The Aggrocunt Period

The Daily Mail wonders if we Westerners are living through a time period when the numbers of aggressive, unfeminine, caustic, ball-busting battle-bitches are on the rise.

I think we are. And I’ll tell you why it’s happening. First…

So seemingly serene is the 51-year-old that she even soothes others in the course of her career as a reiki therapist. [ed: wtf?] But, like an increasing number of respectable women, Jo has become so consumed by rage that even a simple trip to buy the weekly groceries can lead to frighteningly aggressive outbursts. Recently, she completely ‘lost it’ when another driver tried to take the space she wanted in a Tesco car park.

Jo’s response was instant, and utterly disproportionate. ‘I was there first. So I got out of my car as he approached and shouted: ‘F*** you, a*******, I’m staying here until I get this space.’

‘The driver was a man much bigger than me, but I wasn’t intimidated. I told him we’d be stuck there all day if he didn’t move — which eventually he did.’

There’s the problem right there. If the Gynocratic State didn’t leash men, women wouldn’t be testing men’s patience like this cunt did.

Worryingly, it would seem this is a dangerous trend, seen by many as yet another dark side of equality.

Equalism is a false prophet heralding decay, misery, and eventual capitulation to nonbelievers.

Stories of professional women drinking themselves into ill health, trying to keep up with male colleagues are well documented.

Nothing good comes from reversing the sexual polarities.

But they are now matching men on the aggression front, too, putting themselves in physical danger — risking their good name, career prospects and relationships. In 1957, men were responsible for 11 violent offences for every one perpetrated by a woman — today, that is four to one.

Some of this shift towards more female violence (if accurate) is owed to the race replacement pogrom in Western countries. White women are fairly pacifist by world woman standards.

Add to the mix long hours, pressure juggling work and family life, plus fluctuating hormones caused by the menopause, PMS or childbirth and it’s no wonder so many women are exploding with rage.

I would’ve said “childlessness”. Failing at their most important life job has got to make careerist tankgrrls feel a little peeved.

Indeed, earlier this month it was reported that Oxford-educated Jocelyn Robson, a company director, 40, etched the word ‘c***’ in capital letters on two of her former boyfriends’ cars after they broke up.

“Oxford-educated”. “company director”. I guess it would be redundant to add “Maestro of Manjaws”.

And last month BBC presenter Jeremy Vine released footage of a woman — smartly dressed and driving a top-of-the-range car down one of London’s most expensive streets — who swore at him to ‘get the f*** off the road’ and allegedly kicked his bicycle.

These are the kind of women that men pump and remorselessly dump. And then these masculinized women have the gall to wonder why they have trouble finding a husband.

Research has also found that women are significantly more likely to be verbally and physically aggressive to men than vice versa — something physicians are seeing more of in their clinics.

Correction: BETA men. Since it’s obvious to anyone who has trawled a social media account that the ranks of weepy supplicating beta males in the West is at an all-time high, it’s no wonder women are lashing out at them. Weak men are like fat women: each defies the opposite sex’s romantic needs.

‘We are treating more women than ever who are struggling to regulate their emotions and express themselves appropriately,’

Sounds like the typical problem of men. This is what it looks like when the modren woman’s estrogen level are as low as the modren nümale’s testosterone level: bitterness, spite, aggression, acting out from an uneasy feeling that the world ain’t right.

And why is this anger afflicting so many upstanding women, the sort you might hope would be immune to, or too ashamed of, having outbursts?

“Upstanding” translated from the equalist leftoid mewlspeak means “over-credentialed careerist shrew”.

Some experts suggest women believe that such outward displays of aggression allow them to seize the initiative from traditionally dominant men.

NOPE. That’s not it. The usual feminist answer to these sorts of social changes is never the right one.

The right answer is that power abhors a vacuum. And nobody abhors the loss of male power more than a woman, who will rush in to fill it with nagging, passive-aggressive bitching, and closed legs.

Whether it’s in the workplace or around the dining table, shouting, swearing or throwing things are increasingly viewed as valid methods for women to assert themselves.

Aggrocunts aren’t interested in asserting themselves. What they’re doing is crying out for a chance to be a feminine woman again who doesn’t have to assert herself.

Such outbursts can also become addictive, a form of almost animalistic release.

Women who are regularly dicked by a self-entitled ZFG jerkboy feel no need for further animalistic release.

ADVERTISEMENT

But as well as this rush, Jo also admits to feeling under constant pressure to provide for her family.

Economically self-sufficient gogrrls betray the essence of their sex.

Thankfully Steven who works with disabled children,

Nümale pussy.

has learned how to cope with her outbursts. As mild-mannered as Jo is volatile, he’s found that the best thing to do is to walk away and let the tantrum burn itself out.

Wrong answer.

Right answer: SHUT THE FUCK UP JO *readies pimp hand*

Her stepchildren, too, have learned to walk away from her outbursts.

Mix-and-match broken family. Cunt stepmom. Shit writes itself.

‘Our relationship is still strained, which is a shame, but I feel convinced she is as much to blame as me.’

Pathologically narcissistic BPD supercunt spotted.

And when, last year, she decided a driver was too close behind her as she kept to a 30mph speed limit, she braked suddenly and got out of the car. ‘I asked the driver, a young man, what the hell he thought he was doing driving up to my bumper,’ she says. ‘My heart was pounding as he called me a bitch and drove off.’

A young shitlord, to be precise.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, she has upset family and friends with her behaviour. In restaurants, she has embarrassed loved ones by high-handedly sending back food she considers isn’t good enough.

By the way, if a woman ever does this on a first date, you have complete license to exit through the kitchen and leave her with the bill.

Executive Summary:

DIVERSITY + FEMINISM = UNLOVABLE CUNTS

Read Full Post »

Are The Globalist Elite Taking Their Cue From The Movie “Network”?

Via a Steve post that bitingly mocks David Brooks’ platitude slinging with an impressive economy of words, commenter guest adds,

Brooks: Those who try to reduce politics to these identities do real violence to national life.

For anyone wondering what an empty platitude looks like.

I don’t think it is empty. It’s very revealing. Not just for the psychology behind it, but for what it actually says. It empties out the term “nation,” admittedly, but that is what they, the Brooks types, think a nation is. A big nothing, full of interchangeable people. Or consumption units, if you will. You do damage to the Big, Empty, Interchangeable Nation when you take the consumption units and “reduce” them to their particular attributes.

Then you make all these smaller units, which might not get along. That’s what Brooksites think, anyway. In reality, the identities are real. It’s the Big Empty image that’s an illusion. And the identities will fight; there will be blood. You can’t avoid it by redefining “nation” to preclude their existence.

Shorter version: Diversity + Proximity = War. Anyhow, this talk of “interchangeable consumption units” sounds awfully familiar. Another Sailer commenter, Njguy73, excerpts the relevant connection,

“You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations. There are no peoples…There is only one holistic system of systems, one…dominion of dollars…There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM, and ITT, and AT&T, and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide, and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today….We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale. The world is a college of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable bylaws of business. The world is a business, Mr. Beale. It has been since man crawled out of the slime…” –

Arthur Jensen (Ned Beatty) to Howard Beale (Peter Finch), Network, 1976 film

The consumerization of nation requires the eradication of racial identity, because only race and nation affiliation obstructs the uninterrupted wealth aggrandizement of the symbol manipulators. Globalist ruling elite have taken the message of Network to heart. guest qualifies,

Network, like all things liberal, is pointed the wrong way. We had a country with business in charge, once, and it didn’t look like this. Ideas and idea-men have the power. It’s universities, NGOs, and permanent governments, the managerial elite, who are in charge. They run the corporations, too. Business is along for the ride and allowed to benefit.

Lag time is a factor in these monstrous social upheavals. 1950s American business class didn’t look like they do today, but they agitated for the global order that has erupted in the past fifteen years, and planted the seed that would grow into the multikult kudzu draining the nation’s soil of her life-giving blood.

The 2016 American election pits two ideas of such majestic consequence that it really can be considered a life or death choice: will we be a dominion of dollars (or renminbi), or a nation of people?

Read Full Post »

The Earnest Futility Of “Proposition Nation” Magical Thinking

This comment by consiliosus stands as one of the purest expressions of “proposition nation” idolatry I’ve read. I highlight it because Realtalkers should understand the imposing mental road blocks of the benighted that they have to hurdle if America is to be saved in any form that remotely resembles the historical America.

Respectfully, what CH is missing is that, what is unique about America, is it was the first nation or even first political organization of people NOT built on race or ethnicity, but on an ideal. Alt-Right/ethno-racial nationalism is based on European political thinking. The latter is a way of thinking that goes back to the beginning of Human history. America made a break from this. It showed that it was possible, even ideal.

Leftism, another European ideological import, exploits ethnic and racial groups for it’s benefit, seeking to be in power. The Alt-Right, being an ethno-racial ideology also, reacts to such, and fights back, also seeking to be in power. Both however are ethno-racial based, even more so the latter however.

America doesn’t deny the influences of bio-mechanics and race and ethnicity. It developed a new way to organize and benefit from such influences. We need Constitutionalism more than we need White Nationalism. The latter is just a European leftist ideology based on race, ethnicity and bio-mechanics. It’s a watered down Nazi Germany.

The fundamentally flawed premise in this earnest proposition nation belief system is the idea that America is an idea which can stand apart from her racial genesis and heritage and continue thriving with any sort of people constituting her population. “As long as the idea is embraced, America will survive”, is the core tenet of this “blank state” religion.

This religion is heretical in any American age but the one we live in now. It is historically ignorant and a disingenuous misinterpretation of the Founding Fathers intent — Vox does a good job dismantling the proposition nation lie here.

Like any effective lie, each is constructed  around a fragment of truth, in this case, the section of the Declaration of Independence which declares: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

However, it is also self-evident that a secular atheist Jew, such as (((Ekaterina Jung))), who does not believe in a Creator, cannot credibly appeal to the Declaration in order to claim to be an American. And it is documentarily evident that, like the U.S. Constitution, the Naturalization Act of 1790, the writings of John Jay, Ben Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and other Founding Fathers, and the Alt-Right nationalist position, the Declaration of Independence itself is directly opposed to the revisionist interpretation, as the document also refers to:

• the connection between [the United Colonies] and the State of Great Britain
• the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages
• large Armies of foreign Mercenaries
• the present King of Great Britain
• the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners
• the free System of English Laws
• our Brittish brethren

To cite one phrase of a document in contradiction to the central theme of the entire document, which is that the People of the United Colonies are an English people, unique and distinct from foreigners, Indians, and the English people loyal to the King of Britain, is an outrageous attempt at deceit that relies entirely on the historical ignorance of the audience. To say that anyone can become an American because “all men are created equal” is a shameless lie. One might as readily cite it as evidence to claim it means anyone can become Chinese.

And here is MPC’s contribution to debunking the proposition nation myth and revealing the universalist idealists among America’s founders whose equalist fervor helped provide subversive rhetoric for the various tribes to come later who despised blood-and-soil legacy America.

So not only is the proposition nation shibboleth historically inaccurate, it’s biologically (and hence culturally, since culture derives from biological inputs) fraudulent. The principle simply cannot be severed from the people. And the people cannot be severed from their pedigree.

Principle from people from pedigree.

Ergo, Constitutionalist principle = racial pedigree.

Race is people is idea is culture is nation. Englishmen created the American Idea, and Englishmen are best suited to allow that idea to flourish and to sustain it over generations. Others came who were not too dissimilar from Englishmen — the Germans, Dutch, Swedes — and their genetic closeness did not radically undermine the American Idea. Later still, ethnic Whites and half-White/half-Semites — Slavs, Italians, Irish, Jews — arrived, and their genetic and cultural distance, relative to the Englishman’s, did begin to erode the American Idea and twist it into a monstrous apparition that could be turned against its father.

These later White ethnic waves opened the Pandora’s Box to the Hart-Cellar 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act, which has since overrun the nation with literally tens of millions of nonWhite hordes who are as genetically and culturally distant from the founding sons and daughters and their posterity as can be, and their presence on American soil now rapidly (and predictably) debases, poisons, and will shortly extinguish, the Proposition Nation ideal.

Of course, some misanthropes insist that turning America into an unrecognizable third world market bazaar teeming with violence, grime, corruption, hostility, incompetence, and tribalism, all of which left unchecked by a hollowed-out disappearing White middle class, is evidence of the victory of the Proposition Nation ideal.

Normal people say to that, “If that’s colorblind Constitutionalism, give me race-aware Nationalism.”

Read Full Post »

The Great Men On Americanism

H. P. Lovecraft (the same early 20th Century fright-fi writer whom modern day SJW wikinerds are trying to obliterate from the historical record) wrote a treatise on what it really means to be an American, and it’s chock full of so much shitlordery source-pool realtalk it could double as Trump’s first martial law decree. H/t:

It is easy to sentimentalise on the subject of “the American spirit”—what it is, may be, or should be. Exponents of various novel political and social theories are particularly given to this practice, nearly always concluding that “true Americanism” is nothing more or less than a national application of their respective individual doctrines.

Slightly less superficial observers hit upon the abstract principle of “Liberty” as the keynote of Americanism, interpreting this justly esteemed principle as anything from Bolshevism to the right to drink 2.75 per cent. beer. “Opportunity” is another favourite byword, and one which is certainly not without real significance. The synonymousness of “America” and “opportunity” has been inculcated into many a young head of the present generation by Emerson via Montgomery’s “Leading Facts of American History.” But it is worthy of note that nearly all would-be definers of “Americanism” fail through their prejudiced unwillingness to trace the quality to its European source. They cannot bring themselves to see that abiogenesis is as rare in the realm of ideas as it is in the kingdom of organic life; and consequently waste their efforts in trying to treat America as if it were an isolated phenomenon without ancestry.

“Americanism” is expanded Anglo-Saxonism. It is the spirit of England, transplanted to a soil of vast extent and diversity, and nourished for a time under pioneer conditions calculated to increase its democratic aspects without impairing its fundamental virtues. It is the spirit of truth, honour, justice, morality, moderation, individualism, conservative liberty, magnanimity, toleration, enterprise, industriousness, and progress—which is England—plus the element of equality and opportunity caused by pioneer settlement. It is the expression of the world’s highest race under the most favourable social, political, and geographical conditions. Those who endeavour to belittle the importance of our British ancestry, are invited to consider the other nations of this continent. All these are equally “American” in every particular, differing only in race-stock and heritage; yet of them all, none save British Canada will even bear comparison with us. We are great because we are a part of the great Anglo-Saxon cultural sphere; a section detached only after a century and a half of heavy colonisation and English rule, which gave to our land the ineradicable stamp of British civilisation.

Most dangerous and fallacious of the several misconceptions of Americanism is that of the so-called “melting-pot” of races and traditions. It is true that this country has received a vast influx of non-English immigrants who come hither to enjoy without hardship the liberties which our British ancestors carved out in toil and bloodshed. It is also true that such of them as belong to the Teutonic and Celtic races are capable of assimilation to our English type and of becoming valuable acquisitions to the population. But, from this it does not follow that a mixture of really alien blood or ideas has accomplished or can accomplish anything but harm. Observation of Europe shows us the relative status and capability of the several races, and we see that the melting together of English gold and alien brass is not very likely to produce any alloy superior or even equal to the original gold. Immigration cannot, perhaps, be cut off altogether, but it should be understood that aliens who choose America as their residence must accept the prevailing language and culture as their own; and neither try to modify our institutions, nor to keep alive their own in our midst. We must not, as the greatest man of our age declared, suffer this nation to become a “polyglot boarding house.”

The greatest foe to rational Americanism is that dislike for our parent nation which holds sway amongst the ignorant and bigoted, and which is kept alive largely by certain elements of the population who seem to consider the sentiments of Southern and Western Ireland more important than those of the United States. In spite of the plain fact that a separate Ireland would weaken civilisation and menace the world’s peace by introducing a hostile and undependable wedge betwixt the two major parts of Saxondom, these irresponsible elements continue to encourage rebellion in the Green Isle; and in so doing tend to place this nation in a distressingly anomalous position as an abettor of crime and sedition against the Mother Land. Disgusting beyond words are the public honours paid to political criminals like Edward, alias Eamonn, de Valera, whose very presence at large among us is an affront to our dignity and heritage. Never may we appreciate or even fully comprehend our own place and mission in the world, till we can banish those clouds of misunderstanding which float between us and the source of our culture.

But the features of Americanism peculiar to this continent must not be belittled. In the abolition of fixed and rigid class lines a distinct sociological advance is made, permitting a steady and progressive recruiting of the upper levels from the fresh and vigorous body of the people beneath. Thus opportunities of the choicest sort await every citizen alike, whilst the biological quality of the cultivated classes is improved by the cessation of that narrow inbreeding which characterises European aristocracy.

Total separation of civil and religious affairs, the greatest political and intellectual advance since the Renaissance, is also a local American—and more particularly a Rhode Island—triumph. Agencies are today subtly at work to undermine this principle, and to impose upon us through devious political influences the Papal chains which Henry VIII first struck from our limbs; chains unfelt since the bloody reign of Mary, and infinitely worse than the ecclesiastical machinery which Roger Williams rejected. But when the vital relation of intellectual freedom to genuine Americanism shall be fully impressed upon the people, it is likely that such sinister undercurrents will subside.

The main struggle which awaits Americanism is not with reaction, but with radicalism. Our age is one of restless and unintelligent iconoclasm, and abounds with shrewd sophists who use the name “Americanism” to cover attacks on that institution itself. Such familiar terms and phrases as “democracy,” “liberty,” or “freedom of speech” are being distorted to cover the wildest forms of anarchy, whilst our old representative institutions are being attacked as “un-American” by foreign immigrants who are incapable both of understanding them or of devising anything better.

This country would benefit from a wider practice of sound Americanism, with its accompanying recognition of an Anglo-Saxon source. Americanism implies freedom, progress, and independence; but it does not imply a rejection of the past, nor a renunciation of traditions and experience. Let us view the term in its real, practical, and unsentimental meaning.

-from the United Amateur, July 1919

Executive Summary: Diversity + Proximity = War. Also, Cognitive Stratification + Noblesse Malice = Anti-Americanism.

America: A gift in the process of being squandered and sacrificed by the ingratitude of her soft, effeminate, decadent, virtue signaling inheritors. What would Lovecraft have thought of the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act and the resulting third world bazaar America has since inevitably become? He’d probably say, “holy fucking hell, and I thought the micks were bad news”.

Programming note: Joyce Carol Oates greatly admired Lovecraft. I wonder if she knows about his unauthorized thoughtcrimes?

***

PS As TOG put it in one of his classic rants, “White people need to realize its not the Ice Age anymore and we are now dealing with the threat of diversity”.

Read Full Post »

France (again)

I predicted on the Twatter that underprivileged muslims would target iconic European landmarks, like the Eiffel Tower. WELP. France is on fire…again.

I wonder when it will be the Western White elite give up on their open borders ethnic cleansing pogrom swamping native Whites in their homelands with third world trash. How many dead bodies have to hit the floor before deluded or malicious leftoids renounce their race creationism religion?

Rhetorical. Too many. The right answer is removing these perfidious leftoids from power. By force, if it comes to that. And the hour is late.

Read Full Post »

The Impossibility Of Open Borders

It’s been said by others, but it’s worth reiterating here. Open borders are an impossibility. If you remove one border, two more, smaller, borders will be created in its place. It’s like the titular creatures from Gremlins. Spill water on one, and five more mogwai spawn.

The logic is inescapable. A big border protects a lot of smaller entities within the territory it rings. Abolish the big border, and small borders will organically arise to protect the smaller entities that were once protected as a whole behind one big umbrella border. Abolish the small replacement borders, and still smaller borders will be formed to protect the integrity of the multiplying units of partitioned entities and territories.

For real life examples of this phenomenon in action, see any gated community, school with metal detectors, or bulletproof glass-enclosed 7-Eleven check-out counter. If you remove the national border, the citizens will respond to their unwelcome vulnerability by erecting borders around that to which they can still control entry.

Open borders libertardians like Cheap Chalupas either are too stupid to understand this or, more likely, are too disingenuous to bother understanding. Perhaps for them, ensconced in the swaddle of their own leafy, 95% White, high trust suburban borders, the recursively multiplying, mitotically dividing, expanding universe of atomized borders and supporting Surveillance State machinery necessary in a Diversitopia are a feature instead of a bug. If that’s how they think, then here’s to hoping their cushioned principles are put to the test the best possible way: with swift and unremitting exposure to the reality of the borderless world they champion.

Read Full Post »

Female Accomplices To Alpha Male Killers

There are developments in the Orlando muslim fanatic mass shooting that won’t surprise Chateau guests. Omar Mateen’s second wife, Noor Zahi Salman (American as apple pie), knew about his plans to shoot up the Pulse anal playground, excuse me, nightclub, and declined to tell authorities. She basically covered for Omar, and could be charged as an accessory to murder.

The lessons are as old as time. Muslims, especially from the Middle East and Central Asia, are extremely inbred and clannish. When one muslim goes on a killing spree for allah, you can bet that his immediate and extended family silently acquiesced and probably even supported his violent intentions. This is a sort of tribal wagon-circling and abetting you won’t find too often among Whites of Northwest European descent. It’s confirmation of Donald J. Trumpening’s sensible position that the families of jihadis should be targeted for kebab removal.

The second lesson is ripped straight from the pages of the CH Philosophes. Chicks dig jerks, especially cute chicks in the prime of their fertility who could have non-jerks if they desired them. The allure of the alpha male — note I did not say admirable man — over women is unmissable. Even a brown, ISIS-pledging son of weirdo immigrants with a possible history of downlow sexcapades can cast a spell over women who should know better. Is anyone who’s lived a day in his life among the fairer sex shocked that Noor Salman would swooningly swim in the wake of her psychopath husband’s plans to reach his 72 goats? History is replete with female accomplices of alpha male killers whose charms could not be resisted.

Lest it go under-reported, Omar’s first wife is a true hottie, and he has kids from multiple women. ALPHA. And if you don’t like it, don’t blame the messenger. Blame the massengil.

Meanwhile, a beta male has six white roses instead of twelve red roses delivered to his wife on their anniversary, and she nags him for the oversight and closes her legs for six months.

Read Full Post »