Luke Ford

Matt King writes:

Let’s take a second here during a game post to congratulate CH for the victory in the general culture we are all now experiencing. The election (win or lose) is a symptom of that victory, not its cause. The essential triumph has already begun, and there is no possible way to snuff it out now.

The reason CH uses a pen name is testimony to the unexpectedness of the victory. I have been generally optimistic that the culture would have to gradually turn back to men if it were to survive, but we all must admit to being astonished at the rapidity with which the entire milieu has changed.

Trump’s candid discussion with Billy Bush about women’s behavior around alpha males is the equivalent of a 2006 CH blog post. But instead of being distributed by a pseudonymous author like samizdat from a secret chateau, it was said by the next president of the United States — who will be the next president in very large part because he applied that “crimson” knowledge to politics.

Politics is downstream from culture, and we collectively anticipated the revolution down here in the online ghetto, we applied it to our lives, and now it is operable in the culture. Many understood the essential insight — that boys will always be boys, even if they are made illegal, and women will illegally love them for it — but CH gets credit for understanding its connection to power in general. Hence, his gradual transformation away from pick-up basics, which can be summarized and transmitted quickly, to the arena of power, which has an unlimited number of applications.

It may be time to drop the anonymity. Not all at once in a useless, grandiose, and still suicidal gesture. But with this culture shift, one may want to slowly begin knitting back together one’s split identities and become less shy about possible exposure (cf. Mike Cernovich, formerly “Danger&Play”; cf. the resurrection of Ricky Vaughn). They can’t snuff us out without a trace now that Trump has “taken the slings and arrows” on our behalf. (See his pivotal speech today in Florida, it belongs in the history books.) The paper tiger of the left has been exposed. They cannot intimidate or credibly threaten us anymore.

Each man’s mileage may vary, depending on what “lives, fortunes, and sacred honor” are individually at stake. But Trump had more to lose than perhaps any of us, and he pushed it all to the center of the table, showing us the way it will be done in the second revolutionary era.

We return to and participate in this site — despite the almost insufferable technical difficulties — because here and only here was the essential insight developed and maintained and ultimately applied to the world beyond the author’s original mandate, many years before the greater culture caught on. Now the rest of the West is beginning to thrill to the dark wisdom, and now is our moment.

From the Chateau:

I normally don’t lend much credence to conspiracy theories, especially ones involving dead bodies, but this is not a normal year in America. We now know the ruling class has it in for everyday Americans. So when Wikileaks uncovered a John Podesta email that alluded to a hit on Antonin Scalia, I thought it deserved close media examination…which we don’t get because we don’t have a free press anymore. We have an Orwellian Ministry of Truth posing as a free and objective press but acting as a propaganda arm for Hillary Clinton and the open borders oligarchs.

So the dissident press — the alt-right bloggers, really, and that’s it — is all that’s left to do the dirty work of actually investigating credible evidence of an assassination plot by Democrats and the Clinton Machine to murder Antonin Scalia, ostensibly to pave the way for a SCOTUS nominee who will gut the 2nd Amendment.

The theory comes from a WikiLeaks email from Hillary’s Chairman John Podesta to DC lobbyist Steve Elmendorf. Elmendorf was also the former chief of staff to Democratic leader Dick Gephardt. […]

The theory goes that Podesta’s use of wet work implies an assassination. And the references to pool and Vineyard refer to the Cibolo Creek Ranch where Scalia’s body was found.

The Ranch does have a pool and it is believed that a vineyard is just down the road.

The email was also written just four days before Scalia was found dead on February 13, 2016.

Chilling. I don’t want to get overly dramatic here, but for the first time since Inception Date: Trumpening, I sincerely believe truth-telling dissidents fighting against the Dem/GOP/globalist establishment have reason to fear for their lives in a country ruled by thecunt. Anonymity in this context is as powerful a weapon as a standing army.

From the Chateau:

One of the most important (and under-appreciated) social science studies to have been linked at the Chateau had to do with the escape velocity of revolutionary political movements. Unfortunately, I gave up trying to find the relevant post in the archives after fifteen minutes spent trawling for it, but I recall the gist of the study’s conclusion.

A game-theoretical mathematical algorithm was applied to large scale movements of a social and political nature, to determine the number of people required for a movement to take off and snowball into a revolutionary fire that sweeps away the megaliths of the old order. (The algorithm is similar to the one used to discover that ethnocentric societies win out over other types of societies (e.g., humanitarianism) when they directly compete.)

What the study found was that a successful revolution only needed to start with 10% of the total population as active and passionate advocates of the cause. That’s a surprisingly low number at first glance, but it meshes with the historical record of past social movements. For instance, not many people know that a large majority of Americans in 1970 supported the Vietnam War, even though this was during the height of the flower power anti-war movement that would eventually succeed in ending the war and abolishing conscription — and fifty years later making the girls’ bathroom safe for men wearing dresses.

I was reminded of this study when I saw the video of cuckryan getting booed off the stage at a Wisconsin event.

Cuckryan, loathsome creature he is, won his August primary by a comfortable margin (although Paul Nehlen made deeper inroads than previous challengers had done against cuckryan). How could that be, I asked myself, when he seems to be despised by his constituents? And what does this say about an anti-globalist revolution?

The answer lies hidden in that gem of a study I mention above. Far from a majority of Wisconsinites are shouting SHAME ON YOU at cuckryan, but that vocal minority who do — that glorious 10% bringing all the heart and the balls to the populist nationalism rebellion — are influencing future events in ways that their small numbers prevent them from fully comprehending.

10%.

That’s it.

You get a dedicated 10% to stand athwart the globalism whore machine, yelling FUCK YOU TO HELL, and you can move mountains….and cucks from their corner stools.

So the next time you’re feeling despondent in your shiv-right isolation and surrounded on all sides by despicable cucks and john leibowitzian shitlibs, be invigorated in the knowledge that your tattered and dispersed regiment of realtalkers, fueled on nothing but white hot rage and righteousness, is striking a mighty blow straight at the heart of the corrupt and degenerate ruling class and the wicked Clinton witch.

Why do you think the elite are pulling out all the stops to kill this numerically insignificant alt-right rebellion? Because they know its potential power, and they are afraid.

From the Chateau:

Via Shrill, who writes,

This is the best political ad I’ve seen in a long time. Absolutely implicit.

A mother carrying a child is a rich image, one that’s imprinted not when motherhood starts but when girlhood starts; very little girls want to hold babies, almost as soon as they stop being babies themselves, and when they’re trusted to do so unsupervised (without the fear that they’ll drop the kid (“let them down”)) it’s a big deal. It’s a huge self-identity thing for females in general and mothers in particular (because of the emotional bond between mother and child).*

She’s wearing a windbreaker, which is a very white item of clothing. There’s nothing about it to make it stylish, but it also lacks the kind of branding or logos that would make it look prole. She and the kid are blondes, with blonde hair being a sort of lightning rod both for whites and for people who hate us. the red white and blue partition evokes patriotism, privacy (your ballot is secret), and tradition (these are currently only used in small towns, modern polling locations create privacy by spreading people out, rather than covering them up, which is a tangent rich in metaphor but let’s not).

*This is another illustration of the fatuity of transsexual men’s claims that they “feel like girls on the inside.” They don’t have the maternal instinct, they have the fashion instinct, which, of the two, is done somewhat more for their benefit. They’re saying to real women “the vision of you and your kind that I’ve created to inflame my lusts is the totality of your existence, independent of what you’ve actually felt in your life.”

I’ll add that the image is potent for another reason: it evokes primal race consciousness simultaneously through the emotional pathways of perceived threat and future promise. The child looks behind, her face a mix of perplexity and fear, at the dusky horde invasion and corrupt rulers; is she holding the curtain open for the viewer to peer at the gathering danger with her, or closing it in an act of defiance against the approaching darkness?

The mother is a guardian not only of her child, but of what her child represents: a lineage. We see only the mother’s shielding arm, her face hidden and focused on a momentous decision. She is the promise of a future. For her child. For her family. For her race. For her nation. The ad implores her, and all mothers like her: don’t let them down. You, White woman, aren’t voting for yourself. You’re voting for your children. Powerful. Provocative. And proof that the passion and the beauty and the art and the timeless truths are with the Trump revolution.

Steve Sailer writes:

Ironically, the most far-reaching scheme to rig this and future American elections isn’t being plotted in the Kremlin (as Hillary Clinton and the ruling media warn). Nor is it being hammered out in K Street offices by lobbyists, Democratic operatives, and their press counterparts (as Donald Trump suggests).

Instead, Democrats and their auxiliaries in the media routinely boast of their dream of turning America into a one-party state through changing who gets to vote in American elections.

Strikingly, this vast conspiracy to dilute the sovereignty of American voters by inviting in ringers from abroad is not covered up, nor even excused as aggressive-but-legal political hardball.

Instead, the dilution of the voting power of American citizens is praised lavishly as representing the highest value of “who we are as Americans.”

To protest, or even to notice, the open machinations to adulterate the value of your vote by importing millions of foreigners to increase the numbers of votes cast for the Democrats brands you as a deplorable.

That the Democrats want ever more non-Americans allowed into America so that these immigrants and their descendants can tip American elections toward permanent Democratic rule is something that Democrats are happy to discuss, just so long as Republicans admit that if they aren’t supportive of the Democrats’ scheme, then Republicans deserve their upcoming fate.

The Democrats have enjoyed inviting the more narcissistic and naive GOP politicians, such as Lindsey Graham, John McCain, and Marco Rubio, to join them in promoting the Democrats’ attempts to rig future elections via “comprehensive immigration reform.” As the Democrats point out, the only way Republicans can prove to the onrushing millions of foreigners that Republicans aren’t irredeemable, racist haters on the wrong side of history is by helping the Democrats bring in even more future Democrats…

It took Democrats a while to figure out that their grand strategy ought to be to give up on persuading the American people to elect them and instead for them to elect a new people.