Are Liberal Whites Irredeemable?

Reader PA recoils at some dissident elements who are taking the morbid opportunity of Vester Flanagan’s homosexual black-on-white racist murder spree to dump on the victims for their sin of liberal SWPLness.

She was a pretty girl doing human interest stories. She and her three future White children are gone. He was a technician. Let’s wait to do a vicarious touchdown dance when an American Brevik takes care of a senior editor with a track record.

Yeah dumping on Alison Parker (or Adam Ward) doesn’t make any sense at all. She was an attractive SLENDER white woman (a rare commodity nowadays) who, by all accounts, had a feminine personality (even rarer). Her face radiated sweetness.

However, I was listening to the news (big mistake) and I heard her father (confirmed), give a statement to the press that was straight outta the SWPL SJW leftoid equalist playbook — blame guns, don’t mention the 800 pound faggot chimp in the room — that left me feeling utterly despondent that a large fraction of Whites will ever see the light. They will have to be dragged kicking, screaming, and maybe dying, to the truth.

The human ego is that strong. So strong that it can cloud an ideological liberal father’s mind and make him say things which are the equivalent of pissing on his daughter’s fresh grave. I understand that in his inconceivable grief he may not be thinking straight and is giving in to his cultivated compulsion to blame a convenient liberal token of the anti-White hate machine… in this case, guns… for his daughter’s murder. But a healthy White society doesn’t fill the heads of its liberal contingent with abject lies and false narratives so thoroughly that even the murder of a daughter is incapable of shaking her father from his cherished shibboleths.

A healthy White society speaks power to truth. Clear eyes, full hearts, unpolluted minds. In this aspirational society, a liberal White father who feels antipathy to gun owners would not, as his first instinct, lurch to parrot a liberal political agenda to explain away the murder of his lovely daughter by an envious, resentful, white-hating, violent, homosexually imbalanced black male.

Alison Parker’s father is far from the first liberal father of a daughter murdered by a numinous negro to avoid staring into the abyss for the comfort of his ideological purity. He will not be the last.

Until he literally is the last.

With heavy heart, I concede that liberal Whites are simply irredeemable. If a daughter’s sadistically televised and annotated murder by a buttfucking dindu can’t rouse a father, in his crisis moment of uncontrollable rage and grief, to surrender his conspicuously disproven liberal beliefs in a soul-cleansing warrior’s wail of righteous vengeance that honors the memory of his slain child…

then nothing will.

The inevitable logic of rancid ethnomasochism is death. Of the body and of the ego.

There is no other way out, but betrayal of their equalist-drenched anti-principles.

And when has that ever happened?

Diversity + Proximity = War

Agree with this guy. The above could be Trump’s 2016 campaign poster. He’d clean up the White vote. And still get more black votes than compassionate cuckservative Bush did. Heh.

The cold-blooded racist anti-White dindu murderer once sued for “racism in the workplace”. It is to laugh.

these are the stakes.
five decades, maybe six, of ruling class and hivemind attack drone anti-white antiracism propaganda
aimed at the soft heart of core america
a weaponized arsenal of semantics
arming and inspiring the fringe antagonists
demonizing and demoralizing
one generation of whites after another
while extolling the numinous barbarians
who multiply in number and in self-regard
a coordinated hate machine of self-denial
self-loathing
and self-dispossession
corrupting the minds of white children
and their parents
and poisoning even their will to survive
to see the world clearly
to grasp the rules of this deadly game
to understand their enemies and to deal with them effectively.
a vicious blackbody, (high yella), like so many of his ingrate kind
imbibes this forty of establishment glorification
of his purity and virtue
until the envy which is his inevitable fate
in a multiparous societal placenta of unequal ability and moral sense
collides with the government sanctioned message
of his angelic goodness
his virility
his smarts and bravado
and, contradictorily, his enervating martyrdom
as he suffers christ-like the burden
of evil, malevolent, invidious white racism
and he becomes convinced
his redemption
lies in the slaughter of his tormentors
after all
who would complain?
two dead happy whites, and one likely crippled white?
to whom would they complain?
those most like them
most expected to defend their place in the world
and a place for their children
long ago
deemed them expendable to the greater cause
Alison Parker’s and Adam Ward’s lifeblood

drips

drips

drips

from the US government’s hands.
from academia’s hands.
from the mass media’s hands.
from every vile sjw’s hand.
from cuckservatives’ hands.

will these treacherous vipers
be held accountable
for creating and sustaining and breathing satanic life into this decades-long war against one people?
for stoking the rage of the enemies of this people?
the one people who, through their ingenuity and fortitude, built the very nest
that swaddles and nourishes
the vipers
who strike at them relentlessly, fangs bared.

we’ll see.

Did James H. Kunstler Tacitly Endorse The Assassination Of Donald Trump?

Kunstler writes,

The thought of Trump actually getting elected makes me wonder where Arthur Bremer is when we really need him.

VDare author Cleburne adds,

Arthur Bremer of course is the man who shot George Wallace in 1972, wrecking the most extraordinary campaign surge before Trump’s. Given the vitriolic style of the rest of the piece it is not possible to excuse this as a joke.

Sounds like Kunstler endorsed the assassination of Donald Trump, emerging hero to the shat-upon, maligned, demonized White American host society.

How many words do the Eskimos have for snow job?

“Go back to Univision”

The Trumpening is quality awesomeness. A breath of political air so fresh it fills the lungs to bursting. I hope it lasts.

If Trump is riding high in the polls and attracting cheerfully wholesome supporters brimming with a genuine emotion they haven’t felt in decades for any GOP cuckservative, maybe, just maybe, it’s because Americans — normal, psychologically healthy Americans at least — prefer a Big Swinging Dick to a Frail Limping Wrist. In the land of the beta male feeb, the alpha male with brass balls is king.

As long as Trump kicks cuck ass and takes ruling class names, CH will post about him. If you don’t like it, go back to Univision.

PS Scott Adams on Jorge Ramos’ (a White Mexican elite) perp walk.

PPS I predict we see another bump up in Trump’s poll numbers following this latest display of effortless alphatude. Trump is like fresh water to a people parched from years roaming a cultural landscape full of supplicating manlets.

The God Of Biomechanics Laughs At Your Fat Acceptance

Another cherished feminist and equalist shitlibboleth falls. Fat chicks were never attractive to men. There never was a “fatopia” in history when low sexual market value manatees battled the patriarchy’s beauty standards and won. Fat women have ALWAYS been repulsive to the vast majority of men.

And CH has long been on record reminding the fat acceptors and fatty fat apologists that their quest to overturn men’s innate preference for slender babes is a quixotic one doomed to end in oleaginous tears.

As if ❤️SCIENCE❤️ hadn’t already stamped more than enough Chateau real world observations with its liberal-approved (heh) imprimatur, along comes another trove of historical research (re)discovering the wisdom of the ancients that men prefer slim-waisted beauties, and that this preference is about as universal as a human mate preference gets (h/t thejerk):

Slim waists have been the mark of attractive women throughout history, says a US scholar who has analysed thousands of ancient texts.

Dr Devendra Singh scoured references to fictional beauties from modern times back to early Indian literature.

He found that slimness was the most common term of praise from an author. […]

In the most recent research, he looked at how ‘attractive’ women were depicted in literature, analysing more than 345,000 texts, mainly from the 16th to 18th centuries.

While most of the writings were British and American, there was a small selection of Indian and Chinese romantic and erotic poetry dating from the 1st to the 6th century of the Christian era.

While the most-often mentioned feature was the breasts, waistlines were mentioned 66 times, with a slim waist predominantly linked to attractiveness.

Objective female beauty standards are timeless, unchangeable, and hated by the ugly, fat, and misshapen.

This shiv gleams with the bloody blubbery wetness of a skewered fatty, but the good doctor Singh has one more wound to carve in the distended porcine bellies of the slovenly shambling mounds.

Dr Singh said: “The common historical assumption in the social sciences has been that the standards of beauty are arbitrary, solely culturally determined and in the eye of the beholder.

“The finding that the writers describe a small waist as beautiful suggests instead that this body part – a known marker of health and fertility – is a core feature of feminine beauty that transcends ethnic differences and cultures.”

And that is why America has never been uglier, in body and spirit, than she is today, groaning under the weight of an obesity epidemic and fracturing from the tinnitus caused by the whiny wails of a million butthurt losers.

******

And that is not all the shiv we have today! There’s yet more shanky goodness. CH has written about the grade inflation in women’s dress sizes to accommodate, physically and psychologically, the zaftig proportions of the modern emporkered American woman with an ego as thin-skinned as her hide is thickly equipped.

And no wonder manufacturers have sought to “vanity size” their dresses for sale to a growing (heh) market of waddling wursts. The average American woman today weighs about as much as the average 1960s man! To my American male readers, the odds are good that you are banging a woman you’d have as much trouble throwing over your shoulder as you would have had with your father or grandfather in their primes. Sleep on that.

A follow-up to that CH post about women’s dress sizes comes via reader Critical Eye. Inflation strikes again:

A size 8 dress today is nearly the equivalent of a size 16 dress in 1958. And a size 8 dress of 1958 doesn’t even have a modern-day equivalent — the waist and bust measurements of a Mad Men-era 8 come in smaller than today’s size 00. […]

Enter the era of vanity sizing. Clothing manufacturers realized that they could flatter consumers by revising sizes downward. The measurements that added up to a size 12 in 1958 would get redefined to a size 6 by 2011.

And Lena’s getting laaaaaaaaaarger!!

Critical Eye observes that the Fat Acceptance bowel movement “comes with Offishal Imprimatur:  the clothing sizes are maintained by the American Society of Testing and Materials.”

Fat fucks can take a backhanded comfort in the assuaging of their wide load egos by Offishal government organizations devoted to spreading a Valdez-sized oil slick of lies over everything true and beautiful in the world, but in the end the only imprimatur that matters is the serrated CH Shiv leaving its insignia in the marbled vitals of these filth-peddling grotesqueries.

******

This is a truthnbeauty post, so hatefact news about Diversity™ is related to exposing the lies of the Fat Acceptors: diversity lowers a firm’s market value.

Most likely share values drop when a firm’s board adds more women because investors are discounting the future rate of return of the firm based on two unflattering facts about the Diversity Danegeld: one, that a company which moves its focus to social justice adventurism loses focus from its profit-making ability, and two, an increase in female board members will result, given time, in a decrease in firm performance. (Hi, Carly!)

PS Commenter JP makes a great analogy between stock portfolio diversity and racial/ethnic diversity:

When you over-diversify your stock portfolio, you don’t ever outperform the market. You just sort of putter along, rising and falling with the all-share index while everyone else gets rich. The same applies to diversity uber alles.

PPS

Yes, I know it’s ‘shopped, but the visual alone sans placard (the hooters chick was originally carrying a drink order) would’ve sufficed to get the point across. A happy, smiling hottie, content to be a pleasing decoration for men, horrifies an ugly feminist by her mere cavorting presence. Low mutational load rape!

Is Trump In It To Win It?

This is hearsay, so take it for what it’s worth.

“Anonymous for this post” passes along insider info on Trump’s motivations.

******

CH,

Trump is now “in it to win it.”

This is from a good source who doesn’t want to be identified, but wants this information out there…along with the pointed observation that Trump has already hired political “ground game” pros in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina —

——–

This may be old news but I’m not seeing anything about it.

If you post about this, do it ‘anonymous’ please.

I just got told by a friend that Trump hired the former lawfirm of the RNC.

Why does this matter?

Word on the street in Chattanooga (where Trump has and retains many high end connections) is that Trump went into the campaign with two intentions.

One was to ‘shake things up’.

The second was to raise his profile with Chinese investors for fund raising for a new casino.

He really didn’t intend to get big numbers in the US and didn’t intend to actually ‘go for the goal.’ Which was why he came in with no primary ground game. He didn’t intend to even get 5%.

With the recent success the question was ‘what now?’ Go for closing the deal or back out? Some of his more inflammatory comments were tests to see if he could flame out. And his poll numbers just rise.

If he has retained a political lawfirm it can only be to create a ground game. Repeated commentators have said he can’t win the primaries because ‘he doesn’t have the people’. Trump doesn’t come from that political structure. He’s coming from a business structure. He doesn’t NEED to have the people beforehand. That is what MONEY is for. To Trump you don’t hire the engineers to build the skyscraper until you need them. You hire them when you need them and fire them when they’re done.

His game plan will be wait until he has to build a ground game, hire a bunch of people with experience, build the ground game, do the primary then move on. You won’t actually see evidence of it until a few months or even weeks (depending) before the first time markers. (Filing dates mostly.)

He’s got money. He doesn’t need ‘people’.

The firm is Jones Day lawfirm in DC. The senior partner, Donald F. McGahn, is a former FEC commissioner.

If he has retained a major political lawfirm he’s going for the goal. He’s serious. And most of the analysis is missing it.

There’s a secondary aspect to this which is interesting.

The normal way that political appointees are chosen are from those ‘people’ that candidates use in ground game. While Trump is famous for rewarding loyalty, if his plan involves ‘hire lawyers who know the laws in state x’ he’s hiring legal/political expertise, not loyalty.

Which means a Trump administration would be less beholden to primary support individuals. Which means, in turn, that he would potentially tend to appoint people who might ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT to positions that frequently just get political supporter x who has some knowledge/background in field y.

A Trump presidency would tend to have less ‘this is a good buddy of mine’ appointed to, say, head FEMA. (Bush/Katrina)

Which, again, is something analysts (most of whom are former ‘people’) are missing.

‘He can’t win a primary because he doesn’t have people like ME!’

Yeah. Bout that…

Oh, and the Irish bookies have gone from 300:1 to 9:2 for him winning the nomination.

I’m not a supporter by any imagination, but… Damn.
—————

I’m looking for Trump to start talking about an Article V Constitutional Convention next.

******

I don’t doubt Trump entered this race thinking he couldn’t win, and that his initial motivation was partly narcissistic (in fact all politicians are narcissists to a degree), partly self-aggrandizement. But then he saw that he could win, and that he had tapped a deep well of dissatisfaction among people by simply speaking his mind the way he likes to speak (i.e., not like a weeping pussy).

And, I agree with this take: Trump has come to loathe the cosmopolitan elite from his sheer familiarity dealing with them. Another part of his motivation is sticking it to these effete globalist Davosians who are completely severed from blood-and-soil America.

The odds of Trump winning it all are much improved from just a few weeks ago, but even if he falls short he will have done a world of good for this rapidly dissolving nation. The Trumpentiger is out of its cage. There’s no hiding it from public view now; it must be met on its own terms, dangerous, agile, and hungry for fresh meat.

Man Gives His Unhappy Wife Everything She Asks For, And This Is What Happened Next

Nothing.

Or, more precisely, less than nothing. She became unhappier.

The husband bent over backwards to fulfill his wife’s every demand, and the result is tragicomically predictable: gina tingles extinguished.

For the past year or so, my husband has ceased to be able to turn me on, to the point where I am almost repulsed by our lovemaking. Recently, I broke down and told him everything. Since then, he has done everything in his power to get us back on track. The problem is now me! Even though this is all I’ve wanted, I can’t bear to be touched in certain areas.

Never mind the couples therapist answer. As per usual for the quality of output typical of this field of inquiry, it’s garbage. A commenter’s sarcastic jab gets it more right: “I love you, but I’m not in love with you.”

Ok, just to torture the CH reading audience, here’s a sample of the couples therapist’s answer (a woman, natch):

This “hot potato” syndrome is not uncommon: one partner has an issue, but once he throws it off, the other catches something too hot to handle. In many ways, it is a good thing that your husband is responding so energetically to your plea for change, and you did an excellent job of moving beyond what had become a long-term impasse.

Yes, clearly what the husband needs to do is more of what didn’t work at all.

For example, you say you don’t like to be touched in certain places, so the exact details of this must be gently communicated to him, and he needs to be shown exactly what you would prefer.

As the feminist sages tell us, women are really turned on by having to read an instruction manual to their men on the proper use of their bodies during lovemaking.

You have done very well so far – be brave enough to address the next steps, which are largely about better communication.

“Better communication” to solve all your relationship problems! Empty platitude, the stock in trade of marriage counselors everywhere. The unhappy wife wrote to the worse-than-useless psychotherapist shell entity informing her STRAIGHT UP that she told her husband everything, and he did everything he could to meet her demands. What part of that suggests this relationship needs to be addressed with “better communication”? Sounds like they were communicating their marriage to an early bed death!

I shouldn’t be surprised anymore, but the alacrity with which marriage and couples counselors and creeeeeeedentialed “psychotherapists” resort to droning bromides devoid of any explicit advice that might prove useful to saving relationships but carries the baggage of gently disturbing the gentle egos of gentle wives with gently feminist views about the moral supremacy of the female prerogative and the assumption of the male’s automatic fault in any scenario stuns even experienced observers of the junk therapist scene such as yours truly.

This couple deserve better advice than what a one Pamela Stephenson Connolly can offer them. CH to the rescue…

To the wife: First, make sure it isn’t some serious physiological issue, like CVD or something that could affect your sexual response. For that, see a medical doctor, i.e. a real doctor. But, odds are it isn’t a medical problem.

The way to bet is that your husband is a beta male — that is, dependable, reliable, generous, deferential… and utterly unsexy — and that his beta maleness got worse the longer your marriage went on. It’s not uncommon for men to get soft in body and attitude once they’ve settled into the marital comfort zone.

If this is the cause of your turtling sexuality, I’m afraid anything you do could only make matters worse. This is because there is a natural disconnect in your female brain between what actually turns you on and what you think SHOULD turn you on. You will, therefore, be unable to give your husband any advice that would work.

To the husband: STOP doing what you’re doing, and do the opposite. Instead of appeasing your wife, ask her to do things for you. No, DEMAND of her those things. Stop supplicating, and instead assume that you are God’s gift to womankind and can do no wrong. Apologize for nothing, make no excuses for her. Be unpredictable. Leave her for a spell, preferably unannounced. Tease her, poke fun at her, squeeze her hip fat with a disapproving glare, flirt with other women as she watches. In sum, initialize the first sequences of Dread Game.

After a few weeks of this wifely romantic reprogramming, grab her when the mood hits you, and start tearing off her clothes, oblivious to her mewls of protest. If your psychological preparations have been successful, she will relent and shake off an orgasm like a dog shitting a peach pit.

If not, consider cutting her loose and saving your newfound self-confidence for another woman who will submit to your love in the way every man secretly desires a woman to do. Even the effete hipster manlets.