Psychopathy and Diversity™: are the two like oil and water or match and fuel leak? The answer to this question isn’t so clear. There are two competing forces that complicate analysis.
Psychopaths exploit high trust societies, preying on dupes. Diversity erodes social trust and makes everyone warier of each other, reducing the number of dupes to scam.
Psychopaths are skilled at manipulating the natural antagonisms between people and groups for their personal benefit. Diversity increases the number of groups fighting for resources and representation and thus enlarges the field of play for psychopaths.
FYI I define Diversitopia in any Western nation as majority-minority White plus Other. The US is currently sitting at 63% White, and the true number is worse than that, because there’s a big uncounted demographic market of beaner illegals and a fertility bulge of minority births cresting on the horizon that dwarfs the White birth rate.
Psychopaths would have a rich vein of culture rot to excavate in a Diversitopia because there would be so many tribes to play off one another. But, psychos would have a counter-current to swim against in the form of society-wide lowered trust that would increase the difficulty of finding gullible marks. It’s hard to tease out which way the psycho winds would blow, but my impression is that they are currently thriving in the interregnum between wide-eyed Joke Whites still clinging to their pathological altruism and virtue sniveling and squinty Woke Whites casting suspicion in every direction. Soon, though, psychos may find it tough to extract any more nuggets of self-aggrandizement from a dying America.
PS It’s useful to distinguish generic psychopaths from ashkepaths. The latter is a supercharged subspecies of Genus Psycho and undoubtedly thrive in Diversitopias….at least until they’re ejected from their 6 gorillionth host nation. So if you’re waiting passively for Diversity™ to sufficiently crater trust levels in the body politic and deprive ashkepaths of their nutrition, you’ll wait a long time.
Did you feel a sudden yearning for a better, bygone America? That was intentional. Trump knows what he’s doing, and he knows the sides in this battle for the soul of America. His promos, visuals, and speeches are an extended play love letter to Heritage America. To White America, before it became a Dirt World Depot. If you doubt Trump’s loyalty to the cause, dispel your doubt. His heart is in it. He fights for you.
COTW winner Jack Ragnar does a 180 on cuckventional wisdom and as a result grazes a deep and abiding truth about the sexes.
I had a conversation about flirting with my sister. This came up. Women at their core want to find out who the better man is. They would by default go with the winner of “you and him fight”. However men are not all on board with this idea. Such games are anti-civilization, and the costs are high. If men refuse, and choose to work out their differences in a more civilized and subtle way, women have to gain the information about men in a more covert fashion. So we get shit-tests, status seeking, etc.
Women are literally anti-civilizational. Their instincts if left unchecked (ala modern women), will bring out the most violent aspects of men. Men despite their capability for violence and destruction are not on average destructive. Women, if left to their devices would have us living in grass huts.
The white kight/cuck aphorism they love to cling to is that women are the civilizers of men, by dint of being the gatekeepers to sex and therefore having the leverage to demand men behave themselves.
But what if the civilizing force runs the other way? Any man who has experience with women has seen that the fair sex can entertain malice and destructiveness the equal of any man, but without the sensationalist physical violence that grabs headlines and puts the spotlight on male wickedness. There’s a better case to make that men are the sex with the drive to civilize, and that women, constrained as their sex is by the hypergamous need to identify the strongest man in the tribe, exert de-civilizing forces on the sexual market that if left unregulated can and do lead to cultural collapse.
Jack is onto something yuge, and we here at CH have toyed with the same idea of unrestricted female sexuality as a herald of national decline. The entire story may be more nuanced than this, but it’s a necessary and useful widening of the discourse to at least begin to cast suspicion on the shibboleth that women civilize men and not the other way around. When all is said and done, CH will have pushed open the Ovaton Window so wide the sunlight will scorch dying feminist wombs from Berkeley to Bonn.
If you see a girl you find attractive flirting with another man, don’t assume she’s out of your reach. Not all female flirting is the same. I’ve noticed that women will flirt to satisfy three emotional compulsions:
To directly signal sexual availability to a man she really likes. This is authentic flirting, and it’s easy to discern because the girl won’t break eye contact with the object of her flirtation. An aroused girl who is happy to be swept up by a man’s attention will flirt hardcore with him, because she won’t want him to miss her interest and have him decide to break away under the false assumption she’s not open to her seduction by him. Authentic flirtation is, in this scenario, used by women to increase sexual tension, and help drive the courtship toward a culminating bang, but only if the man is capable/alpha/experienced enough to deduce her intention and successfully parry her flirting.
To release sexual tension. This is different from Flirting case #1, even if it sounds superficially similar. A girl who’s all wound up with sexual tension will seek a man (or men) into whom she can dissipate her stored sexual energy if her preferred mate choice isn’t available. This urge to release sexual tension will manifest as flirting when it isn’t resolved through actual sex or making out. Despite sensational press releases to the contrary, most women have an instinct to protect their precious eggs and guard against indulging wanton sexual escape. For a woman, flirting serves this purpose as both tension reliever and firewall against cumming down with Sudden Meaty Intrusion Syndrome. The man who is the recipient of this kind of female flirting doesn’t necessarily have to be on the girl’s radar as a potential lover; extraverted BPD girls are particularly prone to flirting with men for whom they have no sexual desire. Any earport in a tingle storm will do. NB: Beta males should be wary of this kind of flirty girl, because they are often exploited as earports and likely to misconstrue the girl’s harmless flirting as real sexual intention.
To coax a third party man to bust a move. In this instance, the one under consideration here and practiced by the girls to whom I refer as Flirt Fatales, the flirting is a means to an entirely unexpected end: inviting a different man than the one with whom she is flirting to come over and meet her. The Flirt Fatale’s objective is to incite jealousy in the man she truly desires, and she does this by openly (and often sloppily) flirting with another man in the hopes that it will trigger the “hurry up and conquer” instinct in the man who is her primary interest. You can easily identify the Flirt Fatale by how she’ll frequently break eye contact with the pawn she’s flirting with to cast darting, sidelong glances at the rest of the room, or directly at you. NB: A man who suspects he is the true target of a girl’s flirtation with a beta prop should be ready to pounce after the girl is finished cockteasing her sounding board. I like to go in and open with the line, “Looks like your flirting didn’t work on that guy.” This is both a disqualification of her as a primary target of your affection and a cheeky challenge to her feminine allure.
In sum, if you see a girl flirting with another man, and she’s in your vicinity, check for darting eyes that betray her real purpose. If her eyes are locked on the flirtee, don’t bother. If her eyes sweep the veldt for your predatory gaze, prepare to approach once she’s detached from her pawn.
The neophyte to the world of women may ask, “why won’t the Flirt Fatale just go up to the man she really wants and flirt with him instead of going through this convoluted proxy beta?”
Sure, women do that. But not always. Not even very often. The reason Flirt Fatales like to play this game is because they want to maintain the illusion of their feminine allure, and that illusion creaks under the strain of any active moves she makes to capture the attention of a man she wants. Directly flirting with a man, to these women, is like giving too much of their game away. She relinquishes power with every aggressive move that betrays the essence of her feminine soul; an essence which is vulnerability and submission to a powerful man who takes what he wants. So she plays these flirty games with the unwitting aid of third party beta dupes to preserve her self-perception of passive sexual power which overwhelms desirable men to throw caution to the wind and risk her rejection on a direct approach that hasn’t been green-lighted by any overt flirtatious invitation she could easily send their way.
***
It almost goes without saying, but another psychological need of the Flirt Fatale is to satisfy her urge to play the “let’s you and him fight” game of male social dominance that helps her identify which men are strong enough to enjoy her chute fruit. Inciting jealousy through manipulative flirting with a proxy beta pawn gives her the giddy high of watching a second man enter the field of battle to oust the first man for her romantic favor.
In 1998, a Usenet proto-realtalker speculated on the topic of national decline, and why it seemed the frequency and amplitude of glorious achievement of mid-20th Century America had slowed to a flatline. (via)
From: [email protected](Steven B. Harris)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,sci.astro,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Solution to Fermi Paradox right here!
Date: 30 Dec 1998 06:29:33 GMT
>Pick your favorite sci-fi, (say, something written 50 years ago making
>predictions about life near the year 2000), and it’s probably wildly
>optimistic.
>
> JS
COMMENT
Yeah, but that’s only because as a society we’ve become effete and lost the will to try new things just for the hell of it. In the 60’s they were trying things like nuclear propulsion, and they were walking on the moon. Then, something horrible happened in the early 70’s. I grew up then, and I could FEEL it. I’m still trying to figure out exactly what it was, but I think what it was, was a generation of kids who grew up with television instead of playing with gizmos, and who got into power and then just turned our society into a big mess of paperwork and lawyering, because paperwork was all they’d ever learned to do. When I look at the physiology research done in the 60’s, it takes my breath away. The creativity of it! The things they did! I find my “new” ideas all the time in papers done in the 1960’s, but they never went anywhere (perfusion of organs with fluorocarbones to cool them, for example). One guy (the same guy in fact), before heart lung machines, repaired the hearts of babies by surgically cross-connecting them to the circulation of adult humans, who volunteered in order to save a life. Where has that kind of courage gone? Where are the Yeagers and the Goddards and the Microbe Hunters? How come the heros of our movies are no longer Micky Rooney or Spencer Tracy playing Thomas Edison, or Paul Muni playing Erlich or Pasteur, instead Val Kilmer playing Jim Morrison and Woody Harrelson playing Larry Flint? And movies whose heros are lawyers. Arggh. I don’t care if it is Tom Cruise or John Travolta. And the rest of the movies seem to be re-creations of 60’s TV shows.
Paperwork and lawyering. Fixing and improving and advancing society by talk-talk, not building. A lawyer president and his lawyer wife. [ed: bubba and thecunt] Crises of power that don’t involve spy planes and sputniks, but incredibly complicated and deceptive word definitions and complicated tax frauds. You think we’re not preparing to go to Mars because SF is too optimistic? Sure. But it was optimistic about whether or not the can-do engineering of the 40’s and 50’s, done by the kids who’d grown up playing with radios and mechanics in the 20’s, was going to continue. Needless to say, it didn’t. I’ve seen a late 1950’s book of science fair projects for teenagers that include things like building your own X-ray machine and cyclotron (no, I’m not kidding– it can be done). There are rockets in there, and cloud chambers, and all kinds of wonderful electronics stuff. But we didn’t go that way. Instead, we turned our children into little Clintons, and our society into a bunch of people sitting at PCs, entering data about social engineering, not mechanical engineering. So instead of going to Mars, we went instead to beaurocratic Hell. Enjoy, everybody. It really could have been different. Nature didn’t stop us– WE stopped us.
Steve Harris
(God, look at me. I’m well on the way to being Uncle Al)
I haven’t read a more prescient synopsis of American culture trends than what I’ve written myself here at this blog. “Bureaucratic [sic] hell” = Burnham’s mass SCALE dystopia come to life.
Something horribly invidious happened to America around the late 1960s and early 1970s that abruptly turned the country from greatness to a path of decline, navel-gazing solipsism, and now finally to racial self-annihilation. Soy and sugar in the food supply? The explosion of a twisted ideology into everyday life? The Pill? TeeVee?
I’ll tell you something, the hallmark of national decline is the rise of the gynarchy and the diminution of male talents and preferences.
Gizmos = male
Paperwork and Lawyering = female
You want American history in a pithy aphorism? How about this:
Male became Female. Then came the End.
Or maybe you like your pithy aphorisms with more focus and bite:
Christian European became….
you catch my drift.
Boys used to be encouraged to tinker with material objects. Now they’re encouraged to explore their emotional landscape and inner femininity (while girls are pushed to become second-rate boys). Both White boys and White girls are brainwashed on a daily basis by every institutional power to hate their race, heritage, and ancestors’ accomplishments. An accident of decadence, or the rotten fruits of a deliberately perpetrated evil?
We can turn this sinking ship around and steer it to safe harbor, but that will mean returning to the wrong side of history where we laud boys for their distinctiveness and encourage them to tinker, not shame them for preferring stoicism over social justice blubbering. On the flip side, it will mean stopping the inhuman agenda of praising girls for acting boy-like and pushing girls to think their natural female talents are signs of weakness. Less “leaning in”, more “leaving alone” to pursue the lives their sex-based dispositions organically push them toward.
The Paperwork and Lawyering crowd needs to back off and allow the Gizmo crowd to rule again. If the P&Lers won’t (they won’t), then our culture will die, or the Gizmos will fashion new machines to loosen power from the soy-weakened grips of the P&Ls.
A well-placed and finely-tuned neg like this one can slake beta male thirst. Nothing arouses a ho’s curiosity more than a man who betrays her expectations. And noticing a girl’s big feet in a vanity shot she had taken of her ass in the bent-over position, prepared for copulation, is a YUGE expectation-buster.
Maybe you think this neg is too rough; more an insult than a neg. I say no, it’s difficult to be too much of an asshole with slutty airheads like the one in this pic. But there are safer ways to neg if you’re a wilting flower sort of man. For example,
“Big feet on a girl are sexy. ? ?”
This is the classic formulation of the neg as a backhanded compliment. Buried in the compliment (she’s “sexy”) is the observation that she has big feet, which no woman would consider an attractive part of her body.
There’s a pandemic of beta male thirst in America, perhaps in all of the White West, and tried-and-true Game techniques, including the neg, can help betas get past their thirst and to stop sounding like desperate, needy tools who have a sordid sexual history with their hands and waifu pillows. Will the beta males listen? Or will they continue their self-defeating goal of making themselves as unsexy as possible to women?
Ejected from the valences of the elementary particles, a new social science survey (re)discovers that city life breeds loneliness.
Are there aspects of city life that can heighten one’s feelings of loneliness? The charity network Acevo, which set up The Loneliness Project last year to tackle social isolation among young people in London, today publishes a report which suggests young Londoners are twice as likely to be lonely as their counterparts elsewhere in the country.
Young people surveyed for the report cited high housing costs, long working hours and the growth of social media as factors contributing to loneliness in the city.
Part of the reason for this increased loneliness of Londonistan Shrillennials is sample bias. Maybe the kind of people who abscond for the big city life are prone to solitude, or to feeling lonely. But my bet is the two big reasons for the increased urban loneliness are the negative effects of Diversity™, which has been proven to lower social trust and fray social bonds, and the severing of connections to family, neighbors and friends in the home towns from where the fresh London recruits hail.
Loneliness is a combination of distrust of your neighbors and density of strangers in your proximity, intensified in those with introvert personalities. The modren deracinated Western megalopolis deepens feelings of distrust and sharpens the division between the soulful social connectedness the new resident left behind and the stew of mystery meat animus he bears and the self-protective ennui he adopts when he moves to the city to become a “stranger in a strange land”.
The report recommends, among other things, the establishment of a mayor’s Fund for Young People’s Resilience and Inclusion, worth £3.2m, to help ensure that young people build the necessary strong social connections to battle isolation.
Instead of blowing money on another fruity lib welfare project doomed to fail, how about enacting long-term plans to reorient Western societies so that there’s a backing-off from the rush to stuff everyone into these market bazaar soulless anthill megacities, and a concomitant revival of small cities geographically distributed across the nation into which smaller, more cohesive groups of people can sort themselves?
Of course, this won’t happen under the globalists’ watch, because it would mean stronger local community bonds, less concentrated Diversity™, and more affordable housing, all social goods which undermine the political and cultural power of insular coastal elites.
Having tried both rural and city life, I’ve come to the conclusion that although you can experience loneliness in both, it feels more pressing in a city environment. I’ve just moved to a big city and I’m reminded again of how alienating it can be. When you’re approaching 50 and trying to ‘start again’ in a new place, it can be really hard. In a city it can feel like the whole world is out having fun, which makes you feel like a bit of loser. (Polly, Edinburgh resident)
Big cities are intimidating. The more people around you, the easier it is to get lost among them, to lose track of your own self. In big cities one can be completely busy doing so much and be left with little to no time to nurture any particular relationship or interest. Therefore, you’re living surrounded by people, but connected to no one. (Gustavo, Chicago resident)
Growing up in a city that had little to offer but decrepit playgrounds, underfunded schools and a sorry park, I spent most of my precious childhood at home staring at screens. Later, I was compelled to move out of the city and into a more suburban, almost rural place. After a rough phase of adaptation, I was overwhelmed with the cordiality that surged up on me. Within a year, I made dozens of friends, met the girl I now live with and developed a much more positive attitude. (Donald Saunter, ex-Saarbrücken resident)
I personally feel that NYC has become a more transient place rather than a community-building place. There’s no real sense of community left. The city has also become an investment haven for absentee foreign owners. It has also become a homogenised ‘Disneyland’ of sorts – imitating itself like the New York New York hotel/casino in Las Vegas. Another life-long New Yorker I know once referred to the city as a ‘five-star jail’ which I found to be pretty accurate. What can be more lonely than a jail? (David, New York City resident)
I have a thing for major cities, but they can be intimidating. While anonymity isn’t necessarily always bad, big cities do leave you somewhat unprotected and exposed. But part of that loneliness means cities are the ideal environment to discover yourself in your own light, without feeling like you are being watched or frowned upon, and really thrive. (Juliana, Buenos Aires resident)
Juliana is the kind of girl I prey on in the biggest cities. Girls who need to “discover themselves” free of judgmental family or friends who would “frown upon” their sexual adventures. (Let’s cut out the bullshit…in femmespeak, “thrive” means “lotsa cockas”.) This lifestyle does come with its downsides, though. Ironically, urban atomization and its discontents offers a chance at romantic redemption for loveless beta and omega males by giving them the closest facsimile to an “SMV blank slate” they can hope to have.
I once wrote that the anonymity afforded by dense city living was a godsend for aspiring cads, (and a threat to aspiring dads), as the urban milieu does a good job sheltering men from angry ex-boyfriends, bored gossips, and disapproving parents. Similarly, the anonymizing urban jungle encourages permissiveness among girls who don’t have to worry so much about their reputations and walks of shame circulating far and wide among watchful family and friends. They can let their slut flag fly.
The loneliness of city living isn’t its sole enervating aspect, but it will contribute, along with the sexually primal, non-inclusive secret society that hums just underneath the city’s androgynous veneer, to a vast interwoven malaise that saps souls of meaning and wombs of nurslings.
The open borders project forced by a 0.1%er elite on an unwilling citizenry can be viewed in the context of this post as a poisoned ameliorative for the negatives of big city life, specifically the fertility depression and the spiritual depression brought on by social atomization. It’s no wonder elections are more and more shaping up into existential battles between the working and middle classes in the countryside and the dregs and upper classes in the cities. Rome fell under similar strains. Barring a Trumpian reversal, we will too.
A hot if somewhat mannish-looking female teacher is in court on charges of “raping” one of her students during their months-long sexual adventure.
A teacher is accused of sodomizing a middle school student and raping him during their alleged months-long sexual relationship.
Lindsey Jarvis, 27, pleaded not guilty to two counts of rape at the Fayette County Courthouse in Kentucky, where she held hands with her husband of three years.
She was also charged with rape, sodomy and unlawful transaction with a minor in neighboring Woodford County, where she was accused of sexually assaulting the boy in May 2016.
Police found evidence on the victim’s phone suggesting the two were in a ‘romantic relationship’, and Jarvis was arrested on Friday.
If you’ve heard this story before too many times to count, you’re not going crazy; sexual predation by female teachers, many of them hot and married, of their young (and usually willing) charges is rampant in America, FOR SOME ODD REASON. (Hint: it’s the leftoid glorification of unconstrained female sexuality and the concomitant demonization of normal male sexuality and patriarchal prerogative, plus various r-selected biofeedback loops that accompany declining cultures in the throes of late stage decadence.)
You can tell by the psychocunt smirk in her mugshot she expertly summoned like a seasoned PUA that there was no adult alpha man in her life who could stand up and answer the call, “Who bitch dis is?“. On paper, she was her husband’s bitch. On paper. In reality, she was no one’s bitch, to the detriment of society.
Never rely on legal documents to secure a woman’s love. You can only win her heart in the supreme court of her raging id.
But the black heart of this sordid tryst — the essence that tells you everything you need to know about why she did it and why she’s smirking — isn’t in Lindsey Jarvis, Wonderslut. It’s in Lindsey Jarvis’s lapdog, her dutiful, supportive husband.
Lindsey Jarvis, 27, pleaded not guilty to two counts of rape at the Fayette County Courthouse in Kentucky, where she held hands with her husband of three years
There’s a time to hold your wife’s hand, and that time is NOT when she’s in court for fucking and tickling the anus of one of her underage students for months on end.
(Who, by the looks of her, will probably go right back to livin’ la vida alpha fux beta bux once she’s out of jail (one month)).
Their body and facial language is a thin palimpsest barely concealing two rotten souls — hers rotten with wantonness, his rotten with appeasement. That’s a married couple in complete sexual polarity reversal, defying the God of Biomechanics with arrogant impunity. She’s the alpha male, here, looking into the middle distance, thinking of some other male, head tilted away from her doting husband who, for his part, must reach across her lap to take her hand, his eyes downcast in submission and supplication, probably fighting back a gnawing fear of her hot body and BPD love leaving his life forever (even though he never really had unrestricted access to her body and heart, but just try telling ARE MARRIED BETA MALE that, and he’ll suddenly find a reason to passionately defend his manly honor.)
“But he’s innocent in this!”, you poon plebs shriek ignorantly. No, friendos, he’s not innocent. He’s an enabler. A force ten amplifier of the crassest female instincts and tramp malice. America is suffering a crisis of these “supportive” beta male husbands who stand by their cheating slut wives, bearing for themselves all the shame and responsibility that should be the sole domain of their faithless women.
You think a beta phagg like Lindsey’s Lapdog just started being supportive now, in Lindsey’s time of greatest need? Ha, no. This doormat was born supportive, a human toilet seat upon which the world’s whores would sit to pinch their cock-impacted loafs embedded with the crusty cum of secret lovers, knowing all too clearly that a pushover like this milquetoast will take those steaming slut deuces and beg for more.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but women are DISGUSTED by indiscriminately supportive males. Look closely at Lindsey’s face in the second photo; that’s disgust mixed with contempt amid a swirl of illicit yearning. No man who’s had experience with more than one or two women would miss the meaning in that face. And no man worth his dignity and salvageable serum T level would unconditionally “support” a cheating wife who seethed with that much resentment for him. He’d tell her to hit the road, face first, and be glad he was rid of her for the rest of his life.
Unquestioning beta male support is ruining our women. It’s as simple as that. Beta thirst kills feminine virtue dead. Manginatude frees the Inner Whore in every woman.
If women, especially spoken-for women, don’t fear consequences for indulging every sexual compulsion (and women have many, often contradicting, sexual compulsions), then they won’t curb themselves. Women are not natural self-regulators; they require a strong pimp hand to avoid descent into womb wilding, whether that pimp hand comes in the form of a dominant alpha male or a dominant patriarchal culture.
Instead, America’s men are caught in a spiral of self-abnegation and slavish pussy pedestal polishing. Witness:
On her 25th birthday, husband Andrew Jarvis paid tribute to his wife, writing: ‘Happy 25th birthday to my sweetest Lindsey!
‘So thankful for your wonderful heart, which teaches me so much about compassion and kindness.
‘So thankful for your wisdom and discernment that help guide us through life….Love you with all my heart, and so thankful to have you as my best friend.’
First mistake: a wife or gf should never be a man’s “best friend”. His lover, his confidant, his alibi, his accomplice, his lolita, his sex toy, sure. But not his best friend. That cloying admission reeks of neediness and uxuriousness, and sucks all the romantic lifeblood out of what should be a sexually dichotomous relationship. Women don’t want a best friend for a husband; they want a lover and a king.
Second mistake: penning this treacle at all. He could have done so much more for his cause, meaning his sex life and future paternity certainty, had he sent her this instead on her birthday:
I’d like to end on a hopeful note. How do we solve the crisis of supportive beta husbands and boyfriends enabling the worst sort of female animal behavior?
My suggestion, one I’ve been proselytizing for a while, to no avail apparently as we can see the population of supplicating betas grows year over year, is….hold your breath….Game. If beta males gained the skills of the crimson arts and had more choice in women, or at least perceived that they had more choice in women, the confidence instilled in them would stream outward and fill the hearts and Bartholin’s corpuscles of the women in their lives, and a big beautiful mutually reinforcing limbic synchronization that aligned with the ancient biomechanic laws of sexual polarity would draw man and woman closer together, and those wild cockscillations that undulate darkly in the vajfold crevices of every woman threatening to crumble heartbridges would be calmed.
Or, having options in women, beta males would at least be more emotionally continent about their choice of long-term mate and be more willing to jettison those women who don’t make the grade.
The Right needs more Sabos, fewer cucks. I like this guy and what he’s doing ON THE GROUND to advance the anti-globohomo, anti-leftoid, anti-cuck, pro-Trumperica resistance.
The guerrilla art movement is usually associated with leftwing politics. Banksy targets capitalism, consumerism and inequality. Blek le Rat, the father of stencil graffiti, depicts oppression and resistance.
In the Trump era, the right, however, has its own guerrilla artist: Sabo, a former US marine who works from an apartment-cum-studio in Los Angeles beneath a sign that says “Fuck Tibet”. Another says “Fuck peace”.
There’s no clause in the cosmic laws that says the Left has to own the domain of street art or street activism. The Maul-Right is showing that clever artlords can turn the streets into their agitprop playgrounds with arguably more impact than do the icons of the shitlib self-pleasuring consortium, given that the material the maul-right works with is by its nature incredibly subversive and id-throttling.
“Republicans are the new punk,” said Sabo, echoing a slogan on his T-shirt also adorned with an image of Trump in a three-piece suit, looking rather rakish, giving the finger. “I’m pretty much the only right-winger doing guerrilla art. I’m like patient zero, the first one doing this on our side.”
Ahem, I hate to preen out of turn, but a case can be made this very Chateau was uglytruth guerrilla art before it could be even imagined by the kweer kultur kommissars.
Several other rightwing street artists are in fact active in LA but prefer anonymity, thinking that gives their work more power. Some on the right consider Sabo a showboater.
He is not shy about self-promotion, calling himself a one-man rebuttal to Madonna, Katy Perry, Lady Gaga and other anti-Trump performers. “I cater to the street urchins, the young people. I want them to understand that there’s another message out there.”
I don’t have a problem with Sabo’s showboating as long as he’s effective, passionate, and willing to stick the shiv in leftoid guts when the sticking’s good. But anonymity does generally imbue an artist with an ineffable coolness factor.
Sabo now says he is “cautiously optimistic” about the president. “The day I came to love Donald Trump was when I saw how hard he was kicking liberals in the teeth.”
Amen, Sabo. How can you not admire a man who doesn’t cry at the sight of his own balls or apologize for their impudent heft?
The left, he said, has mastered cultural and political “dark arts” and “weaponised” Hollywood, the FBI, the IRS, universities and other institutions to promote a nefarious agenda.
Indeed, for going on sixty plus decades. But hope glimmers from a retreat nestled deep in the Alsatian wood. Chateau Heartiste is a place where lords and guests come to retrieve those dark arts and reclaim them for the side of Truth and Beauty.
Comment Of The Week: Women Are Anti-Civilizational
Jun 24th, 2017 by CH
COTW winner Jack Ragnar does a 180 on cuckventional wisdom and as a result grazes a deep and abiding truth about the sexes.
The white kight/cuck aphorism they love to cling to is that women are the civilizers of men, by dint of being the gatekeepers to sex and therefore having the leverage to demand men behave themselves.
But what if the civilizing force runs the other way? Any man who has experience with women has seen that the fair sex can entertain malice and destructiveness the equal of any man, but without the sensationalist physical violence that grabs headlines and puts the spotlight on male wickedness. There’s a better case to make that men are the sex with the drive to civilize, and that women, constrained as their sex is by the hypergamous need to identify the strongest man in the tribe, exert de-civilizing forces on the sexual market that if left unregulated can and do lead to cultural collapse.
Jack is onto something yuge, and we here at CH have toyed with the same idea of unrestricted female sexuality as a herald of national decline. The entire story may be more nuanced than this, but it’s a necessary and useful widening of the discourse to at least begin to cast suspicion on the shibboleth that women civilize men and not the other way around. When all is said and done, CH will have pushed open the Ovaton Window so wide the sunlight will scorch dying feminist wombs from Berkeley to Bonn.
[crypto-donation-box]
Posted in Comment Winners | Comments Off