Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Ugly Truths’ Category

This is an open letter to a loser in love, a beta male who has become bitter about women through repeated romantic failure. You find yourself here, at the Chateau, seeking answers. I am your Prophet and because you are in the Flock I will share with you my field-tested wisdom.

I say this with no malice but you will not like it. But I am going to say it anyway because it is the truth and that’s what you’re looking for. You are projecting all of the characteristic traits of a LOSER. You want to associate with LOSERS for succor, because they don’t threaten the comforting bubble of your whiny persecution complex. You complain about your health, money, job, height, weight, datelessness. You complain that you’re being forced to dance like a monkey for girls. You look in the mirror and complain that you aren’t a Hollywood hunk, and you use this as an excuse for your failure to act with the women you desire. You complain about everything!

This is the key to understanding your problems with women.

Men don’t complain, they ACT. A woman wants to give herself to a man who emanates power and decisiveness and brass balls. A man who says “It’s my way or the highway, baby!” A man with no money, who is fat, who is stupid, who is clueless in every way EXCEPT that he radiates those zero fucks given alpha attitude vibes will get laid all the time.

You bitch about this jerkboy antagonist so you know that this happens. You’ve seen it happen. And the jerk doesn’t just bang out club skanks either. Cute, confident SWPL chicks get horny in the presence of such power. Even a feminist ideologue will beg such a man to fuck her up the ass just to have him pay attention to her for a minute.

Loser in love, your attitude sucks. If you want to start fucking hot girls with sexy bodies, be a MAN. The key to power is not cash or looks or cars or any of that conventional crap you read about in Maxim. Those things are incidental and are only important insofar as they alter your state of mind. The mind is the ultimate weapon. The power is within you. All you have to do is decide to tap it.

Read Full Post »

Chrissie Hynde, the lead singer of The Pretenders (their heyday was in the 1980s), sounds like she’s partaken of the nourishing well of Chateau Heartiste wisdom.

The former chart topper claimed in a Sunday newspaper interview that scantily clad women were likely to “entice a rapist” and that it is their “fault” if they are attacked.

It’s not entirely the skank’s fault, but she bears some personal responsibility for her safety. It’s like if you decide to take a pale stroll through the blackest ghetto at 2AM and get mugged, no sane person will excuse your attacker, but everyone will think you’re quite daft for doing what you did.

She also claimed that pop stars who call themselves feminists but use their sex appeal to sell records were effectively just “prostitutes”.

Hi, Miley!

“If I’m walking around and I’m very modestly dressed and I’m keeping to myself and someone attacks me, then I’d say that’s his fault.

“But if I’m being very lairy and putting it about and being provocative, then you are enticing someone who’s already unhinged — don’t do that.”

She added: “You know, if you don’t want to entice a rapist, don’t wear high heels so you can’t run from him. If you’re wearing something that says ‘Come and —- me’, you’d better be good on your feet… I don’t think I’m saying anything controversial am I?”

No, you’re not Chrissie. This woman is great. She’s speaking truth, girls, listen to her.

“A pop star who’s walking around, parading themselves as a porn star and saying they’re feminists.

“They’re prostitutes.

“I’m not making a value judgment on prostitutes, but just say what you are.”

“Just say what you are.” No, the degenerate freak mafia can’t do that, or they’ll have to face exactly what they are, and they can’t have that. Instead, lovable vivisectors like your truly will do it for them, gleefully.

Read Full Post »

We’ve all heard the story by now: Ashley Madison, the website that claimed to help cheating spouses hook up with each other in complete discretion, was hacked. The hackers released a huge user data dump and it was revealed that 90-95% of AM’s actual users were male, and the remaining were mostly fake female profiles.

Ashley Madison was a scam. But anyone who has the least understanding of sex differences would not be so gullible to think that there are just as many married women interested in anonymous internet sexual liaisons as there are married men interested in the same. Apparently, there are so few married women willing to go online specifically to find an extramarital lover that Ashley Madison could barely crack the 1,000 men:1 real woman ratio.

This is not to say that married women aren’t infidelity risks. But when women, legally taken or otherwise, want to have an illicit affair, their preferred method of target acquisition is a logged-off, face-to-face whirlwind romance, not a lifeless keyboard hunt for a collaborator who will make her feel like the whore she’d rather forget about herself.

A reader writes,

Can hypergamy explain [Ashley Madison’s fake female profiles]? One way to interpret that is, “women have no qualms about leaving their husbands”.

That’s one reason. The dearth of live wives seeking extramarital affairs on Ashley Madison is a consequence of:

  1. the nature of women to prefer their seduction be veiled behind flirtatious feints and parries (as opposed to arid, conspicuous match-ups with equally debased men)
  2. the disposition of wives to simply leave their husbands when they want to start new romances (husbands — and single men in relationships — can better tolerate balancing illicit lovers with a wife or steady girlfriend, even over long periods of time).
  3. the fact that women are not as promiscuous as men.

These are the big three explanations for AM’s 95% man/4.9% fake woman ratio. A fourth explanation — that going online for the explicit purpose of finding a sex partner in crime — is too much for most women’s anti-slut defenses. I suspect the Ashley Madison creators knew this, and figured that the male urge for poosy variety is so strong they could get away with scamming millions of men with impunity. They were right.

Read Full Post »

Agree with this guy. The above could be Trump’s 2016 campaign poster. He’d clean up the White vote. And still get more black votes than compassionate cuckservative Bush did. Heh.

The cold-blooded racist anti-White dindu murderer once sued for “racism in the workplace”. It is to laugh.

these are the stakes.
five decades, maybe six, of ruling class and hivemind attack drone anti-white antiracism propaganda
aimed at the soft heart of core america
a weaponized arsenal of semantics
arming and inspiring the fringe antagonists
demonizing and demoralizing
one generation of whites after another
while extolling the numinous barbarians
who multiply in number and in self-regard
a coordinated hate machine of self-denial
self-loathing
and self-dispossession
corrupting the minds of white children
and their parents
and poisoning even their will to survive
to see the world clearly
to grasp the rules of this deadly game
to understand their enemies and to deal with them effectively.
a vicious blackbody, (high yella), like so many of his ingrate kind
imbibes this forty of establishment glorification
of his purity and virtue
until the envy which is his inevitable fate
in a multiparous societal placenta of unequal ability and moral sense
collides with the government sanctioned message
of his angelic goodness
his virility
his smarts and bravado
and, contradictorily, his enervating martyrdom
as he suffers christ-like the burden
of evil, malevolent, invidious white racism
and he becomes convinced
his redemption
lies in the slaughter of his tormentors
after all
who would complain?
two dead happy whites, and one likely crippled white?
to whom would they complain?
those most like them
most expected to defend their place in the world
and a place for their children
long ago
deemed them expendable to the greater cause
Alison Parker’s and Adam Ward’s lifeblood

drips

drips

drips

from the US government’s hands.
from academia’s hands.
from the mass media’s hands.
from every vile sjw’s hand.
from cuckservatives’ hands.

will these treacherous vipers
be held accountable
for creating and sustaining and breathing satanic life into this decades-long war against one people?
for stoking the rage of the enemies of this people?
the one people who, through their ingenuity and fortitude, built the very nest
that swaddles and nourishes
the vipers
who strike at them relentlessly, fangs bared.

we’ll see.

Read Full Post »

Another cherished feminist and equalist shitlibboleth falls. Fat chicks were never attractive to men. There never was a “fatopia” in history when low sexual market value manatees battled the patriarchy’s beauty standards and won. Fat women have ALWAYS been repulsive to the vast majority of men.

And CH has long been on record reminding the fat acceptors and fatty fat apologists that their quest to overturn men’s innate preference for slender babes is a quixotic one doomed to end in oleaginous tears.

As if ❤️SCIENCE❤️ hadn’t already stamped more than enough Chateau real world observations with its liberal-approved (heh) imprimatur, along comes another trove of historical research (re)discovering the wisdom of the ancients that men prefer slim-waisted beauties, and that this preference is about as universal as a human mate preference gets (h/t thejerk):

Slim waists have been the mark of attractive women throughout history, says a US scholar who has analysed thousands of ancient texts.

Dr Devendra Singh scoured references to fictional beauties from modern times back to early Indian literature.

He found that slimness was the most common term of praise from an author. […]

In the most recent research, he looked at how ‘attractive’ women were depicted in literature, analysing more than 345,000 texts, mainly from the 16th to 18th centuries.

While most of the writings were British and American, there was a small selection of Indian and Chinese romantic and erotic poetry dating from the 1st to the 6th century of the Christian era.

While the most-often mentioned feature was the breasts, waistlines were mentioned 66 times, with a slim waist predominantly linked to attractiveness.

Objective female beauty standards are timeless, unchangeable, and hated by the ugly, fat, and misshapen.

This shiv gleams with the bloody blubbery wetness of a skewered fatty, but the good doctor Singh has one more wound to carve in the distended porcine bellies of the slovenly shambling mounds.

Dr Singh said: “The common historical assumption in the social sciences has been that the standards of beauty are arbitrary, solely culturally determined and in the eye of the beholder.

“The finding that the writers describe a small waist as beautiful suggests instead that this body part – a known marker of health and fertility – is a core feature of feminine beauty that transcends ethnic differences and cultures.”

And that is why America has never been uglier, in body and spirit, than she is today, groaning under the weight of an obesity epidemic and fracturing from the tinnitus caused by the whiny wails of a million butthurt losers.

******

And that is not all the shiv we have today! There’s yet more shanky goodness. CH has written about the grade inflation in women’s dress sizes to accommodate, physically and psychologically, the zaftig proportions of the modern emporkered American woman with an ego as thin-skinned as her hide is thickly equipped.

And no wonder manufacturers have sought to “vanity size” their dresses for sale to a growing (heh) market of waddling wursts. The average American woman today weighs about as much as the average 1960s man! To my American male readers, the odds are good that you are banging a woman you’d have as much trouble throwing over your shoulder as you would have had with your father or grandfather in their primes. Sleep on that.

A follow-up to that CH post about women’s dress sizes comes via reader Critical Eye. Inflation strikes again:

A size 8 dress today is nearly the equivalent of a size 16 dress in 1958. And a size 8 dress of 1958 doesn’t even have a modern-day equivalent — the waist and bust measurements of a Mad Men-era 8 come in smaller than today’s size 00. […]

Enter the era of vanity sizing. Clothing manufacturers realized that they could flatter consumers by revising sizes downward. The measurements that added up to a size 12 in 1958 would get redefined to a size 6 by 2011.

And Lena’s getting laaaaaaaaaarger!!

Critical Eye observes that the Fat Acceptance bowel movement “comes with Offishal Imprimatur:  the clothing sizes are maintained by the American Society of Testing and Materials.”

Fat fucks can take a backhanded comfort in the assuaging of their wide load egos by Offishal government organizations devoted to spreading a Valdez-sized oil slick of lies over everything true and beautiful in the world, but in the end the only imprimatur that matters is the serrated CH Shiv leaving its insignia in the marbled vitals of these filth-peddling grotesqueries.

******

This is a truthnbeauty post, so hatefact news about Diversity™ is related to exposing the lies of the Fat Acceptors: diversity lowers a firm’s market value.

Most likely share values drop when a firm’s board adds more women because investors are discounting the future rate of return of the firm based on two unflattering facts about the Diversity Danegeld: one, that a company which moves its focus to social justice adventurism loses focus from its profit-making ability, and two, an increase in female board members will result, given time, in a decrease in firm performance. (Hi, Carly!)

PS Commenter JP makes a great analogy between stock portfolio diversity and racial/ethnic diversity:

When you over-diversify your stock portfolio, you don’t ever outperform the market. You just sort of putter along, rising and falling with the all-share index while everyone else gets rich. The same applies to diversity uber alles.

PPS

Yes, I know it’s ‘shopped, but the visual alone sans placard (the hooters chick was originally carrying a drink order) would’ve sufficed to get the point across. A happy, smiling hottie, content to be a pleasing decoration for men, horrifies an ugly feminist by her mere cavorting presence. Low mutational load rape!

Read Full Post »

Nothing.

Or, more precisely, less than nothing. She became unhappier.

The husband bent over backwards to fulfill his wife’s every demand, and the result is tragicomically predictable: gina tingles extinguished.

For the past year or so, my husband has ceased to be able to turn me on, to the point where I am almost repulsed by our lovemaking. Recently, I broke down and told him everything. Since then, he has done everything in his power to get us back on track. The problem is now me! Even though this is all I’ve wanted, I can’t bear to be touched in certain areas.

Never mind the couples therapist answer. As per usual for the quality of output typical of this field of inquiry, it’s garbage. A commenter’s sarcastic jab gets it more right: “I love you, but I’m not in love with you.”

Ok, just to torture the CH reading audience, here’s a sample of the couples therapist’s answer (a woman, natch):

This “hot potato” syndrome is not uncommon: one partner has an issue, but once he throws it off, the other catches something too hot to handle. In many ways, it is a good thing that your husband is responding so energetically to your plea for change, and you did an excellent job of moving beyond what had become a long-term impasse.

Yes, clearly what the husband needs to do is more of what didn’t work at all.

For example, you say you don’t like to be touched in certain places, so the exact details of this must be gently communicated to him, and he needs to be shown exactly what you would prefer.

As the feminist sages tell us, women are really turned on by having to read an instruction manual to their men on the proper use of their bodies during lovemaking.

You have done very well so far – be brave enough to address the next steps, which are largely about better communication.

“Better communication” to solve all your relationship problems! Empty platitude, the stock in trade of marriage counselors everywhere. The unhappy wife wrote to the worse-than-useless psychotherapist shell entity informing her STRAIGHT UP that she told her husband everything, and he did everything he could to meet her demands. What part of that suggests this relationship needs to be addressed with “better communication”? Sounds like they were communicating their marriage to an early bed death!

I shouldn’t be surprised anymore, but the alacrity with which marriage and couples counselors and creeeeeeedentialed “psychotherapists” resort to droning bromides devoid of any explicit advice that might prove useful to saving relationships but carries the baggage of gently disturbing the gentle egos of gentle wives with gently feminist views about the moral supremacy of the female prerogative and the assumption of the male’s automatic fault in any scenario stuns even experienced observers of the junk therapist scene such as yours truly.

This couple deserve better advice than what a one Pamela Stephenson Connolly can offer them. CH to the rescue…

To the wife: First, make sure it isn’t some serious physiological issue, like CVD or something that could affect your sexual response. For that, see a medical doctor, i.e. a real doctor. But, odds are it isn’t a medical problem.

The way to bet is that your husband is a beta male — that is, dependable, reliable, generous, deferential… and utterly unsexy — and that his beta maleness got worse the longer your marriage went on. It’s not uncommon for men to get soft in body and attitude once they’ve settled into the marital comfort zone.

If this is the cause of your turtling sexuality, I’m afraid anything you do could only make matters worse. This is because there is a natural disconnect in your female brain between what actually turns you on and what you think SHOULD turn you on. You will, therefore, be unable to give your husband any advice that would work.

To the husband: STOP doing what you’re doing, and do the opposite. Instead of appeasing your wife, ask her to do things for you. No, DEMAND of her those things. Stop supplicating, and instead assume that you are God’s gift to womankind and can do no wrong. Apologize for nothing, make no excuses for her. Be unpredictable. Leave her for a spell, preferably unannounced. Tease her, poke fun at her, squeeze her hip fat with a disapproving glare, flirt with other women as she watches. In sum, initialize the first sequences of Dread Game.

After a few weeks of this wifely romantic reprogramming, grab her when the mood hits you, and start tearing off her clothes, oblivious to her mewls of protest. If your psychological preparations have been successful, she will relent and shake off an orgasm like a dog shitting a peach pit.

If not, consider cutting her loose and saving your newfound self-confidence for another woman who will submit to your love in the way every man secretly desires a woman to do. Even the effete hipster manlets.

Read Full Post »

There’s a theory floating around alt-blogs that human IQ in the developed world has been steadily decreasing since about the dawn of agriculture. The working hypothesis is that agriculture enabled dense urban life to develop, and cities are known population sinks (lack of space/high cost/disease vectors all contribute to lower fertility rates in cities).

The thinking goes that cities attract smarter people, who upon settling into urban mimosavilles promptly forget the Darwinian Prime Directive and fail to reproduce themselves in sufficient numbers. 1.5 sprog per hipster village yenta is a recipe for extinction. (Which is not necessarily a bad thing.)

I don’t know if I buy this theory of decreasing IQ in total, but if true, I can suggest another plausible mechanism that is far more pertinent today, now that disease threat and high child mortality have largely been eliminated. This mechanism is far darker than disease or child mortality, once you get to peering at it closely in your skull ham.

You could call this the CH-ian “The Pill, The Rubber, and Abortion, Oh My!” theory of dysgenia.

The speculative specs: Evolution has slowly, and sometimes quickly, produced human populations with great intelligence (on average). As these population groups gained smarts, they reconfigured their environment so powerfully that their cultures began to exert more influence than the natural world did on how their progeny would evolve.

Gene-culture co-evolution became the order of the day. Civilization sprouted and flourished. And it was good. Until…

These groups of humans became so smart that they outwitted — for a time — the second evolutionary guiding principle of reproduction. They invented Pills and Rubbers and safe and cheap Abortions, thus allowing themselves the joy of sex without the joylessness of changing diapers.

Smarter people, having by their inherent mental dispositions a lower threshold for the tedious and boring tasks of infant care, stopped having so many babies. But smarter people USED to have more babies than dumber people! What happened since then? Well, when pre-20th Century smart people had sex — which they never found boring — they were often stuck with the consequences. Most of them simply accepted the boredom of child-rearing as a necessary component of life.

Once the Era of The Pill, Rubber, and Abortion began in earnest, smart people saw the wisdom, from their own personal hedonistic perspectives, of using these smarthuman-created tools to separate the consequences of boring child-rearing from the titillation of sex. End result: Fewer smarties having kids, more dummies taking up the slack, dysgenia in full black lotus bloom.

For the first time, perhaps, on a large scale, humans had made an end run around a Darwinian First Principle. Humans — some humans, anyway — had become TOO SMART and invented pregnancy-thwarting tech that also thwarted the cosmic, and divine, imperatives. The Pill, The Rubber, and Abortion may be making us dumber!

Hard double-blind, metabolically-controlled ¡SCIENCE! evidence for this “PRA” theory is sparse and mostly circumstantial, but it is out there. For instance, in a study of German parents, having a child lowered their happiness more than any other life change, including death of a spouse!

And of course there are the oft-cited stats of later age of first marriage and lowered fertility plaguing almost the entire Pan Western developed world.

There are countercurrents pushing against the PRA theory of dumbing down humanity. The Pill seems to alter women’s sexual preferences so strongly that they choose less masculine beta males as partners if they were on the Pill during the time of choosing. This would imply that these women would have more kids, Pill-disposed as they are to settling into family life with a beta provider. However, it could conceivably run the other way: Once married and thinking about having kids, women who get off the Pill might suddenly become repulsed by their babyfatted betahubbies as their ovulatory machine revs up again after a hiatus of many years. This could lead to an increase in divorce (which in fact has been happening throughout the West since the 1960s) and consequently a decrease in children (or a decrease in children born in wedlock).

Is the evolution of human intelligence self-limiting? If it is, will societies respond by banning the Pill, the Rubber, and the Abortion? Or will we just have to ride this one out for a few millennia, until the fitness maximizer pendulum swings back to the smart set? Either way, going on the way the West is going now, something’s gonna give.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,324 other followers

%d bloggers like this: