IQology

On his blog, tucked in the comment section of a post about Hugh Hewitt’s extreme cuckiness, Liger of the Blogosphere demurs,

That you say “liberal Jews and neocon Jews” instead of just saying “liberals and neocons” is anti-Semitic because you are implying some sort of special Jewish Conspiracy where none actually exists. These are political movements that aren’t controlled by Jews, and are not in any way related to Judaism. The only reason why Jews are disproportionately represented among media pundits is because it’s a high-IQ occupation and Jews have genetically higher IQ than gentiles.

This is a self-serving lie that Lawgic Trap of the Blogosphere often regurgitates when the heat is coming on. Yes, Jews have higher average IQs that boost their representation in many cognitively demanding and particularly verbal-oriented fields, but Jews are greatly over-represented in Left Wing movements and groups above and beyond their representation levels in other fields that attract Jewish participation, and this latter observation can’t be chalked up solely to IQ.

Wildly disproportionate Jewish attraction to Left Wing causes and Leftist groups is a consequence both of their IQ and of their distinct personality traits — call it the Tikkun Olam Triad, a suite of personality factors that predisposes Jewish temperament toward preachiness/radicalism, feelings of superiority, and neuroticism. These traits, coincidentally, are characteristics that are typical of Left Wingers, Jew and non-Jew alike.

If Jewish IQ was all that mattered (and not Jewish psychology), as Lamb of the Blogosphere asserts, then we would see Jews punching as far above their weight in Right Wing movements and groups as they do in Left Wing movements and groups.

Do we? The evidence I will present here says no.

First, a quick discussion concerning definition of terms. What Limber Sophist of the Blogosphere would call a “right wing” group is not necessarily what the majority of Americans would call right wing.

As recent events have clearly demonstrated, neocons are not “right wing”, so you can’t count Jewish neocons among the ranks of the Right. (Robert Kagan just jumped ship to vote for Hillary, because he has a visceral hatred for Trump’s nationalism and tacit pro-White Gentilism.) And libertarianism, where Jewish representation is also disproportionate, is basically a socially liberal ideology hitched to open borders and low taxes on the 1%.

Any group or ideology of the Right that could justifiably be called right-wing would have to incorporate some features of nationalism and race/sex awareness. The “Right” is nothing if it isn’t grounded in uncomfortable truths about human nature. The starkest dividing line between Left and Right is the belief (or disbelief) in Equalism – the religion of those who prefer to blame all human inequality on oppression and discrimination rather than on innate differences in group and individual aptitudes.

The correct way to determine if Jewish over-representation in Leftist organizations is due to their unique personality inheritance or to their mean IQ is to control for IQ, which means finding White ethnicities whose mean IQs rival that of Jewish mean IQ.

Jewish IQ is higher than the overall White average. But separating out White subgroups and comparing average IQs, we find that Episcopalians edge out Jews, and Lutherans are only about a point lower than Jews. Mormons also score quite high, falling just a point or two behind Jews in average IQ. So a more relevant comparison to determine if Jews are over-represented among Left Wing and liberal groups as a consequence of their mean IQ or of their mean psychological profile would be one between Jews and Episcopalians, Lutherans, and Mormons.

Here is a graphic showing the political preferences of US religious groups.

26% of Jews lean toward or identify with the Republican Party, (tbh that’s a little higher than I expected). 64% of Jews identify with the Democrats.

39% of Episcopalians are Republican. 49% are Democrat.

Mainline Lutherans are 43% GOP, 47% Democrat.

Mormons are 70% (!) GOP, 19% Democrat.

The data are clear: Jews gravitate to Left Wing organizations, occupations, and ideologies because they are UNIQUELY attracted to Leftism INDEPENDENT of their mean IQ. One can thus infer that Jews, on average, possess personality attributes that drive them into Leftist movements and that predispose them to happily believing Leftist lies.

(More precisely, IQ is a PARTLY INDEPENDENT variable of political ideology. Generally, higher IQ is associated with more Leftism. But Jewish Leftism is influenced by their group psychology as well as by their mean IQ.)

Lightly Ethnocentric Eskimo of the Blogosphere is not a bad guy. I like him. I read him. His tribe could use more exceptional Realtalkers, however inconsistent, like him. On most topics, he’s more right than wrong. But he’s also an emotional human (despite appearances to the contrary), and that means he has a lot of trouble overcoming the demands of his ego when the subject turns darkly and ominously against his self-conception. Bias and an inability to confront the truth squarely and unflinchingly leaches into his analysis when it’s his people, or (I’ve noticed) the subject of obesity, under the shivoscope.

Despite his personal shortcomings as a blogger, Lardo of the Blogosphere strikes me as a mostly sincere advocate for the Right, and he understands, at least on an intellectual level (and as far as I can remotely surmise his true feelings), that a majority White Gentile nation is good for the Jews. But Listicle Editor of Prole Activities of the Blogosphere suffers from an ailment common among old school HBDers: what I call “IQology”, the belief that all human behavior can be superficially explained by differences in mean IQ.

Because I don’t begrudge LotB, I’ll end this on a Unitarian Universalist note: Despite occasional (and understandable) lapses into dishonesty, here’s a small token of thanks from CH to you, LotB, and those few like you who buck your tribe’s stereotype to support the cause of nationalist populism.

Now, if you’ll just stop apologizing for fatties and push away from the table, you’ll be that much closer to Invitation into the esteemed Chateau Heartiste Hall of Shiv-Wielding Shitlords.

Read Full Post »

The Great Men On Pussy Pedestalization

J.R.R. Tolkien was a deep thinker who knew the world of women as well as he did his fantasy worlds. Reader Modern Primitive draws attention to Tolkien’s fatherly letters of advice to his son, Michael Tolkien.

Don’t know if this has been posted yet but here’s some letters from Tolkien to his son vis a vie women and marriage.

http://glim.ru/personal/jrr_tolkien_42-45.html

Go from number 43. Tolkien seemed like a pretty red pilled dude, identifying many subjects and trends discussed here at the chateau, although it’s probably more that society in general was much more red pilled than we are today by way of not opting to put on its own blinders.

The Great Men of the past were more redpilled than the Weak Manlets of the present, because they were smarter and wiser, but also because they lived during times when their homogeneously glorious White society wasn’t actively crushing crimethinkers. First, here’s Tolkien on the danger posed to men of befriending women before be-fucking them:

‘Friendship’ then? In this fallen world the ‘friendship’ that should be possible between all human beings, is virtually impossible between man and woman. The devil is endlessly ingenious, and sex is his favourite subject. He is as good every bit at catching you through generous romantic or tender motives, as through baser or more animal ones. This ‘friendship’ has often been tried: one side or the other nearly always fails. Later in life when sex cools down, it may be possible. It may happen between saints. To ordinary folk it can only rarely occur: two minds that have really a primarily mental and spiritual affinity may by accident reside in a male and a female body, and yet may desire and achieve a ‘friendship’ quite independent of sex. But no one can count on it. The other partner will let him (or her) down, almost certainly, by ‘falling in love’. But a young man does not really (as a rule) want ‘friendship’, even if he says he does. There are plenty of young men (as a rule). He wants love: innocent, and yet irresponsible perhaps.

FYI, Tolkien and CH are on the same page. Here’s an old Chateau post about the cruel impositions of impossible friendships between men and women.

The reason for the post title is this bit by Tolkien where he warns against pussy pedestalization.

There is in our Western culture the romantic chivalric tradition still strong, though as a product of Christendom (yet by no means the same as Christian ethics) the times are inimical to it. It idealizes ‘love’ — and as far as it goes can be very good, since it takes in far more than physical pleasure, and enjoins if not purity, at least fidelity, and so self-denial, ‘service’, courtesy, honour, and courage. Its weakness is, of course, that it began as an artificial courtly game, a way of enjoying love for its own sake without reference to (and indeed contrary to) matrimony. Its centre was not God, but imaginary Deities, Love and the Lady. It [pussy pedestalization] still tends to make the Lady a kind of guiding star or divinity – of the old-fashioned ‘his divinity’ = the woman he loves – the object or reason of noble conduct. This is, of course, false and at best make-believe. The woman is another fallen human-being with a soul in peril. But combined and harmonized with religion (as long ago it was, producing much of that beautiful devotion to Our Lady that has been God’s way of refining so much our gross manly natures and emotions, and also of warming and colouring our hard, bitter, religion) it can be very noble. Then it produces what I suppose is still felt, among those who retain even vestigiary Christianity, to be the highest ideal of love between man and woman. Yet I still think it has dangers. It is not wholly true, and it is not perfectly ‘theocentric’. It takes, or at any rate has in the past taken, the young man’s eye off women as they are, as companions in shipwreck not guiding stars. (One result is for observation of the actual to make the young man turn cynical.) To forget their desires, needs and temptations. It inculcates exaggerated notions of ‘true love’, as a fire from without, a permanent exaltation, unrelated to age, childbearing, and plain life, and unrelated to will and purpose. (One result of that is to make young folk look for a ‘love’ that will keep them always nice and warm in a cold world, without any effort of theirs; and the incurably romantic go on looking even in the squalor of the divorce courts).

The bolded parts are crucial. Pussy pedestalization, contrary to what White Knights for Her Faire Maiden profess as the benefits of their beta male worldview, can actually make a man more cynical about women, because he has her propped on a queenly throne for which she is ill-suited by the nature of her fallen sex to occupy.

Bonus Tolkien! The man expounds on sluts, careerist gogrrls, female practicality (and aversion to romanticism), the allure of badboys, and women’s greater predilection for monogamy.

You may meet in life (as in literature¹) women who are flighty, or even plain wanton — I don’t refer to mere flirtatiousness, the sparring practice for the real combat, but to women who are too silly to take even love seriously, or are actually so depraved as to enjoy ‘conquests’, or even enjoy the giving of pain – but these are abnormalities, even though false teaching, bad upbringing, and corrupt fashions may encourage them. Much though modern conditions have changed feminine circumstances, and the detail of what is considered propriety, they have not changed natural instinct. A man has a life-work, a career, (and male friends), all of which could (and do where he has any guts) survive the shipwreck of ‘love’. A young woman, even one ‘economically independent’, as they say now (it usually really means economic subservience to male commercial employers instead of to a father or a family), begins to think of the ‘bottom drawer’ and dream of a home, almost at once. If she really falls in love, the shipwreck may really end on the rocks. Anyway women are in general much less romantic and more practical. Don’t be misled by the fact that they are more ‘sentimental’ in words – freer with ‘darling’, and all that. They do not want a guiding star. They may idealize a plain young man into a hero; but they don’t really need any such glamour either to fall in love or to remain in it. If they have any delusion it is that they can ‘reform’ men. They will take a rotter open-eyed, and even when the delusion of reforming him fails, go on loving him. They are, of course, much more realistic about the sexual relation. Unless perverted by bad contemporary fashions they do not as a rule talk ‘bawdy’; not because they are purer than men (they are not) but because they don’t find it funny. I have known those who pretended to, but it is a pretence. It may be intriguing, interesting, absorbing (even a great deal too absorbing) to them: but it is just plumb natural, a serious, obvious interest; where is the joke?

They have, of course, still to be more careful in sexual relations, for all the contraceptives. Mistakes are damaging physically and socially (and matrimonially). But they are instinctively, when uncorrupt, monogamous. Men are not. …. No good pretending. Men just ain’t, not by their animal nature. Monogamy (although it has long been fundamental to our inherited ideas) is for us men a piece of ‘revealed’ ethic, according to faith and not to the flesh. Each of us could healthily beget, in our 30 odd years of full manhood, a few hundred children, and enjoy the process. Brigham Young (I believe) was a healthy and happy man. It is a fallen world, and there is no consonance between our bodies, minds, and souls.

A realtalker like Tolkien, if he lived today, would be banned from so many colleges and charged with violating so many feminist safe spaces that he’d land on the SPLC’s hate watch list. Which should tell you something. (Specifically, 2016 America is a shamefully effete den of faggotry and cuntery.)

Read Full Post »

The Pump And Trump

2016 will be the Year of Reckonings. A great schism in the nation opens, a herald rises, and battle fronts coalesce. As a soldier of furrows, it’s time to take up the banner and the hammer of The Trumpening and do your part for the revolution:

The Pump and Trump.

The next time you have your woman post-coitally wrapped in the shelter of your shitlord’s uncucked embrace, gaze contentedly at the ceiling and slowly announce, in a gravelly nut-busted voice, “That was almost as good as making America great again.”

If it’s just after the election when Trump is anointed Supreme Galactic Overlord, say “That was almost as good as voting for Trump”.

The purpose of the Pump and Trump is two-fold: one, any shrieky silly SJW/SWPL feminist freaks with nonetheless fuckable figures (rare, I know) will be sufficiently offended by your declaration that they will self-remove from your life, post-pump. A no muss, no fuss gruffly stuffed muff buff.

Two, you will know love if she reacts with peals of delight, or even an amused exasperation. This woman is a keeper, and she will stand by your side whispering words of encouragement as you prepare to crest the paradigm shift to victory and glory with the Trumpentroops.

The Pump and Trump: Make American Women Sated Again.

Read Full Post »

Sidewalk Love Affair

Recently, I had box seats to a brief lovers’ spat on the sidewalk. The couple starring in the show crossed my path perpendicularly. It was a telling scene, flush with unspoken truths about the differences between men and women. She’s following him, begging for his attention. The girl has that frantic look like her baby is floating down the river in a basket and she’s chasing after it.

All the while (not a long while, maybe twenty seconds total), he’s striding purposefully ahead of her, oblivious, or affecting an air thereof, to her fevered pleadings. He stands tall, a confident posture and a neutral facial expression leading his way. He looks kind of like a dick.

I couldn’t make out what the drama was about, but it didn’t matter. There was a larger message in this theatrical release. I thought:

“This is the direction love should go. It’s natural. Woman to man. Woman gives love, man receives love. (Man gives desire, woman receives desire.) No matter what happens next, this woman desperately chasing down her man will eventually fall into his post-coital arms, the both of them happy with their respective statuses in the relationship.”

I tried to imagine by way of thought experiment how my perception of the scene would have changed if the roles had been swapped. If instead he had been pleading with his girlfriend to slow down, and she kept walking ahead of him. I twitched at the thought with instinctive revulsion. There was only one-way love in that reverse scenario, him to her. Submissive Male to Dominant Female. A guarantee of relationship extinction.

No one loves a needy man, not even himself.

How will you know your relationship is on solid ground? If she’s running after you, red-faced and trembling with love and yearning and desperation and desire and, yes, fear. The sexual polarity is aligned. The love amplified.

If you’re running after her, afraid to lose her love? You already have.

A good, if abstractedly imperfect, test of a woman’s love for you is to ask if she would she die for you. You can ask yourself this question, and if you’re honest you’ll know the answer.

Would she die for you?

Because most women wouldn’t.

I watched TED talks today and a woman there defined love as you would give your life for that person. I would die for my son without question..but for my husband probably not. I do love him, but I wouldn’t die for him..would I die for my husband when we first started dating when I was CRAZY in love with him? Nah..

You’ll know you own your woman if she’s so in love she’d at least claim in online scribblings that she’d die for you.

Read Full Post »

Advice For Fathers Trying To Keep Their Teen Daughters Off The Pole

Reader Mazinger, like most people with a functioning sanity gland, recoils in horror from the cultural pestilence of demon mom, and wonders while in the grip of his fright how he can protect his daughter from the shambling slutwalkers when she reaches her teenage years.

This is actually a quite important topic. As a father of a baby girl I’m really not looking forward to her teenage years. How do I shelter her from this society where sluttiness is considered a virtue and where filthy degrading sex is just a click away? Even if I do a good job how do I protect her from getting her mind polluted by schoolmates or leftoid teachers? I could always be ultra strict but from experience I think that if you push too hard you get the opposite reaction. If redpilled guys have parenting tips, actual stories or any advice, I’d be grateful. FYI I’m European and non religious so I don’t want to rely on religion.

I can’t speak from experience, but I can give you advice based on what I observe happening around me and on what I know about human nature, and particularly female nature.

First, if you have a daughter on the cusp of nubility, skip the birds and the bees talk. Tell her about The Wall, instead. You’ve got to hit her with the realtalk, and hit her where it matters: her precocious id. (It’s like those anti-smoking PSAs that scare teens off smoking by warning how badly they’ll be ostracized by their peers if they pick up the habit. That strategy works much better than showing photos of diseased lungs.)

Second, if your future teen daughter does get involved with the wrong crowd, or falls under the spell of a badboy, you had best be ready to drop some tight Patriarch Game on her. Tease her like you would any woman trying to play the “let’s dad and him fight” angle (which is what daughters dating badboys essentially distills to), and belittle the badboy of her dreams. You have to think in the mindset less of an overbearing Dad and more of an AMOG tooling the chump who thinks he has a shot with your daughter.

Third, you have to GUIDE your daughter to the Light. You can’t just lay down a list of prohibitions and leave it at that. The power of dissuasion must be paired with the power of persuasion. Read this, and think about how you want to tell her all the ways she can grow to be a good woman to a man, and how keeping her end of the bargain will help her find love with a man she can happily love back. Girls becoming women LOVE LOVE LOVE to have expectations set for them, and to have to work to EARN a man’s, and a father’s, approval.

Fourth, if the above countermeasures fail to steer your future teen daughter away from slut pride, nuke the princess from orbit. Strike a little fear in your darling child’s heart with this very special message given to her on, say, her 16th birthday.

Shielding your daughter from Western cultural degeneracy and slut glorification is similar to preventing her from mudsharking. Encourage her to physical, mental, and social excellence. Trash your TV. Don’t berate her when she falls short of feminine ideals, but don’t make excuses for her failures either. Calmly and forcefully tell her when she is going astray, and how she can get back on the path of goodness. Take pains to explain in clear, stark language how the poz infects everything her friends watch and read for entertainment. Instill a positive racial awareness in her which will serve as the foundation for the development of her individual identity during those formative teen years. Don’t be her “best friend”, but don’t build unnatural barriers between you and her either. You are a loving father, not a dispassionate bureaucrat charged with overseeing her life trajectory.

Most importantly, you have power over the shape of her milieu. You control the environment in which she meets her friends, her teachers, and her romantic interests. If, for instance, you discover that her teachers are leftoids tasked with indoctrinating her to the deviant zeitgeist, storm the school citadel and thunder your displeasure until the walls shake. If that doesn’t change their attitude, pull her out and move to a less diseased school district (getting harder to find, indubitably) that conforms more closely to your values.

That’s all I have for now. Your job as a father trying to keep his daughter off the pole is hard, and getting harder, because your nation’s elite have it out for you. (ps Trump2016) This nation isn’t yours anymore, and you can feel it in your bones. (East Europeans excluded.) But when it seems hopeless and the darkness encroaches, remember that you do have like-minded allies, here and there, scattered about, and doing what they can to beat back the night that seems it will never end.

Final thought: Yes, your daughter will push back against your rules and demands, and you will be tempted to appease her for fear of losing her love, but if you stay the course and do it without bitterness she’ll eventually come around and rediscover her faith in you. How do I know? Well, girlfriends do the same thing. And they always come back to respecting strength, never weakness.

Read Full Post »

Study: May-December Romance is Normal, Natural, And The Way Of The Superior Man

This is a shibboleth-smashing study sure to give ugly feminists (but I repeat myself) and game-hating tradcons the hives.

Attachment Styles of Women-Younger Partners in Age-Gap Relationships.

Women have evolved to seek an older mate, however, research has shown negative opinions toward these relationships if the age-gap is significant. The most popular opinion is that women who date men that are 10 years or more their senior have an unhealthy relationship with their father. We investigated women-younger partners in age-gapped heterosexual romantic relationships to see if they differ in attachment styles when compared with women in similar-age relationships. We predicted that women in age-gap relationships will be predominantly securely attached, because it is evolutionary beneficial for women to seek older mates, and that there will be no significant difference in attachment styles between women in age-gap versus similar-age relationships. The common belief that the women who choose much older partners because of having “daddy issues” was unfounded in this study. There was no significant difference in attachment styles between the 2 groups, and 74% of the women in age-gap relationships were securely attached. Results are consistent with the limited literature on age-gap relationships regarding attachment style and relationship satisfaction. This study adds to the growing body of literature on attachment style and offers insight into the less-explored age-gap relationship dynamic.

There’s nothing psychologically unhealthy about an older man seeking a much younger woman or a younger woman loving a much older man. “Daddy issues” is just the butthurt bleat of envious beta males and bitterbitch aging females desperately trying to pathologize a natural expression of love and passion-inducing sexual polarity.

This is yet more laboratory proof from the whitecoats affirming the field observations of the common man; in this case, that women place less emphasis on men’s physical attributes than men do on women’s physical attributes, and more emphasis on other attractive male traits like personality, social status, resources, dominance, self-possession, confidence, and maturity.

So men, go ahead and fall in love with that barely legal beauty. You have less to worry about her motivations than you do about the jealousy and resentment you’ll provoke in everyone else who can’t stand to see you happy.

Read Full Post »

The Great Men On Women’s Eager Submission To Tyranny

It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy.

George Orwell, 1984

Ol’ George was spot on with this observation. It’s [the current year] and you can’t toss a cat on a college campus without hitting an SJW hugbox humidified with the triggered tears of a bulbosity of bitterbitches.

Related, PA adds historical context to an anecdote recalled by social scientist Jonathan Haidt:

the auditorium full of high school girls doing the finger snapping routine at him. […] Haidt says it is (was) very disconcerting, worse than disconcerting actually – upsetting and a little scary even. Threatening.

The teenage girl’s simple minded absolutism and devotion to the master.

Accounts of Mao’s and Pol Pot’s atrocities consistently paint teenage female cadres as the most terrifying among the henchmen.

Women in their prime beautility (beauty + fertility), which coincides with the ages from 15 to 25 or thereabouts, are the most eager to submit to the reigning tyranny. CH writes a lot about the romantic desire of women, especially young women with a full load of eggs in their moist wicker baskets, to submit to a powerful alpha male. A lot of Game concepts proceed from this first principle governing the instinctive mating behavior of women.

But Le Chateau is more than a dating guide, and hopefully readers are beginning to see how Game and Seduction tie in with Culture and Society. The internal combustion forces that drive women to happily submit to intoxicating powerful men are the same forces that equally drive women to submit to the tyrannical Leftoid Orthodoxy, and to profess their undying love for the orthodoxy. (Even to make excuses for the orthodoxy, just as they do for their jerk boyfriends, when someone points out that maybe they’d be better off in the long-run with a different master.)

The only way to win White women back from their loyalty to antiracism tyranny is to present them with the allure of an even stronger, sexier tyranny. Mock antiracism without apology or backpedaling and you provide women a glimpse of your ZFG alpha rebel bona fides. Offer in the place of antiracism orthodoxy another, better, orthodoxy that speaks more clearly to the White woman’s future and, importantly, exhibits more conspicuously the greater good of your sexually irresistible self-entitlement.

Shitlibs and cucks will tremble and rage, while you, Master of Your Amused Domain, Knight of the Order of State Control, Wielder of the Shiv of Unified Purpose and Divided Vaj Flaps, reap the dual rewards of a rich sex life and a reborn nation once again administered for the benefit of your posterity.

Game can, indeed, save the White homelands.

Read Full Post »