegal in school lozlzllzlz
      to all those inthe rising genertaion who will have to pay off their parents cultural and monetary debts lzozlz war isn’t fun but it’s part of teh fed’s fiat bubble cycle lzozlzllz so like after th e country goes bust the war starts in the ultimate pump and udmp scheme you thought enron/worldcom/fannae mae was bad lolzozlzlz just you wait lzozlzlll i hope not and ai pray for peace lozlzlz maybe we can all learn to live and get along but i think we would have to start with truth and nobility and honor and ocurage and virtue and not with fiat debt and butthex lozlzlzl that’s just nmy gues from reading heroduts and the great boooks and classis in greek and latin zlzolzllzlzl

      and the bible too about sodom and gomorroah did yuknow taht sodomycame form sodom and gonnoreah came from gommroah? lzozllz kidding about that second one i doubt it did but maybe who knows i have never had eitehr sodomy nor gonorreah and i ahve never been to sodom nor gomoorrah

      sodom must;ve been a funny place lzolzlozolllzzll and a crazy party or two and the editor in chiefstress priscilla painton at simon and schuster would have fit right in publishing tucker max’s books yah i betin gmorrah they had a tower of babel with the ofices of simon and schuster at the top across the hall form the fed lzozlzlzllzlzlzlzllzlzlz

      sometimes i wonder if poets and prophets can still change the world?

      or have they trainde too, too many women to hate, and dumbed down and drugged up too many menz? have they destoryed too many fathers and killed to many families? have the y deocnstructed tyoo many books and spilled too much blood and aborted too many fetuthes as one is one too many. have they prescribed ritalin to too many cretaive sols in chool in prozac to too many who need to be depressed and face it when they abort fetuses as god gave us feelings and makes us not pay attention to boring stae corproate teachers as all creativity comes from not paying attention to the state lzozlzzll and now it is diagnoses as a diseas lzozlzlz.

      lozlzlzzlzl

      well juust wanted to say i luv u all and nice 2 know ya and welcomes abords lzozlzl

      and 2 asnwer my own above questions
      let me jsut say
      teh great books
      wouldn’t be great
      if they weren’t immortal
      and they offer us redemption
      the moment we start living by tehir ideasl
      and epic higher stories
      so put down your hate and your secretive butthex tape
      and pick up a cross
      and come follow me
      and let me shoulderyour burden
      for my yoke is light
      dante wrote la vita nuova–the new life
      and it is time 4 u to find your new life
      for to loseth one’s old way is to fuind the new path
      so do not fear
      lozlzlzlzlzlz omg wtf am i saying lzozlzlz
      i almost blew my cover here as teh messiah lzozlzllll i hide it beind all my lzozlzllzlzlzlzlzlzlles but a couple of you ahve caught on lzozlzlzlzllzlzl

      LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 8:13 am carolyn

        gbfm–lighting a single candle in lieu of cursing the darkness.

        that was very moving, gbfm

        LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 8:30 am Redleg

        Feminism is a daily “blue pill” that women take to avoid the uglier truths of their birth. That they’re physically smaller than men, that they’re generally less ambitious or competitive in business, that they will lose their attractiveness early and become sterile.

        Feminism is a once a day suppliment which allows them to avert their eyes. It’s not healthy. But it’s useful for getting through the day. Of course it’s neither fulfilling, nor sustainable.

        …

        Also every time you post, I marvel at the mammoth amount of energy that must be required to garble your own posts. It’s very impressive.

        LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 12:33 pm Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM)

        lzoozzoozoz

        u should read my postss when i take my ritaalinz da school nice shcool nusrese rpesrcciebed e lzozlzozozozzl but they won’t fit on da wordpress sevrbvevzzb zlzlzozozlzozlozzlzo and they asked me to please stop postssing dem as the esverers awwr eatcaing on firez zlzozozozozloz

        LikeLike


    • on April 18, 2012 at 4:48 pm Tmason

      Great point. Heartiste focused on the extremes of each (hairy Lesbos and feeble men) but that isn’t who is expounding feminist dogma successfully. The dykes aren’t the core.

      Those groups already get relegated to the ditches (it’s why places like Radical Hub have no traffic other than those who laugh at them).

      The real power is with the ones who pass as normal. Jessica Valenti is slightly dykish looking but nowhere near the monstrosity that is Gail Dynes. Men are not really attracted to her but I doubt women would be repusled by someone like Jessica as Heartiste claims. On top of that, here is someone in their ideological corner who is getting them benefits.

      LikeLike


    • on April 18, 2012 at 5:03 pm Tertullian

      I gotta second Redleg’s comment.

      I think he’s right on the money.

      LikeLike


    • on April 18, 2012 at 5:33 pm Anon

      I think you are on to something.

      The strident foot soldiers of feminism are the legions of ugly women (and manginas) raging against their genetic bad luck, but the true beneficiaries are the entitled princesses whose actions get to be rationalized by “equality”.

      p.s. Is it any wonder that Jews are at the forefront of feminism in the media? Genetically misshapened AND entitled. Look no further than their depictions as crooked-nosed demons throughout the ages.

      LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 8:21 am Redleg

        Jews make a habit of allying themselves with any group that claims to be an underdog go cultivate a false sense of comeraderie, meant to overcome 5,000 years of theological and social ostracization and isolation, not realizing that ultimately this backfires and reinforces claims against them.

        I tell you this as a Jew.

        LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 8:31 am Redleg

        go = to*

        LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 5:26 pm john

        I thought jews hate,hate,hate white Christians for 2,000 years,certainly history’s longest running hatred? The jews’ masks are coming off. Hitler? the jews are OUR Hitler!

        LikeLike


      • on April 20, 2012 at 9:00 am ABS

        Yes, clearly its the Jews, and the miscegnation they promote.

        Here is an article about the Jews who run The Bachelor getting sue for NOT mixing races on the show. http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/entertainment/2012/04/19/abc-bachelor-is-racist-lawsuit-claims/ See, by refusing to allow miscegnation on their show, the Jews are actually promoting it. I mean, isn’t it obvious?

        LikeLike


    • on April 18, 2012 at 6:30 pm Bill Brasky

      I agree.

      This was a well above-average post, but it fails to paint a big-picture view of the dynamics at play.

      LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 9:30 am Lzlolzolozl

        Yeah, doesn’t name the hand of the Jew, but you’ll get there

        LikeLike


    • on April 18, 2012 at 10:23 pm corvinus

      I like what someone posted earlier, and consider it most accurate, at least as far as more attractive liberal women go: “Feminism is a collective shit-test to society. Society failed.”

      LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 4:10 am Anonymous

        Nope. Women really do hate the average man. Feminism was a conspiracy to let average-looking women get higher quality genes.

        LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 2:28 pm corvinus

        Nope. Women really do hate the average man.

        I see no evidence of that, except among crazy far-leftoid types. Unless you mean “average man” = “pussified beta”, then sure.

        Feminism was a conspiracy to let average-looking women get higher quality genes.

        Wrong. Feminism was a conspiracy to turn women into men and refrain from collecting any genes whatsoever, higher quality or otherwise.

        LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 5:24 pm Anonymous

        “Wrong. Feminism was a conspiracy to turn women into men and refrain from collecting any genes whatsoever, higher quality or otherwise.”

        Believe what you want to. If I was a man of average traits, I too would probably not want to face the horrible truth of what’s coming in the future.

        LikeLike


  13. on April 18, 2012 at 4:24 pm Rollo Tomassi

    There are those who seek power by changing the game – by lowering the basketball hoops in order to better shoot a basket – but in ‘leveling the playing field’ they only succeed in changing the nature of the competition to better suit their individual abilities, neither improving the game nor themselves.

    Then there are those who accept the game for what it is, they understand it and they master it (or at least attempt to do so). They understand the need for adversity and the benefits it gives them when they reach the next level of mastering the game – not only in technique, but from the confidence this genuinely and verifiably confers.

    Don’t wish things were easier, wish you were better.

    It’s the aberration who seeks to legitimize his cheating at the game as the new way the game should be played. Shoot the arrow, paint the target around it, and you’ll always get a bullseye.

    LikeLike


    • on April 19, 2012 at 8:46 am walawala

      This is my new mantra…

      LikeLike


    • on April 19, 2012 at 10:29 am T

      excellent comment. well said.

      LikeLike


    • on April 19, 2012 at 12:54 pm noob

      That was absolutely beautifully put. Nothing to add.

      LikeLike


  14. on April 18, 2012 at 4:43 pm Anon

    You’re way too optimistic right now, talking about saving the civilization and advising marriage in the previous post.
    You were spot on when nihilism and pessimism were more predominant in your writings

    https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2009/06/01/sexual-dystopia-a-glimpse-at-the-future/

    “America is beyond saving in the traditional ways. The rot has metastasized. There will be no glorious beta male uprising. Like one of the commenters from yesterday’s post pointed out, the first cute girl to bat her eyelashes at one of these revolutionary Che Betas will have him betraying the brotherhood faster than you can say “just the tip”. Nor will there be a repeal of the 19th Amendment, though there should be (and, no, I am really not kidding about that. Exhibit A: Cuntrag).

    No, the solution is to give the New Girl Order *exactly* what it wants: Game, and an army of cads that practice it. Force feed the beast until it is choking on its own gluttony. The emissaries of the Great Lie must have the consequences of their ignorance and treachery shoved down their throats. In time, the unabashed pursuit of hedonism and the embrace of Darwinistic nihilism (two potent forces which, coincidentally, happen to have truth and pleasure on their side. Exhibit B: God is dead) will raze the neoliberal monolith to the ground, and from the ashes the eternal human cycle will begin anew, strengthened and revitalized. A complete reconciliation with our tragic destiny gives us the only chance to avoid it.”

    That’s more like it. And our grandchildren will have to kneel in front of their muslim overlords.
    You can’t build a civilization with evo psych. Religion is the only way. It could be christianity, but my money is on the mohammedans.

    LikeLike


    • on April 19, 2012 at 2:50 pm Orion

      I and my house will continue to root for Christianity. Islam leads to the same mud huts and at best static, decaying cultures that feminism does. The “great discoveries” in science by Islam in its’ first three centuries have largely been debunked. The roots of almost all of it have proven to be other cultures (India for most of the mathematical advances), prior cultures, or work by Christians (most of the great architectural designs)

      LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 3:07 pm corvinus

        Islam leads to inbreeding and a loss of 15 IQ points. In other words, if all white Americans became Muslims, in a few generations we’d have the same average IQ as black Americans.

        LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 10:47 pm Laconophile

        If inbreeding resulted in the loss of IQ then Ashkenazi Jews would be the dumbest ethnicity rather than the smartest. Inbreeding is good if it’s done right.

        Miscegenation is what caused Arabs’ and the Mediterranean peoples’ IQs to drop. Universalist religions (islam, christianity) = bad for IQ. Exclusive religions (Judaism) = good for IQ.

        LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 10:58 pm Laconophile

        Christianity cannot take credit for northern Europeans’ innovations. Christianity and its bastard offspring liberalism are killing the goose that laid the golden egg, European man. Here in Minnesota Lutherans are importing Somalia thanks to that insane suicide cult. Somalia!

        LikeLike


  15. on April 18, 2012 at 4:49 pm demirogue

    My little town has the distinction of being the 8th worst place in the nation to date according to Kiplingers. What that has in common with this piece is that this is ultra-liberal arsty town, full of feminist and manginas. And it’s miserable.

    LikeLike


  16. on April 18, 2012 at 4:50 pm fascistbrah

    pic related:

    LikeLike


  17. on April 18, 2012 at 4:53 pm demetriustinov

    I totally agree. Your post parallels the first essay of On the Genealogy of Morals.

    I agree with your mixed-wiring theory. Masculine men and feminine women are the epitome of sexual health. Feminine men and masculine women came off nature’s assembly line a bit wonky. In extreme cases you get people with both a pair of nuts and a vagina. I think homosexuals are like this, too, except in the head as opposed to downstairs.

    LikeLike


  18. on April 18, 2012 at 4:55 pm Ouroboros

    LikeLike


  19. on April 18, 2012 at 5:00 pm Pantalones

    I wish I was as articulate and as smart as the average commenter in this forum.
    All that I offer is laymans viewpoint with only the most basic analysis from a visceral perspective.
    Here in NY it is truly tragic what you see as you walk down an average street.nothing but abomination upon abomination. They practically get in your face with r there “yeah that’s right I am what I am get used to it.”
    What amazes me is the amount of decent to flat out gorgeous women these things pull. And not to mention how young alot of them are.
    The men on the other hand oh God I can’t begin to tell you how repulsive they truly are. Even the most liberal and laid back live and let live type hippy has at one time or other expressed a somewhat healthy desire to commit a hate crime on these freaks. The females challenge and taunt men until a man lashes out. They seem to be getting bolder.

    LikeLike


  20. on April 18, 2012 at 5:12 pm El Barato

    I have been saying this all along:

    Feminism, Gender Mainstreaming et al. are the political manifestation of the sub- and preconscious self-hatred of lesbians, gays and other sexually deviant creatures.

    By claiming that “normality” isn’t a natural concept but a freely definable state they cleverly dissimulate the fact that they are simply not normal (both in a quantitative and a nature-conforming way) and through a policy of obfuscating, disinforming and warping turn their state into some glorified victimhood.

    The reason for all that?

    Our society has reached a stadium where mere physical diseases cannot exert any form of effective population control because modern medicine and welfare state have all but suspended natural selection. Therefore society as such has to develop more advanced psychic diseases. Unfortunately this disease will lead to the demise of society if not vigourously counteracted.

    Therefore it is up to everyone of us to live a healthy manhood or womanhood in accordance with the state nature intended.

    As a male: be proactive, outcome-driven, ambitious, righteous, dominant.

    As a female: be reactive, emotionally driven, nurturing, caring, submissive.

    It is in our hands to save the world from the reign of the deviant. For our own good and theirs.

    LikeLike


    • on April 19, 2012 at 11:59 pm King A (Matthew King)

      El Barato wrote:

      By claiming that “normality” isn’t a natural concept but a freely definable state they cleverly dissimulate the fact that they are simply not normal…

      On the left’s hijacking of the term “normal.”

      LikeLike


  21. on April 18, 2012 at 5:13 pm Pantalones

    They are loud and they truly are asking for it when someone finally snaps and puts them in their place. There was a case a few months ago when two old them attacked a MC donalds employee and to make a king story short the Emilie beat one of them down and to my surprise wasn’t convicted. If anything the freak was charged for hoping over the counter and charging at an employee. Quite frankly I was surprised he wasn’t charged with a hate crime. looks like even the liberal courts in NY have grown sick of these”alternatives”

    LikeLike


  22. on April 18, 2012 at 5:16 pm SFG

    Aye, ’tis true, and never better spoken.

    Still, while nerds are ugly, you need us to keep society running. Alpha males don’t do STEM. Newton was a lifelong celibate.

    LikeLike


    • on April 18, 2012 at 10:31 pm Dan Fletcher

      Don’t forget Einstein was a horn-dog and Feynman plowed.

      LikeLike


    • on April 19, 2012 at 3:08 pm Lance Draper

      Right, but this wasn’t a rant about betas. Betas are normal and necessary. The problem with being a beta in these times is that you’ll have trouble getting access to sex, because society is warped. If society was healthy, beta males would do alright.

      LikeLike


  23. on April 18, 2012 at 5:24 pm Paladin

    I was intrigued by the “probably the most politically incorrect statement” and was not disappointed. Very intriguing thoughts.

    LikeLike


  24. on April 18, 2012 at 5:26 pm Stark

    You should seriously write a book, it doesn’t matter if it’s about pickup, politics, fiction or whatever, I would personally buy it and recommend it to anyone I know to do so as well, your writing is just superb.

    LikeLike


  25. on April 18, 2012 at 5:29 pm Listener

    Let’s think of constructive solutions.

    This is a portrait of a couple, taken in 1900. Neither is an attractive individual, yet neither strikes us as monstrous. More importantly, neither feels monstrous, like he or she excessively deviates from the norm of human appearances. They are an unremarkable hetero pair, who likely passed on their genes. This was an age where the man would have covered his giant forehead, when in public, with a hat (without being “that guy with the hat”). The woman’s clothes were the standard billowy dress, forgiving of her lack of shapeliness.

    Nowadays, from the perspective of a less-attractive person, we live in a Hobbesian nightmare of bikinis and muscle-tees. If the culture’s dress was still modest– that is, designed to be forgiving of physical flaws– and standardized– that is, allowing one to join the ranks of the normal simply by donning the right threads– there would be fewer anguished feminists and manboobs.

    [heartiste: interesting analysis.]

    LikeLike


    • on April 18, 2012 at 11:15 pm pantyfx

      Also, to boot, they were not overweight. Each person has a beauty potential they can reach and maintain, and it follows that people maintain enough to attract a mate similar in their parents genetic strength more often then not.

      As it stands now, the rate that people can succeed in this endevour is dropping dramatically as people mistake fantasy for reality. The same follows for selection of women — the standard for a worthy wife has gone down significantly (expectation has of course, gone up let’s not mistake the two) which corellates to again, fantasy and reality.

      All of this cry for attention (the clothes, the body mods, the colors) comes from the value of human life being almost nothing. Very few people actually do anything worthwhile on the planet. Making another human is a really bad investment if you are goal oriented. Given that most people are not this way, you have an abundance of people who cannot actually do anything useful sucking up all of the meaning and importance that would be attributed to people who actually need it by simply being alive.

      An unfortunate dark truth that has not only been incorrectly governed around, it’s caused a backlash. People are in a poverty of meaning, and unlike actual poverty where your body is attuned very carefully to these needs this is a famine that the human race is first to experience on this planet.

      I would say, if you want people to dawn class and MODEST threads, you have to give them a reason to live other then just to feel first.
      .

      LikeLike


    • on April 19, 2012 at 8:38 am Anonymous

      Are you aware thar this is *exactly* the rationale that radical Islamists use to justify the use of burkas by women?

      LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 4:01 pm Tooters

        It keeps those hoes in line, doesn’t it?

        LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 6:43 pm Anon

        The fantasy of oriental men is to veil their women, whereas the fantasy of western men is to unveil them.

        Look at where it led us.

        I don’t blame the arabs, I actually begin to gain respect for them. Their traditions, as ass backward as they may seem, are more in touch with the ugly nature of the human species.
        If their male population doesn’t turn into manboobs in the near future and ends up allowing the libtards to take over, they may have a better long-term shot at ruling the world than us.

        LikeLike


      • on April 20, 2012 at 1:37 am King A (Matthew King)

        Anonymous wrote:

        Are you aware that this is *exactly* the rationale that radical Islamists use to justify the use of burkas by women?

        Reductio ad Islamum. Simply false. There is a golden mean between the streetwalker skankiness of the modern Occident and the burlap-bag paranoia of the Orient. A woman can project femininity without cheaply advertising her anatomy for free visual gropes. Apparently this ancient female secret of attraction must be relearned: The subtle hint is more alluring than the blatant display.

        Modesty is not sexless. It is the mark of a woman certain she has something valuable to conceal and protect. Sexlessness is not modest. It is extravagant obsessive-compulsion born from the fear of infidelity. Awareness of a woman’s hypergamic propensity to wander is smart; removing every sexual characteristic from her clothing to prevent that wandering is dumb, bordering on reckless and even counterproductive. Similarly, discouraging her hypergamic propensity through a wardrobe that emphasizes femininity above sexual availability is smart; encouraging her through clothes that create an atmosphere of temptation is dumb.

        A visual asset is devalued when everyone with eyeballs, from omega to alpha, has equal access. Beta insecurity finds no objection to his woman marketing herself publicly for a trade-up: he is too dependent on the social proof of being seen with a desirable object to dress her down, even as she has — consciously or unconsciously — outfitted herself to attract a superior. (The true bottom of the barrel are betadads so desperate for public validation that they take pride in advertising their daughters’ burgeoning sexuality unto the child’s own abasement.) An alpha secure with his woman’s fidelity will nonetheless insist on the tribute that her modesty pays to his public respect. She will dress like an attractive prize that the world knows only he is allowed to unwrap.

        Christendom rightly understood is neither pagan nor puritan. We are the balance between the Slutwalks and the Sauds. Weak western “men” have lately stood by while their unmanaged hens became as slatternly as the Taliban is prim. There are options beyond hijab or whore.

        Matt

        LikeLike


    • on April 19, 2012 at 9:37 am Other

      That is the function of modesty in a society. It prevents the jealousy and resentment of the ugly for the beautiful and gives everyone something of a chance to suceed. When the beautiful are allowed free reign and banish the ugly to eternal failure, you will get the ugly return of the repressed we see in society today.

      LikeLike


      • on April 20, 2012 at 2:10 am King A (Matthew King)

        Not really. Clothes and makeup help mitigate ugliness but don’t come close to concealing it to a degree that might equalize the homely with the gorgeous.

        There is only so much of true beauty that can be restrained and only so much of ugliness that can be hidden. I offer Adriana Lima unplugged [#23] next to her peers as evidence, having just cracked the 30-year mendoza line and somehow still the most beautiful woman in the world.

        The link above demonstrates how much of beheld beauty is manipulated by artificial sweetener. We all have ugly angles and ugly moments. There are too many variables in the perception of beauty — the most obvious one being the expiration date due to aging — to create an identifiable, permanent class able to enjoy “free rein” long enough to “banish” anyone or anything. Beauty isn’t subjective so much as it is fleeting, from angle to angle, from lighting to lighting, from year to year. In that way time, disposition, and perception are more of an equalizer than any of our attempted manipulations.

        And if we were so enslaved to our preference for beauty, we would unconsciously transfer all power to the youthful, which correlates with attractiveness more than any other factor.

        Matt

        LikeLike


    • on April 19, 2012 at 5:00 pm Fred Rotten

      @ Listener:

      DON’T MAKE ME ORGANIZE A SLUTWALK ON YOUR ASS. HOW DARE YOU IMPOSE YOUR ANTIQUATED DRESS CODE HANG-UPS ON ANYONE ELSE. IT’S MY BODY SO IT’S MY CHOICE TO WEAR WHATEVER THE HELL I WANT, DEAL WITH IT. JEALOUS MUCH? UM, CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE BEFORE YOU POST NEXT TIME, K? JUDGE MUCH? I FEEL PITY FOR YOU, SERIOUSLY I DO. PRIVILEGED MUCH?

      HOPE YOU HAVE A GREAT LIFE. I KNOW I WILL BECAUSE I’M LAUGHING AT YOU. HATE MUCH?

      LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 10:17 pm Listener

        It is funny how often internet posters have called me out for my “privilege” while having no idea what my station in life is, or whether I in fact enjoy any kind of privilege. Yet they’re sure I have it. Ressentiment.

        LikeLike


      • on April 20, 2012 at 1:44 am King A (Matthew King)

        Ressentiment, non. Sarcasme, oui.

        LikeLike


      • on April 20, 2012 at 6:00 pm Listener

        I was aware of Fred’s sarcasm. I guess the subtleties of my own tone were lost over the web.

        LikeLike


  26. on April 18, 2012 at 5:43 pm The Psychology Of Feminists And Manboobs « Chateau Heartiste | Social Fobi - Det Du Behöver Veta

    […] post: The Psychology Of Feminists And Manboobs « Chateau Heartiste April 18th, 2012 | Tags: feminists, midst, natural-disgust, normal-people, our-midst | Category: […]

    LikeLike


  27. on April 18, 2012 at 6:03 pm Rotten

    Rush Limbaugh beat you to this one. Undeniable Truth of life #24: Feminism was created to allow ugly women access to the mainstream of society.

    Feminism is properly seen for what it is: not a response to legitimate grievances but a system of pandering, bribing, or scaring the rest of society into giving the ugly social status.

    LikeLike


    • on April 18, 2012 at 9:57 pm Anonymous

      Good point. People who get social status when they don’t deserve it will eventually Do In the people who actually deserve it.

      The rejects, outcasts of society are already coming after every hetero normal man and woman. Orwell: in the Animal Farm the animals on the bottom who get some “privileges” eventually want to take over. That book was an allegory for the democratic West

      Victorian England is what you could call the living example of what a “civilization” should look like. A major reason for England’s greatness then: delinquents and outcasts and “deviants” and criminals were shunned. They were not given the social status of respectable normal people. They had no soapbox, no one listened to them. This is how you build a society with a moral code – the so called “man’s man” and “feminine woman

      LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 3:23 am Anonymous

        “Do In the people who actually deserve it.”

        And who does deserve it? Certainly not the average man – who can now be replaced by technology and immigrant labor.

        This is why the Men’s Rights Movement, and even the PUA movement, are both doomed to failure. The battle’s already over. Republican-voting white men have been made obsolete by new technology and immigrant labor. No joke – within the next 20 years, we won’t even need police anymore, using instead modified drones and satellite technology.

        LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 4:03 pm Tooters

        We’ll all be the fat people in that PIXAR movie, Wall-E. Just watching tv, eating fast food and floating around in our tub-hovers while robots take care of us.

        LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 4:16 am Anonymous

        Victorian England was, however, built on the idea that you could be discrete about going about non pc activities. It was a soft monogamy culture where men could have 16 year old mistresses as long as they didn’t publicize the activity.

        So, in a way, the “respectable normal people being given the soap-boxes” were the ones being ignored in private. Normal human life went on unmolested by left wing or right wing feminists who could use the power of the state to seriously hurt a man. Unless the man turned out to be gay like Oscar Wilde.

        Back then it was 1000 times worse for a man to sleep with a man than with a 16 year old female. That was Victorian England.

        LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 9:30 pm LL Beans

        Maybe that was true for high-status men with young women working in their houses as maids, etc., but working-class men and women (i.e. the poor) were shockingly well-behaved if you consider the miniscule out-of-wedlock birthrate in Victorian Britain.

        LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 9:45 am Other

        Yes, think about the society in Pride and Prejudice (Regency, not Victorian, but same idea). There were rules of behavior that prevented so many of the problems we see today. Think about how Mr. Bennett was willing to kill Whickam if he didn’t marry his daughter. The masculine gentlemen like Darcy, the feminine women like Jane and Elizabeth. That’s really where I think game leads us ultimately, once everyone is in on it, back to the idea of the masculine gentleman and feminine lady and strict rules of engagement between the sexes.

        LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 10:07 am Other

        Yes, think of the society in Pride and Prejudice (Regency, not Victorian, but same idea) and how it prevented the problems we see today. Think of how Mr. Bennett was willing to kill Wickham if he didn’t marry his daughter. That is where I think game leads back to eventually once everyone is in on it: masculine gentlemen and feminine ladies, and strict rules of engagement between the sexes.

        LikeLike


    • on April 19, 2012 at 4:10 am Anonymous

      A problem with the post and the comment, however, is the strong implication that feminism and manboobery are somehow left wing in nature when the desire to control males is just as often a right wing meme. It needed to be said, at least in parentheses, that such monsters control both political parties in the US. The Republican Party is controlled by right wing feminists and married manginas who no longer want sex with hot young women and want to stop other men, especially their age or older, from having sex with hot young women. Santorum is the poster boy for manboobery.

      It can be shown, going back to the days of the Democrat Grover Cleveland’s scandalous impregnation of a hot young woman more than 130 years ago, that the Republican Party was long the party of manginas and it was the evangelist Republican males who pushed for and got the right for their wives to vote with them (women’s suffrage) so they could control other males better.

      Going forward almost a century and a half, look at the thumbs up and thumbs down voting on that Yahoo article about Jordan Powers getting back with James Hooker. It’s mangina city over on the Yahoo boards and most of the anti Hooker clowns consider themselves to be “conservatives”.

      LikeLike


      • on April 20, 2012 at 2:54 pm KillerQ

        Who cares what Cleveland did 130 years ago? We’re talking about where we are now because of 50 years of social engineering.

        LikeLike


    • on April 19, 2012 at 6:10 pm Fred Rotten

      Hey, who’s this ‘Rotten’ fella? Someone’s trying to muscle in on my turf. I’m the only ‘Rotten’ around here, see? Now SCRAM.

      LikeLike


  28. on April 18, 2012 at 6:06 pm Dan Fletcher

    An interesting take. Another piece of the puzzle which could help explain the hardliner, most vocal feminist/manginas.

    No clue how women view other women with regards to being more masculine/feminine. However it is pretty clear that men feel disgust for other weak and soft men. I’ve observed this since I was a child. Back in the caveman days, a pansy man in your tribe was merely another mouth to feed and another person to protect. They were no use in a fight or hunt, just dead weight.

    I think a lot of the hazing and rough treatment guys give each other, even friends, is a sort of assessment of their manliness. You want to make sure only guys who can hold their own and contribute get into your clan.

    However, in some societies(some native Americans) gays and more effeminate men were made shamans and other such special roles.

    LikeLike


  29. on April 18, 2012 at 6:10 pm Gator

    LOL at the first sentence. I’ve always loved the humor on your blog, man. Keep it up.

    LikeLike


  30. on April 18, 2012 at 6:10 pm CyprianKorzeniowski

    Monstrum in fronte, monstrum in animo.

    LikeLike


    • on April 20, 2012 at 2:14 am King A (Matthew King)

      Fucker. Beat me to it.

      LikeLike


  31. on April 18, 2012 at 6:39 pm Adam

    Model Quits Game of Thrones Over Sex Scene

    “I was aware that the scene was slightly raunchy, but I thought it wasn’t a sex scene and they said they would give me skin patches for my breasts. But when I got there they wanted me to be fully topless and in the scene I had to strip off. So I pulled out at the last minute.”

    “As well as modelling I study Sports Physiotherapy so I want to be taken seriously, I wouldn’t if I had given in and filmed the scene.”

    http://hbowatch.com/model-quits-game-of-thrones-over-sex-scene/

    LikeLike


    • on April 19, 2012 at 3:27 am Ben

      Surprising. Woman not wanting to slut it up for fame and fortune. Are things changing? Will there be fewer sore knees and jaws amongst actresses?

      LikeLike


  32. on April 18, 2012 at 6:48 pm Rum

    No creature in Nature has mental wirings that are designed to cope with being a badly mal-formed or un-healthy version of that creature. The body of a mal-formed or very sick deer or cat, or parrot is promptly recycled into the protein chain and so their minds never need to develop any means of dealing with this situation. Of course, this also descibes 99% of human experience. Nature may or may not be “cruel” but it does not mess around. Most real suffering is over before the next sunrise.
    Yet, in modern life, we see so many people walking around who would not be here at all in earlier times. Their deep brains must know that on some level and feel some ancient vibes of doom and fear. That cannot be good for ones overall sanity. A fat, unfit person is especially living in a reality that asks more of the sanity-maintenance circuits in their brains than can be sustained for very long.

    LikeLike


  33. on April 18, 2012 at 6:57 pm Bill Brasky

    Feminism and regressivism in general happened because the Western world became spoiled by both its own technological success and huge amounts of artificially cheap resources, particularly oil.

    We went, in an inconceivably short period of time, from struggling every day for sustenance and comfort, to taking it these things for granted. As soon as sustenance and comfort were taken for granted, we were left with our perpetually unhappy and always-desiring brain chemistry that previously served to drive us to hunt and fight and struggle.

    This emptiness was seized upon by the elites of western civilization (not all of whom were really “of” western civilization…) to engage certain self-destruct mechanisms in western societies. These mechanisms, previously held in check by what had always been the undeniably and inherently tragic nature of life, include Female pedestalization and the projection of our inner selves onto third-worlders, animals, etc.

    It really aint as simple as sour grapes, though dysgenic breeding is a huge part of what has happened.

    I need another beer.

    LikeLike


    • on April 19, 2012 at 3:27 am Anonymous

      “Feminism and regressivism in general happened because the Western world became spoiled by both its own technological success and huge amounts of artificially cheap resources, particularly oil.”

      No, it happened because of technological changes which drove men out of manual labor jobs, stripping the average man of whatever power he had.

      LikeLike


  34. on April 18, 2012 at 6:57 pm Ripp

    This is hilarious:
    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-april-17-2012/the-women-s-vote

    LikeLike


    • on April 18, 2012 at 10:23 pm Dan Fletcher

      That was fucking awesome.

      LikeLike


    • on April 18, 2012 at 11:52 pm Anonymous

      Lolz.

      But I wanted to tear my hair out when I heard the bitch in white speaking.
      Fembots are gonna drive me insane.

      Can Heartiste use his superpowers and make them disappear?

      LikeLike


  35. on April 18, 2012 at 6:58 pm losthistorian

    Heartiste wrote: “Truth, as it always does, will claim ultimate victory.”

    Reminds me of something Nietzsche said: ‘Truth in itself is no power; it must either attract power to its side or else side with power, or it will perish again and again.’

    Just because something is ‘true’ doesn’t mean it will necessarily succeed or gain acceptance. Many scientific truths are attacked today because they don’t ‘feel true’ to certain people.

    A critical question is: how have these biological outsiders managed to convince the elites to side with them? Supposing you’re correct about their low biological value (and I believe you’re right), why do the elites collaborate with them? What do the elites hope to achieve by doing so?

    LikeLike


    • on April 18, 2012 at 10:17 pm Dan Fletcher

      Elites have much to gain from feminism.

      -Double the number of people in the work force. This increases the labor pool. More supply of workers leads to lower wages overall.

      -More independent women with jobs, more women spending money on pointless consumerist crap. You wouldn’t believe all the dumb shit women buy.

      -More people living separately leads to more purchasing of houses, apartment, utilities, etc… which would normally be cheaper during cohabitation.

      -Most important, the dissolution of the family unit, the building block of a healthy society. Thus more dependence on the government, the nanny state, etc…

      Those are just some off the top of my head. I’m sure someone else could add dozens more.

      It is not so much that elites have “sided” with these biological outsiders. The outcasts are merely useful idiots who just happen to help the elites promote this particular agenda. They will be discarded the moment it is convenient.

      LikeLike


    • on April 20, 2012 at 2:55 am King A (Matthew King)

      losthistorian wrote:

      Heartiste wrote: “Truth, as it always does, will claim ultimate victory.”

      Reminds me of something Nietzsche said: ‘Truth in itself is no power; it must either attract power to its side or else side with power, or it will perish again and again.’

      That’s just Heartiste’s latent Platonism/Christianity erupting. Your implication is correct: the destiny of truth is ultimately a matter of faith. Either you believe it is a perish[able] inert instrument to be used and abused by principalities and powers who ultimately determine its content, or you believe it is Power Itself which precedes and transcends those who attempt to claim Its sovereignty for their own.

      When you’re a freshman in college, Nietzsche sounds pretty good. Then you realize all of the mental contortions you have to perform just to deny what’s plain in front of your face, contortions that were once rebelliously exhilarating because they promised independence, not just from Mom and Dad’s world, but from truth itself! Heady stuff, man.

      You take a leap of faith in one direction or another, often without realizing it. The Christian takes his plunge consciously, in the hope (elpis) that ultimately “the truth will out” no matter which illusions “succeed or gain acceptance” temporarily among finite men’s finite brains. It’s encouraging that our host accidentally chose correctly, even if he can’t quite swallow the fact that Truth has a Name.

      “Every one who is of the truth hears my voice.”

      Matt

      LikeLike


    • on May 8, 2012 at 12:33 pm Anonymous

      “the elites” of every western society have used the template that birthed feminism to rule the herd for at least 2,500 years. This template can be called “ressentiment.” Christianity is the supreme example, feminism and left-wingery are two other examples.

      Rulers need to keep ambitious commoners from growing in strength and seizing their thrones. The commoner who sees Power, Beauty and Success, and holds them in esteem and admiration, may start scheming to seize power for himself. His outrage at his own oppression can fuel his drive to usurp the current rulers To prevent this, the commoner are taught to scorn power, denounce wealth, to say it is meaningless and unworthy. To wag their finger at the powerful in impotent moral condemnation, and to find solace in the hope of a future in which the meek are on top and the powerful burn in hell.
      By getting the rabble to focus on the world that Should Be, and to disdain the world that Actually Is, and to vilify power and success, the powerful and successful can ensure that their rule is unchallenged.

      Ressentiment ideologies, such as feminism and Christianity, are psychological fetters used to hobble the minds of a population and make them governable.

      There’s a lot more to it than that, but that’s a start. If you want to know the secret of feminism, christianty etc, examine their ORIGINS. It’s a whodunit. If you are able to solve the case, you will have to keep the answer to yourself. It is absolutely forbidden that this truth be told. One hint… It’s not the news.

      LikeLike


      • on May 8, 2012 at 9:01 pm DirkJohanson

        I’m too tired for a whodunit. Can you just fuckin’ tell us?

        LikeLike


  36. on April 18, 2012 at 7:01 pm Bill Brasky

    WordPress just ate TWO long comments in a row. fuckin balls.

    Short version: its easy to fixate on the sour-grapes losers on the leading edge, but the real driver behind all this is a society that is spoiled by technology for comfort and sustenance. People have attempted to re-cast the inherently tragic nature of life as “white male oppression”. They have failed spectacularly, but succeeded in fucking everything that makes life worth living.

    LikeLike


  37. on April 18, 2012 at 7:04 pm Jack

    I see feminism as the redirected energy of elite upper class white women who have had their lower Maslovian needs engineered and legislated away.

    LikeLike


    • on April 19, 2012 at 12:17 am blert

      We have a winner.

      LikeLike


    • on April 19, 2012 at 12:09 pm Spiralina

      Ding ding ding!

      LikeLike


  38. on April 18, 2012 at 7:11 pm Anonymous

    christ this is overwritten

    LikeLike


  39. on April 18, 2012 at 7:50 pm Pi

    Manboob exempli gratia Alex Pareene (A manboob, not THE manboobs). I get the heebee jeebees just looking at his picture.

    LikeLike


  40. on April 18, 2012 at 8:06 pm DarkByke

    Feminism is that ugly monster. You kill it and it multiplies. Someday it will destroy itself and the world.

    LikeLike


  41. on April 18, 2012 at 8:13 pm carioca

    (1) “Revenge of the monsters” is only one of the bases of feminism. We may add at least other two:
    (2) “Women corporatism” that gives them advantages of many kinds.
    (3) “White Knights expectation of sexual reward” by defending and emotionally connecting with women.

    (any other?)

    You write a lot about Feminism. I think we can extend your thoughts to other revolutionary “isms”, like Vegetarianism and Communism.For instance, the “revenge of the monsters” of Communism would be the “we against them” (it means the poor against the rich, or the Third World against US).

    A “Revolutionary Ism” is the perfect philosophy for people who find it easier to change the World instead of changing themselves. Sometimes changing the whole World´s population perception of reality seems to be a more realistic possibility than changing their deformed body, personality or social condition.These people are of many kinds, this post exemplifies one of this kinds (ugly people).

    LikeLike


  42. on April 18, 2012 at 8:14 pm Anonymous

    one of your best posts

    best attacks

    best tactics

    against feminism

    you are leading the war as best as it can be done

    salut my lord …

    LikeLike


  43. on April 18, 2012 at 8:44 pm Bigfoot

    While the truth is that feminists are often the ugliest 10 percent of their respective gender, its simply not politically correct to say that.

    However, you know what would really drive the point home?

    A composite image of 100 feminists faces, and 100 of normal women. Same with men.

    That kind of evidence is hard to argue against.

    LikeLike


    • on April 19, 2012 at 10:05 am SFG

      One of the paleocons on alt-right did just that.

      Sticking Magda Goebbels and Eva Braun in the ‘normal’ pile did kind of ruin its viral capability, though.

      LikeLike


  44. on April 18, 2012 at 8:49 pm In The Frigid North

    The real problem is the acquiescence of many in the troll’s quest to become sexually relevant. The middle is where these ideas gained enough traction to distort family law and the sexual marketplace. The question we must face is how we lost the will to shun these beasts back to their cave-basements and cat lairs.

    In women, the chance of material gain provides fuel to get someone on board, especially since their solipsism and lack of systems-level abstract reasoning causes them to fall in line with their “team” more readily.

    In men, I think the women’s craving for alpha and the top 20% produces a much larger than expected pool of frustrated potential white knights, seeking to diversify their sexual strategies by selling out their gender.

    LikeLike


  45. on April 18, 2012 at 8:53 pm Gilbert

    Seen at the Decatur book fair, a bumper sticker: “Change the way you see, not the way you look!”

    LikeLike


    • on April 19, 2012 at 9:23 am Laconophile

      Another good one is “Redefine Success”. That describes Slave Morality to a T.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/02/tedxwomen-arianna-huffington_n_1125260.html

      LikeLike


  46. on April 18, 2012 at 8:56 pm Vicus

    wait! all of you guys fortgot the must important !…all that Monsters have a value per se, they remenber all of us our REAL , MAN and WOMAN beauty. They now that are invisible for us, poor creatures…

    LikeLike


  47. on April 18, 2012 at 9:02 pm Lord Valtrex

    OT

    Vanessa Williams: I Was Molested as a Child

    …”It happened one night where she told me, ‘come over here,’ I didn’t know that it was wrong, but I knew that it wasn’t right because I wasn’t supposed to tell anybody.”

    “I think I was highly sexualized because I was in fifth grade and I had this experience. Because it feels good, you’re like, OK, well this is supposed to be normal. That’s not normal for a 10-year-old to be seduced.”

    Source: http://www.tmz.com/2012/04/17/vanessa-williams-molested-book

    So…her body tells her it feels really good, but her socialization tells her it is wrong. Umm, so it is not the sexual experience, per se, which is traumatizing, but the societal judgement of her experience that distresses her (and other women), correct?

    If so, then multiple her brainwashing times 150 million other women (under the same, relentless 24/7 Media/State brainwashing) and this could explain, in part, why women are so fucking crazy.

    LikeLike


  48. on April 18, 2012 at 9:06 pm Roland3337

    Hohleee shit. Best attack I’ve read in a long time.

    Has the feel of satire, yet cuts to the heart of the beast.

    I fucking love it.

    LikeLike


  49. on April 18, 2012 at 9:09 pm C-Money

    I mostly agree with this analysis, except with the part about feeling a natural disgust for fat people. It seems like you wrote this specifically to categorize fat men and fat women together, but there’s a big difference between them. Yes, I feel a natural disgust for fat women, but not really for fat men. I can even think of numerous examples of fat men who are still quite attractive (e.g. Tony Soprano), but no examples of attractive fat women. Shouldn’t you account for this difference?

    [heartiste: yes, good point. i don’t feel revulsion for fat men like i do for fat women. it probably has to do with the difference in innate attractiveness criteria. fat men don’t destroy their market value — their humanity — as badly as fat women do. although after a certain mass of obesity, say 400+ pounds, everyone looks like a monster.]

    LikeLike


  50. on April 18, 2012 at 9:34 pm Anonymous

    A big post. You seem to be stretching yourself as a – dare I say it – Thought Leader. You are moving beyond mere game advice blogger. This will always be there and is great but you are developing a new dimension. Which will only draw a bigger fascination and following My two cents

    Yes Something is a little “off” about the whole feminism and people pushing it. Feminism is certainly NOT a natural outpouring of “the folks”.

    Evolutionary competition is now taking place at the level of ” who can construct culture ” – verbal rhetoric, frame control, manipulation of what “reality” is, media spin

    CASH is a fascinating artist, the lyrics always go deep you cannot turn away, haunting

    LikeLike


  51. on April 18, 2012 at 9:59 pm danielantinora

    It’s called teratology my man Heartiste.

    LikeLike


    • on April 20, 2012 at 2:45 am Glengarry

      “Come the revolution, comrades, teratophilia will be the new normal!”

      LikeLike


  52. on April 18, 2012 at 10:08 pm chris

    Its called resentiment. Pretty much all of the left/marxists is rife with it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ressentiment

    “Ressentiment (French pronunciation: [rəsɑ̃tiˈmɑ̃]), in philosophy and psychology, is a particular form of resentment or hostility. It is the French word for “resentment” (fr. Latin intensive prefix ‘re’, and ‘sentir’ “to feel”). Ressentiment is a sense of hostility directed at that which one identifies as the cause of one’s frustration, that is, an assignment of blame for one’s frustration. The sense of weakness or inferiority and perhaps jealousy in the face of the “cause” generates a rejecting/justifying value system, or morality, which attacks or denies the perceived source of one’s frustration. The ego creates an enemy in order to insulate itself from culpability.

    Ressentiment is not to be considered interchangeable with the normal English word “resentment”, or even the French “ressentiment”. While the normal words both speak to a feeling of frustration directed at a perceived source, neither speaks to the special relationship between a sense of inferiority and the creation of morality.”

    Basically, feminists and other forms of marxists, resent the fact that they are inferior to others under the natural order/human nature, hence they must deny the existence of a natural order/human nature and cast all of their betters as villains and themselves as angels. Funnily enough though, like all marxists, once they achieve power in society they themselves covet and pursue those things which they cast as evil.

    Interestingly enough, their ressentiment causes them to act as free riders. Why? Because their ressentiment necessitates that they deny human nature or else accept within themselves that they are inferior. They will not do this and so subsequently this denying of human nature results in the prescription of an ideology/morality/policies that hurt everyone in the group overall yet advance their own relative position within it.

    Thus these people are essentially moral free-riders.

    They espouse a suicidally benevolent morality as a way of elevating themselves in moral status above others, notwithstanding that the particular morality that they espouse hurts the group (society) overall, of which they are themselves are part (therefore they are also hurting themselves in the long-term).

    So, despite the fact that the morality they espouse hurts the group overall, and that the degree to which their morality hurts the group overall is much much greater than the degree to which the espousers of that morality benefit themselves at societies expense, all the espousers of that morality really care about is elevating their relative position to everyone else in their society. Therefore they can damn everyone in the long-term as long as they get theirs (advance their position/moral status) in the short-term.

    Or put another way, the sum total of the harm caused by their morality to the whole group (of which they are a part and are therefore also harming themselves) is offset by the relative position that they can advance themselves within the group (at least in their minds, (although they might not consciously be making this determination, what matters for our purposes is not the proximate cause but instead the ultimate cause. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximate_and_ultimate_causation and also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-deception#Trivers.27_theory_of_self-deception)).

    Simply put, they’d rather be the king of losers (sum value of the group is small but their relative position is high) than be the loser among kings (sum value of the group is high but the relative position of the subject within the group is low).

    So they selfishly get a minor increase in moral status while damning the rest of society in the long-term, or put simply, they act as moral free-riders.

    All communists, marxists, feminists, postmodernists, cultural relativists, social constructionists fall into this category as their motivation to deny human nature is based on their ressentiment.

    LikeLike


    • on April 18, 2012 at 10:41 pm Anon

      Good stuff.
      Love the leftshits bashing

      LikeLike


    • on April 18, 2012 at 11:07 pm corvinus

      Makes total sense to me.

      LikeLike


    • on April 19, 2012 at 1:24 am Listener

      From “The Passions: Emotions and the Meaning of Life” by Robert C. Solomon:

      “Nothing on earth consumes a man more quickly than the passion of resentment.”
      -Nietzsche, “Ecce Homo”

      Resentment is the villain of the passions. It is among the most obsessive and enduring of the emotions, poisoning the whole of subjectivity with its venom, often achieving moodlike scope while still maintaining its keen and vicious fous on each of the myriad of petty offenses it sense against itself. Curiously, it is not one of the seven “deadly sins” (although envy, its close but more particular companion, is); yet it is surely the deadliest, stagnating self-esteem and shrinking our world down to a tightly defensive constricted coil, plotting and scheming to the exclusion even of pride, making all trust, intimacy, and intersubjectivity impossible, except for the always untrustworthy alliances it formes in mutual defense and for the purpose of expressing its usually impotent schemes of vengeance. What is most vile about this all-pervasive emotion, however, is its deviousness. It rarely allows itself to be recognized as resentment but mocks the appearance and the titles of virtually any other emotion. Puffing itself up with moral armament, it presents itself as indignation, jealousy, and anger. Refusing to acknowledge its marked sense of inferiority, it portrays itself as hatred, or even as scorn or contempt for its superiors. Finding itself threatened, it retreats to the punitive humility of guilt and remorse– but only until the danger passes. Sensing another’s vulnerable trust and openness, resentment plays at love, using all the devices of tenderness and concern to gain control of the other and to use him or her as an instrument of its own vengeance. A vicious emotion– the Richard III of the battlements of our souls, rich in plots and strategies but always battling desperately, without quarter and with little hope from a position of suspicion and inferiority. With few victories of its own, it relishes every misfortune that inflicts its enemies, through whatever means or circumstances, and whatever their desert or warrant. (The Germans have an apt for for it, Schadenfreuden– joy at the sufferings of others.) To make its strategy more devious, resentment will be the first to express pity– but that pity abused by resentment we spoke of earlier– thus appearing compassionate but in fact only feeding its morbid sense of its own bloated superiority at closer range. Resentment loves misery as company.

      I shall have more to say of resentment in the final chapters. It is the paradigm of a well-entrenched emotional strategy that cannot see beyond its own meager self-constituted limitations. The contrast I shall most employ in that discussion will not be the familiar “opposites” of love and hate, which in fact are very much alike, but rather love and resentment, the true polarity of our emotional lives– the first an open and trusting acceptance of intersubjectivity and intimacy, the second a defensive and close fortress of schemes and maliciousness, its sense of intersubjectivity the perverted Hobbesian notion of a “war of all against all,” in which it is “every man for himself,” “no one is to be trusted,” and “take what you can get.”

      1. DIRECTION
      Outer-directed, emphatically, purposefully avoiding attention to one’s own attitudes and stature, motives and intentions, infirmities and (lack of) achievement.

      2. SCOPE/FOCUS
      Scope– virtually global (the defensive scan of the radar of a terrified animal, watching for danger or advantage everywhere). Focus– keen at every point. Resentment misses little. (Resentful people make excellent guards, police, librarians, school disciplinarians, clerks, detectives, scholars, and baby-sitters.)

      3. OBJECT
      Other people, virtually all other people. Possibly also God and his creatures, trees, buildings, stones, laws, rules, successes (other people’s), alarm clocks, etc.

      4. CRITERIA
      Always tinged with morality, but may be personal or interpersonal in their origins (for example, in envy or through embarrassment). Always claims to be impersonal and disinterested. (Nietzsche argues that morality itself is the invention of resentment [“Genealogy of Morals,” Essay 1], the objective pretention of the personal prejudices of weakness, projected in “categorical” and unqualified form for application to the strong as well [to the advantage of the weak, of course].)

      5. STATUS
      Intolerable inferiority. Resentment thrives in the dark and moist shadows of the soul, away from direct confrontations with superiors– bosses, members of the “opposite” sex, bullies, and authority figures. It is the sense of intolerable inferiority that drives resentment, forces it to disguise itself and adopt complex strategies– all aimed at overcoming its present status and proving itself at least equal, if not (preferably) superior.

      6. EVALUATIONS
      Negative about everything, except the sufferings of others, which it sees as deserved and therefor a mark of its own advantage. Complaints, objections, and venomous bitterness, often couched in highly articulate and intelligent (even brilliant) forms are resentment’s way of dealing with its world. Unable to praise itself, it demeans everything else, usually for good reason. (But, then, would we ever lack a good reason– if we were looking for it, for objecting to anything human?)

      7. RESPONSIBILITY
      Like the self-accusions involved in guilt, the other-directed indictments of resentment are ill defined and obscure, rarely delineated by any particular offense but rather general enough to apply to virtually any minor offense or questionable achievement. It is worth noting that guilt and resentment are often found together in dialectical form, the guilt feeding one’s sense of inferiority and making it all the more imperative that similar blame is projected outward to others, rendering them no better than oneself. When successful, however, resentment may well surpass its own sense of guilt remarkably, adopting that often obnoxious self-righteous sense of innocence that we find in Clamence in “The Fall,” in Kierkegaard’s discourses, and in “confessions” of all kinds, a resentful innocence that comes through one’s recognition of guilt, as if that alone were sufficient to render a person superior.

      8. INTERSUBJECTIVITY
      Extremely defensive and untrusting, constantly building fortifications and plotting plots of vengeance. When it does “let others in,” we may be sure that they will be others like itself, surely no stronger than itself, and then only for the purpose of a tentative alliance, guarded by mutual distrust and cultish rituals and guarantees.

      9. DISTANCE
      Impersonal distance. Intimacy is intolerable to resentment; it is too embarrassed by itself, incapable of handling vulnerability, finds it impossible to give up its universally critical stance toward its world, and other people in particular.

      10. MYTHOLOGY
      The mythology of oppression and siege. “It’s unfair!” A sense of being “thrown” into an inferior existence, through no fault of one’s own. A view of the world in paranoid revolutionary terms; “If you’re not on my side, you must be on the other side”; Hobbesian picture of every person out to kill (physically or symbolically) every other person. Sense of heroic fighting against tremendous and hopeless odds, like Sisyphus “scorning” the gods, his only weapon his “defiance” (yet a defiance that is strictly subjective, as he continues with his chore). A tendency to divide the world into warring camps, and an obsession with power (which one never has enough of) and with “winners” and “losers.”

      11. DESIRE
      To destroy one’s enemies, all of them, and to be in a position of indisputable and unmatched power and importance.

      12. POWER
      Utter impotence, which feeds and frustrates one’s megalomaniacal desires to the point of despair and desperation. It is important to note, however, that this sense of power is also subjective, and that resentment may afflict those who have in fact more power than anyone else in the world as well as those who in fact are oppressed. Indeed, it could be argued that resentment and the sense of impotence that will never be powerful enough are more developed in the neurotics who often obtain the most powerful positions in politics than among the politically oppressed, who as often as not have learned to live without power and without concern for it. It is the sense of impotence that is crucial to resentment, the sense of inferiority, and the goal of revenge and control that structures this morbid view of the world.

      13. STRATEGY
      No emotion is richer in strategies than resentment. By mocking other emotions, it can adopt the strategies of any one of them, modified to suit its own purposes. As indignation, it can indict and accuse, placing itself in a position of self-righteous moral superiority. As pity, it can relish the sufferings of others and use them, in accordance with its dubious metaphysical world views, as an argument for its own righteousness and superiority. As love, it can slip into the heart of another person and act out the cruel fantasies it would like to express effectively to the world, but cannot. Resentment is like a tarantula (to borrow Nietzsche’s metaphor in “Zarathustra”), a solitary and defensive creature, with terrifying appearance but utterly without confidence. Its bite is painful and poisonous, but rarely fatal; it spends most of its time in its hole or walking backward. Resentment builds all of its strategies on a single principle– to drag the others down. It seeks absolute self-esteem by default, by proving oneself superior to everyone else, not by changing oneself so much as by holding other back and destroying them. To this end, resentment will employ any means except one: It never considers its starting point, the self-imposed judgement of oppression and inferiority upon which all these malevolent desires and strategies are built. It is here that reflection serves us best, for one has only to see the strategies of resentment to see through them, and to see how unnecessary and self-defeating they are. But resentment itself will do everything possible to block this reflection. It is for this reason it needs to be so obsessive. Who would live in constant losing and demeaning battle if he could choose to live in peace and harmony with others? But it is so easy to say that, and so hard to see it in ourselves.

      LikeLike


      • on April 20, 2012 at 12:45 am Anon

        Awesome.
        I think I’m gonna get back to reading Nietzsche and the classics.
        Reading about science and evo psych can only lead you so far.

        LikeLike


      • on April 20, 2012 at 2:18 am Anon

        (I know that nietzsche didn’t write that. It’s just that ressentiment and master-slave morality are big nietzschean thematics… Whatever…)

        LikeLike


  53. on April 18, 2012 at 10:15 pm skyscraper

    Yes I agree with this. But for those of you who wrote here who would condemn all homosexuals as nature’s freaks who automatically side with monstrosities, please be aware that not all of us are like feminist manboobed betas. There are a few of us who lift weights, look down on women, hate feminism, and worship masculinity and masculine beauty. Maybe shouldn’t be accepted as normal, but not all homos are feminist fags, not all side with the deformed, and some are allies of men against feminism. And we worship health and masculinity, do not hate it.

    LikeLike


    • on April 19, 2012 at 12:03 am Mick

      Try worshiping femininity instead of men’s hairy asses.

      LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 2:13 am skyscraper

        I don’t do that though, I worship the perfect male form. And many people who worship femininity are liberals and beta. Including beta socons.

        Your attitude is typical of a feminized society.

        Almost the only people left in the West who worship masculine beauty and masculinity are a certain kind of homosexual.

        LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 1:26 pm Mick9

        I grew up in the 70s so…..yah I do come from a feminized society I just cant figure worshipping a perfect male form because I inherently by nature am attracted to the perfect female form which is the definition of femininity. The masculine form is not attractive to me in any way. Why is it that Gays are almost always liberals around here ? Im not sure where you come from, but liberals are mostly always leaning toward the feminist side.
        Gays , also tend to want to go on slut marches in this area. Very beta gays at that. I personally dont WORSHIP womens bodies but do prefer their form over the male form. Doesnt make me a mangina or beta pussy . Quite the opposite. I stand, You kneel and take it from behind , the very definition of beta supplication.

        LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 1:41 pm Mick9

        I think we are unclear about how femininity does not equal feminism. Many feminists are not feminine.Liberals and betas become defenders of feminists
        ideology. Feminism is political , femininity is biology. Vagina is > mens assholes why is that feminist , its biology. Its normal for men , however these days normal is weird I guess.

        LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 10:22 pm So, do the Zonk

        The truly closeted are gay Conservatives. They exist. I know some.

        LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 10:47 pm Firepower

        Nope: The TRULY closeted are
        Hollywood Conservatives
        ~ u Fail ~

        LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 10:07 am SFG

        It’s genetic. Since there will always be gays, I think his argument has merit. In Ancient Greece they were still expected to have children so the polis would be well-supplied with warriors.

        LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 2:41 pm corvinus

        One might also point out that it’s possible to have admiration for the male form without being sexually aroused by it, in the same way we admire a well-built car, or plane, or horse, or dog, or tiger. I rather doubt that all those ancient Greek and Renaissance sculptors were gay.

        LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 9:35 pm Mick

        Yes but in context only, I like the look of high heels on a well proportioned woman. However, on a man not so much.

        LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 3:07 pm Laconophile

        It’s genetic… they were still expected to have children

        Therein lies the problem.

        LikeLike


  54. on April 18, 2012 at 10:16 pm Anonymous

    Pathologizing feminists as “mentally ill”

    [heartiste: i didn’t say they are mentally ill. in fact, they’re quite sane in the strict sense that they understand their self-interest.]

    is no different from the feminist caricature of conservatives as anal-retentive obsessives. If anything, associating mental illness with political positions one dislikes is a typically left-wing tactic, more reminiscent of Stalin’s gulags than of any truly conservative position.

    Feminism is a complex phenomenon, and is largely the result of economic (post-WWII labor shortage, expanded labor market = greater consumption = more profit) and political (female suffrage = more power) factors, not to mention that second-wave feminism (again, female suffrage) is distinct from third-wave feminism (grrrl power).

    Your post does not even begin to scratch the surface of what is truly problematic with feminism.

    [female suffrage has been a disaster for the west, allowing the voting patterns of women to dictate policy. on this, there can be no argument.]

    LikeLike


    • on April 19, 2012 at 12:29 am James

      [female suffrage has been a disaster for the west, allowing the voting patterns of women to dictate policy. on this, there can be no argument.]

      I dunno, white women’s voting patterns don’t deviate that much from white men’s, all things considered. The Democratic party and its minions spend considerable efforts pandering to them specifically, so some discrepancy is expected.

      LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 3:29 am Ben

        “white women’s voting patterns don’t deviate that much from white men’s,”

        You’re an idiot.

        LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 4:23 am Anonymous

        Remember that it was evangelical christian men who pushed to give women the right to vote so they could outvote other men on the issues of prostitution, alcohol and smoking. In the west, this helped the landsteaders outvote the cowboys and perpetual bachelors who didn’t want to settle down.

        LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 4:26 am Anonymous

        Democrat males, especially Irish Catholics, were the biggest opposition to giving women the right to vote because they were in favor of drinking and sex and smoking. While I’ll never understand why the likes of Ted Kennedy later joined the enemy, it is fairly clear the old guy waited until his own prostate was no longer working before he let the Democratic Party come under the control of the anti-sex fembots.

        LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 4:30 am Anonymous

        And when Ted Kennedy, not being able to get it up anymore for his interns, did hand the Dem Party over to the enemy, the right wing evangelists were waiting with open arms to agree on “Bi Partisan Support” for tons of laws in the 1990s and 2000s that would punish men for being men.

        LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 4:31 am Anonymous

        Progressive laws mind you. Laws never before enacted in human history.

        LikeLike


    • on April 19, 2012 at 2:31 am Anonymous

      Actually, there can be argument. Its been a disaster for *most* men. But a minority of men have made out like bandits.

      I also disagree that we’ve lost our “productive” men. All the men who have been screwed over by feminists, can be replaced by Mexicans, or work jobs that aren’t crucial in the first place. The real professionals are quite happy with the situation.

      LikeLike


      • on April 20, 2012 at 2:52 am Glengarry

        Oooor replace the feminists with … asians? east europeans? hell, what you got. Mexicans, okay.

        LikeLike


    • on April 19, 2012 at 12:50 pm Redleg

      CH I disagree. Suffrage isn’t the problem, the disastrous effect latter-day feminism has had on women’s understanding of their own natures is the problem. This has skewed the voting agenda of women away from more sustainable, traditional demands.

      Now, if you’re arguing that women tend to vote for the biggest cad by default, and cads are bad for countries, well, that rings true…

      LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 2:58 pm Laconophile

        Women’s suffrage isn’t the problem… women’s disastrous incompetence is?

        LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 3:16 pm Redleg

        Yes. Incompetence that has arisen through the abandonment of more traditional values which reigned in women’s shortsighted, primitive hypergamous and parasitic inclinations in favor of longsighted, sustainable and communal values, IE “TRUE” conservative values.

        LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 3:44 pm Laconophile

        Wouldn’t it be easier — and better — to repeal women’s suffrage than to try and turn women into men?

        LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 4:01 pm Redleg

        They’re half the species. More importantly, they’re not inferior, they just approach problems and tasks in different ways, neurologically, than men. We have constructed the world based around a male mindset, which is how our species has reached primacy and in this context, women appear lesser.

        However they have adapted, stunningly, by learning how to expertly manipulate men over our species’ evolutionary lifetime. Game itself takes a great deal of its insight from female behaviors used to control men.

        If all it takes a more patriarchal culture to make women ASSIST productivity, rather than DETRACT from it, why not just reinstitute that culture, while acknowledging their, in a relative sense, right to equality with men?

        LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 11:17 pm Laconophile

        Women never solve national problems, ever.

        They expertly manipulate men through sex, not politics. This is useless WRT statecraft.

        They have always been motivated by petty sentimentality (read Schopenhauer or Nietzsche). This is worse than useless WRT statecraft.

        Not even the Athenians were dumb enough to give women the vote.

        LikeLike


  55. on April 18, 2012 at 10:31 pm Women Are Parrots, Women Are Parrots

    Feminism is a complex phenomenon…

    No. Feminism is a conscious, top-down propaganda operation funded by multi-trillionaires (quadrillionaires?), who never make the Forbes richest list because they own Forbes and everything else.

    Women parrot the culture. Always have. Always will. That’s why so many women mindlessly parrot feminism, ever-changing fashion trends, etc… Women are not complex creatures. In fact, women are the opposite. If women see something bright and shiny on TV they will want it. If the TV instructs women to behave a certain way then women will.

    LikeLike


    • on April 19, 2012 at 3:32 am Anonymous

      In fact, women often do employ quite sophisticated evolutionary strategies. But if you want to “women are brainwashed”, go right ahead. Haven’t we heard that before, by the way? Are you going to start railing against the patriarchy?

      LikeLike


    • on April 19, 2012 at 7:20 am PA

      I agree with this. Feminism started out as a kooky 19th century lesbian liberation movement, though they didn’t think of themselves as lesbians at the time. Said “quadrillionaires” coopted it and expanded its scope to speak for women as a whole to flood the labor market with women, halving the cost of labor, and also decoupling women from their men.

      Feminism consists of lesbians, who comprise its leadership cadre and intellectual heavyweights, and of straight women who opportunistically piggyback on feminism as their ticket to economic independence of marriage to betas.

      The lesbian and the straight-hypergamous women that identify with feminism coexist in an uneasy symbiosis. The straights need the lesbos to actually run feminism, the lesbos need the straight women for their numbers and mass appeal.

      Notice the mirror-image relationship between the two groups’ attitudes on men. Lesbian feminists hate alphas as competition for young girls they hope to “convert,” and tolerate the beats. Conversely, straight feminists love alphas for lotsa cocka, and hate betas for their sexual interest and as workplace competition.

      Essentially, lesbians hate the proverbial “rapist quarterback” and straight feminists hate “the creepy guy.”

      LikeLike


  56. on April 18, 2012 at 10:33 pm asnark

    “Truth, as it always does, will claim ultimate victory.”

    What then is truth? A movable host of metaphors, metonymies, and; anthropomorphisms: in short, a sum of human relations which have been poetically and rhetorically intensified, transferred, and embellished, and which, after long usage, seem to a people to be fixed, canonical, and binding. Truths are illusions which we have forgotten are illusions- they are metaphors that have become worn out and have been drained of sensuous force, coins which have lost their embossing and are now considered as metal and no longer as coins.

    http://faculty.uml.edu/enelson/truth&lies.htm

    [heartiste: is this to be an argument for the subjectivity of truth? i resist. truth is beauty. beauty truth. how can the warthog be universally ugly and the tiger universally beautiful to human perception if there was not an objective basis to the judgment?]

    LikeLike


    • on April 19, 2012 at 1:36 am Demiurge

      Watch out everyone, someone just read Nietzsche for the first time. Here ya go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspectivism

      LikeLike


    • on April 19, 2012 at 3:32 am Ben

      Point is, whether it’s subjective or not is not the issue. We’re looking at it from the perspective of the majority. The majority, we argue, find looking at a man jawed feminist like looking a pile of dog shit (I suspect, too, that this is the vision these fucks see in the mirror.)

      LikeLike


    • on April 19, 2012 at 9:57 am Other

      Truth is correspondence with reality. Nuff said.

      LikeLike


    • on April 19, 2012 at 10:35 am T

      i agree with H’s comment, and i believe this is actually the fundamental issue upon which there will always be disagreement. some people believe in absolutes – truths, guidelines, optimal conditions. and some people believe that nothing is “real,” that everything is in a constant state of change. that everything can mean anything or nothing at all. and there is no arguing with an individual who has no ability to assign truth or meaning to anything. they are adrift.

      LikeLike


    • on April 20, 2012 at 3:26 am King A (Matthew King)

      Nietzsche is our philosopher. We’ve internalized him and regurgitate him without knowing it or understanding the consequences. He was right about the 20th century having “wars such as have never happened on earth.”

      Nietzsche said that mankind would limp on through the twentieth century “on the mere pittance” of the old decaying God–based moral codes. But then, in the twenty–first, would come a period more dreadful than the great wars, a time of “the total eclipse of all values” (in The Will to Power). This would also be a frantic period of “revaluation,” in which people would try to find new systems of values to replace the osteoporotic skeletons of the old. But you will fail, he warned, because you cannot believe in moral codes without simultaneously believing in a god who points at you with his fearsome forefinger and says “Thou shalt” or “Thou shalt not.”

      — Tom Wolfe, “Sorry, But Your Soul Just Died”

      So, bloody as the 20th century was, that was just an appeteaser for the 21st. The horror won’t be the volume of blood this time so much as the nature of the bloodletting: happy suicide.

      If you’re going to try to kill God, make sure you get the job done. Leaving him wounded just pissed him off. “For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God….”

      Matt

      LikeLike


  57. on April 18, 2012 at 10:50 pm College Grad

    What timing…I came to write a story from yesterday and it so happens to align perfectly with this post.

    Yesterday I posted the link to the gender pay gap lie on my facebook. It got 4 “likes,” and all of them were girls. The only person that objected to it was a guy.

    Feminism is not the mainstream. Even as I go through graduate school in a female dominated field, I’ve found most girls here will outwardly denounce feminism. Most admit they just want to be married and have kids, but are afraid of being financially dependent. A smaller minority even admit they just want to be housewives.

    LikeLike


    • on April 19, 2012 at 10:08 am SFG

      That was one of my big surprises after feminist indoctrination–how many women wanted to do the wife-and-kids thing.

      LikeLike


  58. on April 18, 2012 at 11:07 pm Aristophanes

    I can’t imagine I’m the first one to say this, but all of your output amounts to a series of footnotes to Nietzsche. You do read him, yes?

    LikeLike


    • on April 19, 2012 at 3:18 am Anonymous

      Nietzsche. The same guy who was rejected by the only woman he loved, spent most of his life in a university, and died in an insane asylum. This is the man you look to for life guidance?

      LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 1:44 pm Anonymous

        Oooooh, ad-hominem… how sophisticated of you.

        Speaking as “one anon to another:”

        FUCK OFF AND GO READ SOME BOOKS!

        LikeLike


    • on April 19, 2012 at 3:34 am Ben

      Have you read him? Nietzsche underpins leftism–and for a good reason. Fagcoult’s poison was based on Nietzsche–and for a good reason. Heartiste is not Nietzsche.

      Too many morons pushed into the most difficult discipline of all: philosophy.

      LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 2:04 pm Laconophile

        I never understood how anyone could confuse Nietzsche for a leftist. Maybe because he criticized Christianity? But what leftists don’t understand is that leftism is secularized Christianity.

        LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 10:13 pm Firepower

        Liberalism
        is the transformation of mankind
        into cattle.

        LikeLike


      • on April 20, 2012 at 3:35 pm Laconophile

        Liberalism is just finishing the job that Christianity started.

        LikeLike


    • on April 19, 2012 at 10:10 am SFG

      Heartiste is the Nietzsche of the 21st century. His short essays are perfectly timed for the generation of the blog and the YouTube viral video, nicht wahr?

      LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 2:20 pm corvinus

        I would liken this blog to Nietzsche only in its sarcastic look at human nature and its atheism. But Heartiste routinely mocks those destroying civilization, making him quite different from Nietzsche.

        LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 10:54 pm Firepower

        SFG

        Heartiste is the Nietzsche of the 21st century.

        lol – don’t hold back that praise, tigre.

        Besides, you ever see Fred Nietzsche? He looked like Jack Lemmon as Prof. Fate in The Great Race.

        Best to compliment on his impishly delightful looks; trust me.

        LikeLike


    • on April 20, 2012 at 3:08 am Glengarry

      What’s Schopenhauer around here, schoped liver?

      LikeLike


  59. on April 19, 2012 at 12:16 am Tom Paine

    Pass it around

    LikeLike


  60. on April 19, 2012 at 12:39 am Rum

    Aristhophanes
    Every single serious long-term fan of the Enlightenment has eventually seen its righteous and vivid connection with the works of F. W. Neitzsche. And then always barfed out this insight in a comment here and there. I know I did. So, welcome ARI, to a rather elite club.
    But therein lies a problem. Old Fred has always been very, very hard for most people to understand. Many are called and few are chosen. And besides, Neitzsche wrote so god dam well that he dazzled most of his readers in at least two or three languages. And people who were\are bedazzled by him have tended to have had trouble understanding Neitzsche. Beginning with the Germans in general and the Nazis in particular.
    Yesterday I nearly got in a fight when I screamed at a co-worker — that when the sun goes down on an African Savanna Scene – where a lot of fatal hunting action and lion sex is just about to be happening … any man with a healthy moral sense would feel joy and deep aesthetic fulfillment when comtemplating the beauty of the Whole of IT.
    I would do it again.

    LikeLike


    • on April 19, 2012 at 2:48 pm Laconophile

      The weak and the botched shall perish: first principle of our humanity. And they ought even to be helped to perish.
      What is more harmful than any vice? Practical sympathy with all the botched and the weak — Christianity. [he would have added leftism, but Christianity and leftism were joined at the hip in his day]

      It takes a nimble, underage Chinese gymnast hamster to arrive at any egalitarian conclusion from this statement. In other words, just a typical egalitarian’s hamster.

      LikeLike


  61. on April 19, 2012 at 1:55 am Bali

    Any society is exactly the way its population wants it.

    LikeLike


  62. on April 19, 2012 at 2:02 am Bwana Simba

    Alongside androgynous monstrosities and the elites, there is also the beautiful women/ formerly beautiful women who have rode the cock carousel and are angry at men in general because how dare men except sex from beautiful women. It’s almost like that’s one of the many things in life we want or something. There is a fair amount of those in college, to the point that combine that with the poor dieting, lack of exercise, excess drugs (legal and illegal) and alcohol, and the combination of stress and women already aging like cheese and most women nowadays seem to lose their looks right out of high school/ in college. Woo hoo.

    LikeLike


  63. on April 19, 2012 at 2:11 am krakonos

    You are mistaken. Normal women do support feminism. Not in its hardest form but support more moderate concepts (in these days’ context) and happily reap grapes of feminism. And yes, some men benefit too.
    There are too many benefiters and too few opposers.

    LikeLike


  64. on April 19, 2012 at 3:13 am Anonymous

    The future of the “American man” will be pretty boys and nerds. Everyone else is getting the boot.

    LikeLike


  65. on April 19, 2012 at 3:45 am TheZappa

    This “monster template” thing reminds me of the hypothesis of the “uncanny valley”.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley

    LikeLike


  66. on April 19, 2012 at 4:48 am universe

    Preface: I wanted to title this post
    “Monsters in our midst”, but thought that would be overkill.

    – How ’bout some ‘gaming’ toward the former of the two.
    This would be the ultimate in practice since the theory has preemtively beguiled those other of similar gender.
    Front row budget seats for all.

    LikeLike


  67. on April 19, 2012 at 4:52 am Deli

    I am surprised that noone in your comments have mentioned the “Uncanny valley” – which is basically a definition of what you explain for most of this post.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley

    Basically half of your post can be substituted by the link above.

    LikeLike


  68. on April 19, 2012 at 5:15 am tspark156

    The monsters & freaks created the feminist falsehoods that have percolated into the mainstream which has given us entitled pricesses, and the rationalization hamster as we know it today. The upshot of this is that practitioners of the dark arts of seduction are getting plenty of pussy while the ordinary shit munchers continue on in voluntary celebacy. Why would the PUA/Alpha/Aloof jerk seek to change that which benefits the players, and negates all competition from the manginosphere.

    LikeLike


  69. on April 19, 2012 at 7:25 am drhouse

    I totally have a general revulsion towards obese people. I associate more with John Doe’s similar gripes in Se7en probably far more than I’d like to admit in public.

    What’s worse than being obese? Beta-males who act alpha on the topic of obesity, as they hide behind their computer screens in safe anonymity. Regarding this, I defended an innocent obese woman when a middle-aged, white, German male had uploaded a video of her in which he was basically pointing her out and hating on her for being obese, while sarcastically whistling ‘Pretty Woman’. I pointed out that his dumb face could clearly be seen on tape, which, being an idiot, he didn’t realize at first but also being a coward, was scared enough to remove the video.

    “but in private the cool people generally shun the orc hordes and leave them to mingle with their own emotionally and often physically disfigured kind.”

    However, perhaps more than all of these groups, I find people who call themselves cool, such as implied in the statement above, to be perhaps the most repulsive.

    How many times have you heard a tween try to convince someone else that Bieber or Nickelback are cool? Isn’t it obnoxious and can only come off sounding fake? At best, what you think is cool, can only ever be anecdotal. If lots of people think something is cool, then it’s normal for them to talk to their own group of like-minded people (nickleback fans), but then that implies all you’re doing on this blog is preaching to the choir and not trying to make as convincing an argument as possible, which seems pretty fucking lazy and amateur. Not very alpha male.

    Speaking of which, if I’m an alpha male, then it means I’m not going to be a mindless follower and will be critical of what I read. So, if you’re trying to speak to alpha males through this blog, I’d suggest a change in tone or a psychological adjustment in writing to reflect a broader, but not fan-based, audience.

    LikeLike


  70. on April 19, 2012 at 9:41 am rheydrich

    “Traditionalist conservatives” borrow from the Chateau

    http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/022223.html

    LikeLike


  71. on April 19, 2012 at 11:03 am The Psychology Of Feminists And Manboobs « Chateau Heartiste « About Psychology

    […] the rest here: The Psychology Of Feminists And Manboobs « Chateau Heartiste April 18th, 2012 | Tags: feminists, Midst, natural-disgust, normal-people, our-midst | Category: […]

    LikeLike


  72. on April 19, 2012 at 11:34 am Boxcar

    Speaking of manginas;
    Men Wear Heels for Sexual Violence Awareness

    http://news.yahoo.com/photos/men-wear-heels-for-sexual-violence-awareness-slideshow/#crsl=%252Fphotos%252Fmen-wear-heels-for-sexual-violence-awareness-slideshow%252Fman-holds-sign-while-wearing-pair-womens-high-photo-033350942.html

    Time to man up! Time to cross dress! Wait, no.

    LikeLike


    • on April 19, 2012 at 3:53 pm chi-town

      I don’t get it. Couching about their miniskirts is much more effective in showing the senselessness of violence against women. Well, I guess heels is good for the ante pasta, cleavage course. Those should not be damaged either.

      LikeLike


    • on April 19, 2012 at 6:07 pm Fred Rotten

      FUCK ME. No, really, I’ve dropped my pants and I’m bent over a big blue Swiss ball. Please, won’t you fuck me? For you see, I have just witnessed a slideshow in which men are wearing high heels to raise awareness of sexual violence, and I deserve it; I deserve to be fucked. In fact, I *want* to be fucked, all bent over this Swiss ball with the rolling and the balancing and the pants caught around the ankles (*glaven*). Really. Here’s my ass. Please fuck me.

      LikeLike


  73. on April 19, 2012 at 12:07 pm Mr.magNIFicent1 is here

    “First, you would seek out others like you. Monstrosity loves company. Then, you would lash out at anything normal, elevating the wicked and deviant while eroding confidence in the good and beautiful, twisting cherished moral standards that work adequately to sustain a normal population into bizarre, exaggerated facsimiles manufactured solely to do the bidding of your freak cohort.

    Finally, you would attempt to do to the Other what you have felt from the Other your whole life — cast them into the icy wastelands. Due to a combination of hate-driven relentless energy as a perpetual outsider, plus elite co-conspiracy, you succeed… ”

    This sounds awfully familiar…like the culture-destroyer’s playbook that I’ve come to recognize. The fem-monsters and bitch-titteds are only proxies. See “women are parrots” above.

    LikeLike


  74. on April 19, 2012 at 12:09 pm Fubsy

    Speaking of manboobs and pudgeballs…get a load of these, lol

    Men wear high heels to raise awareness of sexual violence against women
    http://photoblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/19/11276661-men-wear-high-heels-to-raise-awareness-of-sexual-violence-against-women?lite

    LikeLike


  75. on April 19, 2012 at 12:13 pm Emma the Emo

    Ugh, I was eating as I read that.

    First of all, don’t give Grendel a hard time, I felt bad for that guy, having no skin and an oversensitive hearing is no fun.

    Second, I’m not sure fat people are inherently disgusting. Why would we evolve disgust to them? They are merely storing fat for hungrier times, nothing unnatural about that. Isn’t the feeling of disgust supposed to help us avoid contagious, dangerous stuff? We’re grossed out by random bodily fluids and dead animals because of this. But fat is not contagious… When seeing a deformed person, do people feel disgust, or shock? I guess if they are deformed in such a way that their insides are exposed, I’d predict disgust (or if they are dirty or smelly), but if they are just weird looking, shock is more likely (like this guy: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b2a_1234248255 ).

    Some feminists can be very disgusting, but to me, only because they are hypocritical and evil. Their looks would look very different to me if they were good people.

    Another thing: feminists are partially right. What we consider normal is not necessarily the average. Sometimes culture can make you think lots of weird stuff. Like that there is no gender differences. Then the true normal is the freak. And you, the truth-teller, is “insane” by everyone’s standards. So don’t look down on people who are freaks, you might end up in their place.

    LikeLike


    • on April 19, 2012 at 12:57 pm Redleg

      Sexually virile humans in “the wild” really didn’t store all that much fat. Their diet was low in carbohydrates, high in meat and fiber. Re: Paleo diet. Obesity and significant weight gain in the young and middle aged are products of carbohydrate rich modern diets. When the human behavior operating system was coded back in primeval antiquity, fat within the sexual marketplace was uncommon, and probably impossible to accrue.

      Before you make an argument about the “Venus figurines” depicting obese women from Neolithic times, note that these were probably women past their prime, mothers of multiple children who became fat in other ways, representing other qualities aside from sexual attractiveness such as maternalism and communal vitality.

      I think it’s perfectly reasonable to assume fat women are revolting, to an extent, even in our modern context. Fat men are too but since weight doesn’t necessarily effect charisma, command or cad qualities, the stigma is less damning.

      LikeLike


      • on April 20, 2012 at 4:08 am emmatheemo

        But that is what I’m talking about – why would those women past their prime, mothers of multiple children, be inherently revolting, the same way a pile of shit is? They wouldn’t be. They just aren’t attractive. Those are different things.
        Same was guys that aren’t attractive to me are not revolting, just not tingle-inducing.

        LikeLike


      • on April 20, 2012 at 12:53 pm Redleg

        A motherly figure is one who has become larger, in many cases, due to nurturing others. Symbolically and chemically, her broken down body is the RESULT of her motherliness. We excuse her weight because it speaks of her compassion or kindness or duty to the species. She’s been in the sexual marketplace and is now out of it. We are programmed to honor or love or at least excuse her.

        When those qualities or recognitions are lacking, a fat woman is doubly revolting, because she has broken down without cause when she SHOULD be in her sexual prime. And the more defensive she is about it, the more she crows for kindness or respect, the more contemptuous she appears.

        Do you see what I’m getting at?

        LikeLike


      • on April 20, 2012 at 2:19 pm emmatheemo

        Yeah, I see what you’re saying, which doesn’t contradict my idea that fat is not inherently gross. What you’re grossed out by is the young woman’s moral failing. You wouldn’t feel it that much if she was a mother of multiple children and a good person, is that what you’re saying?

        LikeLike


      • on April 20, 2012 at 10:58 pm DirkJohanson

        I’m going to break my own rule about not directly responding to womens’ comments:

        Fat chicks’ pussies tend to STINK LIKE HIGH HELL. I know – I used to do fat chicks. And they sweat more. And they can’t wipe their asses as well cuz the shit sticks to the sides of their asscracks. And for some reason women seem to get hairy when they get fat. And obesity is associated with sickness and disease, which is INHERENTLY FUCKING GROSS

        LikeLike


      • on April 22, 2012 at 8:11 am emmatheemo

        Yeah, that’s gross. Not the fat itself though, although excessive fat leads to all that which you described. Where I live and where I used to live, nobody reacts to fat people with disgust. Not the way Heartiste describes. I’m sure many people would refuse to have sex with them, but there is no reaction like to a pile of shit. But then again, we don’t have many grossly obese people nearing 300-400 lbs. I heard it’s practically everywhere in USA. There is just quite a big range of weights between BMI of 25 and gross obesity, and to those nobody really reacts. People in that range in general look pretty active and not sick, although I have seen fat people with disease written all over them, and it’s those that repulse a bit.

        LikeLike


    • on April 19, 2012 at 1:01 pm Evan

      “Second, I’m not sure fat people are inherently disgusting. Why would we evolve disgust to them? They are merely storing fat for hungrier times . . .”

      Uh, how much fat do you need for these “hungrier times”? And when do they start? When McDonald’s gets rid of its dollar menu?

      LikeLike


    • on April 19, 2012 at 1:34 pm noob

      >> Another thing: feminists are partially right.

      Feminists are partially right about everything. What are they completely right about? Nothing.

      The first rule of a good liar is to mix it with truth.

      LikeLike


  76. on April 19, 2012 at 12:22 pm Evan

    Re: Alex Pareene.

    Yup.

    LikeLike


    • on April 19, 2012 at 12:28 pm Evan

      Pareene is also another example of how concessions to haters do not breed respect or compliance–instead they encourage heightened demands and aggression.

      LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 3:43 pm Evan

        Paul Gottfried: “As PC demands get ratcheted up, I wonder whether those who are buying time (perhaps until they retire) understand the silliness of throwing people under the bus to stop a runaway vehicle. The left is not going to be stopped in its tracks by signs of weakness. As the French say, l’appétit vient en mangeant. Either our side permits open discussion—especially discussion of what the left doesn’t want to have discussed—or we simply agree to capitulate every time the left calls someone a racist, anti-Semite, anti-transsexual, or whatever.”
        http://takimag.com/article/throwing_people_under_the_bus_to_stop_a_runaway_vehicle_paul_gottfried/print#ixzz1sW7uCXms

        LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 4:48 pm Laconophile

        The problem is that the right agrees with the left’s premise. The left is the logical conclusion of the right’s acceptance of equality and ‘the brotherhood of man’.

        The right is logically inconsistent. The left is illogically consistent.

        The right slides down a slippery slope, yelling “Stop!”

        LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 5:03 pm Laconophile

        Or more accurately: The right slides down a slippery slope, yelling “Stop here! This is the perfect spot on the slippery slope.”

        LikeLike


      • on April 20, 2012 at 4:42 am King A (Matthew King)

        Laconophile wrote:

        The right slides down a slippery slope, yelling “Stop here! This is the perfect spot on the slippery slope.”

        “The perfect spot” a.k.a. “The golden mean”

        Anyway, what do you got? I mean, other than easy cynicism, capitulation, and cheap bitchery? Party on, cuz we’re all gonna die screaming anyway?

        The left is the logical conclusion of the right’s acceptance of equality and ‘the brotherhood of man’.

        It is indeed a “slippery slope.” That is, if you are not anchored to divine fiat. How convenient that your analysis neglects to address the decisive difference between left and right, which is, an operating faith in the limits pronounced by divine and natural law. Yes, a naïve attempt to effect “equality” and universal “brotherhood” necessarily leads to tyranny and mass murder when unmoored from the non-negotiable “Thou Shalt Nots,” an unmooring I presume you support. The right’s “acceptance” of the left’s nominal goals is a conditional one, and you show no acknowledgment, much less understanding, of that foundational condition.

        We on the right don’t speak of “equality.” We speak of infinite and severable dignity. We don’t seek “brotherhood.” We seek Communion. None of that is possible apart from “Nature’s God” and “our Creator” Who “endows” us with the unalienable instruments through which such goals become available to attain.

        You preposterously assert that left and right is joined at the hip, even as you fail to recognize the insuperable divide between their philosophy of power and our philosophy of right, and that divide is atheism. Guess which side of that divide your ignorant apostasy ultimately places you? Enjoy eternal hell in the company of the ones you, in your superficial analysis, thought you were renouncing. Saddle up next to Marx, Freud, Bella Abzug and Madalyn Murray O’Hair. Their remaking of the world into which you were born was only possible by assuming the right to Revaluate All Values, and to convince us of your right to inherit this new sovereignty (albeit directed toward your own, different ends), you must permanently and comprehensively and unwaveringly oppose the old sovereign they replaced: God.

        What dupes you are, thinking you can maintain mission consistency through sloppy philosophy and simple attitude. That bravado makes you think your little intellectual dinghy can survive the cultural tempest, when all it will do is send you scrambling scared back to port, if you aren’t swallowed up first.

        Matt

        LikeLike


      • on April 20, 2012 at 3:08 pm Laconophile

        “For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence.”
        1 Corinthians 1:26–29

        Christianity and liberalism in a nutshell. Your god is the god of resentment and self-pity. It is the god of herd-virtues and rabble-rabies, the god of the botched and worthless detritus of the earth.

        No wonder that it is recorded: ‘Not many wise after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble are called; but God chose the foolish things of the world, and God chose the weak things of the world, and the things that are despised.’ Nothing else would have anything to do with him. Christ was indeed, the prophet of the credulous rabble during three years of active agitation, and it abandoned him in his hour of need (what always happens under similar circumstances) for the rabble is ever cowardly, ungenerous, suspicious, unfathomably base. It has never yet had a leader of commanding ability (either in peace or in war) that it did not ultimately desert or betray, i.e. if he did not take the precaution to make himself its master.

        After permitting Christ to be butchered, the mob thereupon set him up as their Divinity, and erected altars to his renown. Slaves, women, madmen, lepers, magdalenes, were the earliest Christians, and to this hour, women, children, slaves and lunatics are the raw material of the Christian Church.

        Primitive Christianity cunningly appealed to the imagination of a world of superstitious slaves (eager for some mode of escape that meant not the giving and receiving of battle-strokes.) It organized them for the overthrow of Heroic Principles; and substituted, for a genuine nobility based on battle-selection, a crafty theocracy founded upon priest-craft, hell-craft, alms-giving, politicalisms, and all that is impure and subterranean. It is a doctrine at once disgraceful in its antecedents, its teachers, and in itself. Truly has it been called ‘the fatal dower of Constantine,’ for it has suffocated, or is suffocating the seeds of Heroism.

        Both ancient and modern Christianism and all that has its root therein, is the negation of everything grand, noble, generous, heroic, and the glorification of everything feeble, atrocious, dishonorable, dastardly. The cross is now, and ever has been, an escutcheon of shame. It represents a gallows, and a Semite slave swinging thereon. For two thousand years it has absolutely overturned human reason, overthrown common sense, infected the world with madness, submissiveness, degeneracy.

        -Ragnar Redbeard, Might is Right

        I must say, you make an exemplar Christling, King A. I can see why your god chose you. You do a fine job of living up to the Christian ideals of righteousness, unwisdom, blind faith, sheepishness and foolishness.

        LikeLike


      • on April 21, 2012 at 2:30 pm crumpetess

        I respect both posters above (King A and Laconophile). Therefore, it is meekly, humbly and very much from the sidelines that I would venture to suggest the following:

        While I do not subscribe to Laconophile’s atheism, I do agree with him. Christianity is, at it’s core, more in line with leftist philosophy, insofar as the philosophy of Christ is focused on the weak, poor, and underdogs of society. A strong argument could be made for Christ as being the ultimate omega male. (Though arguments could be made for both alpha and beta as well obviously.) In any case, according to his own words as passed down in scripture, it’s clear that his concerns were vastly different from those of the current “right” in the USA.

        Under examination, Western Christianity is the religion of Plato, not of Christ. So called “Christians” have been following Plato for the last 2000 years.

        The current identification of Christianity with political conservatism is incorrect, but is the natural result of the deliberate, calculated hijacking of the evangelical movement in the 1960s-1970s by neo-con leaders. They were immensely successful in this endeavor.

        LikeLike


      • on April 21, 2012 at 4:16 pm King A (Matthew King)

        Your reheated teenage Nietzscheanism doesn’t impress me. Anyone who isn’t a stunted intellectual child gets over that Teutonic bluster by his early twenties. Ooh. Christ was a coward. Everything we thought we knew was a lie! You’re so dark, mannn. Do you go in for the black nail polish too?

        The “slave revolt,” the “detritus of the earth,” so weak, so worthless. And yet vanquishing everything in its path for two millennia. Tell me, where are the Dionysian cultists today? Whatever happened to all those gods who once competed with YHWH? There was only one universal Revaluation of all Values, and it was accomplished by that murdered Jew-failure.

        Nietzsche’s mad howling is explained by his envy — ressentiment, if you will — of Christ’s accomplishment, and his syphilitic delusions of grandeur are perfect for credulous sissies like you, who dress up in the Halloween costume of the Übermensch and think you can awe us with your drag and bad goth-metal doggerel.

        But at bottom you are a mediocrity, and the proof is in your gullible regurgitation of the most easily falsifiable, most patently clownish assertions of Nietzsche’s corpus. You proclaim everyone’s envy and weakness but your own, indeed you aren’t even equipped to recognize it in yourself. You are weak of mind, child, to interpret obscure poetics as flattery rather than as the condemnation of poseurs like you. You can speak glowingly of the overman because you fantasize you are such a god as described by the sickly recluse whose gospel you have internalized.

        Guess what. You’re no more a self-made god and harbinger of new modes and morals than this guy is Batman.

        Which is sadder? The meek and the infirm who understand their station, or the bourgeois naif who plays Übermensch on weekends before returning to his clerk job at Kinko’s? Maybe Nietzsche was talking about you, slave.

        Ragnar fucking Redbeard? Are you being serious?

        Matt

        LikeLike


      • on April 23, 2012 at 8:48 pm Laconophile

        All bluster and no substance. You deliver a good sermon, King A.

        Christianity triumphed through guile, as Revilo Oliver writes:

        One can understand why our ancestors took the bait offered them by the zealous Christian missionaries, some of whom were prestidigitators who could demonstrate magic, and all of whom were skilled in dialectical subtleties and the clever sophistries of theologians.[King A carries on the tradition] Then there was the practical side, too. If you got yourself spattered with magic water and ate a filet de J‚sus washed down with some of his divinely invigorating blood, you, if you had a good army, could invade the land of some pagans or, better yet, heretics, and the Christians’ god would help you, if your army was much larger and better equipped, and you could not only carry off a lot of booty and have a lot of fun plundering for the Lord, but you would be lavishly rewarded for your piety when you zipped up to Heaven after death. That was a real bargain. Odin never gave you a deal like that!

        It happens all the time. Nice people, their minds aglow with all the nice things the fast-talking salesman has told them, sign of the dotted line, without reading the two pages of small print. Our simple-minded ancestors mortgaged their future and ours without knowing what they had done. And those remote ancestors never suspected what they had done. Jewish holiness was imposed on our people only slowly, much as the American boobs today are being subjected to Soviet-type Communism by easy stages and never guess how each little surrender of personal liberty to achieve some righteous purpose tightens the bonds they put upon themselves, and do not even now perceive that they have already made themselves virtually helpless.

        Christianity was imposed on the barbarian “converts” gradually. At first, it was only a matter of learning to say “Christ” (supposed to be the personal name of a god) instead of “Thor,” and to fee a different priest. Established customs and conventions were not radically changed but slowly eroded. Transgressors of the new rules were at first told, “You really shouldn’t, but if you will do penance by paying for a new altar in the church, we’ll make it all right with the boss.” It was not until the monopoly of the international holiness business was broken by Protestant competitors that a strict enforcement of the “Thou shalt not” rules was attempted.

        The erosion of our racial mentality can be neatly summarized by noting three stages from “paganism” to the present. If you invade a country because you want to take it over for your own people and annex it, your act may not be prudent, but it is at least honest. If you invade a territory to occupy and annex it because you know that Jesus is of the same substance as his daddy and want to save the souls of the poor wretches who will be fried for all eternity if they continue to hold to the damnable opinion that Jesus’s substance is only like his papa’s, well, you have become a pious hypocrite and may even endanger your own sanity by lying to yourself, but at least you get the territory after you have killed enough of the miscreants to convince them you know more about the physiology of gods. But if you invade a country you do not intend to annex, and impoverish your own nation genetically by squandering the lives of your young men, and economically by wasting its resources, just to slaughter enough of another country’s inhabitants to redeem them from the sins of Arminianism or Militarism or Nationalism and to convince them of the superior righteousness of your “democracy,” you may succeed in sacrificing your own people to impose your brand of holiness on people who don’t want it, but you have become a homicidal maniac and menace to all the rest of the world. And such insanity is the terminal phase of the disease our ancestors ignorantly contracted so many centuries ago.

        Thanks for your support, crumpetess. But for the record, I’m not an atheist.

        LikeLike


      • on May 2, 2012 at 10:42 pm Firepower

        King A (Matthew King)

        Your reheated teenage Nietzscheanism doesn’t impress me.

        Sometimes even I forget
        This is a tough room…

        LikeLike


    • on April 24, 2012 at 3:59 pm King A (Matthew King)

      He’s not an atheist, mind you. He’s Dionysian! Or something. As if a neo-paganism practice were even possible to re-establish after the comprehensive reordering of values by Christ.

      Or maybe he’s Scientologist?

      Crumpetess wrote:

      Christianity is, at it’s core, more in line with leftist philosophy, insofar as the philosophy of Christ is focused on the weak, poor, and underdogs of society. A strong argument could be made for Christ as being the ultimate omega male.

      Where is this “strong argument,” then? Don’t announce the rumors of its existence. Make it.

      Yes, strong arguments can be made from many angles of the Christian project. That’s what it means to be The Alpha and The Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. That’s what it means to be “The Word”:

      He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men.

      Of course the left has appropriated select portions The Word for its own political program to the exclusion of all the rest. Why wouldn’t they? The Word constitutes the total truth. But what makes the left The Left is their deliberate severing of the truth from its source, which quite necessarily perverts their project 180-degrees: they indeed focus on “the weak, poor, and underdogs of society” in name only, and thereby make them weaker, poorer, and bigger losers in the process.

      Meantime, twelfth-rate sub-Nietzschean poseurs like Laconophile do the opposite — they focus on themselves and think this constitutes an argument for the truth. Rather like a child screaming until his mother gives in to his “dominant” “will” from sheer exhaustion. Maybe the next time he blasphemes like a high-school death-metal garage band, that will be the shockingest shock to show us poor benighted sheep the truth of his nihilism at last!

      A certain style of Christianity (moralistic therapeutic deism) has captured the popular imagination these days which is 1/10th of the whole story. What passes for “Christian” is precisely that watered-down leftism you speak of, with the role of the divine rendered symbolic and perfunctory so as not to upset the true religion of the country — relativist multiculturalism. Mainline Protestantism (99% of the country at its founding) went down this touchy-feely path and now is on its way to oblivion. Their error forms your understanding of of the faith. Meantime, orthodoxy is enjoying a ferocious revival in the face of failed distractions like the “liberation theology” and “social justice” you indirectly cite.

      Look, being “alpha” does not mean making war on the weak. Picking on the weak is what those one-step up from the bottom obsess over: they are downtrodden themselves, so they glory in stomping on the only people below them. That is ressentiment deluded by grandiosity. If “alpha” were accessible to mediocrities like Laconophile, it would cease to be a superior way of being. The strong don’t find new ways of disparaging the weak; it is nothing for a billionaire to throw a bum a dollar. If you have a reserve of strength worthy of the name “alpha,” you don’t hoard it, you give it away freely. Hoarders are drawn to dank, smelly obsessions from the cramped brains of losers like “Ragnar” and “Revilo” (I feel gay just typing their dramatic stage names).

      Your ignorance of Christian doctrine is to blame for your misapprehension of Christian strength. Christianity is neither liberal nor conservative: it is apolitical insofar as it is guidance for individual souls, not prescriptions for the behavior of nations, classes, and groups. The directive to “Render to Caesar” has been misinterpreted grotesquely throughout the centuries, and the modern left are merely the latest opportunists. “All who know the truth hear my voice” means the great manipulators of humanity can only stray so far before the resonance in every man’s breast brings them back to the Word.

      Matt

      LikeLike


  77. on April 19, 2012 at 12:37 pm Emma the Emo

    Also, by comparing feminists with freaks you make them sound waaaay too sympathetic. Looking at modern feminism, I can tell it’s more about getting more stuff (more than equality), rather than poor hated freaks asking to not be treated like shit. My boyfriend suggested laws like age of consent are made to give older women more power, even though they aren’t freaky.

    LikeLike


    • on April 19, 2012 at 12:59 pm Redleg

      Thieves don’t have to sympathize with one another to work together.

      LikeLike


  78. on April 19, 2012 at 12:53 pm Tmason

    Why the US economy is biased against men. (Short answer: feminists hate men and lie all the time.) http://t.co/Rks7NLnI

    And the feminist response to that article:

    http://echidneofthesnakes.blogspot.com/2012_04_15_archive.html#8955546740013210558

    LikeLike


    • on April 19, 2012 at 6:23 pm Anon

      The positions are so irreconciable that they constitute grounds for casus belli.

      Gotta go caveman on femtard bitches.

      LikeLike


    • on April 19, 2012 at 9:52 pm sharp

      Whoa! Shocked to see an article like that in a mainstream publication (The Atlantic article, not the feminist response.)

      Don’t bother reading the comments. It’s all obfuscation, dissimulation, misdirection, lying, white knighting, manginatificating, and blue pill bloviating.

      Christ, people are so predictable and boring. Great article though.

      LikeLike


  79. on April 19, 2012 at 1:31 pm noob

    What worries me a bit about this whole war against feminism and the feminist war against men, is that it’s just another divide and conquer tactic devised by the rich and powerful. Sometimes it feels that we are just wasting our time and there are real issues more powerful than just plain old gender wars.

    LikeLike


    • on April 19, 2012 at 2:49 pm Jason

      Agreed. We’ve got lots of bigger problems than this one, fellas.

      I’ve never felt the hostility towards women the way that most of the men on these comments clearly do. Shejaws are a tiny fraction of the female population; I don’t know any at all. They never bothered me in my college days, I didn’t look at them in my single days, and I’ve pretty much forgotten about them in my married days.

      And re: the anger over sexual imbalance when it comes to legal punishments for divorce, rape, and murder … here’s an easy solution. DON’T RAPE. DON’T KILL. And if you decide get married, man up, use the rules of game (I neg my wife constantly), and stay married. (Exercising and cooking together helps keep the weight off too.)

      LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 8:44 pm William

        You can’t be serious

        Innocent men have been charged with rape and murders, that have been exonerated with the help of DNA.
        These days innocent men still in court accused of rape where the only evidence is the woman’s word.

        LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 8:46 pm William

        *murder
        *stand in court

        LikeLike


    • on April 19, 2012 at 3:18 pm Laconophile

      Diversity is another divide and conquer strategy. The backlash against feminism and diversity isn’t part of the problem though. In fact, it’s necessary and good to fight the division inherent in diversity and feminism. Pretending division doesn’t exist only postpones and exacerbates the division.

      LikeLike


  80. on April 19, 2012 at 10:01 pm namae nanka

    “Looking at modern feminism, I can tell it’s more about getting more stuff (more than equality)”

    That has been the MO going as far back as when the Married Women’s Property Act that was enacted in the 19th century.

    http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Legal_Subjection_of_Men#Matrimonial_Privileges_Of_Women.

    The ‘more than equality’ part is only noticeable today because it has grown so flagrant that it is impossible to ignore it anymore.

    There is no equality, only the power to dictate what equality is.

    LikeLike


  81. on April 20, 2012 at 4:53 am Anonymous

    Warning to Manboobs

    Recently I was getting my annual checkup and the doctor and I had an interesting conversation.

    He said that every second male over 40 who comes to him as an enlarged prostate. Most of the time, this is normal. I asked how many guys does he see a day who have prostate cancer. He said that he sees about 12 men per day and, once per week, he gives a diagnosis of cancer. He said that, just yesterday, he performed a prostatectomy, noting that, when it’s done by hand, the patient has zero chance of ever having sex again.

    After we both agreed that the man’s decision to choose life over having sex again was something to be respected even though he agreed with me that he would sooner die than have such an operation, I asked what sort of man in general gets the prostate cancer, leaving out the fact that anyone can.

    He looked at me and knew he could give me an honest answer. He said “You and I are the same age and have the same problem of an enlarged prostate but we also both have sex with a woman twice per week. The men whom I diagnose with cancer are quite often the ones who have long since given up on having sex even though they might still be in their forties. They just don’t believe that attractive women would be interested in them anymore, don’t masturbate, and their habits, like smoking and drinking, have taken them in the opposite direction of ever scoring. Not having sex twice per week causes the body to recognize that it is biologically no longer useful to society and it’s time to die. As long as you’re in the gene pool, your body will take care of itself”.

    This was the opinion of a surgeon who regularly performs prostate operations.

    LikeLike


    • on April 20, 2012 at 1:12 pm DirkJohanson

      A similar phenomenom exists with breast cancer. It strikes childless women more, whether virgin or slut.

      LikeLike


      • on April 20, 2012 at 3:06 pm David

        A woman’s breasts go through some big changes in pregnancy, unsurprising that not going through with their biological programming makes them more vulnerable to cancer.

        LikeLike


      • on April 20, 2012 at 7:56 pm sally

        Breast cancer is associated with estrogen exposure, so having a child equates to nine fewer months of high exposures to estrogen over a woman’s lifetime.

        LikeLike


      • on April 20, 2012 at 11:04 pm DirkJohanson

        I actually have another related theory of my own, and that’s that having sex with much younger women actually causes longevity in guys. I’m absurdly young looking for my age – with the death of Dick Clark, I am now America’s oldest teenager – and I’m fairly convinced that having my balls marinate in various chicks half-my-age pussy juices has had some sort of osmosive effect, probably along with the positive psychology of doing young chicks.

        LikeLike


    • on April 20, 2012 at 5:05 pm Libertardian

      File under “beta male genocide”. I’ve heard this as well – flush that prostate out regularly or bad things happen.

      @DirkJohanson – soon we’ll have manboobs out marching in heels to demand that health insurance pay for bitter careerist spinsters to get knocked up via in vitro and then have the kid raised by the State – otherwise we’re all guilty of silently murdering them with breast cancer.

      LikeLike


    • on April 22, 2012 at 2:27 am Fubsy

      “…are quite often the ones who have long since given up on having sex even though they might still be in their forties. They just don’t believe that attractive women would be interested in them anymore,…”

      Or they could be married and their wives have turned into sea mammals that they have no incentive to engage in coitus with.

      LikeLike


  82. on April 20, 2012 at 8:11 am LP 999

    Fems and the men who adore them are miserable people. They prove F’ism is unnatural at every turn.

    LikeLike


  83. on April 23, 2012 at 7:09 pm ray

    A big post. You seem to be stretching yourself as a – dare I say it – Thought Leader. You are moving beyond mere game advice blogger.

    agree

    this site owner/content is beginnng to spread wings and hit the Gold Zone

    hopefully, Game will merely be the entry into much more fascinating, challenging, and rewarding work for this site and its commentariat

    continued success

    ps loved the john cash song, spot-on

    LikeLike


  84. on April 24, 2012 at 5:01 am Men in Uncomfortable Shoes

    […] your boss a buck to help kids with cancer.So, assuming you’re not afflicted with a Quasimodo’s sexual ressentiment, assuming you’re not a desperate omega hoping for female approval or a loon-eyed feminist […]

    LikeLike


  85. on April 24, 2012 at 11:06 am Sidewinder

    This is probably the most profound idea put forth on this site. There is a natural and spontaneous aversion to that which is perceived as unnatural. Its not a socialized, conditioned response.

    This explains why as a straight man, I’m disgusted by the idea of putting my dick in a man’s mouth, but indifferent about sticking my dick in a hole in the ground. By any objective measure, someone’s mouth would be a more comfortable place, but I am unconsciously disgusted by the thought of it being a male mouth.

    I have nothing against gay or bi people, was not raised homophobic or ultra-religious. I don’t think homosexuality is a sin. If anything, my conditioned pc response is to not recoil at the thought of homosexual acts, where my natural response is to be repulsed by it.

    LikeLike


  86. on April 26, 2012 at 10:13 am Amanjaw Marcuntte

    Heh, Futrelle posted about this thread but censored my comment about how his shrink is wrong about him being okay as a fat guy.

    I advised him to stop counting reddit upvotes with comfort food grease dribbling down his chin and start emulating his betters instead of hating them. Guess I struck a lard-saturated nerve.

    LikeLike


  87. on April 26, 2012 at 12:21 pm GeishaKate

    @Dirk: “A similar phenomenom exists with breast cancer. It strikes childless women more, whether virgin or slut.”

    As evidenced by the S&TC episode where both Samantha and a nun are diagnosed with breast cancer. Giving life appears to save life. More advocacy for breast-feeding!

    “…the goodness and performance of man would seem to reside in whatever is his proper function.” -Aristotle

    LikeLike


  88. on April 26, 2012 at 2:07 pm Will

    The Psychology of Feminism: Stutfield.

    LikeLike


  89. on April 27, 2012 at 6:43 am Falsum

    As an effemeinate mangina white knight feminist, I enthusiastically approve this message. It’s hilarious. Your shotgun spread of ridiculous ad hominems masquerading as a real argument shows that you have nothing of substance to say, and reassures us that we are right. It also makes us have a jolly good time laughing at your incoherent rage. Keep it up, Hartiste.

    [heartiste: shotgun spread? why i never! only the finest MIT PRECISION from me.]

    LikeLike


    • on April 30, 2012 at 11:22 pm DirkJohanson

      Boy, someone is PMSing

      LikeLike


  90. on April 28, 2012 at 11:13 pm ritarabbit

    Yah…have noticed the meanist anti-Whites are the ugliest Orcs. Sad creatures, but dangerous, like a wounded dog.

    LikeLike


  91. on April 30, 2012 at 9:15 pm Exeter

    Beautiful. One of your best posts.

    LikeLike


  92. on May 2, 2012 at 9:22 pm halisi

    Oh, please. This is just a dressed-up way of saying, “Feminists are ugly! And you guys don’t want to be seen as ugly, do you?” I’m not offended by this at all; if this is the most powerful weapon in your anti-feminist arsenal, then shoot away! It’s no skin off my nose.

    The next time you feel like making a case against feminism, make sure what you’re talking about is something substantiated that’s actually worth discussing. Just please, please don’t jabber on and on about tired stereotypes that have no real weight behind them.

    LikeLike


  93. on June 8, 2012 at 7:04 pm Men in Uncomfortable Shoes - Jack Donovan

    […] assuming you’re not afflicted with a Quasimodo’s sexual ressentiment, assuming you’re not a desperate omega hoping for female approval or a loon-eyed feminist […]

    LikeLike



Comments are closed.

  • Copyright © 2018. Chateau Heartiste. All rights reserved. Comments are a lunchroom food fight and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Chateau Heartiste proprietors or contributors.
  • Visit the Goodbye, America photojournal website.

    Then cleanse your visual palate with a visit to the Welcome Back, America photojournal website.

  • Pages

    • About
    • Alpha Assessment Submissions
    • Beta Of The Year Contest Submissions
    • Dating Market Value Test For Men
    • Dating Market Value Test For Women
    • Diversity + Proximity = War: The Reference List
    • Shit Cuckservatives Say
    • The Sixteen Commandments Of Poon
  • Twitter Updates

    Error: Please make sure the Twitter account is public.

  • Recent Comments

    Carlos Danger on NPC Culture, In One Meme
    Iuvenalia on This Is What Separate Dating M…
    Thor on Sweden Vs Norway
    roberthagedorn1 on Caravan Of Foreign Invaders Od…
    Thor on Caravan Of Foreign Invaders Od…
    CMC on Don’t Help The Leftoid M…
    PontiusG on NPC Culture, In One Meme
    stg58animalmother on Caravan Of Foreign Invaders Od…
    Peter Jackson on NPC Culture, In One Meme
    chris on Sweden Vs Norway
  • Top Posts

    • Battlebrows As Portent Of Sociopath America
    • Women's Sports Will Be Killed Off By Invasive Trannies
    • Betrayal Is A Woman's Heart
    • The Three Abrahamic Religions, Abbreviated
    • Red Tsunami?
    • Oy, There It Is
    • NPC Culture, In One Meme
    • Globohomo's Next Target: "Sexual Racism"
    • Don't Help The Leftoid Media Sway Elections
    • Shitlib Logic Trap!
  • Categories

  • Game

    • 60 Years of Challenge
    • Alpha Game
    • Cajun
    • Krauser PUA
    • Rational Male
    • Roosh V
    • Tenmagnet
    • Treatise of Love
  • MAGA MEN

    • Alternative Right
    • AmRen
    • Anonymous Conservative
    • Audacious Epigone
    • Dusk in Autumn
    • Education Realist
    • Evo and Proud
    • Gene Expression
    • Hail To You
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • Lion of the Blogosphere
    • My Posting Career
    • OneSTDV
    • PA World and Times
    • Page For Men
    • Parapundit
    • Rogue Health and Fitness
    • Steve Sailer
    • The Anti-Gnostic
    • The Kakistocracy
    • The Red Pill Review
    • The Spearhead
    • Unqualified Reservations
    • Vox Popoli
    • West Hunter
    • Whiskey's Place
  • Syllogism and Synthesis

    • Alias Clio
    • Arts & Letters Daily
    • Deconstructing Leftism
    • Elysium Revisited
    • Feminine Beauty
    • hbd chick
    • Human Biological Diversity
    • Library of Hate
    • Overcoming Bias
    • Stuff White People Like

WPThemes.


loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
%d bloggers like this: