Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Love’ Category

A cursory examination of the evidence, pro and con, has convinced me that global warming is happening, and that humans are partly responsible. But not nearly as responsible as shitlib alarmists like AlGore would have us believe. I don’t mean to get into the thickets of global warming science in this post (accommodation probably would be the more sensible response to GW than wholesale abandonment of fossil fuels), but the topic does pivot my thoughts to The Trumpening, and his heart&mind capture of the White working class.

I have a fondness for the hillbillies of Appalachia. Yeah, they’re poor and fat and wary of outsiders and have their vices and dysfunctions, but they’re generally good-hearted folk, and in the battle for my limited sympathies a run-down White ethnic enclave will have far more of my support than ghetto dindus or Punjab in Bombay. I’m secure enough in my masculinity to keep my loyalties close to home instead of leap-frogging all over the world.

Many “blood and soil” West Virginians work in the coal business. Their livelihoods are threatened by environmental activism. That is a fact no bloviating advocate of wind and solar power can wave away. WV voters have responded to Trump as if he was a savior come to help them in a country that is rapidly disavowing them. The reality, such as it is, of global warming, and of Trump’s popularity with the White working class means he has a rhetorical tightrope to navigate.

If AGW is real and potentially catastrophic, what message should Trump give to West Virginian coal miners? I see four possible angles Trump could take:

  • Promise to return their coal mining jobs.

This would work to Trump’s benefit (as well as the benefit of WVians), and it probably won’t hurt Trump much in the general election except among the most zealous anti-AGWers. But it would mean choosing the welfare of coal miners over concerns for the long-term consequences of global warming.

  • Tell them coal is a dying industry and they had better find other lines of work.

This is essentially the “screw off” option, and it’s exactly what TheCunt told them to do. It may be “true”, but only because shitlibs have arranged the political landscape to make it true. I don’t recommend this message.

  • Offer government largesse to ease their transition away from employment in the coal industry.

Not very “””conservative”””, and won’t play well with the “muh Constitution” cuckwads, but it would be the sympathetic solution that avoids callously throwing the White working class under the bus. And of course there’s the risk that the government aid will be misused, as poor people are wont to do with social welfare. Plus, welfare, however well-intentioned, tends to dispirit Whites receiving it.

  • Promise big infrastructure projects in alternative energy sources that will employ WVians.

Nuclear power plants come to mind, as do wind turbine farms and electric car manufacturing plants. Throw in highway construction and you’ve made a lot of former coal miners employable. Yes, this will cost taxpayer money, but the argument here is that a shared commitment to the welfare of Americans and the ease of their suffering takes precedence over “principled” tax cuts. And we might even enjoy the knock-on effects of a reduction in opioid deaths and obesity among our less privileged White brethren.

Read Full Post »

Commenter Yup wants us to notice something very telling about Trump’s wives.

Trump’s had 3 wives.

1st wife: 14 years

2nd wife: 4 years

3rd wife: 11 years and counting.

Guess which wife was American.

😂 I’ll take “4 years” for $5.5 billion, Alex.

Read Full Post »

I don’t know if 16th Century poet Michael Drayton can be considered a great man, but he was esteemed by literary critics at the time. Here’s an excerpt from his long-form poem “The Moon-Calf”, (a moon-calf is an abortive fetus of a cow, sometimes applied to human fetuses). Colloquially, it had come to mean during its time in common usage any grotesque thing. Drayton hasn’t a kind word for androgynes, which he thinks “pollute the earth”.

Quoth one, ” ‘Tis monstrous, and for nothing fit;
And, for a monster, quick, let’s bury it.”
“Nay,” quoth another, “rather make provision,
If possibly, to part it by incision,
For were it parted, for aught I can see,
Both man and woman it may seem to be.”
“Nay,” quoth a third. “that must be done with
And, were it done, our labor is but lost: [cost;
For when w’ have wrought the utmost that we can,
He’s too much woman, and she’s too much man:
Therefore, as ’tis a most prodigious birth,
Let it not live here to pollute the earth.”

The great men knew that masculine women and feminine men are abominations against nature. They would weep to see their descendants glorifying what once they thought a blight upon the earth.

Read Full Post »

Piers Morgan (he’s had a “come to shitlord” moment) writes about Trump’s sway over the ladies. Read this, and you’ll wonder yourself if Trump was a founding proprietor of Le Chateau.

‘They say every powerful man is good in bed,’ I once asked Donald Trump. ‘That true?’

He smirked. ‘I think there is a certain truth to that, yes. Put it this way, I’ve never had any complaints. A lot of it is down to The Look. It doesn’t mean you have to look like Cary Grant, it means you have to have a certain way about you, a stature. I see successful guys who just don’t have The Look and they are never going to go out with great women.

‘The Look is very important. I don’t really like to talk about it because it sounds very conceited… but it matters.’

Count the number of statements Trump made which affirm core CH principles governing male-female relations.

  • Powerful men are generally good in bed. Why is male power and sexpertise correlated? Power imbues a man with self-confidence that opens bedroom possibilities to him, enticing him to be more demanding of the women he sweetly fucks, which in turn makes those women perceive him as more sexually skilled. Similarly, women will have stronger orgasms with a powerful man, regardless of the man’s objective sexual prowess, which alters their perception of the man’s skill.
  • “A lot of it is down to The Look.” Trump understands that facial expression and body language can communicate charismatic winner… or dull loser. Handsomeness is beneficial, but not required. A man who projects confidence with his posture, his piercing gaze, his unflappable ZFG demeanor, and his snapper-sundering smirk is more alluring to women than the prettyboy with the vacant stare.
  • “I see successful guys who just don’t have The Look and they are never going to go out with great women.” Trump, like CH, knows that money and business success are no guarantee of pussy abundance. Wealthy Silicon Valley nerdos lacking in any notable charm, like fat waifu-settling Mark Cuckersperg, are proof that wealth cannot compensate for a shit personality. Women are turned off by dull betas, even if a billion dollar portfolio is added to the equation. Sure, not a few golddiggers will fake their love to mooch the betabux moolah, but that is paid-for allure. Transaction “love” is no substitute for sincere validation love.

There is no doubt in my mind that Trump enjoys, and has enjoyed, the validation love of many beautiful women in his life. Strong evidence for my assertion comes from Trump’s ex-wives, who speak better of him than most men’s current wives speak of them.

ps article via minor Twatter celeb @DJTWMAR.

Read Full Post »

Bertrand Russell is a patron sadist of Chateau Heartiste for good reason; when he’s on, he’s quite good at cataloguing the ills that befall those cultures which turn their backs to the gods of the copybook headings. Here he is on the welfare state and its corruption of the sexual market:

bertierussellquote

If you got a chill reading this, that’s normal. You see how prophetic Russell was — the rise of single momhood, the destruction wrought by the divorce industrial complex, the encroachment of leftoid authoritarianism, the disavowal of kin and country — and you fear what is to come next.

Read Full Post »

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.

religiouspolitical

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 »

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 »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,599 other followers

%d bloggers like this: