Realignment Elections

Realignment election years, like the Trumpening we are all currently experiencing, are usually accompanied by upheaval and uncertainty during the primaries, as multiple candidates jockey for small but persistently attainable slices of the delegate pie in a roiled and tumultuous electorate going through growing pains.

The most significant 20th Century realignment election was in 1932, when FDR ran against Herbert Hoover. Speaker of the House John Garner and former NY Governor Al Smith vied for the Democrat nomination along with Roosevelt. FDR never managed to get a 2/3rds majority in delegates (the rules were different then), so Smith and Garner stayed in the race for a long while, fueled by a hopeful expectation of later in the primary season pulling in enough votes to win.

To wrap up the nomination, FDR had to offer Garner the VP slot. The gambit worked.

The parallels to the Trump-Cruz-Rubio battle are striking. Consider Super Trumpday. Rubio wins one state (Swedeland, home of the goatse coat of arms) and that is just enough to keep him sticking around as the de facto GOPe foamboy. Cruz takes two states, but one is big and the other is a surprise win. Trump sweeps the rest of the states.

Although Trump leads the delegate count, he can’t yet win it all without concessions to drop out from the other candidates. The thin oxygen of hope that Cruz and Fruitio breathe inflates their egos, and hatreds are running so hot, and donor money flowing so freely to stump the Trump, that they won’t want to drop out until it’s truly, mathematically, over.

Trump could consider offering one of these two freak shows a plum spot in his administration in exchange for giving up their nomination run, but I don’t see that happening. It got personal between the three of them real fast; Cruz is still blatantly lying about Trump and Lubio’s been making very un-presidential jokes about Trump’s penis. All at the behest of the GOPe.

My prediction: This nomination battle is going all the way to the convention, and cucks will push for a brokered (broken) disenfranchisement of the voters they supposedly represent. At that point, all bets are off, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see blood, actual blood, spilled on the floor in Cleveland.

If it comes to that, my money is on the burly Trump shitlords to wipe the cuck off the faces of the effete GOPe manginas. And, oh yeah, Trump should run as a 3rd party candidate and kill off the “Do you disavow your Whiteness?!” Republicuck Party for good.

IQology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mainline Lutherans are 43% GOP, 47% Democrat.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Not Now, Babe, War’s Startin'”

A 1949 Instructional Film For American Adolescents

This video is great. At 9:02, get ready to 😂.

Realtalk America –> Poopytalk America, in sixty years. Astounding. It’s time for the pretty lie-ugly truth pendulum to swing back towards sanity.

The Age Of Treason And Open Borders Genocide

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Article III, Section 3, Clause 1
U.S. Constitution

Recently, the news reports that Tony Blair, the former UK Prime Minister who with George Bush and his neocon masters lied us into the Iraq War, had conspired with government officials to open Britain’s borders to mass immigration and keep it hidden from the public.

Tony Blair is accused of ‘presiding over a silent conspiracy’ that allowed two million migrants to enter Britain during his decade in power.

This is genocide by population displacement and dispossession. It’s a clear betrayal of duty to one’s nation and its people.

A new biography of the former prime minister by the celebrated investigative journalist Tom Bower claims Mr Blair ordered his Labour government not to publicly discuss the issue.

The book Broken Vows: Tony Blair – the Tragedy of Power alleges that the minister in charge of border control ruled against deporting failed asylum seekers because it would be too “emotional” to do so.

The feminizing of the West is its great undoing.

Mr Bower interviewed more than 200 senior civil servants, ex-ministers and insiders and claims Mr Blair told officials and ministers: “Don’t mention the advantages of immigration in public because they won’t even want that.”

The book claims that Mr Blair and his Government ‘cynically repackaged’ asylum seekers as economic migrants to the benefit of 350,000 asylum seekers.

It alleges that Barbara Roche, the immigration minister between 1999 and 2001, told a senior immigration official: “Asylum seekers should be allowed to stay in Britain. Removal takes too long and it’s emotional.”

Faces of evil:

The UN Convention on the Crime of Genocide lists under Article II the acts that would qualify as genocide.

Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

A conspiracy by Western governments and their leaders to silently and extra-judicially permit the migration of millions of foreigners into their nations is an act of genocide as described in UN Article II, subcategories (b), (c) and possibly (a) and (d) as well.

Certainly, millions of migrants bring cultural, if not physical, destruction of the host nation. Mass invasion causes mental harm and societal fracturing. It can also be argued that mass invasion depresses the birth rate of natives, through economic hardship and demographic churn.

Even (a) is a legitimate allegation against the anti-White oligarchs and globalists. Muslims commit terrorist atrocities at a rate 4,000% higher than their total population ratio. Importing more of them increases the risk of killings perpetrated against members of the native people.

The Chateau proprietors assert in these esteemed pages that Tony Blair, Barbara Roche, Nicolas Sarkozy, George W Bush, Angela Merkel, Marco Rubio, and Downlow Soetoro have committed, and presently commit, acts of genocide against the native White people of the United States, France, Germany, and United Kingdom, and are condemned for their treason against their countries.

One Glaring Difference Between Alpha Males And Beta Males

Alpha males are DEMANDING of their women.

They bark orders, issue commands, set expectations, and aren’t afraid to show disappointment if their expectations aren’t met. They will correct their women’s mistakes and rebuke errors of judgment firmly, sometimes fiercely, and without hesitation.

I was reminded of this everlasting reality of sexual market male hierarchy while overhearing a shitlord-esque man instruct his pretty girlfriend in proper dog-training technique. The two of them were at a park, working with their rambunctious mutt. It was her turn to extract obedience from the dog, and it wasn’t going well. At every misstep, her boyfriend would quickly intervene to tell her what she was doing wrong, and how she should do it right.

He wasn’t shy about chastising and correcting her, either. He came off like a drill sergeant, and an impatient know-it-all. I would say his demeanor was borderline asshole. Which means that she adored him. When they left, she playfully slapped his backside and giggled, presumably in anticipation of a later retribution.

Women WANT to work for a man’s interest. A man’s respect. A man’s LOVE. A man who challenges women is a man who is rewarded with women’s zeal to please. This is the nature of women.

And it is the nature of beta males to misunderstand the nature of women. Or, when they do understand it, to fear it and therefore fail to tame it. You will never see a beta male confidently, even impudently, demand anything — a norm of behavior, preferred treatment, effort towards a task — from a woman he is dating. He will never LEAD a woman. He will typically appease, and only make passive-aggressive demands of a woman when his fuse is short and his (self-)anger bubbling over.

Beta males don’t like to demand anything of anyone, but especially not of women. Strangers, acquaintances, girlfriends, wives; none will ever experience the distinctly female pleasure of deferring and submitting to a man if that man is a fearful, non-confrontational beta male. And over time resentment and contempt will find a home in these women, and their sexual desire will find a home elsewhere.

I hope that a beta male reading these words is saved today.

PA’s Elegantly Concise Racial Classification System

Sometimes when a pro-miscegenation commenter/troll shows up to praise the transcendental experience of interracial screwing, regular reader PA leaves a signature reply that always wrests a chuckle from me.

High IQ, High T (Europeans)
– Men: die Herrenvolk
– Women: virtuous, inspiring

High IQ, Low T (East Asians)
– Men: diligent, passive
– Women: cash register for soul

Low IQ, High T (Africans)
– Men: virile, destructive
– Women: “de mule of de world” [Z.N. Hurston]

Low IQ, Low T (Southeast Asians)
– Men: amiable layabouts
– Women: airhead sexpots

Sure, it’s a sweeping generalization, but who can deny the essential truth of it? Zoom out and imagine you are an alien god looking at the earthly continental races from above, watching their every move, their lives and their loves, the syncopation of their civilizations, and you had to put your thoughts to paper in fifty words or less. This list would do. (And of course in the margins you would jot “give or take exceptions to the rule”.)