Appeasement Is No Way To Win Wars Or Women

Maxim #54: A woman’s happiness is inversely proportional to efforts to accommodate her demands.

Corollary to Maxim #54: The more a woman’s demands are catered, the more irrational will her future demands become.

Appeasement is relationship death. Appeasement is the damping oscillation that brings a woman’s tingle to rest. There is hardly a self-defeating behavior a man can exhibit more hazardous to his love life than appeasement of his woman’s fickle and endlessly reconsidered stipulations. Once you go down the road of appeasement, the cliff side is an inevitability.

Given this reality of female nature, the riddle is why so many men resort to appeasement when the heat is on?

Part of the reason for the reflexive beta male embrace of the appeasement strategy is that it does work… occasionally, and only temporarily. Betas are so scared — picture a shivering, frightened little bunny as symbol of their state of minds — to provoke their women’s ire that appeasement becomes not only the emotionally satisfying recourse, but also the logically rationalized one based on retrieved pleasant memories of those few times it worked when nothing else works for them.

Barring competing effective strategies to pacify a pissy wife or girlfriend, an appeasement gambit only has to “work”, say, one out of ten times for it to become the go-to prostration for befuddled beta males. And remember that in the beta male’s worldview, a working romantic strategy is one that doesn’t end with his lover leaving him. The bar for healthy LTR management is set very low in the beta universe.

(For comparison, the typical alpha male standard of satisfying relationship health is the continuance of morning surprise hummers.)

A beta husband may be able to briefly calm his wife down by appeasing her, but the escape he narrowly engineers is just a trap door to a pit of lifelong termagant torment. That’s the poison appeasement pill he swallows: Quick relief, followed by progressive system failure. Tragically (and comically), he knows no other way.

Commenter ‘having a bad day’ serves up his own hard lesson in the futility of appeasing women:

my wife was like that too. pick a fight for no reason, not getting enough attention, blah blah blah…it almost ruined me and my ‘happy home.’

but wife’s behavior was based on the ‘best friend’ model of marriage that was indoctrinated into my impressionable young mind throughout my life…

who knew that women didn’t really know what they really want…? (that’s the real ‘crazy’…)

i had bought into the feminine imperative and was trying to ‘have it all’…best friend, lover, confidant, etc…and she hated it!

she was a follower, because all women are followers if they are happy. (just like the ‘teachings’ around here state.) it really is true…if they are happy, they are following someone they can look up to, admire, respect, feel safe and protected by, blah blah blah…if not, not happy…

the ‘crazy’ comes out when she doesn’t have that in a way that is unmistakable. she’ll put pressure on the relationship (shit test) to check for leaks…no leaks = anything you want…with a big shit eating grin at being able to please her ‘leader’

the ‘big crazy’ comes out the same way you train a guard dog…you push it a little, it ‘fights’, you let it ‘win’…you push a little harder, it reacts, you let it win…soon enough you can break a baseball bat over its head and it’ll still rip your arm off…same with women…and the younger, more fertile (hotter) the woman, the faster the escalation goes…so she can ‘win’ at uncovering the ‘beta’ (so no sex) or ‘alpha’ (so anything you want, just use me and not that other chick over there…)…because her body knows that her time is short, and it wants those better genes…

my marriage was shot because of the ‘friendship model’, but i got some game and turned it around, thanks to this place and the related ‘outposts’ and for that i am truly thankful…

my wife is ecstatically happy, deferent, doesn’t pick fights, apologizes for being crabby or in a bad mood, goes out of her way to offer support, etc. in other words, she has become much more feminine…

she does NOT want to go back to the ‘best friends’ model of marriage. Just today, i was doing something and happened to slip back into a beta response to something, and she got kind of panicky, and told me ‘you know, i don’t want you to beat me, but you need to sack up, and make a decision.’ (direct quote…) she did not want me to be her ‘oh, i don’t know, what do you think?…’ ‘best friend’…and yes, there was a little bit of panic in her eyes…but only a little, and then it went away when i told her what i wanted…so she could work on being a good follower…

better follower = happier woman…

Why do women come to resent their appeasement in time? The male mind formulates, “She’s getting what she wants, why isn’t she happy?” The problem is projection: The male mind draws a direct connection between wants and demands. Accounting for a few Machiavellian exceptions, when a man makes a (rare) relationship demand, you know that’s what he wants. And so men project their mental experience onto women. But what most men (and most men are betas by definition who lack a sufficient learning curve in the hearts and beds of women) don’t comprehend is that women have a disconnect between their demands and their wants. When a woman makes a demand within the context of a relationship, it’s a reflection of her want, not the want itself. Her demands are better understood as either child-like gropings toward self-expression of confusing and troubling emotions, or subconscious gom jabbars (tests of mind) that aid her in her hypergamous (yes) quest to obtain the best man her looks and femininity can afford her.

Seen in this way, appeasement is a strategy that misses the mark entirely or, worse, fuels resentment because it is evidence of failure to live up to a woman’s ideal lover and protector. And it makes sense if you put yourself in women’s stilettos; appeasement is the biopolitical strategy of the weak, and what woman wants to be with a weak man? Weak men are inherently untrustworthy. You can’t know with the requisite certainty that a weak man will have your back when threats emerge. Grrlpower glorification notwithstanding to the contrary, women are slaves to their hatred for weak men, and a manjaw or six figure salary won’t change that innate female revulsion for pliant men. This visceral revulsion is so strong that even the obvious benefits of a reliable and generous provider can’t fully extinguish a woman’s bodily disgust at the thought of receiving his seed.

“Women with the really good, stable guy felt more distant at high-fertility periods than low-fertility periods,” Haselton said. “That isn’t the case with women who were mated to particularly sexually attractive men. The closeness of their relationships got a boost just prior to ovulation.”

To ensure that the findings were not an anomaly, Haselton and Larson repeated the experiment with 67 other co-eds in long-term relationships. This time, however, the researchers administered a better-recognized measure for relationship satisfaction than the one they originally used. They also administered a questionnaire aimed at illuminating a dimension not studied in the first round: pickiness. The questionnaire asked the women to rate how characteristic such faults as being moody, childish, emotional, thoughtless and critical were of their mate.

The researchers found that women mated to the less sexually attractive men were significantly more likely to find fault with their partners and, again, feel less close to their partners during the high-fertility period than the low-fertility period. Women who rated their mates as more sexually attractive, meanwhile, did not exhibit these changes and instead reported being more satisfied with their relationship at high fertility than at low fertility.

The researchers believe the findings shed light on a suite of conflicting behaviors that stem from mating strategies that might have provided an evolutionary benefit to women’s female ancestors of long ago but today probably serve no other purpose than to stir the domestic pot.

“Since our female ancestors couldn’t directly examine a potential partner’s genetic makeup, they had to base their decisions on physical manifestations of the presence of good genes and the absence of genetic mutations, which might include masculine features such as a deep voice, masculine face, dominant behavior and sexy looks,” said Haselton, who is affiliated with UCLA’s Center for Behavior, Evolution, and Culture.

Men can’t (pragmatically) change their Hollywood looks, but they can change their behavior to conform more with dominant behavior that is typically associated with irresistible alpha males. A big first step that doesn’t require huge amounts of willpower is simply avoiding the temptation to appease women.

They also plan to look into how, if at all, the [aggrieved female] behavior is perceived by the male partners of these women.

“We don’t know if men are picking up on this behavior, but if they are, it must be confusing for them,” Larson said.

You bet it’s confusing for them, if by “them” you mean beta and omega males with limited experience navigating the shoals of women’s ids. Men who have bedded more than two or three women know the score, and the female behavior that’s confusing for most is for them an opportunity to play and enlarge the scope of their authority. The plain fact of this highlights the trade-off inherent in the womanizing lifestyle: The sexual experience that permits exploitation of women’s mate choice ploys to one’s personal benefit will also degrade a man’s ability to feel transcendent emotional attachment. Knowledge inevitably leads to cynicism, which is corrosive to romanticism and relationship stability unless one has the unearthly capacity to resolve the tension between self-interest and self-transcendence.

Relationship appeasement, then, is a Pyrrhic victory, buying time at best. When you stand accused by your woman, don’t act like a guilty party. Instead, act like a powerful authority figure suffering a self-incriminating tantrum from one of his acolytes, no matter who is technically at fault. I’ll give you an example from CH’s own repository of rendezvous.

GIRL: You’re really being an asshole. Why am I with you?
HADES’ GARDEN HOSE: Sorry. I’ll stop.

hahaahha. Bizarro world CH. No, that’s not how it went.

GIRL: You’re really being an asshole. Why am I with you?
HADES’ HOWITZER: [silently waits a beat, then stealthily moves in to perform the same asshole move at half intensity and half speed.]
GIRL: Cut it out! What’s the matter with you?
HADES’ HOWITZER: Would you say I’m being the biggest asshole you’ve ever known, or just a run of the mill asshole?
GIRL: Enough of an asshole.
HADES’ HOWITZER: Cause you know, I can turn it up so I’m number one asshole in your heart again.
GIRL: [starts to smile] Seriously, you have problems. No don’t turn it up.
HADES’ HOWITZER: [pulls same asshole move]
GIRL: Fuck!
HADES’ HOWITZER: Oh yeah, that hit the sweet spot.
GIRL: Grow up.
HADES’ HOWITZER: You know what I’m hearing? “Please pee on me in the shower tomorrow morning.”

To all the beta male readers: Next time you feel the need to appease, stop, and do the opposite. Pacification is the province of pussboys. You will take the road less traveled. The road to goad. Expect push-back. That’s a good thing. If you can stand strong against the immediate headwinds, you’ll find a tranquil, and deliriously scenic, vista open before your eyes.

Read Full Post »

It’s Lonely Out In Space

If your girlfriend tells you she needs “space”, your relationship was over months earlier. You just got the memo late. “Space” is girlcode for “making space in my vagina for other cockas”. If you hear those words, leave, and don’t bother her for clarification. The only dignity you’ll have left to spare is what you don’t give away trying to salvage a stone dead relationship. If you want to exit stage right with Heartistian flair, you can relievedly exclaim with acting class sincerity, “Phew! I’m glad you brought this up. You were reading my mind. Really takes the pressure off”, or maybe even a simple “Yeah, I hear ya”.

Maxim #44: There is a three month lag time between a woman’s vaginal prerogative and her words. Her heart gets the message long before you do.

This womanly lag time between her true feelings for you and her verbal confirmation is the reason why you have to learn to rapidly identify the subtle signs of a woman’s emotional detachment, and make a course correction before her vagina has petrified to an impenetrable thicket at the thought of your approaching dick.

A perfect example of this comes from that reject repository, Reddit:

My girlfriend of 11 years broke up with me saying “She just needs some space now, and we may get back together.” I am wondering what the chances are that she actually intends on giving a relationship another shot, or if it was just said to get me to easily sign over the house and let her keep everything.

About four weeks ago she dropped this on me. As far as I knew everything was going great – we had just gone on a nice vacation together, night before had a bunch of friends over for a little get together, and were planning out future together. She said it was because we fight all the time, we honestly haven’t had a single fight in 2+ years.

That’s not a positive development. A chronically peaceable woman is a romantically withdrawn woman.

We owned a house together. We bought it about seven years ago, renovated it all, and made it into something we both liked. Wasn’t a particularly fancy house, but it was our house. We also had two dogs we got shortly after moving into the house. She now has the house and everything that was in it, I didn’t put up a fight for any of it.

Hope is often a prerequisite to failure.

She kept saying things like “I’d like to try a relationship again, but I know if you piss me off I’ll probably never even talk to you again.” Me being the broken hearted sap I was tried my damnedest to not upset her.

Classic niceguy mistake. Your appeasement made things worse. When a woman threatens to leave if you piss her off, what she’s really saying is that she’s pissed off with herself for her incapacity to tolerate your predictable amiability.

Signed the house over to her (her mother paid off the mortgage for her, I got nothing) and let her keep the dogs and everything we had gotten over the past 11 years.

except imagine the matador walked backward onto the horn.

I packed up my clothes, and found an apartment to move into.

So I officially moved out over the weekend, and sitting in my shitty little apartment my mind can’t help but keep racing to the idea that I just got manipulated out of everything I had. It just seems that if she really had any intentions on ever making things work there would have been much better options than this.

tl;dr: GF wanted a break, I gave her everything on the chance of another shot. Did I just get swindled?

A man can’t get swindled unless he swindles himself first, and the one thing idealistic beta males excel at is swindling themselves about the nature of women and the vagaries of love.

But there is a solution. You can read Chateau Heartiste and learn the ways of the ruthless sex, or you can continue to self-immolate in a one-window masturbatorium while your ex straddles a new man to orgasmic escape velocity on the bed you paid for and from where you cooed eleven years of your devotion into her pillow-framed ear.

Read Full Post »

The Hivemind Fractures

Some call it the Cathedral. Others, the Blue Pill. Here at CH, it’s called the Hivemind, and it’s starting to show fissures in its cortical borg facade. Case study:

Why Girls Never Want Nice Guys — And Why It’s Too Late When They Do

I used to be a nice guy – way back when. Like most men, I learned rather quickly that being that nice guy wasn’t the best of decisions.

You see, I never saw being nice as a decision that needed to be made – I understood it as a state that naturally existed. I didn’t feel that I should go out of my way to be nice because I liked being nice.

More than that, I thought that’s what women wanted: men who were nice. Boy oh boy was I wrong. Sort of, anyway.

There are some women who want the nice guy because they understand that nice means good and not nice means bad. However, most women seem to have the concepts confused.

He goes on like this lamenting his discovery of the true state of female sexual nature. Bitter tears of cynicism streak the pedestal he used to polish to a shine.

But, like most embedded nodes in the Hivemind questioning their utility, his journey to the crimson side is not without setbacks.

She may believe she wants a nice guy, but in reality, she doesn’t want a nice guy. In her eyes, nice is weak – it’s boring. She wants excitement. She wants mystery, surprise, drama. She wants a bad boy.

Until she gets stuck with one, of course. Then all of a sudden logic swarms back into reality and bad, once again, means bad.

As any not-nice man with romantic experience will tell you, women don’t want to ditch the badboys they “get stuck with”. Women want those badboys to stick around, and they perform extraordinary psychological feats of manipulation and rationalization to convince those badboys, and themselves, to choo-choo-choose them for the long haul. Even 💋SCIENCE💋 has shown this to be true.

The Hivemind fractures don’t stop there. The Rude Word of CH is tunneling into the ids of MSM women who can’t help but squint at the glint of the slicing CH Shiv.

Are female breadwinners a recipe for disaster? […]

She’s always been ambitious and career-minded, so Stella’s not surprised that she’s earning big bucks — but, she admits (under guise of anonymity), this wasn’t the way she imagined her relationship dynamic would play out. “I had always known that I wanted to make money and be successful,” she says. “But it was still ingrained in me that the man makes more.” […]

Like any major cultural change, this one comes with growing pains: Sorting out new gender roles can be tough on both partners in a household where she’s the one who brings home the bacon, no matter how progressive both parties might think they are.

“Ingrained in me” = “My vagina doesn’t tingle when we swap traditional sex roles”.

Female breadwinners are tough on relationships and marriages because women *instinctively* want to admire a man and look up to him, while men *instinctively* want to provide for and protect a lower status, more vulnerable woman. This is a timeless fact of human sexual nature that will not be denied, no matter how many hamsters spin or reeducation camps are opened for business.

“My husband and I talk very candidly about the disparity,” says Torabi, who is pregnant with their first child. “He knows he may never make as much as [I do], but he is interested in pursuing a career with more income potential, if for no other reason than to get me to be less stressed [ed: “less frigid”]. I would love for him to be the breadwinner one day. It’s a really awesome position to be in!”

Behold the passionless marriage. Their numbers swell.

CH was on top of these cultural schisms before they were a tentative tremble in the Hivemind’s collective keyboard fingers. Good to see the ugly truths are beating back the black tentacle goo of the equalist lies. Let’s hope it’s not too late.

Read Full Post »

The Extinction Of Female Lawyers

A cat cafe opened in New York to great fanfare, and female lawyers (genus: lawyercunt) may be on the way out as a member of the human species.

The latter assertion gets a boost from ❤️science❤️ recently with a new study which found that stressed out women have a harder time getting pregnant.

Stressed out women have more difficulty getting pregnant than women with less stress, according to a new study this week in the journal Human Reproduction.

Although the relationship between stress and trouble getting pregnant has been hinted at before, it had never been scientifically proven before now. This new research marks the first time that scientists have found a direct link between stress and infertility. […]

In a study that followed more than 400 women just as they were starting to try to get pregnant, the researchers found that women with the highest levels of the stress indicator alpha-amylase in their saliva were 29% less likely to get pregnant than women with the lowest levels.

They also found that women with the highest levels of alpha-amylase were more than twice as likely to meet the clinical definition of infertility–meaning they did not get pregnant even after a full year of trying.

Law is a stressful field. Hopefully the hordes of unfeminine, ballcutting manjaws who streamed into law schools the past thirty years will see their genetic lineages go the way of the dinosaurs.

Thankfully, a barren womb isn’t necessarily an inactive womb! Lawyer chicks can still serve as great pump and dump adventures.

The researchers still do not understand exactly why stress affects a woman’s ability to become pregnant, but this study did rule out some possibilities. For example, they found women with high levels of alpha-amylase had the same amount of sex as some of their less-stressed counterparts. “It’s not that stressed out women have less intercourse,” she said.

They also found no correlation between high levels of alpha-amylase and ovulation problems.

One theory the researchers plan to explore in future studies is whether stress changes what Lynch called “the hormonal milieu” of the uterus in such a way that it becomes inhospitable to implantation.

The god of biomechanics doesn’t care how many degrees you have or which firm’s dick you suck if you haven’t fulfilled your prime directive as a woman.

Read Full Post »

Which Sex Is More Responsible For Divorce?

Over in the comments section of a Mangan post about the possible direct health and happiness benefits of marriage, The Anti-Gnostic writes (replying to another commenter),

The biggest upside for men of marriage over cohabitation is that breaking up is harder in a legally recognized union. Since most breakups/divorces are initiated by women, making it harder to separate benefits men more than women.

I’m going to venture a hypothesis that most break-ups of cohabitation arrangements are initiated by men, and most marriage break-ups are initiated by women.

Divorce itself is not hard. You file a paper that says the marriage is over. Women will get the children, because the man will have a harder job with longer hours, and most households don’t have enough net worth to fight over.

I’m not sure how you came to your conclusion.

CH is on record stating that the incentive structure of marriage has changed to favor women’s discretion. That is, wives are now incentivized to divorce by the alimony retirement plan racket, the anti-male divorce industrial complex, and the practical guarantee of child custody. The data — especially the “wives initiate 70% of divorces” figure — strongly suggest that the CH view is the correct one.

But constitutional white knights — you know who you are — claim that figure could just as easily mean that 70% of husbands are shitty spouses. Well, maybe. But that interpretation is no less speculative than the opposite, and in fact is less sustainable under scrutiny, because the simpler explanation for the 70% female divorce-initiation figure is that men and women are about equally represented among the crappy spouse demographic, but women initiate more divorces because they perceive that a host of benefits will accrue to them from severing their marriages. Husbands, in contrast, perceive no such benefits, and are thus more loathe to divorce even when their wives are insufferable.

One way to test this hypothesis, as The Anti-Gnostic implied above, is to look at which sex initiates more non-marital break-ups. If men really are crappier partners than women, then the break-up initiation rate will be roughly the same inside and outside of marriage. The break-up initiation rate should skew approximately 70% in favor of women in whatever form of relationship they’re in. The premise behind this assumption is that a person’s romantic character or “livability” traits are fairly constant throughout life.

Using the variable FAMPER3 (“During the last year, did you… 3. Break up with a steady boyfriend/girlfriend or fiance?”) from the General Social Survey (GSS) dataset, we find that men broke up their non-marital relationships almost twice as often as did women.

Surveys about people’s sex lives are distinctly untrustworthy, but the GSS does give us a peak behind the curtain at trends in relationship dynamics. As claimed here at the venerable Chateau, it would appear that women have more to lose from breaking up non-marital long-term relationships and more to gain from breaking up their marriages, (and vice versa for men.) This makes sense to any astute observers of the sexual and marital markets; women are on their best behavior prior to marriage, before they’ve gotten a boyfriend or fiancé to sign on the dotted line and tacitly forfeit HALF. A woman’s peak attractiveness window is much shorter relative to a man’s attractiveness window, and this incentivizes women to make nonmarital relationships work until such time that money has changed hands and kids have popped out.

Men, on the other hand, have a lot more to lose in divorce, and a lot less to lose in nonmarital breakups, and this male-peculiar incentive structure is seen in the differing rates of breakup initiations by sex in and out of marriage.

To put it in Heartistian terms…

Maxim #30: Men can leverage their commitment far longer than women can leverage their sex.

Skeptics may note that the GSS question as posed doesn’t specifically ask who initiated the breakup, but the wording strongly implies it. (Perhaps a Master GaSSer could fine tune the data at his pleasure?) But the very fact that there is a sex difference in breakup rates between nonmarital relationships and marriages is ample evidence that social and legal incentives can influence the motivations of men and women.

The substantiating evidence so far, in surveys and in the field, is that women are more responsible for the rise in divorce, and that their self-justification for divorce has gotten more fickle and more self-aggrandizing rather than less.

A final note: If you look closely, you’ll see emanations and penumbras of female hypergamy in the GSS results above.

Read Full Post »

Cuck Up

Cuck up, idiom, slang, origin: Chateau Heartiste.
1. Variation on the “man up” theme; to demand of a cuckolded man that he support the bastard child of his cheating wife or girlfriend.
2. A taunt directed at a beta male to ostensibly shame him to provide for the child of another man’s seed, often delivered by ugly feminists and low SMV white knights who are projecting their fear of mass beta male abandonment of a sexual market skewed by law and custom to satisfy the preferences of women and women alone.

Courtesy of reader Waffles, a (probably fake but still illuminating) story on Reddit that serves as a wonderful microcosm of the murky churn at the bottom of the sexual market, where fat sluts dupe manboobed omegas into race cuckoldry.

Off topic but will be appreciated by the CH crowd. Over on Reddit a debate was going on after some guy posted this. His kid came out black. There apparently were actually people telling him that he should “man up” and take care of the kid as his own! Delusional.

The OP:

I did not walk out on anything. It is not my responsibility to raise a kid that did not come from me. I may sound like an ass, but I can’t believe the people who said to raise it as mine. Imagine your wife finally getting pregnant, only to see a different race pop out, and you realize it’s not yours. I am not raising that kid, however enjoy your free karma.

definitely not master of her domain

Some choice replies:

Some white babies do come out looking black though, sometimes you gotta let it air out for a little bit for the complexion to even up.

😆

At least your wife had the decency to fuck a black man, so you could tell she cheated on you. So you’ve got that going for you, which is nice.

Womb half-full.

Did you drink grape soda the day before?

Science!

Before you lawyer up and sue for divorce, I would ask you to take a step back and a deep breath. Try to remember that it isn’t the little guy’s fault.

Cuck up… “for the children”.

I must ask, are you mad that the child is not yours; Or is it because the child is Black?

Because racism is the true moral outrage here.

He has your palms.

at least he has a chance to get laid before he turns 30

You laugh, but every other relationship depicted on televagina these days is essentially a warmly accommodated race cuckold fantasy. Sorry White knighters… white women eat that shit up.

Read Full Post »

Freelance Comment Of The Week: Diversity + Proximity = Poopytalk

cold russian on the restrictions diversity organically imposes on discourse,

Dialogue is naturally limited under the condition of diversity. Atomize any further and it gets down to kindergarten level, pretty much “Don’t say that bad word!” dictated in baby talk. All of this for the upkeep of a lonely society where you say “Have a nice day” to the black receptionist at the dentist’s office or where the Asian at the sushi place puts on a cheery voice to greet you. Anybody who wants to make a living out of writing has to tip-toe around this issue, or else face the anger of a bunch of blacks who feel disrespected, and signaling whites who nail you for the highest kind of evil possible in their perpetually abstracting minds.

There are actually two negative forces at work on Western social cohesion and comity: Diversity and diversity elevation. The first, the actual ratios of different people within a single geopolitical and cultural space, reduces trust and bonhomie by the action of observable behavioral and temperamental differences, particularly if those group differences are unequally suited to thrive in a complex modern society. The second, the glorification of diversity by status whoring whites and their non-white pawns, infects otherwise normal daily politeness between different peoples with a patina of coercion and resentment.

In an ethnically and racially diverse society the natural fissures created by the compressed diversity are exacerbated by secular-religious belief in the unassailable value of diversity and by proselytizing of diversity as an unmitigated good exempt from criticism. Organic diversity strains social connectedness, but diversity elevation draws a spotlight to that strain through the inhuman demands it makes of people to dumb down their dialogue and ignore what their lying eyes tell them.

So, for instance, the necessary upkeep of saying “Have a nice day” to a black receptionist in a diverse but psychologically healthy society is easy politeness no normal person finds objectionable that gets twisted into something darker and more resentful — like a false confession under duress — in a psychologically damaged society that denies one race their identity while exalting the identities, real or fantastical, of every other race. The most delicious irony of the diversity inquisitors is that their very fervor to stamp out heretical thought is driving the natural wedges of diversity deeper into the body politic.

Read Full Post »