Feed on

Ministry Of Twatter

The Lilliputian Lucifer, Jack Dorsey, is a vengeful nerd taking out his spite on the cool kids who taunted him in middle school. He has hired a team of equally nerdy and spiteful bindis — the ganges goobers — as hall monitors for Twatter. Their only job is to ban any shitlord (i.e. cool kid) whose bullyciding tweets remind Jack and the Bindi Stalkers of their torment at the hands of those shitlords way back in the days when atomic wedgies and locker stuffings drove the Jacks of the world to find asexual comfort in the cold inhuman logic of C++.

The point of drawing attention to the rank hypocrisy of shitlibs like Dorsey isn’t to make petty tyrant libs change their minds. They’ll never do that. The point is to bring clarity to the battlefield. The great middle of America has to know the nature and the depravity of the enemy. Minds must be focused and hearts steeled for the coming crack-up of America.


Speaking of entities like the Ministry of Truth Twatter, an exposé reveals that the only thing Specials love more than subverting host nations is boasting about their deeds.

Anti-Defamation League Admits Colluding with Tech Giants to Facilitate Big Brother Censorship

This organization that foments hate against conservatives is doing everything in its power to manifest the Orwellian Nightmare.

With pro-Trump voices being booted from Facebook and the social media crackdown ramping up before 2020, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is bragging about the legwork they have done to build up to this moment.

The ADL, once considered an admirable pro-Jewish organization that combated anti-Semitism, has turned into a partisan political censor facilitating Big Brother and trying to stifle President Donald Trump’s ‘America First’ agenda.

They admitted as much during a summit with the uber-globalist Council on Foreign Relations earlier this year where the organization’s leader bragged about enabling the tech giants’ push for extreme Draconian censorship.

“We work with Google on using AI to try and interrupt cyber-hate before it happens,” said Jonathan A. Greenblatt, Chief Executive Officer and National Director of the ADL, about his organization’s trailblazing work in the field of Orwellian pre-crime.

Who monitors the hate monitors?

“We work with YouTube to get them to change their algorithms so it lessens the likelihood that a young person is going to run into some of these anti-Semitic conspiratorial videos,” he added.

Greenblatt brought up Facebook specifically and how the ADL enables the tech giant’s ability to manipulate information for the purposes of combating alleged hate. He deployed double-speak to justify his organization’s anti-constitutional push.

“So there are different ways [Facebook] can tweak their algorithms and adjust their products so they think not only about free speech… but protect the user’s right to not be harassed or hated,” he said.

It’s amazing the justifications those with power will use to suppress the speech of free men.

He was particularly laudatory toward Facebook in how they were a front-runner in leading the charge toward Big Brother.

Big B’nai Brith. Facebook is the circumcised foreskin of Mark Zuckerberg’s and Sheryl Sandberg’s Levantine-peened paranoia. Faceberg is their baby, and it shows.

“They have done some good things to deal with very specific cases by taking swifter action when people perpetrate online bullying or online harassment,” Greenblatt said.

“harassment” = a truth that makes a Special feel less Special.

He feels that legislators should take further action in passing bills that would further destroy freedom of expression and other core liberties.

Of course. The law is a thing to be twisted into whatever shape pleases our underlords.

“There is a gap in the legal regime. There are techniques that extremists have used online to terrorize Jews and other people like doxing, and swatting and different forms of cyberbullying that are not covered by existing laws and need to be,” Greenblatt said.

Skypological projection is an ugly thing.

Executive summary: Hubris Chutzpah will be their downfall.

Free Men Vs Bug Men

One brave man can cause a hundred cowardly cockroaches to scatter for cover:


Kelly editorializes,

[T]he faces of the mainstream pols to the right of him on video are indeed repulsive: cucks, soy boys, ph@qqots, pedos, fem freaks.

Someone who has the time should still frame that video at the 0:17 mark. It’s so good I’ll make it the header image for this blog.


How many cuckservatives in the chattering class are talking about the corporate conspiracies to suppress political dissidents that are happening RIGHT NOW in the supposed free country of America?

Men’s rights activist Roosh Valizadeh said he was banned from Instagram and Chase Wepay “within 19 minutes of each other” on Tuesday evening.

“I just got banned from Instagram,” Roosh announced on Twitter. “My account was private.”


Roosh is setting off on a US speaking tour starting in June, to various shitlib cities. No doubt, the corporate censors and the monitors at the CIA sent notice to their pantifa shock troops, who will likely harass Roosh at more than a few stops along his tour. It could get violent, because pantifa is a violent domestic terrorism organization. If you are a CH reader and happen to be in town on the day Roosh is speaking in your city, you should buy a ticket and go there to show support and to defend a fellow dissident from the leftist freaks should they decide to disrupt the event.

Tucker Carlson suggested last week that Big Tech has declared “total war” on free speech.

“We are watching in real time as this country becomes unfree,” Carlson said. “Who’s defending us here? Where are our leaders in Congress? Where is the White House? As long as big tech isn’t hassling them personally — as long as their accounts remain open — they don’t seem to care. They are fools. Will any of these people get re-elected if leftwing tech companies can control the terms of political debate? Can you really win a presidential election if Google opposes you? No way. Not a chance. Not right now. Without freedom of speech, there can be no democracy. It’s time to stop lying about that.”

Leftoids cheer this censorship and demonetization of political enemies, but normal Americans seem oblivious to the threat that corporate censorship collusion poses to the very foundations of the American Republic. It helps to think about this in the starkest terms available: wealthy corporate executives and board members of multiple social media and online banking platforms are conspiring with each other to prevent certain Americans from speaking their minds and making money from supportive listeners, which in turn has a chilling effect on the speech of all Americans.

We are in an era of monopoly power again, and it’s getting worse. Too much wealth and power is concentrating in the hands of malevolent people who have little connection to Heritage America and even less connection to the ideals of Heritage America.

It’s a dangerous game our leftoid freakfriends play, and Trump is just the beginning of what we embattled freemen will summon to defeat the tyranny spreading like wildfire across the land.


This is interesting, in a Chinese curse sort of way.

Swedish car company Vulvo ran two different ads to be shown in America and Poland.

lmao. Do the swedecucks know their audience, or do they simply know that one audience is in the grip of a very special vise and the other audience is a nation of freemen?

In the comments, Volvo posted a message saying they’re deleting all negative comments which violate their “social media house rules.”

The rules won’t protect Globohomo much longer. You can very nearly see their edifice crumbling around them.

PS Aren’t Vulvos, like Subarus, the car of choice for the flannel and softball crowd?


This is why it’s wise to keep women out of vanguard roles in a revolutionary movement:

(Zoomable link)

Perhaps the most important lesson here is that women are a weak point in any political movement, especially a dissident movement. There is something uniformly pathological about the ones who jump to the front lines of ideological battle.

I wasn’t aware of that sordid drama involving (Katie?} McHugh, but the theme of it strikes me as all too familiar. Women are poison pills dropped in the chalice of insurgencies fighting against the status quo.

Underneath all the rationalizations, men fight for beautiful, young women. Men don’t fight for land, or honors, or money, except insofar as those things earn them access to beautiful, young women.

Consciously, men will tell themselves otherwise and pen odes to loftier ideals, but the Darwinian primal impulse is the lure of fertile furrow.

As such, women should inspire, not aspire. Women, particularly young cuties in the bloom of their slender hourglass perfection, are inspirations to men to reach for the brass ring. An insurgency seeking to topple a corrupt establishment is best led by men, compelled by an unspoken and often unacknowledged desire to attract young cuties, intuitively grasping that a victory over the corrupt ruling class means more prime poon for those rebel men.

Women who aspire to leading roles in those insurgencies are suspect operatives, for they are purposefully abdicating their natural place in the cosmic order as inspirations to stronger, integrous men. Placing women at the ideological front lines is courting the disaster of gossipy in-fighting and betrayal; women are powerfully drawn to the glitter of social status, and a revolution in which they play a significant face time part puts them in close proximity to the enemy establishment tempting women with penumbras of reflected status. Women can’t resist the siren song of social elevation, attention whoring, and credentialism, however superficial and unearned. Presented with these irresistible offers, women will backstab allies to get at them.

There is also something to be said for distrusting women who have the same passionate drive as men to achieve in the world of men. Women who aspire to greatness in endeavors that are naturally and historically the domain of men are women who are, essentially, at war with their own femaleness. It would be the same distrustful reaction both men and women have to effeminate men who forsake manly pursuits to succeed in the natural domains of women. Identity crises in either sex provoke distrust in others. We are rightfully suspicious of men or women who choose to defy their sex’s norms and temperaments.


Some commenters mentioned that famous quote from 1984 as a counterfactual to the theme of this post.

It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy.

Ingsoc/Big Brother *was* the establishment in 1984. The young women were conformism police for the state apparatus. They weren’t amateur spies for a rebellious insurgency.

That’s the lesson which needs serious learning. Women, as a sex, are easily tempted by trinkets and baubles from the Globohomo establishment, so much so that they pose a risk if they are identifiable emissaries for revolutionary movements. Social status and conforming to the dominant culture are everything for women. Betrayal is baked into the distaff cake.

Commenter Greg mentions the “exception” of women who are loyal to cult leaders like Charles Manson (or, more recently, the Nxivm cult in which the dude running it had women recruiters bring in fresh meat for him). Obviously, cults are not the “establishment”.

But cults do something unique which assures loyalty from the women in the ranks: cult leaders isolate their followers from the larger society, sometimes even from civilization. Women caught up in cults have no access to an establishment which could pull them back; for cult members the cult IS the establishment. The world outside is just a purgatory of benighted fools.

By necessity, revolutions which aim to topple a political and cultural foe must interact with the larger establishment in order to win over followers. This interaction is where journo whores ply their weaselly trade, with promises of STARDOM to the weakest links (women and soyboys).


Poon Commandment VIII:

VIII. Say you’re sorry only when absolutely necessary

Do not say you’re sorry for every wrong thing you do. It is a posture of submission that no man should reflexively adopt, no matter how alpha he is. Apologizing increases the demand for more apologies. She will come to expect your contrition, like a cat expects its meal at a set time each day. And then your value will lower in her eyes. Instead, if you have done something wrong, you should acknowledge your guilt in a glancing way without resorting to the actual words “I’m sorry.” Pull the Bill Clinton maneuver and say “Mistakes were made” or tell her you “feel bad” about what you did. You are granted two freebie “I’m sorry”s for the life of your relationship; use them wisely.

Via Anatoly Karlin,

Politicians and other public figures often apologize after making controversial statements. While it is assumed that they are wise to do so, this proposition has yet to be tested empirically. There are reasons to believe that apologizing makes public figures appear weak and risk averse, which may make them less attractive as people and lead members of the public to want to punish them. This paper presents the results of an experiment where respondents were given two versions of two real-life controversies involving comments made by public figures. Approximately half of the participants read a story that made it appear as if the person had apologized, while the rest were led to believe that the individual stood firm. In the first experiment, involving Rand Paul and his comments on the Civil Rights Act, hearing that he was apologetic did not change whether respondents were less likely to vote for him. When presented with two versions of the controversy surrounding Larry Summers and his comments about women scientists and engineers, however, liberals and females were much more likely to say that he definitely or probably should have faced negative consequences for his statement when presented with his apology.

Mercy is a man thing.

The effects on other groups were smaller or neutral. Overall, the evidence suggests that when a prominent figure apologizes for a controversial statement, the public is either unaffected or becomes more likely to desire that the individual be punished.


Basically there is no reason to apologize regardless of the situation.

While the scandal may wreck your reputation or not as the case may be, you might as well avoid the self-abasement. Since it’s not going to do you any good anyway.

Not to mention that apologizing when you did nothing wrong is the action of a contemptible worm.

Never apologize to your enemies, and apologize to your woman (a reproductive enemy) only when absolutely necessary. Apologies demoralize your allies and embolden your enemies to slake their thirst for vengeance.

Repeal the 19th.

Women and liberals – by nature – favor the strong horse.

As Western White men are becoming weaker and the source of ridicule and demonization by a culture that has turned against them, their women are abandoning them for the (perceived) strong horse, even if that means the women have to invite the strong horse in through asylum and refugees rackets.

The evidence presented here suggests that seeing a public figure apologize either increases the desire to punish him or her, or has no effect at all. If this is the case, we may wonder why politicians do in fact so often ask for forgiveness in the face of controversy. It is possible that politicians apologize in order to receive better coverage from the media or even make a story go away. Political punditry can apparently affect voters’ preferences. In one experiment, individuals judging performances in a presidential debate were influenced by the nature of commentary they watched after the fact, when compared to a control group not exposed to the opinions of pundits (Fridkin et al. 2007). Likewise, if an individual apologizes for a comment that the media finds offensive, future coverage of that individual may be better than it otherwise would be. Such an argument requires the assumption that while members of the public are hostile or indifferent to those who apologize, members of the media will provide better coverage of an individual who shows repentance. Yet there is no reason to assume that this is the case, especially since most of the media leans to the left (Groseclose 2011: Groseclose and Milyo 2005), and liberals in this study appear to be those most likely to want to punish individuals for apologizing.


Nor does it seem that apologizing buys sympathy from the media.

Take a cue from Donald Trump, who at least has this down pat. Go on the attack. Flip the script. Agree and amplify. Basically do anything but apologize, because apologizing signals weakness, and weakness invites further attack.

Game can make American White men the strong horse again.

Why are liberals and women more likely to want to punish individuals for apologizing?

One, women are more liberal than are men, so there’s some overlap between the “liberal” and “women” categories.

Two, cruelty is a specialty of the effete. The weaker sex — and among liberals, both the men and women qualify as the weaker sex — run riot whenever they get the upper hand, because those moments of power don’t come every day for them. An enemy who has apologized is therefore a target to strip of all dignity and torture in the public square, because his apology vindicates the liberal’s moral self-regard and provides a rationale for the liberal to indulge virtue signaling status contests.

If the masculine is concerned with achievement, then the feminine is concerned with social status (i.e., credentialism), and apologies from enemies can be exploited to gain more social status for oneself among one’s shitlib peers.

And this is why it’s a mistake to turn over the governance and stewardship of a nation to women and soyboys.

Related, this study also supports Poon Commandment XI.

XI.  Be irrationally self-confident

No matter what your station in life, stride through the world without apology or excuse. It does not matter if objectively you are not the best man a woman can get; what matters is that you think and act like you are. Women have a dog’s instinct for uncovering weakness in men; don’t make it easy for them. Self-confidence, warranted or not, triggers submissive emotional responses in women. Irrational self-confidence will get you more pussy than rational defeatism.


I’m finally dating someone who’s not an asshole. And I’m bored.

Everything you’ve ever read at the Chateau is here confirmed by a woman suffering the burden of dating a nice guy. (Man’s fault)

Via Empa Froga III:

JB quips,

She’s almost red pilled herself.

Rule of thumb: If you’re a beta provider with weak Game, stay away from girls in the “settle down” phase of their lives who have a history of dating assholes. YOU ARE PREY

Another reader,

Alpha widowhood is a bitch. She is just craving the drama that this beta can’t give her. For his sake I hope she does break it off, else she will be cheating on him within the first year of marriage.

“I am finally dating someone who is kind, and smart, and likeable and attractive, and great, and the sex is awesome.”


“He’s emotionally available…”

He’s like a woman.

“…and actually likes me.”

I have been pumped and dumped and treated like a pret a-piledrive for so long I get creeped out by men who don’t see how worthless I am as a long term partner.

“We have hobbies in common”


“I don’t have to earn his affection.”

Which means he’s not worth earning.

“I don’t have to play guessing games to figure out what he’s thinking or what he needs.”

If my rationalization hamster isn’t spinning, my vagina isn’t sideways grinning.

“I hate this.”

So give me the right to vote and Ill take out my existential femaleness on my nation.

“I keep almost breaking it off…”

Instead, I’ll just cheat on him for the duration.

“…but I keep not because I think it would be great if I can make it work.”

I will never logic myself into feeling giney tingles.

“It makes me feel like I am permanently broken.”

This self-awareness thingie…it hurts. Only an asshole can make me forget my womanly soul was created below.


We men and women are not at the wheel of our fates. Ancient desires drive us around, and we can try to grab hold of the steering wheel and control the direction of our lives, but the harder we pull against the natural momentum of our corporeal vehicle the closer we get to blowing out a tire, grinding the brakes down to the nub, and cracking the engine block.

A man can promise fidelity and service to a good woman, but if her tits, ass, face, and curves don’t excite him then every day will be a losing battle waged against an ancient desire.

A woman can promise loyalty and love to a good man, but if his personality, attitude, temperament, and masculinity don’t excite her then every day will be a losing battle waged against an ancient desire.

The closer we abide the natural momentum of our hindbrain vehicles, the happier our lives. The more we fight our hindbrains, the unhappier we are, and liable to take out our frustrations on everyone around us, including ourselves, in seemingly random acts of self-destructiveness and cruelty.

The woman who fights her natural, God-given desire for a charmingly mysterious asshole who is proficient in the gine art of Dread Game is a woman destined to relationship failure. She can play the part of dutiful, socially approved girlfriend for a while, but the compulsion caged deep within never stops throbbing, begging for release in the embrace of ZFG arms she has to fight to keep wrapped around her.

She will do the same to her country, if she is bored. Just substitute “America” for “a great guy”.

I wish I liked America more. But I don’t. America’s emotionally available and actually likes me. We have purposes in common. I don’t have to earn America’s affection. I don’t have to play guessing games to figure out what America’s thinking or what America needs. And it’s BORING.

Unfortunately, I think I’d rather be miserable than bored, so I’m welcoming as many filthy, depraved, rapey, aggressively stupid and unpredictable refugees into my country as I can to make my life exciting again.

There’s a lesson there for America’s beta males, if they’re willing to see it.


I don’t do the boyfriend thing. That’s why I’m single.

Yeah, that’s why.




She’s been hurt so many times that Haagen Daz stock rises and falls on her mood swings.

Trevor Goodchild wonders,

Incidentally I think this freak has already gotten lip filler implants.

If all fat chicks can offer is their mouthlove, then it makes sense to puff up the lips to crowd out the advertising space.

“b” adds,

Passed around more than a doobie at a funk show

haha, you know these fat white broads faking kickass self-confidence are D’ontavious’ bread and butter.


jeangray07 runs away with this week’s COTW:

I can usually tell when a friend’s marriage or relationship is on its downward slope.

When she says he’s her “best friend”.


1984 Was A Starter’s Guide

Via /pol/ News Network,

– from your friends at Amazon

bedminster comments,

The two words that are popping up on a lot of electronic products are “Alexa Enabled”. This should concern everyone.

Here’s a good rule of life as we careen into our Orwellian social-credit future:

Don’t buy anything with the word “Smart” in it.

“Smart” is just a euphemism for “Spyware” and “Surveillance” and “Depersoning Assistant”.


Older Posts »