Feed on
Posts
Comments

SoftWhites Vs SlavWhites

The Philosopher offers a needed corrective to this post about the failure of the proposition nation ideology that so animates the Anglo-Germanic White soul:

Just want to note that when you make the argument slavics and irish and italians and so on reduced the character of the nation, just remember the irish, italians and slavs are also the most pro white minorities and peoples in the west. Poll your readers: how many call descent from these rather than scandinavians and dutch? These nice people.

Scorcese’s taxi driver was making hbd arguments about cesspit new york 30 years ago. Slavic and irish are generally very r selected whites. With slavs being more intelligent but irish being more r.

They will stand at your side even more than most of the autistic leaning germanic descended cucks because these white ethnicities are more survivalist, even if their differential calculus ability or blind rule following is not 100%.

Trumps temper is 100% scottish.

The Philosopher makes a very astute point. The cultural landscape has changed. The White groups who once made America great now strive, unwittingly or intentionally, to destroy America, while more ornery white ethnics rise up as a last bastion against suicidal universalism.

So three cheers for the American SlavWhites and their high T refusal to bend the knee to the multikult mongrelization machine. Odin-willing, these outposts of White ethnic shitlords will crush the SoftWhites, hear the lamentations of their wive’s sons, and herald The Trumpening, altering the course of America for generations.

This comment by consiliosus stands as one of the purest expressions of “proposition nation” idolatry I’ve read. I highlight it because Realtalkers should understand the imposing mental road blocks of the benighted that they have to hurdle if America is to be saved in any form that remotely resembles the historical America.

Respectfully, what CH is missing is that, what is unique about America, is it was the first nation or even first political organization of people NOT built on race or ethnicity, but on an ideal. Alt-Right/ethno-racial nationalism is based on European political thinking. The latter is a way of thinking that goes back to the beginning of Human history. America made a break from this. It showed that it was possible, even ideal.

Leftism, another European ideological import, exploits ethnic and racial groups for it’s benefit, seeking to be in power. The Alt-Right, being an ethno-racial ideology also, reacts to such, and fights back, also seeking to be in power. Both however are ethno-racial based, even more so the latter however.

America doesn’t deny the influences of bio-mechanics and race and ethnicity. It developed a new way to organize and benefit from such influences. We need Constitutionalism more than we need White Nationalism. The latter is just a European leftist ideology based on race, ethnicity and bio-mechanics. It’s a watered down Nazi Germany.

The fundamentally flawed premise in this earnest proposition nation belief system is the idea that America is an idea which can stand apart from her racial genesis and heritage and continue thriving with any sort of people constituting her population. “As long as the idea is embraced, America will survive”, is the core tenet of this “blank state” religion.

This religion is heretical in any American age but the one we live in now. It is historically ignorant and a disingenuous misinterpretation of the Founding Fathers intent — Vox does a good job dismantling the proposition nation lie here.

Like any effective lie, each is constructed  around a fragment of truth, in this case, the section of the Declaration of Independence which declares: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

However, it is also self-evident that a secular atheist Jew, such as (((Ekaterina Jung))), who does not believe in a Creator, cannot credibly appeal to the Declaration in order to claim to be an American. And it is documentarily evident that, like the U.S. Constitution, the Naturalization Act of 1790, the writings of John Jay, Ben Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and other Founding Fathers, and the Alt-Right nationalist position, the Declaration of Independence itself is directly opposed to the revisionist interpretation, as the document also refers to:

  • the connection between [the United Colonies] and the State of Great Britain
  • the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages
  • large Armies of foreign Mercenaries
  • the present King of Great Britain
  • the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners
  • the free System of English Laws
  • our Brittish brethren

To cite one phrase of a document in contradiction to the central theme of the entire document, which is that the People of the United Colonies are an English people, unique and distinct from foreigners, Indians, and the English people loyal to the King of Britain, is an outrageous attempt at deceit that relies entirely on the historical ignorance of the audience. To say that anyone can become an American because “all men are created equal” is a shameless lie. One might as readily cite it as evidence to claim it means anyone can become Chinese.

And here is MPC’s contribution to debunking the proposition nation myth and revealing the universalist idealists among America’s founders whose equalist fervor helped provide subversive rhetoric for the various tribes to come later who despised blood-and-soil legacy America.

So not only is the proposition nation shibboleth historically inaccurate, it’s biologically (and hence culturally, since culture derives from biological inputs) fraudulent. The principle simply cannot be severed from the people. And the people cannot be severed from their pedigree.

Principle from people from pedigree.

Ergo, Constitutionalist principle = racial pedigree.

Race is people is idea is culture is nation. Englishmen created the American Idea, and Englishmen are best suited to allow that idea to flourish and to sustain it over generations. Others came who were not too dissimilar from Englishmen — the Germans, Dutch, Swedes — and their genetic closeness did not radically undermine the American Idea. Later still, ethnic Whites and half-White/half-Semites — Slavs, Italians, Irish, Jews — arrived, and their genetic and cultural distance, relative to the Englishman’s, did begin to erode the American Idea and twist it into a monstrous apparition that could be turned against its father.

These later White ethnic waves opened the Pandora’s Box to the Hart-Cellar 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act, which has since overrun the nation with literally tens of millions of nonWhite hordes who are as genetically and culturally distant from the founding sons and daughters and their posterity as can be, and their presence on American soil now rapidly (and predictably) debases, poisons, and will shortly extinguish, the Proposition Nation ideal.

Of course, some misanthropes insist that turning America into an unrecognizable third world market bazaar teeming with violence, grime, corruption, hostility, incompetence, and tribalism, all of which left unchecked by a hollowed-out disappearing White middle class, is evidence of the victory of the Proposition Nation ideal.

Normal people say to that, “If that’s colorblind Constitutionalism, give me race-aware Nationalism.”

johnjay

Courtesy of elmertjones,

The class valedicktorian is preparing hard for her upcoming battle with the class wise-ass. The media has already declared her the winner, especially after her devastating George Santayana quote (to be delivered in the debate along with other killer platitudes). Everyone else is going to the party at wise-ass’s house.

That about sums it up. TheCunt is a spent shell entity who delivers her “killer” lines like an automaton in a gravelly dyke voice, and her wonking out on stage will go over about as well as the class nerd tediously explaining the logical fallacies of stuffing him into a locker.

The transparency of media hivemind antagonism to Trump and, by extension, to White America, got me thinking about a similar undercurrent that pushes along any successful seduction.

That there’s media antagonism to their audience is inarguable. Examples of media doublethink and contemptuously glib violation of journalistic ethics abound, and Twatter renegades do a bang-up job showcasing them. One that immediately comes to mind is how the MSM treated Trump’s visit to flood-wracked Louisiana compared to how they reacted to W. Bush’s post-Katrina performance. W was denounced for “missing in action”, while Trump is denounced for “exploiting a tragedy for a photo op”.

When you’re up against this kind of Numbnuts Class bullshit artistry, the only response is all-out flame war; show the media the mount of respect they show regular Americans: less than zero.

The take-home point is that the leftoid media are skilled rhetoricians who have mastered the art of the reframe. Reframing is, as it happens, also a crucial Game concept, deployed whenever a woman shit tests a prospective suitor for signs of his alpha male essence. The reframe is an invaluable pickup tool.

Interestingly, seductive reframing smoothly slips off the tongue when one isn’t emotionally invested in the girl (or group) being addressed. It’s the same reason the media is able to so effortlessly reframe everything they communicate through an anti-White distortion field; 97% of shitlib media whores actively despise half of their audience (and probably more). This intrinsic antagonism for the occupied rubes provides a fertile mental field from which reframing subconsciously springs to action, hardly requiring any forethought to achieve maximally effective execution.

Consider the opposite: the beta male whose heart beats like a drum for a cute girl. He stumbles and often fails entirely to properly reframe teasing challenges from the girl, often failing so badly that he acquiesces to the girl’s frame and loses control of the interaction, essentially reduced to apologizing for her accumulating negative impression of him.

Reframing is exceedingly difficult when your interrogator is a sexual prize you feel an incredible compulsion to appease. Every fiber of your being resonates with the urge to avoid reframing in favor of accepting an anhedonic frame from a cute girl.

Media antagonism and their ease of reframing thus offers insight to the field of romance. It’s sometimes helpful for striving betas who want to do better with women (but don’t yet have the state control to sublimate their growly horniness) to view women as neutral parties, if not antagonistic adversaries. Putting the pussy on a pedestal is widely regarded the kiss of pickup death; the inverse — knocking the pussy off the pedestal and sneering at it with a stir of contempt as it lays on the ground — is, sadly for romantic idealists, an effective psychological reconfiguration that ironically raises women’s awareness of a man’s desirability.

I want to stress that regarding women as adversaries worthy of condescension until proven otherwise isn’t necessary to successfully seduce them, but it is better than sucking up to women. If you are a beta male who struggles with practical application of the reframe concept, you would improve your results with a simple change to your mental outlook. View women as occupied rubes ready to lap up your agit-cock, and reframing their shit tests and princess-primed expectations will come as easy to you as does reframing every story through the anti-White filter to the duplicitous, vile media apparatchiks.

Once you have taken the Crimson Pill, you won’t any longer need this psy ops crutch of making enemies of who are in reality neutral parties to navigate the dating market and women’s limbic landscape. Your self-confidence will surge with each sparkle of a new girl’s eye and that will grant you a reservoir of effortless reframing that you can tap with every girl, even the special snowflakes who ping your major histocompatibility index.

One of the better attempts to describe the occasionally shape-shifting alt-right political platform that I’ve read comes from an anonymous source who devised the following “Nine Theses” infographic.

ninetheses

All nine points are winning soundbites to quietly rebelling White (and black-American) voters. One could quibble on the details of each thesis — for instance, I wouldn’t say the alt-right rejects (or should reject) any immigration in perpetuity, so much as it rejects racially and religiously incompatible immigration in high numbers — but the general thrust of the Nine Theses alt-right message is unassailable.

I don’t think any anti-SCALE missionaries would find fault with this platform, either. It’s strongly anti-globalism (and against all related social upheavals that globalist traitors foist on societies) and, most importantly, gives no quarter to the blank slate, leftoid equalism forces of culture destruction and anti-White humiliation porn. It’s bold, brash, and unyielding, all traits from which the useless cuckservative me-too-ist establishment recoils, like they do from health inspector oversight of their favorite bathhouses.

CH appreciates the shout-out as well. After all, the inaugural Chateau post (pre-dating all thoughtcrime Realtalkers except the venerable Steve Sailer) could justifiably qualify as a proto-alt-right blast of social realism. So we Stewards of the Shiv have been feeling a little left out of the recent alt-right foam party, though on reflection we don’t mind too much. The low media profile of this ‘umble outpost keeps Hillary’s good squad off our backs.

Both are examples of the commonplace phenomenon of the bitter mulatto who spites his White mother’s heritage and yearns for his missing black daddy’s love.

Keepin’ it real, yo.

In honor of Hillary’s schoolmarm harangue against the alt-right today, I’ll jot down a few of my thoughts on the idea of White Nationalism (as a principle and as it would work in practice).

First, a word on vanilla (heh) nationalism.

Nationalism ultimately distills to racial nationalism, though the latter isn’t required to prompt the former (or to sustain it for a while). A polyglot, Babelized citizenry corrodes nationalist principles and practices. A multicultural nationalism is an oxymoron over a long enough timeline. This is self-evident once we take it as a given that culture (aka nation) is inherited from the genetic legacy of its people.

So in principle, White Nationalism is effectively a synonym for garden-variety nationalism, because a numerical onslaught of nonWhites would irretrievably alter the characteristics of a White-majority nation that followed a theoretically race-blind nationalist ideology (similar to Steve Sailer’s Citizenism).

In practice, though, avowed White Nationalism is a non-starter. Whites aren’t a monolith. Italy looks and operates differently than England which looks and operates differently than Ukraine. There are four primary continental scale races — White, asian, amerind, black — and a nationalism ideology that attempted to place those races under an all-encompassing umbrella term would be viciously mocked and rebuked by popular revolt. There can be no Black Nationalism or Asian Nationalism or Amerind Nationalism. Try telling a Mexican he’s indistinguishable from an El Salvadoran.

Likewise, a White Nationalism movement will fail.

Although I will say this in contradiction: If White Nationalism can work anywhere, it’s most likely to find purchase in a Euro-mixed nation like America, and at a point when American Whites fall below 50% of the total population. (Spot the irony.)

I’ll have more to say on this subject in future posts, but for now my conclusion is to leave White Nationalism alone in favor of regular Nationalism. The White part will work itself out organically as the nation becomes less globalist and more nationalist.

A White prankster (who’s doing more good for the cucked world than he can possibly know), bix noody-trapped his bike with a taser, and then left the bike unattended and unlocked in his neighborhood, recorded by a hidden camera. Hilarity and uncomfortable pattern recognition ensued.

See if you can spot the common denoginator.

Reader quixotic adds context:

This is freaking hilarious

So reddit is freaking out because fans of Trump have turned the site from a liberal safe space into a painful (read: honest and realistic) forum.

The video was posted to a thread and people familiar with reality noticed that hey all these thieves have something in common…

That did not go over well with the censorship loving lefties who dont like that
reality doesn’t match up with their oasis of equality. Now the thread is nearly scrubbed of comments that discuss the fact that the thieves are all dindus. Every day we get closer to 1984.

Also thanks for your help fellas i picked up my first AR this weekend people were in a frenzy for a m m o and finding lowers

White “asserted virtue on the cheap” shitlibs will just have to come to terms with the lovefact that White morality doesn’t port smoothly to other races. Assuming nonWhites share the same moral and ethical impulses as Whites is a mission-critical error of judgment.

Projecting White morality onto other races was always going to end in tears. And caustic laughter.

***

The same prankster did something similar with an empty, unlocked car and a fake bomb in the backseat. The usual suspects turn out for their shot at YouTube fame.

Porn for women is an overlooked phenomenon, partly because the type of porn that stimulates women isn’t as visually arresting as the porn that consumes men. The pink and moist pyrotechnics we associate with the online porn that readily captures male attention does little for women (though recent data suggest more women are turning to online porn for sexual relief, the numbers are still low, under 20%).

Female porn utilizes a different medium of arousal delivery, but the effect on the female libido and ability to form healthy relationships is just as profound as that of online porn’s effect on men.

So what is female porn? It’s pulp romance — in the form of books, movies and TV — that caresses lady limbic lobes to sprout slick clit dick. In a word: words.

More wokely, a lot of that female porn is rape fantasy porn.

The premise: women are different than men, in the most fundamental ways imaginable. Evolution as old as time has resulted in a sexually reproducing species that has inherited sexual, mental and psychological traits differentiating the sexes.

If you can’t accept this premise (self-delusion is a widespread affliction in post-America), then you won’t understand how it is words can have the same power over women’s horny levels that graphic crotch-slapping close-ups have on men’s horny levels. Nevertheless, it’s true. Women are turned on when they read salacious stories that allow their hindminds to fill in the sticky details.

There are hundreds of thousands of self-published ebook authors, but according to Amazon, only 40 of these have managed to make a profit by selling over 1 million copies of their ebooks over the last five years. Ms. Wild happens to be one of them. What is her secret? […]

So let’s look at what Ms. Wild writes about in her novels. Her first novel, Hardwired, is about a young woman’s encounters with “an array of sexual kinks.” Her subsequent novels are along the same vein. At the end of the article, a writer for Ms. Wild’s new publishing house says she is happy to “focus on writing sex scenes” because: “I just want to write wicked hot books.”

And here the light begins to flicker onto the truth. Under the euphemism of “romance,” Ms. Wild peddles erotica, the literary equivalent of pornography. While her books are not filled with nude photographs or graphic video, they contain the same drug reconstituted into another form: words that translate into pornographic images which burn into the minds of their readers (to see for yourself, excerpts of her novels are available on her website).

Ms. Wild, it turns out, is the female equivalent of Hugh Hefner. She is a verbal drug pusher, shoving words as potent as cocaine at her own gender.

And droves of women are clearly addicted. In an industry that is insanely competitive, where most authors earn below the poverty line, Ms. Wild’s first novel, published in 2014, was making $500,000 in royalties per month soon after its release. Ms. Wild sold a total of 1.4 million copies of this book and agreed to a $6.25 million advance for five books. She also started a new publishing house, which has already sold more than a million copies and hit the New York Times Bestseller list with one of its first titles, Calendar Girl.

The bottom line on the numbers of female porn consumers:

But according to Laurie Kahn, producer of the documentary film Love Between the Covers: “More than 70 million people in the USA alone read at least one romance novel per year, and most of them read many more.”

The US Census for 2015 shows there are 100 million women between 18 and 64 years old living in the United States. If Kahn’s number is correct, and assuming that the majority of those “70 million people” are women, then up to 70 percent of American women are covertly consuming literary pornography.

Pleasureman wept.

Does any of this matter? Parents want to shield their kids from visual porn, but they don’t feel nearly the same protective affront when a woman is reading a pulp romance novel in public.

You are sitting on a bus during your morning commute. In the seat next to you, there is a male passenger reading Penthouse. Chances are you may feel upset, perhaps disgusted. You might even demand that he stop.

On the other side, there is a female passenger holding a book with a very plain cover, entitled Into the Fire. With a mysterious title like that, this book could be about anything. If you ask, the passenger will tell you that it is a “romance” novel by Meredith Wild. The passenger has always loved these kinds of books, she tells you, ever since she read Jane Austen as a teenager. Innocent fairy tale, you conclude.

Both passengers are consuming pornography. But the woman is doing it so discreetly that almost no one recognizes it—often, not even the statistics.

Here’s the thing: the woman reading Into the Fire on the bus is popping a public lady boner just as assuredly as a man scouring Pornclearinghouse on his iPhag is jutting impudently into the public space. From five feet away, typeset is harder to discern than a streaming PIV video; that’s the only difference between the porn-consuming man and woman and the social norms they are violating.

Among those who admit that romance literature is pornography, there is a tendency to consider it “soft-core” (some also downplay it as “mommy porn“). This implies that it is less potent and less dangerous than the “hard” visual stuff that fries the brains of men.

When viewed from a male perspective, it makes sense to classify “pornmance” as “soft” pornography. Men are more visual than women, so they respond more strongly to photographs and video. To men, images are like crack cocaine, and literary pornography is mere marijuana.

But for women, the opposite is true. Women are less visual, and so less attracted to the internet pornography that is irresistible to men. For women, visual pornography should be considered a light beer while the emotionally charged “pornmance” novel is 70-proof liquor, hard-core pornography.

100% truefact. This is something that tradcons don’t get.

And there are many “romance alcoholics.” Women get addicted to romance books in the same way that men get addicted to photographs and videos. In 2011, one psychologist reported that she was “seeing more and more women who are clinically addicted to romantic books.”

Time for a NO DIDDLE movement.

Like other addictions, “pornmance” novels mess with women’s brains and wreak havoc in their lives. According to therapists, these books can cause women to become dissatisfied with their marriages, to become “dangerously unbalanced,” and according to a pornography addiction counselor, to have affairs.

A smarmy white knight would never finger a cause for the high divorce rate that didn’t apportion blame entirely on men. In the pussy pedestaler’s worldview, only drunk, abusive, layabout men end marriages. To them, women aren’t capable of crass sexual escapism driven by primal insatiable lusts.

Is it mere coincidence that nearly 70 percent of divorces in the United States are initiated by women?

The authoress of this article, Lea Singh, must be a CH reader. Little spoon?

If online porn is a problem for society, then so is word porn. If you argue that online porn is causing men to “drop out” and deep-six their marriages and relationships, then you have to also argue that word porn is causing women to do the same.

I’ve said it before to obstinate tradcons and their ironic bedfellows, the man-hating feminist cunts:

It takes two to tango. Especially if that tango two-steps to the metagrave.

Ugly Dude Game

This chick gets to the heart of what it takes for an ugly dude to succeed in the dating market.

uglydudegame

I couldn’t have said it better. Most chicks forget about ugly dudes before they’ve even approached to solicit sexyuglytime. But this girl remembered her ugly dude who treated her like she was the leper begging for scraps of his twisted staff.

This is Game 101, optimized for the ugly dude.

  • Flip the script. Reorient the mate evaluation frame so that she is chasing you, rather than you acceding to following the preconfigured path of “man chase woman”.
  • Assume the sale. Most ugly men give up before they’ve tried. If you’re an ugly dude, you’ve gotta get in the game, and that means willfully, some would say irrationally, shelving your self-doubt and diving in balls-first under the working assumption that you’ve got what girls want….ejaculytes!
  • DISQUALIFY. This one is a biggie. CREAM MAGIC. Ugly dudes (and most normal looking men) find reasons, real or not, to disqualify THEMSELVES. Instead, disqualify the girl. Be the ugly dude who acts like the girl is, succinctly, the ugly one in the courtship dynamic. This will confuse and torment her (in an arousing way), and she’ll respond with exorbitant efforts to reaffirm her self-perception and win the ugly dude’s approval. As an ugly dude, he should never give it. (Once he gives it, it’s game over. He should instead forever hint that one day, maybe real soon now, he’ll crack and cherish her for the angel she is.)

You can classify the above rules as psychological ju jizzsu which exploits a vulnerability in the female mate assessment algorithm: their desire for a man who has lots of romantic options. Women don’t have teleportation or time machines that can zoom them into a prospective lover’s bedroom for a complete examination of his sexual history. So instead women have to rely on male SMV cues, some subtle some not, which indicate to her hindbrain’s satisfaction that the man making his move on her has no problem jettisoning her early on for less intransigent pussy. The ugly man who mimics those male SMV-boosting cues can actually wield MORE power over a woman’s imagination than can a decent-looking man, because she’ll be curious about what must certainly be the ugly dude’s awesome super magnetic charisma with apparently limitless power to overcome his rough mug.

Now, it’d be silly to claim that, all else equal, handsomeness isn’t preferable to ugliness. But it’d be just as silly to assert that ugly dudes are shit outta luck. Not so. Unlike ugly women who suffer massive and deal-killing romantic penalties in the hunt for an acceptable mate, ugly dudes aren’t locked out of the romance market if they have that je ne sais cocky that women love.

Ugly Dude Game: treat women like ugly dudes. It won’t work every time, nor most of the time, maybe not even a fraction of the time. But it’ll work far more often than Ugly Dude No-Game, which is putting the pussy on a pedestal without having compensatory handsomeness as a safeguard to get laid by slutty 6s and 7s.

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Also reachable over Tor: roissyrwpgxawb3etwznvay4eelbws4lkdtr4tt2r7wxb6adq6pajtqd.onion