Archive for the ‘Love’ Category

Trump entered the stage in Miami to a piece of shitlord political showmanship we haven’t seen the likes of in America since well, forever.

TheCunt called 1/3rd? 1/2? 3/4ths? of Trump supporters “deplorable”. So what does Trump do? Why, naturally, he co-opts the theme tune of a beloved shitlib Broadway musical, Les Miserables, and struts out under the Les Deplorables banner to a roaring crowd of American revolutionaries.

Folks, this is a TEXTBOOK application of the Game technique Agree&Amplify. Trump is a MASTER of so many Game principles that his meteoric rise should be studied by generations of young beta males for REAL WORLD EVIDENCE of the efficacy of Game. Trump will be studied by political historians for sure, but his life demonstrates so much more than mere political acumen. It’s no surprise he’s had a parade of some of the world’s most beautiful women as lovers.

MAGA 2016

Read Full Post »

Noblesse oblige — the idea that the powerful, wealthy and fortunate are morally obligated to act magnanimously, particularly toward the less fortunate — is out of style, having been replaced with a quickness by noblesse malice, my coinage to describe a modern American nobility that not only disavows magnanimity, but actively seeks to make life more miserable for the lesser classes. Noblesse malice is what we get when the elite that actively hates the subjects under their rule are joined in their hatred by the institutions (media, academia, religions) traditionally tasked with exposing and indicting the elite’s depredations.

As Lawrence Auster once quipped, it’s their country now, and they are all in on it.

The Trumpening is a righteous airing of grievances by those despised non-elite Whites, channeled into one man who had the perspicacity to recognize an opportunity to give voice to the voiceless when he saw one. But Trump can’t do it all. Once he disposes of the House of Clinton, like the House of Cuck Bush before it, and ascends the HuWhite House throne, he’ll need ideas and goals to make America consolidate again. If the Trump era will have a lasting legacy, it will need to usher in the return of noblesse oblige.

Here are my suggestions for achieving that. The focus will be on the White middle, working, and lost classes, who have been the target for so long of so much unjustified leftoid hate machine churn and exploitation as boogeymen of a fantasized unique White evil which is psychologically projected from unreflective shitlibs who morally preen from behind the protection of inaccessible super zips.


A revitalized noblesse oblige redirected to White lower classes would counsel them against:

crap food
drug addiction
single momhood
fat acceptance

The above afflictions aren’t entirely the Fishtown Whites’ faults. Taking a wider perspective, SCALE (briefly, diversity + managerialism) enables the glut of garbage food that poisons the White lower classes. Miscegenation is pushed by propaganda ministers who for the darkest reasons revile White genetic and aesthetic continuity. Wiggerism is cultural devolution. Forgotten Whites have no one to look up to, so they look down. Fat acceptance is glorified by the feminist media. Despair-mongering drips from every New York Beta Times article.

Throwing a wrench into the gears of the rootless globality’s anti-White hate machine starts with elevating the Forgotten Whites from their despair, and that means telling them where they fail, why they fail, and how it doesn’t have to be that way.


A revitalized noblesse oblige would simultaneously offer their Forgotten White kin hope in the form of:

closed borders
mass deportations of illegals and their anchor sprog
a stop to middle eastern wars for democracy
trade protectionism
higher taxes on oligarchs and wealth capturing value transferers
meaningful infrastructure jobs programs
less Section Hate Diversity (and more homogeneity to help rebuild White communities)
affordable family formation policies
fewer malignant media and entertainment messages that undermine White heritage and achievement
curbs on financial shenanigans that prey on the less savvy

This is the most traditionally Democrat part of my three-step noblesse oblige renewal project, which sadly probably reads like a Satanic manual to today’s Democrats who have gone all-in on their ritualistic anti-White incantations.


This third step is perhaps the most important, because it acts as a corrective to what can seem the heavy-handed interference of the first two steps. A truly magnanimous nobility doesn’t forget that their putative lessers have worth of their own, and can themselves serve as exemplars of good character. The Forgotten Whites should be lauded for their unique virtues that any pre-post-America nobleman of conscience would esteem and likewise rue as lacking in the mores of his own decadent elitist class. These praiseworthy virtues include:

manly honor
uncorrupted femininity (their women had it once)
racial and cultural pride

These three steps taken together are what will make America great again. But maybe this is all asking too much of our current rootless globality.

In which case, bring out the gallows. And recline poolside as secession talk builds to a crescendo and hatreds spill over into vengeance.

Read Full Post »

A reader can barely contain his (her?) excitement.

Holy cow, CH! Do you realize what a smash a “rise of the sex robots” movie would be? How prophetic, how powerful,  how promotional of shiv-right values? I hope you’ve got something in the works, or at least a treatment copyrighted. Nobody has foreseen the dystopian ramifications the way you have,  as far as I know. Nobody is better talented to tell the tale. And certainly nobody deserves more to profit from his unique insights. Get scribing, my man!


I preen. It’s funny you should mention this now, M7, because I’ve recently been mulling the idea of a dystopian fright-fi book about a lovelorn beta male who genuinely falls in love with his Class Sharapova sexbot, and whose satiation tragically compels him to spurn the surprising affection of a flesh and blood plain jane who yearns for a family. My idea was for the story to focus on the uncanny intimacy that develops between the two main characters as their love (or maybe just his love, as the AI would not have yet progressed to undetectable emulation of human emotion), disturbing in concept yet tender in execution, pulses against a backdrop of civilization rapidly yielding to a cataclysmic sex market disruption that dwarfs the schism online porn and obesity had caused the prior generation.

It’s not like the real world isn’t serving up daily reminders that sexbots are coming, sooner than we care to think.

Certainly there have been a few movies that have tackled this subject, if tangentially or farcically. Her, Austin Powers, Blade Runner, Cherry 2000, The Stepford Wives, and the underrated indie psych-thriller Ex Machina come to mind. But none of these movies, except maybe Her and Ex Machina, really explored the sensual and psychological possibilities of sexbot love in context with the cultural upheaval that sexbots would doubtlessly unleash on advanced hedonistic civilizations. That’s where I hope to fill the gap, so to speak.

Read Full Post »

From a 1973 interview by Italian leftist Orianna Fallaci of the Shah of Iran, Reza Phalevi.

Q: How strange, Your Majesty. If there is a monarch whose name has always been associated with women, it’s you. And now I’m beginning to suspect women have counted for nothing in your life.
A: I fear your suspicion is justified. Women, you know… Look, let’s put it this way. I don’t underestimate them, as shown by the fact that they have derived more advantages than anyone else from my White Revolution. I have fought strenuously to obtain equal rights and responsibilities for them. I have even incorporated them in the Army, where they get six months’ military training before being sent to the villages to fight the battle against illiteracy. Nor should one forget that I’m the son of the man who removed women’s veils in Iran. But I wouldn’t be sincere if I asserted I’d been influenced by a single one of them. Nobody can influence me, nobody at all. And a woman still less. In a man’s life, women count only if they’re beautiful and graceful and know how to stay feminine and… This Women’s Lib business, for instance. What do these feminists want? What do you want? Equality, you say? Indeed! I don’t want to seem rude, but… You may be equal in the eyes of the law, but not, I beg your pardon for saying so, in ability.

Q: Aren’t we?
A: No. You’ve never produced a Michelangelo or a Bach. You’ve never even produced a great cook. And don’t talk of opportunities. Are you joking? Have you lacked the opportunity to give history a great cook? You have produced nothing great, nothing! Tell me, how many women capable of governing have you met in the course of interviews such as this?

Q: At least two, Your Majesty. Golda Meir and Indira Gandhi.
A: Hm… All I can say is that women, when they are in power, are much harsher than men. Much more cruel. Much more bloodthirsty. I’m quoting facts, not opinions. You’re heartless when you’re rulers. Think of Caterina de’Medici, Catherine of Russia, Elizabeth I of England. Not to mention your Lucrezia Borgia, with her poisons and intrigues. You’re schemers, you’re evil. Every one of you.

“You’ve never even produced a great cook.” 😂

Was the Shah of Iran wrong? Hyperbolic, sure. Affected with that paternalistic condescension so common among Middle eastern men, yes. But basically right. Look what’s happened since… women have turned away from being beautiful, graceful and feminine, and coincidentally the West is in a free fall to oblivion.

Bonus Shah wisdom: in praise of authoritarianism when the governed populace is too dumb and low trust to allow them to Rock the Vote.

Q: God forbid, Your Majesty, but would you deny that you’re a very authoritarian king?
A: No, I wouldn’t, because, in a sense, I am. But look: To go through with reform, one can’t help but be authoritarian. Especially when reform takes place in a country like Iran, where only 25 percent of the inhabitants can read and write. Believe me, when you have three-quarters of a nation afflicted with illiteracy, only the most strict authoritarianism can ensure reform; otherwise nothing can be achieved. If I hadn’t been strict, I couldn’t have carried through even agricultural reform, and my whole program would have been at a standstill. If that had happened, the extreme left would have liquidated the extreme right within a few hours, and more would have been lost than the White Revolution. I had to act as I did. For instance, to order the troops to fire at those opposing land redistribution. So that to assert there is no democracy in Iran…

Western shitlibs (and cucks) will need to come to terms with the reality that certain racial and ethnic groups require a firmer hand to guide their nations toward, if not peace and prosperity, a stable equilibrium between Western-style democracy and chaos. Unfortunately, shitlibs and cucks will never come to this realization because they lull themselves into a moral preening stupor with visions of cable news broadcast purple-tipped fingers pointing up their asses.

Read Full Post »

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 »

Here is a photo of a just-married man with his blushing bride. Did you cringe while looking at it? That’s understandable. Her body language drops at least three clues that this marriage is doomed to roll off the divorce disassembly line.


  1. He’s leaning into her (and her head is arching away from his kiss).
  2. She’s (fake) smiling for the camera, instead of for him.
  3. She’s got the kung-fu take-down grip on his wrist, as if she’s ready to stop his hand from roaming toward her ass.

Those are bad omens for your marriage if your bride is like this woman. Recall an ancient CH maxim (paraphrasing): If a man has to chase a woman’s love, she’ll never relinquish it.

The romantically successful couple reverses the polarity balefully evidenced in the photo above. A marriage destined for many years of reciprocal loving love looks more like the couple in the photo below:


This pic is literally the mirror image of the first photo. The man — Trump — is the one looking at the camera smilingly, his hand smugly occupying the erogenous nook of Melania’s appealing lordosis, and tickling the top of her ass. His torso, like his megashit-eating grin, is swiveled forward-facing. Meanwhile, Melania gazes at him adoringly, pressed unquestioningly into his chest, seemingly oblivious to the photographer in the room. If there is an attention whore here, it’s Trump, not Melania, and that makes all the difference in the world.

To recap:

Chasing man + chased woman: splitsville
Chased man + chasing woman: healthy relationship
Chasing man + chasing woman: unmarried couple in throes of lust
Chased man + chased woman: theoretically possible if both partners are cheating

Read Full Post »

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

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

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

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

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

-Lord Chesterfield in a letter to his son

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

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

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: