U.S. agencies still collect crime data by race. That will end soon, because the data is unfriendly to the Equalist Narrative and is falling into the hands of the Rebel Alliance. For now, a rich trove of anti-antiracism Realtalk is yours for the hatebrowsing at various government websites.

From the 2013 FBI Crime Report:

Although blacks only constitute 12% of the total US population, they murder nearly as many whites as the number of whites murdered by other whites, who are 64% of the total US population.

This website is running a tally of black-on-white and white-on-black murders in the year 2014. The numbers currently stand at 348 BoW murders to 4 WoB murders.

What about all categories of violent interracial crime?

But in fact, white-on-black crime is a statistical rarity. According to data from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), an estimated 320,082 whites were victims of black violence in 2010, while 62,593 blacks were victims of white violence. That same year, according to the Census Bureau, the white and black populations in the U.S. were 196,817,552 and 37,685,848, respectively. Whites therefore committed acts of interracial violence at a rate of 32 per 100,000, while the black rate was 849 per 100,000. In other words, the “average” black was statistically 26.5 times more likely to commit criminal violence against a white, than vice versa. Moreover, blacks who committed violent crimes chose white victims 47.7% of the time, whereas whites who committed violent crimes targeted black victims only 3.9% of the time.

FBI stats show that blacks are 50 times more likely to commit a violent crime against whites than vice versa.

John Derbyshire combs National Crime Victimization Survey data and does the math, finding that any given black was almost fifteen times more likely to have killed a white in 2013 than any given white was to have killed a black.

Derbyshire also responds to slithery reptilian leftoid critics who claim that the disproportionate black-on-white crime rates are simply a consequence of population ratios and nothing else.

The argument here is that blacks move among whites much more than whites move among blacks. We encounter blacks much less frequently than they encounter us, so of course we commit fewer crimes against them! If we moved among blacks more, we’d commit more crimes against them!

Er, possibly: but wouldn’t they also commit more crimes against us? And are we sure that the whites who avoid moving among blacks (why?) are just as criminally inclined as those who mingle?

Derb goes on to explain the math underlying the disparate black-on-white crime stats. Short story: Tim Wise can’t do math. But he sure can do sophistry, that rascally bloodsucker!

The arid “population ratio” argument against the idea of blacks deliberately targeting whites in racial antagonism crimes strikes me as specious for another reason. How often do upstanding members of the criminal class of blacks encounter whites in real life? Blacks are fairly concentrated in their rural and urban enclaves. (Even middle class suburban blacks tend to live in majority black neighborhoods.) For a benign “population ratio” argument to have any merit, you’d need to have conditions on the ground that greatly increased the actual encounter rate between blacks and whites. The crude population ratio number doesn’t accurately reflect the real world daily encounter rate between the races.

This is damning, because if the black-white encounter rate based on nothing but raw population ratio is much lower in actuality, it means the higher rate of black-on-white violence is even more shockingly disproportionate. It means black criminals are sometimes going out of their way to hunt for white prey, away from their monoracial districts.

Pussy cuckservatives often crouch into the defensive posture when the topic is black crime, reflexively bleating about “blacks killing other blacks, that’s the real problem”, preferring to ignore the low level race war of black-on-white violence. Yes, blacks kill other blacks far more prodigiously than they kill whites, but that skew is mostly a function of target availability and racial disposition toward impulsiveness; the great majority of liberal SWPL whites are smart enough to avoid living in the thick of the urban (and rural) ghettos, and to limit their exposure to black criminal predation. Even within city boundaries that have dense black populations, whites (and hispanics) sequester themselves into city sectors that are psychologically and economically, if not geographically, distant from the core black urban crimeclass.

Tim Wise lives in an almost racially pure neighborhood.

It’s no secret that criminals prefer soft targets. If you walk a certain way, (i.e., like an alpha male), you can reduce the chance that you’ll be the target of street crime. It is likely the case that black criminals perceive the supple SWPL whites who live within prowling distance of them as soft, juicy targets of opportunity, made more inviting as hated prey objects by the whiteness of their appearance. Once a doughy white is in the black’s crosshairs, the racial hate instinct percolates from the subconscious into consciousness, often driving the attacker to a frenzy of depraved, intertribe violence. This is why it’s wrong to assume only premeditated interracial violence is classifiable as racially motivated hate crime; race hate does not abide exquisitely legalistic timelines. Hatred for racial outsiders can simmer for years or it can explode on sight in the heat of the moment.

Smartly, most whites have the good sense to segregate themselves from blacks, establishing themselves in “dindu buffer zones” that are geographic, technological, or economic in nature. It is what whites do, and especially what GoodWhite liberals do, (whether or not they admit to it), to provide themselves a measure of protection from the wildly disproportionate chaos and feral race hatred of black criminality.

So, yes, there’s a guerrilla race war happening in this country. It just isn’t the one you’ll hear about ad nauseam by our media, corporate, government, and academia Hivemind gatekeepers of information. They prefer you stay ignorant, self-flagellating, powerless, and victimized for the Great Globo-Equalist Cause.

A part of me hates writing posts like this one, as it really kills my chill vibe, but some lies are so dangerous and, worse, so humiliating to good people that I’m roused to action from my poolside lounge. And that is the worst crime of all.

The previous discussion about ego validation run rampant among Western women and how that changed reality affects the art of seduction generated some fantastically useful comments. Of particular note were the commenters who pointed out that a lot of novices get tripped up stressing the rapport and comfort aspects of pickup to the detriment of the edgier, jerkier realm of game. (And no surprise, either, as most beta males are terrorized by the thought of “acting up”.)

As usual, YaReally, replying to another commenter, provided insight coupled with foundational game principles to help clear up confusion.

““how tall are you?” they usually reply below 5’5″—to which I reply: “I can pick you up like a kitten” which always gets them curious about that imagery.”

This is good. But if you wanted to supercharge it, throw in disqualifiers to add that emotional rollercoaster ride:

“How tall are you?”
“So short. Are you a hobbit?”
“Lol how tall are you??”
“Way too tall for you.”
“Tell me”
“You’re going to need heels.”
“Lol I hate wearing heels”
“Short AND a bad dresser. If you turn out to be bad in bed on top of all that I’m deleting you.”
“Omg lolololz”

Basically while what you’re saying is GOOD, and better than what 90% of normal dudes would say because it IS playful and sexual…it could be charged with more rollercoaster/qualifying for more impact/attraction.

It’s not that you NEED it to get the lay…but it’s fun to play with and gives her an experience that she doesn’t normally get with guys.

A great benefit of game is its rarity of use. There’s nothing quite like standing out from the crowd of mediocrities to electrify women’s curiosity.

It’s very rare for her to have to chase or invest or defend herself or impress a guy. Most guys are dying to give the milk away for free as soon as possible.

Beta Male: “You’re really cute. I’d love to take you out and show you a good time. Oh, and I’ll never look at another girl again if you choo choo choose me.”

Alpha Male: “If you can talk about more than Scandal, you have a shot with me.”

Just something to play with. I use a ton of this shit in my game and it’s part of why I get an emotional impact that dwarfs looks.

Like a lot of the guys who cry that girls just care about looks are running fucking boring game (not even talking about normal chodes I’m talking even experienced dudes studying red pill Manosphere PUA game) that’s primarily based in seeking rapport and comfort ASAP and they don’t do push pull and emotional rollercoaster shit so they’re kind of interesting to the girl but they aren’t CAPTIVATING getting inside her fuckin brain and taking over her RAS. So ya she picks the good looking guy over them, but she’ll pass him up if you make a strong enough emotional impact on her. Pimps and wifebeaters aren’t all 6’4″ 6-packed rich jocks. Most of them are pieces of shit but they have more emotional impact on the girl and she’s more invested in them and keep coming back for another hit of emotions.

Emotional impact trumps looks. Or, to put it in CH-ian terms, male power and charm trump male looks. I suspect a lot of the “only looks matter to girls” crowd are the types of pickup slackers who, as Ya wrote, shy from cultivating that jerkboy essence in favor of leveling bedroom eyes at chicks and hoping that one of them is horny enough for that to be sufficient.

This is where the armchair warrior says “but yareally that’s just the low self esteem girls who are probably all heroin addicts that wouldn’t work on a high quality girl!!!” and demonstrates that they don’t go out.

All girls love emotional roller coaster rides, but in my experience I’ve found that the “nice girls” — the ones with low N counts and stable psychology — love the emotional push and pull the most. Why? Because they get to enjoy it the least often, surrounded as they are by niceguy betas who target nicegirls under the mistaken belief that those are the girls likeliest to swoon for their Ol’ Dependable beta male routine.

More Ya:

– self-amusement (you’re not bothering to let her defend herself you’re just moving on on your terms instead of letting her lead the direction of the conversation. A lower value guy lets her lead the convo cuz he wants her to have fun and talk about eat she wants to. A high value guy will do that with someone who’s EARNED it but some bar chick hasn’t earned shit just cause she threw on heels and a push-up bra which is crazy because every other guy lets her lead)

– neg theory (standard shit, it’s not that it necessarily knocks her off her pedestal (negative mindset that assumes you’re starting out lower value than her) it’s demonstrating that she doesn’t impress you by default which implies you’ve had girls at least as hot or hotter than her before because you aren’t dying of thirst like other guys she interacts with and the 10 guys messaging her on tinder and the 100 dudes Liking her selfie etc)

– abundance (how come you’re fucking around aren’t you scared of losing her why aren’t you trying to impress her like these other guys??)

– push/pull and cat string theory (dangling winning your interest just out of reach, letting her pass then failing her etc etc)

– that “he has the wrong impression of me I have to correct” him itch she needs to scratch but you stack it repeatedly so that she has 10 itches (lol) and eventually has to grab you. Imagine how it feels when someone mis-states your view on a subject or quotes you wrong in a way that makes you look bad or mid-represents your views. Instinctively you NEED to correct them. You’ll even do it politely and let then finish and then say “for the record what I ACTUALLY meant was–“. Now imagine before you can get that sentence out they’re already misrepresenting something ELSE about you. And again and again and again. Eventually you grab them and go NO SHUT UP FOR A SECOND LISTEN!!!!! and try to correct it all. It doesn’t matter who that person is and you kind of hate them a little…but you’re emotionally reacting to them. In that moment no one else exists they take over your full attention until it’s resolved.

– then when that above dynamic plays out and they’re fully qualifying themselves to you, you just interrupt and do like Julien where he’s like “you don’t have to try so hard to impress me, it’s fine I already LIKE you. Relax I LIKE you.” and she’s like “wait wut??” because it’s like she was struggling and then someone just dropped the prize in her lap because of some one thing she did and she’s confused and like oh good I mean wtf just happened??? But you’ve given her an emotional rollercoaster ride that the other guy who was talking to her and the guys on tinder etc have no idea how to make her feel

– remember ppl bond thru sharing emotional experiences. If we can’t talk but we survive on an island after a plane crash together we will be brothers for life when we get back to civilization. So it doesn’t matter that none of what you did made sense logically. You could make it as ridiculous as possible. “Oh you don’t like older men (loud) wow why do you hate old disabled people? (to the ppl beside you) This girl pushed an old disabled man down the stairs how fucked up is that.” All that matters is that she feels an emotional rollercoaster with you.

– investment. A prize you don’t have to work for isn’t worth much. The more you invest to get something the more you value it. The harder it is for her to get you to like her, the more value your attention must be worth. Chick logic. “If I’m investing so much effort to qualify myself to him so he views me right, then he must be high value because I wouldn’t qualify myself to a low value man”. When Julien gets into his “get on your knees and beg me for my number” stuff (and like his infield clip in that vid where he tells the girl she thinks he’s just like any other guy and makes her grab him and tell him she likes him and makes her say what she likes about him etc) he making them invest hardcore. Because they invest so much, they need closure. ie – if you beg a girl to take your number, she’s not going to give a shit when you txt. But if you make HER beg, and in juliens case basically debase herself for your approval and drive her thru enough qualifying and investing she will NEED to fuck you to justify all that investment…because if she invests all that and debases herself for you then DOESNT get the lay, I mean, then she was just dumb and embarrassed herself. But if she fucks you then it was all a brilliant plan on her part. At least that’s her logic lol

No one goes to a theater to watch 2 hours of happy people being happy. They go to feel a rollercoaster of emotions good and bad. It makes them feel alive.

Women fall hard for men who know how to take them high, and drop them fast, until their pretty little hearts are sitting on their sleeves.

How do you game a girl who has received twenty solicitations for sex and fifty compliments on her beauty all before 11AM? This is the problem that men face in the electronic ego validation age, when Tinder and Facebook and sundry dating websites serve as mediums for the uninterrupted fluffing, however superficial, of the tumescent self-perceptions of every halfway bangable girl with an internet connection or a mobile data plan.

This is no minor obstacle to love and romance. The ego is the enemy of intimacy, and female egos that have been inflated to the bursting point are a neural (and neurotic) bunker between you and a girl’s heart. Evidence of this mass female ego inflation comes directly from men’s testimonials and indirectly from data showing trends in how couples meet.

Every inception source of romance is down over the past 70 years except for bars and online. What happens in bars and online that doesn’t happen in the normal course of events when couples meet through the more traditional routes? That’s right: Intense, relentless, and usually charmless come-ons by drunk and socially clumsy men, that pump girls full of themselves. We’ve entered the age of the narcissistically-charged woman who houses in the well-marbled fat of her skull ham a steroid-injected, Facebook-fed hamster spinning its distaff vessel’s place in the world as the center of existence.

The catalyst for this post was a question by reader Culum Struan, regarding a girl affecting a pose of boredom who wasn’t “biting” on his attempts to connect with her.

I never got through to her emotionally. Even my best stories barely got a mild emotional response – these are GOOD stories and I have a lot of practice. It was just flat. What do you do with these girls?

YaReally, responding, suggests putting the girl in the defensive crouch, qualifying herself to Culum.

Stack disqualifiers lol make fun of her basically. If she isn’t interested in your stories about yoursef then turn the tables and put the spotlight on her instead and put her on the defensive because she likes that more than she likes yapping about her own stories. Drop the stories and go for her emotional jugular and get her qualifying herself and thinking you’re a bit of an asshole but then a nice guy but then an asshole etc etc giving her an emotional rollercoaster ride.

Think of it like you’re entertaining a 5yo with a book but they’re not paying attention or don’t seem that into it. Instead of sticking with the book and it might be a great book that most kids love, calibrate to this kid and throw on an exciting movie instead. Or play a game with them. Engage them on a different level.

What Culum describes — girls who seem impregnable to emotional engagement — is a problem that grows in proportion to the amount of ego validation girls are rewarded with online. The more a girl has her ego stroked by a phalanx of online dating desperadoes, the less she’ll feel the urge or the need to devote her full attention to any individual man unlucky enough to take her on a real world date. What results is a growing brotherhood of men finding they share experiences dealing with selfish, classless American women of mediocre appearance who act like the stereotype of haughty swimsuit models. It’s gotten so bad that actual swimsuit models are proving to be more pleasing dates for men with the balls to ask them out.

Since social media ego validation isn’t leaving us anytime soon, a man must learn the skills that will help him master the polluted dating market moonscape. YaReally continues in this vein, linking to a Mystery seminar video and explaining the concept of “conversational stacking” as a technique designed specifically to deal with egotistic, ADHD, mortally validated girls.

Try stacking it to increase her obsession, 3:57 in this vid.

For anyone who’s checked out the Julien PIMP vids I’ve linked about devalidation stacking, this is the multiple threading concept juliens shit is based on. It’s basically this concept but combined with negs/devalidation. Strongest chick-crack I’ve ever seen, makes the girl obsessed with qualifying herself and correcting your impression of her. Planning to do a write up about it in depth sometime. It’s the first legit evolution of classic MM to adopt it to the social media over-validation/over-entitlement era that I’ve seen.

The value of devalidation in the age of ego validated chicks cannot be overstated. To penetrate a girl’s Tinder-spackled ego fortress, you must first show an active disinterest in her world, and one powerful method to accomplish that attitudinal cue is the veering, shallow, self-amusing, multi-threaded conversation style. As Culum says,

So if I understand right – stacking and changing conversational threads (MM style) is good because it shows lower investment on your part plus creates conversational tension the girl will want to resolve. Julien’s devalidation basically puts the girl into a “box” and that creates tension that the girl will want to resolve by climbing out of the box (hence why we make statements about her and not ask questions). But if you combine the two, you multiply the effect of both strategies – is that it?

Recall the formulation “statement-statement-question“. This is the foundation you want to begin your career in active seduction. (Active seduction simply means you, as a man, aim to have choice in the women you date, rather than drearily accept the fate of the majority of beta males who take what they can get, which is usually an overweight hausfrau.)

Ultimately, the best weapon against internet-abetted female ego validation is LOWER MALE INVESTMENT. If a man must deal with a woman’s hypergonadal ego, (and consequently her revved-up hypergamous impulse), his first order of business must be neutralizing the influence and unclogging the romance-blockage of her ego. This, in practice, means FLIPPING THE SEDUCTION SCRIPT as soon as possible, and creating the perception that you are the chased and she is the chaser. Tactics that work include:

– refraining from asking a girl too many questions,
– skipping around topics of conversation (less investment in any one topic signals that you aren’t much interested in her input, and aren’t seeking her approval),
disqualifying her as a romantic prospect, and
– treating her with amused mastery, as if she’s a precocious nuisance you could take or leave.

Once you have the girl hooked, you can switch gears and start to qualify her as a possible sex interest and drive for deeper rapport by asking her more open-ended leading questions with sexual undertones.

This isn’t your Greatest Generation’s dating market. Prairie farm ladies aren’t waiting at home for a battle-weary man to rescue them from spinsterhood. Women aren’t effusively grateful to men for giving them the opportunity to exit the singles market. The sexual market has, in sum, devolved from a K-selected one to an r-selected one, and all that goes with such a cataclysmic change. The era of High Male Investment and Low Male Sexiness courtship signaling — poems and flowers and punctuality and appeasing her parents and stressing your financial stability and lavishing her with promises of eternal devotion — is OVER. Or, at least, its effectiveness greatly attenuated. We are now in the era of Low Male Investment and High Male Sexiness, or altered perceptions thereof.

What economically self-sufficient and Pill-freed women want now is a man who can make them FEEL again, and that means, in essence, giving women back the opportunity to do what they used to do without prompting: Making an effort to please men.

A woman is lost, adrift on a murky ocean of her undifferentiated emotions, when she’s robbed of that special female duty to please men. Game — the art and science of learned charisma — can give back to women that which massive social changes and the sexual revolution have wrested from them. Game can save women’s souls.

Reader John Bonaccorsi has either perfected the art of the parody troll or channeled a spirit of sincere mewling manlettery so ripe for mockery that it comes to us inscribed on a giant purple strap-on.

Just saw your April 8 post entitled “The Essence Of Game Condensed To A Three Second Video.” Comments are closed there, so I’m posting the following here:

Are you f—ing insane, Chateau Heartiste? Your list of recommended game-techniques now includes battery with the potential of serious neck injury? I’m old enough to remember the all-white schoolyards of the late 1950s and the 1960s; I recall clearly the sociopathic white boys who were given to actions like yanking girls’ ponytails. Any male white who’s still engaging in that sort of thing in adulthood is long overdue to be castrated, I don’t care what effect it has on any brainless white woman.

I’ve pulled a few ponytails in my young lad’s life. Little did I know the sociopathic nature of the heinous act of violence I was perpetrating on the empowered community, and how I should have been locked up with the key thrown away and my pubertal balls sent to the chopping block.

John, for your sake, I hope you are joking. Otherwise you may as well shave yourself down to a shiny infant sheen, tuck your impudent junk, and become Lena Dunham’s eunuch ass wiper. Prepare to work up a sweat.

COTW winner is The Other Anonymous, accurately diagnosing a major blood disease coursing through the veins of the Western media.

The language of today’s media is characterized by the thought-terminating cliché. The most far-reaching and complex human problems are compressed into brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, repeated until they cauterize memory. These have become the start and finish of any ideological analysis. There is no narrative – only spin … and now a word from our sponsors.

There is a time for pithy sloganeering to rally troops, but that time is not all the time as a substitute for vigorous thought. Unfortunately, the Hivemind has found it beneficial to their warped antiracism cause to drown the body politic in their vicious hate whitey banalities, until free thought is strangled and the masses robotically intone the war chants of their own displacement.


COTW second place finisher is Bill Price,

We need more than a new political party; we need a new religious awakening to free us from the false doctrine of Enlightenment orthodoxy.

But we do not need a return to the past — we need something new and better, and in our own language. I suspect that the need for religious reform is often spurred more by changes in language than changes in human nature, which are much slower.

I’ve been working on this idea for half a year now. We need a new concept of kin-based faith that integrates the wisdom of the old worldview into the modern reality. All faith is kin-based (our earliest concepts of divine authority are based on the human family, e.g. father, son and holy spirit), but we’ve veered away from this truth in recent years. Christianity was a stroke of genius in that it allowed for a higher universal morality while simultaneously promoting the values that made families and communities strong. But it’s been hopelessly corrupted by an imperial form of the religion and a radical equalism that was never intended from the beginning, nor was it foreseen by early Christians, who viewed themselves as small communities of like-minded families resisting the depredations of a wicked and corrupt empire.

Today, once again, we’ll have to rely on faith to pull us out of a horrible mess of our own creation. I’m sure a lot of people will disagree, but I challenge them to come up with a better solution. Last time people tried an alternative the Bolsheviks ended up in power for 70 years, and that was a horror show I’d rather not live through myself, not to mention my kids.

Everything old is new again, dressed up in fashion-forward garb. Interesting point about language changes mattering more, in the short to medium term, than genetic capital changes. My suggestion for a pro-white majority national ethos banner: Family, Neighborhood, Nation: Renewing Trust. It hits those subconscious anxieties that are currently percolating through Americans.


COTW consolation prize winner is PA, reminding us of the hierarchy of female desire.

Related, I saw a guy on the subway yesterday tenderly put his arm around his girlfriend while she was babbling cocksurely about something indubitably important. Today, saw a couple walking and the young man kissed the top of her head. In neither case did the girl’s body language show any reciprocation or gratitude.

What’s significant is that both men struck me as alpha at first glance.

The girl wants to feel your power and charm first, affection distant third.

Power and charm first, affection third. That’s a pithy aphorism describing the contours of female attraction for the competing character traits of sexy men. Establish your dominance (which can be done by showing you won’t cave like a supplicating beta to her feminine wiles), engage her with your charm (an attitudinal cue that you live with an abundance of women mentality), bestow her with your affection (but only after she’s bestowed you with her sex and love).

The problem with the more romantically earnest sort of beta males is that they start with the affection, and then clumsily try to segue to the power and charm when they see that their affection is driving the girl away. It never ends well.

Consolation Game

When women vent, something they do with alacrity and disinhibition, men of all kinds are frequently and amusingly caught off-guard. It’s a wonder, given the natural urge of women to routinely weep for their lonely souls and their otherworldly problems, why so many men are inept in the art of consoling women.

I’ve seen alpha males tongue-tied off the shoulder of a crying HB. I’ve watched smooth players wither into puling beta males listening to a cute chick quake. All those moments to make her feel special, lost in time… like tingles pre-vow.

Consolation Game is a minor adjunct to the Game oeuvre, but it has outsized importance, mostly because so few men know how to properly execute it. It’s very simple.

SELF-PITYING PRINCESS: oh whoa is me, whoa is me yada yada mada yada yada fada welcome to camp grenada…


There ya go. That’s it. “I understand.” No more need be said. Let her smear her make-up all over you and when her aqueduct is about run dry you express your very succinct understanding.

Oh sure, if you want to be creative, you can refract your response through a female narcissism filter.

“It’s right for you to feel bad.”

I swear 99% of the time this strategy (as elementary as it is) will leave you in her higher esteem than before. Why? Because women don’t want answers to their problems; they want wagon circling sympathy feels. And they LOVE LOVE LOVE a man who will step aside and let them have their emotional cleansing once in a while.

Unfortunately, something so simple is lost on the great majority of men, who for some strange reason as a sex are incapable of handling the frailer sex with the unobtrusive, curt collusion that signals to women an experienced man’s navigational facility with their peculiar feminine landscape. Instead, what one often observes is the man frantically trying to “lift up” (hi SJWs!) his inconsolable girl, or worse, trying to solve her issue, only to receive as gratitude her scowl and labia-turtling exasperation.

Eager, excessively earnest gestures of sympathy are NOT SEXY to girls. Don’t be that approval-seeking beta male spinning his tricycle wheels to turn a girl’s frown upside-down. Be the alpha male oak tree (Poon Commandment XV) who, in his girl’s moments of frivolous crisis, shades her from the judgment of the world until she has spent herself and returns to the delight of stroking his mighty trunk.

Dylann Storm Roof (dat fuckin wigger name), the Charleston church shooter, looks like the even more soulless twin of Adam Lanza, Sandy Hook school shooter. Same misshapen omega male face, minus a score of IQ points.

CH predictions:

– Roof will have been on some sort of feminism-approved psychotropic drug, like Adderall, since boyhood.
– Roof will have been at some point diagnosed with mental difficulties, and spent time in remedial classes. He looks like he’s got a touch of the Downs.
– Roof will have never had a real girlfriend, or will have suffered a recent “break-up” by a girl he thought was his girlfriend but who herself thought he was just a friend to her.
– Roof is a virgin.
– Roof has a manifesto hiding somewhere.
– Roof will have been raised in a broken family, by a single mom.
– Roof was a high school outcast.
– Roof had a gay episode in his past, possibly sexually abused by a gay (black?) authority figure.
– Roof is an avowed atheist.
– Roof has logged years worth of World of Warcraft play.

Reminder: White mass shooters are often afflicted with clinical mental illness, falling well outside the norm for their race. Black killers often fall well within the norm for their race. Crime stats don’t lie. I suppose to get around this uncomfortable reality one could always argue that a higher proportion of blacks than whites suffer from mental disorders and psychopathy. Heh.


So far, one CH prediction appears to be true. Roof was on a pharmaco-therapeutic agent called suboxone, to treat addiction. The drug is known to be associated with violent outbursts.


Was Dylann Storm Roof a sexually aggrieved White Knight? If this holds up as factual, he supposedly said to one survivor “…you rape our women…this is why you have to go”. This goes to an observation I have about especially earnest white knights: The in-your-face, quick-tempered white knight who looks for any opportunity to rush to a m’lady’s defense is usually a dude who can’t get laid. He sublimates his sexual failure into a quixotic quest to defend all maidens’ honor, imagining the righteous pose somehow imbues him with the sexual allure he so desperately wants.

Was Roof a failure with the white women he desired but couldn’t get, and did this rejection drive him to the extremes of white knightery, culminating in murdering the symbol of his torment, the fantasy mandingo AMOG? Or, alternately, was he cucked by a black guy, and instead of blame the white girl, he exonerated her from responsiblity and focused all his incel rage on the interloper?


Ramzpaul puts his brass ones on the table and won’t let you look away.


A second CH prediction about Roof has come true. Roof did indeed pine for a white girl who chose to mudshark rather than be with him.

Scott Roof, who identified himself as the suspect’s cousin, toldThe Intercept that “Dylann was normal until he started listening to that white power music stuff.” He claims that “he kind of went over the edge when a girl he liked starting dating a black guy two years back.” He added, “Dylann liked her … The black guy got her. He changed. I don’t know if we would be here if not …” then hung up the phone.

“Over the edge” is something you frequently hear about people who are later revealed to be schizophrenic. Roof’s cucking at the hands of a black guy was the likely trigger for a psychotic break. Also, it sounds like this girl “he liked” either wasn’t aware of Roof’s ardor or was and had him firmly wedged in the friendzone.

From the same article, a third and a fourth CH prediction are validated. Roof was from a broken family, (unclear who raised him, but probably his single mom), and “[r]ecords show he attended ninth grade twice, and it appears he dropped out after that.” Roof was, literally, a high school outcast.

Chateau Heartiste, your first stop for personality profiling.

FYI, expect to see more of this white omega male cuck-rage if the fad of prole white chicks fucking blacks and friendzoning whites picks up any perceptible steam. Not condoning, only describing human nature and how it’s best not to fuck with ancient genetic algorithms.

Which is all to say….

Game can save lives!


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,265 other followers

%d bloggers like this: