Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Ugly Truths’ Category

Sissy-shaming works. From a reader, an update on CH’s Lesser Beta of the Month:

You must really have done a number on that AndrewHuthFruit™! He completely privatised his Facebook, restricted comments on his instagram, and took down his photoblog! One incisive flick of the CH shiv was enough for this cowardly fucker to completely turtle! Well done.

Good. That was the goal. Another mewling mangina trawling for online attention from bitter feminists falls to the Shaming Shiv.

What I DESPISE to my very being are Agents of Ugliness, Messengers of Mutation, Heralds of Hideousness. And Lords of Lies. If a loser accepts the truth of his low station in life and works to improve him or herself, I salute them. I encourage their efforts. But losers who lie that their loserdom is normal, even exceptional, and that their betters should bow and scrape before the ugliness they want to visit on the world, well…they get the shiv.

Male feminists are a loser subspecies. They spread lies about the sexes, and their grotesque rhetoric defying the natural order gives succor to spiteful cunts and gutless worms, who then spread the lies to innocents like a viral infection, lethal to those of weak will. Meanwhile, the onslaught of ugliness, weaponized by a complicit Gaystream Media and attention whoring accelerants like Faceborg and Instawhore, cows the remnant believers in Beauty, until the mutants have occupied the public consciousness, screeching their Pyrrhic victory over common sense and dignity.

Yeah fuck dat noize. The Chateau stands athwart the Disfigurement Delegation, smirking “lol suck a dick, freaks”. I don’t care if this blog is the last outpost of Beauty in the world, the message will be sent to the Fuggernaut in the teeth of active technopoly suppression of realtalkers that there is no safe space for them as long as the Shiv of Plain Speaking is free to unsheathe. The front lines are everywhere.

So to the Andrew Huths of the Mutant Mafia, I say good riddance. Your social media helicopter ride was the necessary sacrifice to discourage the others who might have similar urges to traffic in civilization-wrecking and romance-killing lies. The seep of your stank is turned back at the gates of this humble abode.

Read Full Post »

Those Who Can See has crafted a tour de force of a post exposing the lie behind the myth that America was founded as a “proposition nation”. The truth is that America was founded for and by Anglo-Saxons, and the propositions were meant for them because our Founders knew that the noble ideas endowing America were of them.

TWCS dismantles the belief that America is a nation born of universalist principles with a reminder that the “proposition nation” idea didn’t appear in the social consciousness until the mid-19th Century, when non-WASP immigration was rising,

The idea that the U.S. was meant to become a League of Nations avant l’heure dates back to the mid 19th century, when America’s first nativist party, the ‘Know-Nothings,’ agitated against Catholic immigrants (both Irish and German). They were  lambasted by people like George Julian, VP candidate:

‘Know Nothingism . . . tramples down the doctrine of human brotherhood. It judges men by the accidents of their condition, instead of striving to find a common lot for all, with a common access to the blessings of life.’ (1)

The proposition nation was an expedient rhetorical gambit for the nation’s 19th Century nascent oligarchs demanding cheap Southern and Eastern European labor.

The seed of race-blind national suicide was planted in America after the mass immigration of the late 19th Century:

By the 1912 presidential election, Woodrow Wilson was currying favor with his new electorate by trumpeting:

‘America has, so to say, opened its doors and extended its welcome to men who were Americans everywhere in the world. She has invited all the free forces of the modern civilized peoples to come to America where men can be free, and where all free forces can unite and forget all their differences of origins.’ […]

But even a ‘proposition nation’ man like Wilson wasn’t a true multiculturalist—he did not extend this welcome to Blacks or Asians:

‘The whole question is one of assimilation of diverse races. We cannot make a homogeneous population out of people who do not blend with the Caucasian race.’

These days, things have gone so far that we’re being told that not letting masses of Mexicans or Africans into our countries is the equivalent of turning away the Jews in 1940, or runaway slaves in 1840.

Skypists claiming that America easily absorbed previous waves of non-Anglo immigrants are full of schmaltz:

Open-borderists argue: ‘In the 19th century we absorbed enormous waves of immigrants with no problem at all. Why would we turn anyone away now?’

‘No problem at all’? Americans who lived through that era would find such a characterization surprising to say the least.

As a matter of fact, then as now, alien groups brought their character and governance styles with them. The result, as we shall see, was far from smooth sailing.

TWCS documents the enormously negative pecuniary and social toll mass Irish and Italian — and now mestizo — immigration levied and still levies on the American republic. To this day, we groan under the legacy of corrupt Irish machine politics and the Southern Italian mafia, though sustained interbreeding with Anglo Whites may have at last pacified the Outer Hajnal ethnic Whites and moved them closer to the Anglo norm for civic behavior and the “temperate love of liberty” that Thomas Jefferson considered essential to republicanism.

Ironically, 2017 America may have crossed a second rubicon in which our salvation will only come from incorporating more Outer Hajnal White blood into the Anglo-SJW swath of White America. We’ve reached a dangerous dissolution point of Extreme Diversity that requires a vaccination shot of Lesser Diversity to save our mortal nation.

The unprecedented waves of South / East European and Irish migration in the late 1800s rattled America deeply. They should have. The country’s founding stock were at that time threatened with eclipse.  Were these people assimilable?

Some say no–that this era marked the beginning of the end of our great Anglo-Protestant republican experiment.

Some say yes--that after turning off the tap in 1924, many of the foreign groups who weren’t already ‘marrying out’ were suddenly forced to do so.  This intermingling between higher- and lower-trust Euro groups led to a ‘leveling’ by which today, globally, American Whites are behaviorally and cognitively similar to modern NW Europeans.  Wiki:

An analysis of Census information and immigration records would suggest that 62% of White Americans today are of British Isles descent, and a total of 86% are of Northwestern European origins. Approximately 14% of U.S. whites are of southern and eastern European ancestry.

Since 1965, of course, our all-European ‘melting pot’ of yore has taken a decidedly different flavor:

The intermingling of ethnic Whites in America into a generic “White American” ethnicity, paradoxically, makes “White Nationalism” more salient here than it would be in European countries manifestly constituted to reflect the unique ethnicities of the people who reside in those nations and call the land their ancestral homes.

Humans are not interchangeable. The accidents of history, of our culture, and yes, even our genes have helped make us who we are and our societies what they are.  If we treasure the liberal democratic systems we’ve inherited, let us have the good common sense to think carefully about just who we allow into that ‘delicate fabric.’

TWCS echoes what I wrote here:

Culture does not spring up out of the ground unseeded, like a summoned monolith. Human genetic disposition seeds the ground and creates culture, unleashing a macro feedback loop where culture and genes interact in perpetuity. Those “cultural judgments” [the leftoids] recoil from are actually subconscious reinforcements of ancient biological truths.

The less Anglo-Saxon America becomes, the less American America becomes, unless you dilute the definition of “American” to encompass any cultural and political expression under the sun. There are certain people who work tirelessly to memory hole America’s founding and replace the vacuum with the rotting fruits of their Freakqualism worldview. We can’t let them do that. They must be stopped.

Read Full Post »

It’s good to be alpha. Women will let you do things to them that would make Harvey Weinstein fertilize the nearest potted plant.

Beta males should watch this video below for real world proof showing how cute, “good” girls honestly and naturally react in the company of an alpha male. What gets lost in the moral panic about famous men groping women is that, like Trump said, the women LET THEM DO IT. Ben Affleck is to women what a random HB10 is to men: a passcode that unlocks the sexes’ most primal desires.

If you walked up to a girl like that as a total stranger and, after introducing yourself, drunkenly grabbed her all over like Affleck is doing here, I think you can guess what would happen to you.

Fame Game and Power Game are unstoppable arousal triggers and disinhibition stimuli of female sexual desire.

Untutored beta males and insol bitterbitches need to see this side of women, because it’s routinely hidden from social consciousness by anti-male propaganda and by women themselves who don’t want their depraved natures exposed to idealistic young betas who may be their provider hubby fall-backs in ten years time after the cock carousel has made them sore. That pussy pedestal requires a lot of good PR to keep its squeaky clean vajeen sheen.

Male power is both intimidating and intoxicating to women, and as I have argued (and others like commenter PA have as well) the rush of women into the workforce has undermined marriage and poisoned relations between women and the mass of betas who don’t glitter with fame and power, by exposing so many women to alpha male bosses.

Keep in mind that in women there is the natural pleasurable impulse to submit to a dominant man…it’s instinctual really… so when you read women who describe such men as “intimidating”, know that the intimidation psychologically strikes women much differently than it strikes men who would be the natural competitors or worker drones of powerful men. When a woman meets an “intimidating” man there is a part of her that is sexually and romantically aroused, and if conditions are right that part will flourish and manifest at the expense of the cautious part of her. When a man meets an intimidating man, he is aroused to fight, fold, or flee, all of these reactions serving in their particular ways to guard his honor, preserve his dignity, and spare his social status. Sometimes even spare his life.

Read Full Post »

The original feminist, Mary Wollstonecraft, was very likely a closeted lesbian.

Two friendships shaped Wollstonecraft’s early life. The first was with Jane Arden in Beverley. The two frequently read books together and attended lectures presented by Arden’s father, a self-styled philosopher and scientist. Wollstonecraft revelled in the intellectual atmosphere of the Arden household and valued her friendship with Arden greatly, sometimes to the point of being emotionally possessive. Wollstonecraft wrote to her: “I have formed romantic notions of friendship … I am a little singular in my thoughts of love and friendship; I must have the first place or none.”[5] In some of Wollstonecraft’s letters to Arden, she reveals the volatile and depressive emotions that would haunt her throughout her life.[6]

The second and more important friendship was with Fanny (Frances) Blood, introduced to Wollstonecraft by the Clares, a couple in Hoxton who became parental figures to her; Wollstonecraft credited Blood with opening her mind.[7] Unhappy with her home life, Wollstonecraft struck out on her own in 1778 and accepted a job as a lady’s companion to Sarah Dawson, a widow living in Bath. However, Wollstonecraft had trouble getting along with the irascible woman (an experience she drew on when describing the drawbacks of such a position in Thoughts on the Education of Daughters, 1787). In 1780 she returned home, called back to care for her dying mother.[8] Rather than return to Dawson’s employ after the death of her mother, Wollstonecraft moved in with the Bloods. She realized during the two years she spent with the family that she had idealized Blood, who was more invested in traditional feminine values than was Wollstonecraft. But Wollstonecraft remained dedicated to her and her family throughout her life (she frequently gave pecuniary assistance to Blood’s brother, for example).[9]

Wollstonecraft had envisioned living in a female utopia with Blood; they made plans to rent rooms together and support each other emotionally and financially, but this dream collapsed under economic realities.

The gaydar AI algorithm would peg this face as a rugmuncher mug.

Wollstonecraft married, but in the 18th Century it would have been common for lesbians and gays to marry into heterosexual relationships.

The origin of modern feminism — the particularly nasty and virulent form of feminism that seeks to invert the sexual market to the perceived benefit of ugly women by removing all constraints on female sexuality and stripping moral agency from women, while maximally restricting and pathologizing male sexuality and burdening men with all moral responsibility — was disproportionately a Jewish and ugly woman movement. The book that begat modern feminism was The Feminine Mystique, by Jewish woman Betty Friedan.

What followed in Friedan’s wake was a freak parade of uglier and uglier women fronting the modern feminist agenda, and enacting their warped vision of the sexes into policy (e.g. Title IX).

Steve Sailer argues feminism is a WASP concept, and 20th Century Jewish immigration and dominance in media and Hollywood actually delayed the triumph of feminism (seen in the WASPs passing Female Suffrage and Prohibition), because Jewish men, like all Semitic men, evolved in a patriarchal and ethnocentric culture and didn’t see a need to extend respect to shiksas.

Maybe proto-feminism is WASPy, but that doesn’t explain the Jewishness of modern feminism, unless one considers Jewish feminism an ethnic-scale case of intratribal negative transference. Jewish female feminists were rebelling against their patriarchal religion (and seething with resentment against their Jewish men lusting after pretty Gentile women), but as is the wont of their tribe they organized their resistance around defiance of the Gentile soft-patriarchy culture of comfortably accepted sex roles and sex-based preferences, instead of targeting their attacks against their own Swinesteins. They transferred the cause of their bad feelings onto the contemptible goyium.

Jewish-led feminism was actually a reaction to their own anti-feminist ethnic culture. But since Jewish men, like all men, are more interested than are women in acquiring status and power to exchange for sex, the heights of industries like Hollywood filled with patriarchal Jewish men instead of feminist Jewish women.

That’s not the end of the story. Jewish men eventually caught on that hypocritically espousing the radical feminism of their tribeswomen was a great stick with which to beat goy society and poison relations between Gentile men and their women….and also to fool naive feminists into bed using the “Hugo Schwyzer” male feminist ruse. If you’re a casting couch sleazebag running a de facto brothel for skanky actress wannabes, posturing like a champion of women’s lib is an effective way to keep the heat off you and your whores satisfied with a pittance of hush money and empty promises.

When one sees feminism, and especially modern feminism, through the lens of homosexuality, ugliness, and Jewishness, the tenets and demands of the twisted ideology begin to make sense.

Lesbians resent men. They love feminism because they want to be men in every way that matters, and that means they have a stake in undermining sex-differentiated norms and even sexual dichotomy.

Lesbian Feminism is the agenda of making unfeminine women into second rate men rather than first rate women.

Ugly women resent pretty women. They love feminism because they want to reduce the competitive advantages pretty women enjoy by enforcing equality and uniformity among women. Ugly women also love feminism because they understand on a deep level that they are too ugly to find a provider husband and must pursue careerism to collect the resources themselves.

Ugly Woman Feminism is the agenda of pitting the bottom quarter of women against the top three quarters of women.

Jewish women resent their patriarchal culture and Gentile social norms. They love feminism because it subverts the traditions of their ethnic religion and gives them cover to corrupt the benignly sex-differentiated Christian culture which largely rejects the radical value system of Jewish women.

Jewish Feminism is the agenda of delegitimizing patriarchal Judaism/Semitism and of poisoning the benevolent sexism of Christian Gentile culture.

Put those three origins of modern (and proto-) feminism together — the lesbian, the ugly, and the Jewish — into one monstrous frankenshrew, and you get intersectional insanity like “white male privilege”, the UVA rape hoax scandal, and the constant invocation of the mythological discriminatory “wage gap“. Not to mention the gross anti-male injustice known as the family court industrial complex.

PS Even WASP feminism is tainted in origin. Prohibition was a failure, and Female Suffrage has inarguably shifted America politically leftward and into the waiting petri dish of Poz.

Read Full Post »

Beckow, commenting at Steve Sailer’s blog, writes about the primary purpose of nations and why a de jure or de facto policy of open borders undermines the authority, credibility, and even necessity of central governments.

One of the main functions of a central government is to control the country’s borders. That is why there is a central government. This used to be more military based, with occasional actual wars, but today it is about who comes across the border, who gets to stay, in other words migration policies.

In the last few decades this core function performed by central governments has been gradually abandoned. So when parts of these larger states – like Catalonia in Spain – look at their capitals they don’t see much value. With unguarded and open borders, large centralised states make no sense.

This is one reason for the rapid increase in separatism. There are of course many others, cultural, economic, linguistic, etc… But I believe opening borders also creates a vacuum in the centre of the current states. Almost nothing they do makes sense with open borders and mass migration. How can there be educational or health policies with open access from outside? Or a normal labor market leading to a normal economy? Or cultural policies? Mass migration with effectively unprotected borders make all central state functions pointless. One reaction is an increased desire to separate by constituent parts of the state. This is what the Brussels (and Washington) ruling elites don’t get. They have been so obsessed with not allowing a ‘power vacuum’ internationally, that they stopped caring about not creating a de facto governing vacuums inside the countries they are supposed to be governing.

Disintegration is one consequence of not having effective external boundaries. The global mandarins have been dreaming about a seamless, integrated, one-world with no borders global super-state (or a smaller European one), but they lost sight of how that changes the dynamic inside their existing countries. We are heading towards a period of more nationalism, more separatism, more disintegration that is really just re-integrating in a different way what has been stupidly abandoned by the global utopians. It will be messy. I wish both Catalans and Spaniards good luck – but if Madrid wants to stop the separatism, they should do their job and control the external borders.

We can either have one large national border, or millions of smaller borders within the disintegrating state. There will never be a borderless world; like water, borders will find their level. And that level is usually contoured by race and ethnicity.

We’re in the Age of Chaos. The near future for us is marked by centrifugal separation into constituent elements that have stronger binding valences. Things fall apart, the center stopped bothering to hold. Asabiya (social solidarity) is down, the economic and sexual markets are splintering into haves and have-nots, faith in our institutions is at an all-time low, multiracial diversity imported into relatively homogeneous countries has destroyed social trust and happiness, outsourcing and mass migration have crushed the spirits of our workingmen, national borders have shattered paving the way for the organic emergence of gated community borders, intensified partisanship, pathological assortative mating into hardened neo-castes, and secessionist movements defined by their own well-protected geographical and cultural walls.

To save us from this, we have elected an agent of chaos, Furor Trump, to manifest our primal scream for change and a return to a better past. A past that we know in our hearts as Heritage America. We also know, instinctively, that only chaos and its avatar in Trump can crush the Globohomoists and their war against human nature. The rulebook is shredded, the righteous are released from their duty to a failed authority. As Chaos works its mercurial magic and the insulated and disconnected globalist moneychangers succumb to its all-consuming energy vortex, a clear vision takes shape from among the debris and rubble: the resurrection of nations woven with the ancient threads of kith and kin.

Read Full Post »

Reader archerwfisher passes along a vagnette from the omnipresent sexual market.

Random, the other day I was thinking, “Maybe the Chateau is overdoing it, maybe being nice and sweet and a good guy isn’t such a bad route.” I stop at a grocery store, buy a few items, head back to my car. In the SUV next to mine, a cute blonde college age girl is getting in the driver’s seat. Long hair, dressed cute and not slutty, no visible tatts or piercings, in decent shape.

She’s accompanied by two similar aged guys, one white who looked like a boyfriend, one maybe white hispanic, and they look like dregs who would be getting arrested for shoplifting beer. The girl playfully locks them out and starts teasing them with a grin on her face. The white probably boyfriend’s witty, playful response? “We’re trying to get in the fucking car, unlock it.” She did so.

Aaaannd that is why Chateau Heartiste should be studied the same way you study a textbook to earn a certification.

The hottest girls in their fertile primes respond with the greatest intensity of arousal to jerkboys. This call-and-response never dies in a woman, it only fades away with her looks and shrinking repository of eggs. The specter of settling into a life of lonely spinsterhood scares many women straight into the arms of a reliable niceguy, but their fantasies always drift to the cocksure assholes who put them in their place and treated them with an amount of respect inversely proportional to the respect they demand from their beta borefriends.

If you’re a niceguy unwilling to better yourself, you have the option of hefting your blue balls for a decade and then relieving your psychological load in a woman on the cusp of Wall crashing. But most men don’t want to sit on the sidelines that long, waiting out their shot at love with an aging beauty. They want the YoHoTis — younger, hotter, tighter women — just the same as the jerkboys want them. If the niceguys want them bad enough, they’ll learn to love breaking bad.

Read Full Post »

Diversity™ heaps limitless miseries upon the host nation. You don’t need social science studies to tell you that, (you can just go to a diverse part of town and experience the joylessness, tension, annoyances, stress, and general aesthetic dreariness for yourself), but when the ¡SCIENCE! is available it sure is fun to rub it in libfruit faces.

Happiness in modern society: Why intelligence and ethnic composition matter

ABSTRACT

Recent developments in evolutionary psychology suggest that living among others of the same ethnicity might make individuals happier and further that such an effect of the ethnic composition on life satisfaction may be stronger among less intelligent individuals. Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health showed that White Americans had significantly greater life satisfaction than all other ethnic groups in the US and this was largely due to the fact that they were the majority ethnic group; minority Americans who lived in counties where they were the numerical majority had just as much life satisfaction as White Americans did. Further, the association between ethnic composition and life satisfaction was significantly stronger among less intelligent individuals. The results suggest two important factors underlying life satisfaction and highlight the utility of integrating happiness research and evolutionary psychology.

LIE: Diversity™ is our strength.
TRUTH: Diversity™ is our sadness.

Happiness (for White people) is a paler shade of settlement.

Multiethnic societies make everyone unhappier, but the clash of tribes hits the downscale hardest, who lack the excess cognitive chops to rationalize their unhappiness as the sweet price to pay for moral posturing and crappy ethnic food that gives you the shits for weeks.

Modern multitribalism may not pose the same threat to the survival and reproduction of individuals as it would have in the ancestral environment when encirclement by another tribe usually meant you were about to be killed or raped, but that doesn’t mean modern multiracial stews like the US don’t threaten the Darwinian fitness of individuals dealing with the consequences of the diversity. Bloody tribal warfare and pillaging still exist, but in a domesticated form; instinctive tribal nepotism, out-group aggression, and low trust are proxies for open war, and these interactional conditions pose incremental risks to the social and economic statuses, as well as the psychological health, of members within the multitribal society. One example would be, for instance, the nepotistic domination of the Ivies by one tribe and its affirmative actioned pawns which has pushed out the historical representation of the heritage tribe.

Or, Diversity + Proximity = War (by any means).

***

In related ¡SCIENCE! news, shitlibs are just as prone to science denialism as are cuckservatives.

Liberals and Conservatives Are Similarly Motivated to Deny Attitude-Inconsistent Science

We tested whether conservatives and liberals are similarly or differentially likely to deny scientific claims that conflict with their preferred conclusions. Participants were randomly assigned to read about a study with correct results that were either consistent or inconsistent with their attitude about one of several issues (e.g., carbon emissions). Participants were asked to interpret numerical results and decide what the study concluded. After being informed of the correct interpretation, participants rated how much they agreed with, found knowledgeable, and trusted the researchers’ correct interpretation. Both liberals and conservatives engaged in motivated interpretation of study results and denied the correct interpretation of those results when that interpretation conflicted with their attitudes. Our study suggests that the same motivational processes underlie differences in the political priorities of those on the left and the right.

I would love to know which test studies the researchers used to determine how much libs and cons engaged in motivated interpretation, besides the one mentioned in the abstract (“carbon emissions”). I’d bet that libs more intensely deny or spin the science of race and sex differences than cons deny the science of global warming. My observation is that cons aren’t as egotistically and emotionally invested in denying global warming as libs are in denying innate sex-based psychological differences and racial disparities in average IQ.

***

A commenter reminded me of a relevant 2014 CH post about a study of spiders and diversity, which found that tribal homogeneity, contra conventional shitlib wisdom, increases individual diversity.

Summarizing, a lack of inter-group diversity…actually increases individual diversity, through the mechanism of amplifying preexisting personality differences among same-group members. In contrast, a lot of inter-group diversity (say, moving to a SWPL hipster enclave in a minority white city soaked in vibrancy that makes daily living an adventure in survival) produces a uniformity of thought and, CH will note, uniformity of aesthetic within groups, which is why we see SWPL hoods in nearly every major American city converging on the same farm-to-table Obama-loving liberal hypocrite norm.

Paradoxically, group cohesiveness creates more individual diversity, while inter-group diversity creates more intra-group uniformity. Diversity + proximity = conformity.

In other words, the diversity that really matters — diversity of thought and personality — flourishes in less racially diverse environs.

Diversity is our within-group sameness.

***

PS I’ve added the study findings discussed in this post to the Diversity + Proximity = War reference list at the top of the front page of this blog.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: