Cuntvergence: Before And After

———->

———->

Was it the (((propaganda)))? The Pill? The refined factory-made carbs? The SCALE? The sexual market chaos? The enabling thirsty betas? The Diversity™?

Maybe all of the above. Whatever the foul source, our women are flying off a cliffside with a vengeance, and taking their homelands with them. We either collar them, or allow them to continue steering the ship straight into the rocky shoals.

WILL YOU MAKE YOUR DECISION FOR THE PATRIARCHY?

***

Anonymous probes,

Why, prey tell, Mr. Heartiste, do you think this girl on some Alpha’s boat aping him by wearing his hat flew off the cliff?

Take a few minutes and peruse your former GF’s on facebook to see what became of them.

I don’t. It hurts too much to see the wreckage wrought.

I get you. Alpha widowhood and its cuntsequences are another feature of a recklessly liberated sexual market. The detritus of damaged thots.

Read Full Post »

Leftoids’ Lobotomized Utopia

birth controller writes,

From the magnet article [about using magnets on the brain to disable certain functionality like religiosity and attitudes toward immigrants]:

“The other got a strong pulse of TMS that was strong enough to temporarily shut down their posterior medial frontal cortex (pMFC), a part of the brain that ‘plays a key role in both detecting discrepancies between desired and current conditions and adjusting subsequent behaviour to resolve such conflicts.'”

This goes beyond mere threat processing–libs are literally too stupid to connect the dots.

Good catch. Leftoids want to disable our brains so that we can’t detect sex and race patterns or disruptions in our environment, which would make us easy prey for invading tribes. This is why I use the android-like term “leftoid” to describe people like that; they are inherently anti-human, wedded to a sick ideology that envisions utopia only when normal healthy humans have their brains zapped for reduced functionality, all in the name of an equalist compulsion to flood White countries with nonWhites until misery is equitably distributed.

The question now is, do leftoids have brains which are missing some crucial functionality that non-leftoid brains possess which allows the latter to NOTICE THINGS and the former to miss clear and present dangers? Or do leftoids PRETEND (ie virtue signal) to have an inability to notice threats, and in fact they do notice but choose, for social status jockeying and perhaps to alleviate their incrementally growing fear and feeling of powerlessness, to sublimate their threat detection into a useless abstraction of poopytalk and vapid sanctimony?

The answer to these questions will help us find a solution to our leftoid problem and save European Christendom for our posterity.

Read Full Post »

So Predictable

(((Martofel)))

Male feminists are creeps. It would be laughingly hypocritical if it weren’t so predictable. Many of them are sexually confused. A disproportionate number are ((())). All are low T.

At least this particular specimen of male feminist found the balls to fire all the deranged bitter cunts asking for his resignation after they discovered a Faceborg post in which he admitted to being a pervy creep (according to the male feminist definition of pervy creep).

“We’ve all either faced this firsthand, seen it, heard a firsthand account of it, or are guilty of it ourselves,” Martofel wrote in the the post. “I’m someone who’s guilty of it. I’ve grinded up on women on buses and at concerts without their consent. I’ve made out with ‘the drunk chick’ at a party because it was easier. I’ve put a woman’s hand on my dick while she was sleeping.”

Why are creepy male feminists so often guilty of the very perverted sexual harassment that they posture against? There’s the “a good offense is the best defense” theory. It could be psychological projection (accuse others of the perversions you indulge). Or it’s a political calculation: socially approved opinions can shield a creep from the discovery process.

My take is more fundamental: Male feminists are lsmv. They look weird, have revolting personalities, or both. They have never gotten the cute girl-next-door, and they seethe with resentment. They can’t compete head-on with Gentile Chads, so they resort to male feminism as a sneaky fucker strategy in the hopes of ingratiating themselves with bluehaired freaks and tatted skanks who might one day make the mistake of throwing the male feminist a pity fuck. When the male feminist doesn’t even get that consolation prize, he’s one step from lifelong incel, and this fear and rage drives him to acts of perversion to claim some measure of sexual respite from and control over the very women he martyrs as victims of patriarchal oppression.

The Western sexual market has never been more broken than it is now.

Read Full Post »

Trump’s Gynophilia

AJP writes,

I worry nominating a woman may be too tempting for [Trump]. Guess we’ll see.

Like many womanizers, Trump does have a troubling urge to elevate women within traditionally male bastions. Or at least to talk about elevating women into positions of power (while stealthily filling those roles with competent men). Bill Clinton had the same urge. I guess it’s some sort of self-penance for being a lifelong pussy hound, which expresses as a paternalistic, even patronizing, benevolent sexism.

Then you have on the opposite end of the male spectrum barely heterosexual characters like Gay Mulatto who elevated women out of both an ideological conviction and a desire to surround himself with gossipy yentas and ghetto mamas so he could feel at home being doted on by a coterie of female caregivers.

Either way, civilization loses.

***

As if shadowing this blog’s themes, the Daily Caller reports today that there was a “mean girl culture” in Gay Mulatto’s White House.

In a tell-all book about President Obama’s White House a former staffer writes about a “mean-girl culture” being “alive and well among the group.”https://t.co/mcSBjKfVU9 pic.twitter.com/PTpTHySNKP

— The Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) July 10, 2018

Gay Mulatto’s gynophilia issued from his need to be surrounded by yapping yentas and ghetto fabs who’d dote over him. Naturally, surrounding yourself with women destroys the working environment as gossip, backbiting, snark, passive-aggressive smear campaigns, and endless social status battles consume all the energy available to answer to the American people, but only a stone cold shiv artist like yours truly mentions these sex-based FACTS about women’s nature in a public forum, so eyes will stay closed and ears plugged until the Maul-Right becomes the Center of mainstream thought, or America implodes, whichever comes first.

Read Full Post »

Ann Coulter Reads Chateau Heartiste

Ann unsheathes a mighty shiv this week in her column “Country Overboard! Women and Children Last!“. She touches on many themes explored here at Le Chateau, and comes suspiciously, deliciously close to restating certain, sharp phrases coined by yours cruelly.

Her column delves into the racket that is the refugee asylum system in the US, paying particular attention to the shitlib-anointed status of “oppressed” women from third world shitholes, reminding readers that the women are as much a shitproduct of their shitholes as are the men from those shitholes.

Aside from our immigration authorities missing little things like the Rwandan genocide, what is the argument for taking in millions of people from backward cultures, hotbeds of real racism, pederasty and misogyny — as opposed to the “microaggressions” that are the bane of our culture? 

It’s one thing to use quotas as a response to slavery and Jim Crow in our own country, but why do we have to have an immigration quota for “people who don’t live here, have never seen an indoor toilet, and rape little girls for sport”? 

Liberals act as if they are striking a blow for feminism by importing desperate women from misogynistic cultures to America. But, even to the extent they’re telling the truth, the women aren’t always victims only. They’re often co-conspirators. […]

Hmong girls in Minnesota are regularly gang raped by Hmong men, but the Hmong community — even the girls’ mothers — blame the rape victims, and the attacks go unreported. These aren’t cultures of strong women and criminal men. It’s more like criminal men and complicit women.

When shitlibs rescue Dirt World women from their Dirt World homelands, they neglect to consider that those Dirt World women give birth to Dirt Worlders, via the magic of reproductive gene transmission, who will recycle their Dirt World attitude and behaviors for generations, absent oppressive levels of miscegenation.

And the stone cunt truth is that in the primitive backward nations of the world, the women share the same suite of genes as their misogynistic men. You can’t remove the women from these cultures and expect them to behave like civilized SWPLs; their blood swims with the misogyny, infanticide, pederasty, rape, and female genital mutilation that evolved with them, and which these women will pass onto the next generation of male babies. And female complicity will likewise be passed on to their daughters, bedeviling policy makers all across the civilized world.

The more we import alien peoples from alien cultures into our homeland, the more stories like this one we’ll hear about (through dissident journalism sources):

In San Francisco, we had the young Indian sex slaves of pederast Lakireddy Bali Reddy testifying on his behalf. Once he was finally busted — not by our fantastic “democracy dies in darkness” mainstream media, but by a local high school newspaper — we found out his child rape victims thought they deserved it. They could not be coaxed to testify against him. Some took the stand on his behalf. They were all given asylum. We didn’t change them; they just moved here, without altering their belief in human slavery or the caste system one iota.

“Democracy dies in darkness” is more true than the Bezos Post would like to believe; the dark hordes streaming outward from their dark cultures will descend like a veil of darkness over the remaining Whiteopia redoubts, killing democracy and replacing it with tribalism, corruption, and the occasional mass murder machete rampage.

Americans are told we have to understand that it’s part of their native cultures. 

Exactly! It’s their culture. We’re not rescuing anybody; we’re bringing in diseased cultures. The alleged refugees don’t float above and apart from their societies. Feminists may see the world as the Boy team versus the Girl team, but in reality, it’s the Civilized team versus the Primitive team. Virtually every woman outside of the First World lives in an abusive society. We can’t take them all in. 

How did violent, backward, misogynistic cultures become our problem? Did we take a vote and agree to be the world’s charity ward?

Or the world’s daycare center.

Genes matter.
Race matters.
Culture matters.

We deny these cosmic truths at our peril.

Democrats who claim to be defenders of the weak, the marginal, and vulnerable are happy to toss our safe, functioning country aside — as long as they can wreck America (and get their housework done at the same time!). The left’s central political philosophy is based on resentment toward historical America.

Very, very close to my term of art “Heritage America“.

Nobody reads Chateau Heartiste…

Read Full Post »

Rootlessness And Ideological Identification

Shitlibs more strongly identify along ideological axes. This is why, for instance, they can’t tolerate the company of those with differing world views. (White libchicks are the absolute worst at tolerating those with opposing political views.)

And, although I don’t have confirmatory data at hand, I suspect shitlibs are more likely to wander and become itinerants, always looking for a shiny new city to infest. Personality studies have found that shitlibs tend to be more novelty-seeking, or to put it less charitably they tend to have higher disgust thresholds. This desire for novelty and filth probably contributes to the shitlib “born to run away” compulsion. They just can’t handle too much niceness (read: Whiteness), order, and comfortable functionality. They need to feel distressed. They crave chaos in their lives.

How do I know this? Well, I have been surrounded by shitlibs. I’ve swum in the deepest waters of their subterranean cultures, taking what I wanted from them while leaving behind that which repulsed me. I know them pretty well, tbh, how they tick and what emotional keys are tickled in their hamsterchords.

I bring this up on the heels of the recent exposure of Stephanie Wilkinson, the proprietoress of the Commie Shrew, excuse me, the Red Hen, who hounded Sarah Sanders out of her restaurant and followed her like a psycho down the street screaming libanities at her, as a shitlib vagabond.

The rootlessness of shitlibs is intimately connected to their ideological fence-guarding in a positively reinforcing feedback loop. The shitlib leaves for a strange new locale, loses touch with everyone before her, and finds new friends at work, bar crawls, or expediently through shared housing.

Each move in the shitlib’s life brings more severing of social connections and greater stress finding and stringing together replacement social connections. (Family connections are surrendered for good.) There’s very little organic or authentic thread tying together the nomadic shitlib with her new sets of friends…no common upbringing, no schooling experiences, no history or unique local culture, and most importantly no shared memories which is the most powerful bonding agent.

Into this toxic atomization the one binding agent strong enough to overcome the disintegration of traditional social and family bonds is ideology. A fevered, frantic, hysterical attachment to ideology becomes the substitute for natural bonds, and the shitlib leans on ideological identification — in herself and in those who would be unwittingly auditioning for inclusion in her social circle — to screen for friends who will meet the lowest standard in friendship: someone who won’t irritate her with an opposing viewpoint.

This is why shitlib friendships (and similarly, romantic relationships) in the big blue cities are typically superficial, transient, and transactional: the only common ground is hatred of [X] and how one votes. When ideology is the foundation of friendship, those mystic unspoken bonds of reassuring familiarity get twisted into a grotesque facsimile of affinity, one based on an overweening insistence of ideological compatibility and purity. With nothing else to connect them to each other, the shitlib relies on ideology to shoulder the burden of standing in for the missing authenticity.

And ideology can work, for a while, as a values substitute and proxy for relationship complementarity, to create and maintain relationships (which is why city chicks will stress “shared values” and “Trump voters swipe left” when pole shopping), but woe to the friend who steps out of line one day and utters a deplorable bit of crimethink through the bottom of a cocktail glass. When ideology is the glue, a trivial difference of opinion on a point of order can feel like a gross betrayal.

The problem is a long-run one. Besides the lapses into crimethink, shitlib relationships dissolve easily and perfunctorily with work relocations and life stage changes that demand more social involvement and commitments than simply ideological conformism. The shitlib is bothered by these demands because they throw into stark relief the inauthentic nature of her friendships.

What is evident to the meanly keen observer is that shitlib friendships start to take on the veneer of artifice, fraying at the edges and duct-taped by snark and late nite talk show references. The very fact that shitlibs strive so hard for social authenticity prevents them from ever realizing their goal. They are their own worst frenemies. It’s a variation on the old “if you have try to be cool, you aren’t” aphorism.

De-urbanization and a revitalization of towns and smaller-sized cities geographically dispersed more equitably throughout the country will go a ways to helping shitlibs form real, lasting friendships that can survive the occasional disagreement with a Colbert monologue.

Related:

How it sounded inside a DNC committee meeting the moment Justice Kennedy’s retirement was announced pic.twitter.com/6S9uO2JGzQ

— David Siders (@davidsiders) June 27, 2018

Read Full Post »

Opening The Borders (To Shitlib Neighborhoods)

that one guy (the MPC-celeb?) emailed a NYBetaTimes article with a link to a study finding that….SHOCKER…White liberals aren’t so keen on open borders when the borders open directly into their wealthy homogeneous superzips.

SCIENCE: putting pseudo-“immigrants” into super white liberal communities makes the shitlibs favor immigration restrictions.

***

Ryan Enos, a political scientist at Harvard, published a book last year, “The Space Between Us,” suggesting that the ideological commitment of liberals in these and other similar communities may waver, or fail entirely, when their white homogeneity is threatened.

Not only is the upscale wing of the Democratic Party an unreliable ally of the left on economic issues — as I have noted in this column before and as Lily Geismer and Matthew D. Lassiter eloquently pointed out in The Times last week — but Enos demonstrates that the liberal resolve of affluent Democrats can disintegrate when racially or ethnically charged issues like neighborhood integration are at stake.

When the self-aggrandizement of the signal is challenged by the consequences of the virtue, the signal retreats.

Six years ago, Enos looked at nine townships southwest of Boston that were “overwhelmingly racially and politically liberal.” As such, these communities were a “test of the power of demographic change because these were people who, we might think, would be unlikely to change their attitudes in the face of immigration.”

There’s nothing more satisfying than getting a liberal to betray her own principles.

Enos and his colleagues conducted an experiment, which is described in detail in a 2014 paper, “Causal effect of intergroup contact on exclusionary attitudes,” published by the National Academy of Sciences. The results are thought provoking.

Testing the signal-to-lawnboys ratio.

Enos described the experiment as:

a randomized controlled trial testing the causal effects of repeated intergroup contact, in which Spanish-speaking confederates were randomly assigned to be inserted, for a period of days, into the daily routines of unknowing Anglo-whites living in homogeneous communities in the United States, thus simulating the conditions of demographic change.

Libs preen
Beans stream
Now not so keen
on a vibrant scene

To achieve this goal, during the summer of 2012, Enos dispatched “a small number of Spanish-speaking confederates to commuter train stations in homogeneously Anglo communities every day, at the same time, for two weeks.”

The stations were on two Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority commuter rail lines into Boston — one starting in Worcester, the other in Forge Park — at nine stations in upscale, mostly white towns.

Enos reported that the Anglo commuters he studied had an average income of $143,365, and 88 percent had college degrees, compared with 30.4 percent nationally that year. The median household income for the country at large was $51,371 in 2012, according to the census.

Shitlibs act, despite their professed ideals, as if credentials and money are the traits of the virtuous GoodWhite.

Subjects were exposed to the same Spanish-speaking persons in a location near their homes for an extended period, as would be the situation if immigrants had moved into their neighborhood and used the public transportation.

The Spanish-speaking confederates reported to Enos that:

persons noticed and displayed some unease with them: for example reporting that “Because we are chatting in Spanish, they look at us. I don’t think it is common to hear people speaking in Spanish on this route.” After the experiment, the confederates reported that other passengers were generally friendly to them but also reported that they felt people noticed them for “not being like them and being Latino.”

After the perfunctory nervous niceties that shitlibs excel at when their all-White dreamscape is suddenly rattled by invaders from their nightmares, we get to the juicy stuff leaking from the lib-id:

Members of the treatment groups and control groups were surveyed before and after the two weeklong experiments in an effort to identify the effect of exposure to Spanish-speaking people. In both surveys, respondents were asked three questions about immigration along with other more general questions […]

How did the respondents’ answers change?

Treated subjects [ed: subjects exposed to increased diversity on their daily commutes] were far more likely to advocate a reduction in immigration from Mexico and were far less likely to indicate that illegal immigrants should be allowed to remain in this country.

WOMP there it is.

[The experiment] demonstrated that exclusionary attitudes can be stimulated by even very minor, noninvasive demographic change: in this case, the introduction of only two persons. […]

The good liberal people catching trains in the Boston suburbs became exclusionary.

Exposure to two young Spanish speakers for just a few minutes, or less, for just three days had driven them toward anti-immigration policies associated with their political opponents.

LMAO. When shitlibs virtue signal, the signal is typically a few orders of magnitude more powerful than the claimed virtue.

Segregation and White voting behavior was examined:

A white voter in the least-segregated metropolitan area was 10 percentage points more likely to vote for Obama than a white voter in the most-segregated area.

These voting patterns, according to Enos, reflect what might be called a self-reinforcing cycle of prejudice.

In the mid-to-late twentieth century, Enos writes, “whites — spurred by forces including their own racism [ed: aka pattern recognition] — abandoned the inner cities.” But, he goes on, that “is not where the story ends. Attitudes do not remain static.” In practice, the very fact of being segregated creates an environment in which hostile views “become even more negative and their political consequences even more severe.”

That’s not it. What happens is that Whites who have found their all-White elysium will want to protect it from the very real negative social consequences of Diversity™.

Prejudice may have helped cause segregation, but then the segregation helped cause even more prejudice.

The segregation reminded Whites just how good life can be without Diversity™, so their attitudes toward racial overrun hardened. ftfy.

Liberal democracies endorse diversity, Enos writes,

indeed, it is often considered one of our strengths and liberal individuals usually favor diversity as a matter of ideology and public policy.

The Equalism Ideology is a religion of secular degeneration, and should therefore not be used as the premise of public policy.

We often support diversity out of a genuine ideological commitment and because we rightly perceive that diversity can improve the performance of many organizations, such as universities and businesses.

Rightly perceive? There’s Enos’s (and his liberal friends’) problem right there: they have constructed a worldview based on a false premise. Namely, the false premise that diversity of race and ethnicity “improves performance”. Every real world observation and replicable study has found otherwise.

But, he continues, “looking across the world and even across states and cities within the United States, most of us would rather not live with some of the social, economic, and political consequences of diversity.” This is what Enos calls “the liberal dilemma.”

Or what I call “the liberal delusion”.

Not all of Enos’s findings are bleak. Group hostility, he writes, grows as the size of the immigrant population grows until it reaches a certain point and then begins to recede:

The relationship between the proportion of an out-group in an area and group-based bias is curvilinear: it becomes greater as the out-group proportion increases until reaching a tipping point and then starting to decrease. This means that when a group makes up a large portion of a place — for concreteness, say 40 percent — each additional person above 40 percent actually decreases group-based bias.

LOL is this guy pulling our legs? No shit intergroup hostility decreases when the outgroup becomes a majority; the beset-upon ingroup must trade in their hostility for appeasement when their numbers are insufficient to protect the homogeneity of their turf.

Ryan [Enos]’s book is brilliant and his findings dovetail with my belief that we’re in for a tough road ahead as the country diversifies, at least in the short term.

Liberals are very sanguine about the eventually of a happy, functional diversitopia. It’s always a “short term” tough road until we reach nirvana. 400 years of black dysfunction and inability to assimilate to White norms and values belies the shitlib hope of a “short term” bump in the road. Now of course, the smarter shitlibs know there will be no short term tough road, that instead it will take tens if not hundreds of generations of racial mixing to bring about their vision of a White-Asian elite ruling over a muddy peasantry of braindead consumerists. This is why the elites have begun pushing miscegenation so hard in entertainment, media, and advertising. They are acclimating Whites to accept their racial dissolution.

The Trumpening angle:

“But the polarizing rhetoric of politicians ‘politicizes’ the places where Americans live,” Sides, Tesler and Vavreck observe,

and people who live in places with a recent influx of immigrants then become more concerned about immigration. This unfolded in 2016: white Democrats voted for Trump in the highest numbers where the Latino population had grown the most.

Diversity + Proximity = War (by political means and then, later, by violent means if the political solution has failed).

Read Full Post »