Archive for the ‘Globalization’ Category

Longtime Chateau guests know I’m keen to *preen* when the pretext is right. But sometimes even an egregious preening can’t sufficiently convey the tumescence of my stroked ego when SCIENCE! lands a study in my lap that grinds me to completion.

A recurrent theme at CH is the personal observation that American women are becoming less feminine. As it so happens, CH was right! A new study finds that, hey, American women are becoming less feminine.

Masculine and Feminine Traits on the Bem Sex-Role Inventory, 1993–2012: a Cross-Temporal Meta-Analysis

The Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI) is one of Sandra Bem’s most notable contributions to feminist psychology, measuring an individual’s identification with traditionally masculine and feminine qualities. In a cross-temporal meta-analysis of U.S. college students’ scores on the BSRI (34 samples, N = 8,027), we examined changes in ratings on the Bem masculinity (M) and femininity (F) scales since the early 1990s. Additional analyses used data collected in a previous meta-analysis (Twenge 1997) to document changes since the BSRI’s inception in 1974. Our results reveal that women’s femininity scores have decreased significantly (d  = −.26) between 1993 and 2012, whereas their masculinity remained stable. No significant changes were observed for men. Expanded analyses of data from 1974 to 2012 (94 samples, N = 24,801) found that women’s M rose significantly (d  = .23), with no changes in women’s F, men’s M, and men’s F. Women’s androgyny scores showed a significant increase since 1974, but not since 1993. Men’s androgyny remained the same in both time periods. Our findings suggest that since the 1990s, U.S. college women have become less likely to endorse feminine traits as self-representative, potentially revealing a devaluation of traditional femininity. However, it is also possible that the scale items do not match modern gender stereotypes. Future research may need to update the BSRI to reflect current conceptions of gender.

This is yuge… (news, as well as study sample size.) The implications in the study’s findings about the transformation of the American sexual market are profound. If American women are becoming less feminine, then American men will find them less attractive, especially as long-term investment vehicles for marriage and family. And that is what the data show; the overall marriage rate is down and the age of first marriage is up, coinciding with the period during which women have lost their feminine charms.

Men are dropping out because women are leaning in. Way to go, feminist harpies!

In the big picture, female femininity has declined over the last generation or two because of feminist indoctrination and social signals encouraging and celebrating the abandonment of femininity.

In the bigger picture, widely and cheaply available birth control, abortion, obesity, processed food toxins, and female economic self-sufficiency have all conspired to denude women of their femininity and to impel women to adopt masculine posturing.

In the biggest picture, the loss of American women’s femininity is exactly what one would expect to see in a culture that is unmooring from its historical K-selected, predominantly White biomechanical foundation (patriarchal, high paternity certainty, slender women with low cock counts) and drifting toward an r-selected, increasingly nonWhite society (matriarchal, low paternity certainty, muscular and obese women with high cock counts) similar to the African sexual market norm, (where men more than anywhere else in the world are “dancing monkeys” for women and the women toil in the fields and bring home the bacon while crapping out kids from behind-the-bush trysts with multiple fathers).

When men’s sexuality is maximally restricted, and women’s sexuality is released of all constraints, the inevitable result is a dispiritingly corporate romantic market of supplicating male lackeys and aggro “slut positive” careergrrl chubsters whose very financial independence (government gibsmedats by any name) obviates the need to be more pleasing and feminine to attract beta male providers with tight resource sharing Game.

An unfeminine androgyne is the New World Woman, and she is letting men know they aren’t worth her effort to please, (and her unkempt vagina has seen lots of action DEAL WITH IT).

PS Would have loved to have seen this study controlled for race (if it hadn’t been). Mass invasion of nonWhites must certainly skew raw femininity/masculinity scores in one direction or another.

PPS Another SCIENCE!❤ CH knob job: Storytelling ability increases a man’s attractiveness as a long-term romantic partner.

Read Full Post »

This is great. Cracks in the Hivemind honeycuck are beginning to show, as more and more honest men of integrity and heavy sack speak outside the anti-White narrative. Our Shitlord of the Week is an anchorman for a Fargo, ND local news channel. Not only does he use the term “open borders” with less-than-obsequious reverence, he calls out the traitorous oligarchs conspiring to turn American into, as president Floppy Wrist once put it, a “hodge podge of folks”. Via:

“Partnership for a New American Economy”. Twatter’s “Trust and Safety Council”.

It’s as if the leftoids currently holding the megaphone and the moneymen currently holding the GOPe by the short n curlies read Orwell’s 1984 not as a cautionary tale but as a manual for running the country.

The arrogance of our New American Traitors is breathtaking. Their fall will be equally awesome.

Read Full Post »

There is a theory to explain the origins of the core population of White cucks. (I use the term “cucks” in its shitlordy colloquial sense to mean White people who express more solidarity with antagonistic nonWhites than they do with their congenial racial kin.) This White cuck theory, associated with the writings of HBDChick, invokes two historical processes to account for the evolved psychological preferences of NW European Whites to feel altruistic urges and a moral duty toward strangers and particularly toward nonWhite strangers:

manorialism and non-kin marriage.

Basically, over a thousand-year period (or less) in the parts of Europe that today correspond to the Germanic nations, Scandinavia, and England, (aka core Europe), outbreeding (cousin marriage was prohibited by the Catholic Church) and circumstantial pressures (e.g., manorialism) that selected for more cooperative and docile individuals created a distinct type of people who are amusingly known by the acronym W.E.I.R.D.O. in social science circles — Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic, and Outbred.

I would add my personal theories to HBDchick’s emphasis on outbreeding and manorialism to explain the development of White universal altruism: the Buffer Zone Theory and The Culling. Core NW Europe, being a core, is surrounded by White nations and White tribes. Over millennia, this “ring of white” lands shielded core Europe from the worst depradations of the nonWhite world. This proto-NATO defense umbrella permitted the rapid selection for supranice Whites within the Bubblecuck region who had rarely had to confront violence on a regular basis from truly foreign-looking and -acting invaders. From other Whites, yes. But not so much from Vibrancy.

The Culling simply states that the great 20th century wars of White fratricide removed the hardiest and least cucked men from the gene pool. I don’t see how a continent’s character emerges unchanged by 80+ million premature deaths.

Whatever their provenance, altruistic WEIRDOS all have psychological traits in common, and one very noticeable commonality is their NICENESS. If you’re American, you’ll encounter this radical niceness in the Midwest and plains states, where White people of Core European lineage settled and multiplied. It’s practically the basis for the humor in the movie Fargo. Nice Germanics and Scandis and Anglos will have nary an unkind word to say about anyone, and warmly welcome any traveler who might wander into their lands. They are trusting (and trustworthy) and are just about the best kind of people to go to for a car repair, financial advice, or contract negotiation. They won’t screw you over, and they (perhaps naively) believe no one means to screw them over.

These are the people, not to put too fine a point on it, who practically built Western Civilization and modern society.

What can one possibly say about them that is less than fulsome praise? There is no end to the ways in which nice people are nicer than not-nice people…

except for one flaw in the WEIRDO algorithm.

One very big flaw.

Possibly an existential flaw that will negate every good thing achieved by these NiceWhites.

Their gullibility.

(Throw in a predilection for sanctimony, and you’ve got all the ingredients for supreme cuckitry.)

I agree with John Derbyshire that Midwestern NiceWhiteness “is America’s Achilles heel, and will bring down our civilization one day.” It’s becoming more apparent that these niceguy White cucks will go to their golly gee willikers graves dispensing unreciprocated niceness on the world’s ingrate riff raff, and in their misdirected zeal to be nice to the world’s 7 billion not-nice schemers and dirty dealers, they’ll take America down with them.

The Trumpening is illustrative. Twatter renegade @Ricky_Vaughn99 compiled a list of the state-by-state share of pro-Trump vs anti-Trump White ethnic groups that can be used to predict Trump wins.


The anti-Trump NiceWhites are mostly inside-the-Hajnal, core NW European ethnicities. (Keep in mind these are the cucks who happily voted for Marco Lubio, and who love open borders nutjob John Cucksich. Ironically, fake phony fraudulent slimeball Ted Cruz is a beneficiary of cuck love. Like I said, gullible.)

The pro-Trump Whites who love his fighting spirit, properly directed decency, and straight talk are borderlands, periphery, Southern, and Central/Eastern European ethnicities. These are the Whites who get, at least on a gut level, the danger posed to survival by the mass migration of alien peoples who have nothing in common with the White-centric heritage of America.

There might be an intervention which could save NiceWhites from themselves, and thereby save America and the West: forced integration with the blessings of Diversity™. You’ll note most NiceWhites live in very White states. And most RealWhites — Whites who are less gullible about the realities of the world and who prefer Realtalk over Poopytalk — live with or near nonWhite Diversity.

The hypothetical remedial emerges: expose the NiceWhites to those vibrant characters they claim represent “who we are”, let stew for a generation or two, and voila!… hardened shitlords speaking openly about the coming RaHoWa and assuming the aliases of ancestral Viking berserkers and Visigoth barbarians.

Read Full Post »

Why is John “Cat Lady” Kasich — he who dribbles tepid platitudes like “migrants are made in the image of the Lord” and wants to hoard millions of them in the US as if they were stray cats — even in the GOP nomination race? He won’t win another state. Ohio was his hunchbacked cri de coeur. A 1-for-29 winning streak that can only get worse from here. Not to mention, the whole “aw shucks golly gee willikers” facade to dupe placid Midwesterners is just that; Cucksich is in reality a mean-spirited prick.

So what’s his angle? Obviously, he was employed as a GOPe suicide bomber. His job was to flush 66 delegates down the toilet so Trump couldn’t get them, increasing the hopes of the cuck traitors of a brokebacked convention that would cut Trump off from the nomination. Scum of the earth, these cucks, and how much clearer does it have to be shown to middle and working class Whites that their putative representatives in truth hate them with a passion and do nothing for them but make their lives worse?

Over on Twatter, Dick Brisket (@EmpireOfJeff) puts it well.

1. Consider: Kasich knows he has no shot at winning the nomination. So why would he stay in the race? It’s pretty simple, if depressing.

2. The GOPe has promised him some political plum in exchange for his help in keeping Trump from winning 1,237 delegates.

3. This is exactly the type of back-room dealing and betrayal of the voters’ wishes that got Rubio rejected so soundly.

4. It’s not that the GOP hasn’t learned. It’s that they hate you, resent even having to pay lip service to your demands, and now you’ll pay.

5. It may be suicidal for the party, but they don’t care. They will NOT share power with those they consider beneath them.

6. So what does that mean for the GOP? They’re finished. Expect at least 2 parties to emerge after this debacle. One Tea Partyish, one Estab.

7. Does this mean some time in the wilderness for conservatives? Of course it does. There was never any savior coming to fix our problems.

8. The country is now >50% Free Shitter. Hillary was president as soon as she announced her candidacy. That’s the America we live in.

Two thoughts. One, Hillary is not a shoe-in. Most Dems are secretly worried the most about Trump as a general election opponent. Trump has tremendous cross-over appeal that the GOP haven’t seen from their candidates since, oh, Reagan.

Two, Kasich was the Cucksters’ Last Stand. They don’t have any bullets left in the chamber. And I don’t think it will stumpening the Trumpening. At worst, the cuck show limps along all the way to the convention with Trump holding a comfortably large plurality of delegates, just shy of the 1,237 needed to lock the nom down. If the cucks’ menstrual flow hasn’t stopped by then, a GOPe split is a real possibility. I give it 40% chance at this point.

Either outcome — GOPe schism or GOPe acquiescence to Trump — means the end of the reign of “liberals are the real racists!” cucks. You could call it a Cuckularity. And it will be good.

Read Full Post »

What is the ideal man? Twatter Agree&Amplify writes,

The ideal man combines the culture of the (sane) liberal, and the fight/masculinity of the conservative-type.

The liberal environment — or, rather, the environment created by conservative scientist and engineer Whites that attracts a lot of White liberals who then build upon the civilized foundation — has a lot of good things going for it. If only xenophilic, virtue signaling libfags would learn that fewer Whites = fewer good things. Guys with gun racks and ATVs may scoff at bike lanes, but biking around a gleaming city unspoiled by crime and grime is a pleasure in its own right, (although perhaps not on the level of watching a sunset dip below a m0untain ridge).

Twatter a.p.hill, channeling Anonymous Conservative and the r/K theory of human organization, adds,

Libs have smaller amygdalae. Learn too late enrichment is a poison pill. Warrior kept poet in line. Feminism killed warrior.

Conservatives need liberals for their creativity and (usually) aesthetic lifestyle sensibilities. Liberals need conservatives for their guardianship and wisdom. Too few liberals, and conservative society can become static and self-satisfied. Too few conservatives, and liberal society can become self-destructive.

In this view, conservatives are the more crucial linchpin to civilization. Without liberals, we might have worse movies and fewer charming coffee shops. But without conservatives, we might have no civilization at all, having handed over the keys to the White kingdom to babbling barbarians.

So there is something to this formulation that amygdalae-deficient shitlibs, poets till the consummating end, need (if not consciously want) the pimp hand of warriors with full hearts and clear eyes to stop shitlibs from blowing up the nation and taking everyone down with them.

In normal historical cycles, the warrior would ascend in times of decadence and social disconnection to bring balance to the force. But these are not normal times. Feminism, the ideological spawn of Satan and his thousand reptilian succubi, thwarts the natural ascendancy of the warrior class, allowing the shitlib devolution to continue unhindered and unchecked. Feminists must therefore be defeated in order to pave the way for the rising warrior class to defeat the platitude-drowning shitlibs. The Chateau has not been sadistically discrediting feminists for this long without good reason.

The ((( Rebbe ))) sums it up:

[White liberal utopias] cannot exist long term. Complacency > Degeneracy > Self-Destruction.

Americans may be fated to abide this dismal decivilizing loop., no matter how many Trumpenings crest the battlefield. If I’m right, then so is my prescription: Poolside, watching the conflagration complete its appointed mission. If I’m wrong, and I hope I am, then Trump is just the first trumpet blast of many more White heralds to come.

Read Full Post »

I thought this was an interesting and pithy comment by imnobody00, replying to the question posed in this post.

It’s easy. Leftist Jews are secular/reform Jews. When they came to the West, they had two options: to remain in a secluded community or to integrate. Since they were secular, they wanted to integrate. They could integrate by adopting Christianity, but this was the enemy of their forefathers, a kind of ancient taboo.

Or they could integrate by adopting the religion of the Left, which filled the religious void they had in their minds, integrated them to the West and wasn’t a taboo or a historical enemy. In addition, it was the religion of brainy people, such as them. They did that although retaining their ethnicity. Since the religion of the Left, it is anti-Christian and anti-White, they are anti-Christian and anti-White. They have a plus because they are Jews so they remember grievances against Christians.

In short, the Jews that are producing these mayhems are not Orthodox Jews but converts. Converts to the religion of the Left. Their Judaism is vestigial and disappearing, when they intermarry (think Woody Allen’s kids) or have a low birthrate. This is why Orthodox Jews will be the majority of the American Jews in some few decades.

I would only demur that from what I’ve read and heard plenty of Conservative Jews are equally as leftist as their secular/Reform brethren. So apparently choosing the lower-integration path doesn’t also thwart the desire to adopt Leftism as a supplementary religion. My follow-up question: are Orthodox Jews in the U.S. against open borders and multikult in meaningful numbers? There are enough of them that a breakdown of their voting preferences shouldn’t be hard to determine. If they are, that would lend credence to imnobody00’s argument that Leftism is only a religion for otherwise irreligious Jews seeking a substitute to fill their spiritual void that isn’t Christianity.

Read Full Post »

Does anti-Gentilism or pro-Globalism primarily motivate diaspora Jewish Leftism? Submitted for your consideration, two insightful comments, the first arguing for the former explanation and the second for the latter explanation.

(This is a WHITE hot topic. Please keep your comments smart and funny, not boring and repetitive. Yeah, that’s right, I’m looking at you 👉.)

Arguing the anti-Gentilism case, reader Name Redacted writes from his personal experience,

Having been raised a Catholic who married into a Jewish family and lived among the Tribe for a decade or so, I think I am uniquely qualified to address this issue.

Jews in the U.S. support left-wing causes not for the causes themselves, but because they see those causes as a way to stick it to the Christian majority. I don’t think most of them do this consciously. But a lot of them equate “white America” with “oppression” and “conformity” and believe the patriarchal white majority is something that needs to be usurped.

This explains why Jews were the architects of feminism and the backers of the ’60s Civil Rights Movement. What better way to screw up Christian families and majority-Christian neighborhoods? This also explains a lot [about] 20th century art. Jews don’t create to entertain so much as “break boundaries” — boundaries which, of course, were put there by Christian morality.

This also explains why different rules apply when it comes to Jews and Israel vs. Jews and America. “Open borders for thee, but not for me!”

This way of thinking is so ingrained in Jewish families, I’m not sure they’re even conscious of it. But once you start realizing this is what they’re up to, a lot of things take on a more sinister tone, such as their obsession with calling out so-called Christian hypocrisy.

This includes everything from Paul Simon’s snide “Jesus loves you” lines in “Mrs. Robinson” to Billy Joel’s anti-Catholic “Only the Good Die Young” to the trashy “Two and a Half Men” airing in prime time to countless Hollywood films that trash Middle American values. I’d give examples of the last of these, but generally avoid mainstream movies. [ed: “American Beauty” is a subversively vile representative of the genre.]

Then there are the scads of Jewish “sexperts,” and the people of the porn industry, all of whom want to “liberate” your daughters from the “oppression” of the very Christian values that made this country work to begin with.

Put it all together, and basically it comes down to “how can we destroy the Christians of America?”. Christians — or people who just think Christianity is what helped make America — should think about this before consuming any Jewish art — from books to CDs to movies to porn. You’re essentially paying for the demise of society by buying it — or buying into it.

One thing I’ve seen a lot more of recently is open Jewish-American hostility to “nativists”. I can only guess that a lengthy time in power has fractured the filters that used to massage this kind of anti-White rhetoric into something more palatable to a wide audience.


Arguing for the more benign, less overtly antagonistic pro-Globalism (aka pro-Rootless Cosmopolitanism, pro-“one happy family”) explanation is a reader who wishes to remain anonymous.

Really interesting posts re: Jews and Leftism. Lots to think about, and I think you’re on target or close in several areas. There are a couple more things worth thinking about, because they either pertain to the alt-Right or serve as food for thought.


I think The Man Who Was isn’t entirely wrong, but the answer to the “why” here goes into history and psych in other ways. It has a lot to do with a Jewish split in the modern era, where a significant chunk of Jews became very attracted to the 2 great poles of modernity: Britain/ the USA, and Marxism/Soviet Union. Both, in their own ways, promised them the same thing:

“You can be one of us/ ‘normal’ here.”

Obviously, the ironies abound in both cases. But that was the lure, and it was a doozy.

It’s a whole book to explain how that spun out, and I don’t think it has been done. But the route through The Cathedral becomes pretty obvious when those are your 2 magnetic poles. And in psych terms, if that promise meant a LOT to you, but you were always worried about it turning out to be a mirage… what might one predict as traits, allegiances, and then the follow-on effects of traits and allegiances compounding? [ed: a genetic, innate neuroticism would exacerbate any worries about “fitting in”, possibly driving those worries to a pathological (self-harming) degree of expression.]

In Israel, you will still hear an echoing longing to be a ‘normal’ country among the Left. You can likewise imagine where this leads in r/K terms.

The irony that the actions produced by one’s fears and perceived lacks will end up conjuring the very things one fears in the end (hellooo every beta!)… well, humans are smart but that rarely means rational.

I’ll finish with a triggering thought: the alt-Right’s relationship to The Cathedral has a ton of things in common with the Jewish situation during the Middle Ages.

Which means a dispassionate analysis of Jewish history, options, and decisions (good/ stupid/ otherwise) would actually be very productive for its thinkers. Yeah, I know, the Jamaican bobsled team is more likely to win Olympic Gold. Still…


The real answer to Ponce’s “who are the seculars” question is:

Maybe you know some Christians that only go to Church once a year, if that, and who would have 50/50 odds that they could correctly recite a prayer if their life depended on it? It’s a lot like that.

There are Consequences.

Unsurprisingly, Jewish intermarriage outside the religion within the American secular/”Reform” community approaches 70%. Yes, there’s much hand-wringing. But objectively, why not 70%? Jews who don’t really believe in Judaism marry Christians who don’t really believe in Christianity. The Cathedral is their real mutual religion, and religion it is. Few stay Jewish. If they do, they’re in the Cathedralized sectors of Judaism (esp. “Reform”).

Note that for Reform/secular Jews in America, I think fertility is about 1.8. That, plus intermarriage, is Chekov’s Gun.

Intermarriage is much lower among the Orthodox, and families north of 5 kids are common and expected. Indeed, there are special community institutions designed to make this affordable – which the alt-Right should research to copy. Low intermarriage. Early marriage (indeed, some are still arranged marriages), and the requirement of a religious divorce alongside the civil (you can’t remarry within the Orthodox without a “Get”), tends to lock both men and women down. Women marry early and have kid after kid during their fertile period. They exit the other end well past The Wall. Men are faced with 5+ kids at 40, imagine the child support costs.

It takes about 3 generations for a 90/10 population ratio with these kinds of contrasts to make the 10% a majority – and the leap to majority status isn’t linear. Within the American Jewish community, that 3rd generation is just being born.

Demography is destiny.


Israel may be different, but only because the Orthodox there are shifting the whole population to be more religious and have more kids of their own. Israel is moving in the opposite direction to most Western countries, and you’d expect that result when a culturally cohesive group with a program like that can be a much bigger slice of the national culture (still only 15-18% – THIS generation).

It’s fascinating to watch.

Liberal Jews are openly nervous, in an era when those Jews who have bowed down to Leftism must pledge hostility to Jewish expression as part of the bargain. Secular/Reform Jews would often rather dialogue with Muslim terrorists than the Orthodox. Which of course. Rabbits gonna rabbit.

You may start to notice unflattering portrayals of Jewish Orthodox, starting recently with kerfuffles about them not wanting to sit next to women on airlines. I expect that to ramp up. And guess who is super-visible and will be targeted first by the Mideast Die-versity mainstream Judaism has shepherded in?

I know you aren’t exactly friendly to Jews. [ed: this is not true in practice. only in the abstract, where ideas about the national question get tossed around] And I get why. Many have betrayed the only non-Jewish civilization that offered them any real hope. That they betrayed their G-d and religion first doesn’t soften the blow much.

All I’ll say is, imagine a group who takes religion seriously, has a tested program that controls hypergamy, has a raw grudge to nurse with Leftism, and believes in various shadings of separation in place. Imagine that such a group becomes the default concept of “Jew” within 20 years.

It’s easy if you try.

Now, the allegiances of that group – and their situation – those are big TBDs. I really wonder if Neoreaction’s Plan (per free Northerner) might work well with this set, when the time comes. And there might be some clever ways to plant that seed now, while strengthening the alt-Right’s program.

Well, let’s face it — a secular Jew will be a lot more fun at a party than an Orthodox Jew. But, to depart from my poolside location for a moment, a nation is more than the sum of its parties.

Here’s a question I have for any geneticists lurking: Are Orthodox and Secular/Reform Jews from different gene pools? That is, do the Orthodox in America (and Israel) hail from different regions than the regions secular Jews left behind for America (and Israel)? I suspect that the differences between the two groups go deeper than religious/cultural preferences.

This gets to my contention that more than cultural experience is at work in the Jewish predilection for open borders leftism and their knee-jerk hatred for even the most innocuous expressions of nationalist populism (e.g., keeping out rapefugees, building a wall). If, as I have theorized, secular American Jews have inherited and brought with them to their new lands a suite of personality traits — the Tikkun Olam Triad — that predisposes them to radical anti-Gentilism and/or pro-Globalism, then this would partly explain the noted observation that Israeli Orthodox Jews aren’t nearly as Left Wing as their secular Jewish-American cousins.

Because, in fact, they may be more like third cousins than brothers.

Anyhow, at the end of the day American Jews (and as the disproportionately influential gatekeepers of the media megaphone, it’s right to address them separately from the garden variety shitlib Gentile) are going to have to come to terms with the reality that opening America’s borders to the world’s wretched refuse (and vehemently chiding those who fight back against their demographic dispossession) will, inevitably, make America more wretched and full of refuse: a much less livable, lovable place that no one, not even rootless cosmopolitans, will want to call home.

You can read this post as a sincere appeal to common sense. To noblesse oblige instead of noblesse malice. Let’s hope there’s enough of that magnanimity left in those still nursing age-old resentments at having to work to fit in.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,537 other followers

%d bloggers like this: