Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Ugly Truths’ Category

Watch this video of a man and a woman, respectively, dropping a mickey in their dates’ drinks.

When the man attempts to drug his date, a mongrel horde of white knights descends upon him to break him on the wheel. But when the woman does the same to her date… crickets. Not a stir among the white knight brigade to defend from bodily harm the man who is the victim of her mickey. Only one person — a woman — steps up to tell the guy that his date put a pill in his drink.

This is all unsurprising to Chateau regulars who are familiar with the fundamental premise governing human sociosexual dynamics.

Interestingly, this reluctance to come to a man’s aid (relative to the eagerness to do so for women) is why men’s same-sex friendships are so much deeper and more meaningful than women’s same-sex friendships. When a man has earned another man’s true friendship, their loyalty can last for decades, through the worst tribulations. Women’s friendships are, by way of contrast, quite a bit more… how shall we say?… gossipy and fickle.

This is the reason why women invent terms like “BFF”, (Best Friend Forever). When you can’t really count on your friends to be there, you artificially pump the value of your friendships with branding exercises that allow you and them to think the relationship is more profound than it is. Men have no need for such verbal calisthenics, because a man’s close friends have earned their place in his world by their action, not by their word. His loyal male friends are presumed BFFs. No marketing or product branding required.

Read Full Post »

The following open source, feminist bromide translation service is offered free of charge. Share with your local warpig!

exploitation, noun
1. anything that gives straight men pleasure.

threatening, adj
1. an instance of consensual lovemaking.
2. an erect penis.

“Men are threatened by [X]”, clause
1. rationale offered when men don’t like what feminists like.

rape, noun
1. regret.
2. unsatisfactory sex with a beta male.

rape culture, noun
1. invisible, unidentifiable, cosmic force that helps provide justification for massive redistribution of wealth from men to women.
2. normal, healthy society.

slutwalk, noun
1. a gathering of half-naked ugly women imagining that men want them.
2. a gathering of half-naked cute women orchestrated by a rich man living in the Upper East Side as a ruse to get laid.

social conditioning, noun
1. biology.
2. all-purpose explanation for any innate human behavior or sexual preference that vexes feminists.
3. hope.

BBW, proper noun
1. a fat woman looking at herself in an hourglass-shaped funhouse mirror.

“smart and sassy”, adj.
1. annoying.
2. ugly.
3. fat.
4. what women with the above three traits put in online dating profiles in lieu of a full body photo.

[X] privilege, noun
1. anything that isn’t immediately recognizable as feminist privilege.
2. the sin of someone being better at something than someone else.
3. the quality of not being a loser.
syn.: envy

creep, noun
1. a boring niceguy who makes an innocent pass at a woman.
2. a male target of a feminist’s psychological projection.

asshole, noun
1. noncommittal lover.
2. sexy cad who doesn’t know feminist exists.
3. irresistible man.

mansplaining, noun
1. logic.
2. reason.

whine, noun
1. legitimate complaint.

double standard, noun
1. a reality of human sexual nature which bothers feminists.
2. holding women accountable for the consequences of anything they do.

“WOW, JUST WOW”, exclamation
1. emotional response to hurtful facts.
2. a resounding admission of defeat in the marketplace of ideas.

War on Women, proper noun
1. a make-believe land dreamed up by feminists and their male enablers to explain away the natural consequences of sex dimorphism.
2. a shibboleth offered by community college professors to starry-eyed, naive coeds, for the purpose of easily seducing them.
3. propaganda to divert attention from the fact that women in the whole receive every societal and cultural advantage in life.

cisgender, noun
1. normal human being.

LGBQT, proper noun
1. abnormal human being.

heteronormativity, noun
1. the imagined cause of a misfit’s deep feelings of shame and inferiority.

“I am a feminist because [X]”, clause
1. rationalization for having no dating life or marital prospects.

Women’s Studies, proper noun
1. lifetime poverty.

“No self-respecting woman would date [X]”, clause
1. An obvious face-saving excuse ugly women say when rejected by men.
2. No True Feminist fallacy.

Read Full Post »

The marching malcontents have identified a new injustice they seek to rectify: Lookism.

The galloping injustice of “lookism” has not escaped psychologists, economists, sociologists, and legal scholars. Stanford law professor Deborah L. Rhode’s 2010 book, “The Beauty Bias,” lamented “the injustice of appearance in life and law,” while University of Texas, Austin economist Daniel Hamermesh’s 2011 “Beauty Pays,” recently out in paperback, traced the concrete benefits of attractiveness, including a $230,000 lifetime earnings advantage over the unattractive. […]

Tentatively, experts are beginning to float possible solutions. Some have proposed legal remedies including designating unattractive people as a protected class, creating affirmative action programs for the homely, or compensating disfigured but otherwise healthy people in personal-injury courts. Others have suggested using technology to help fight the bias, through methods like blind interviews that take attraction out of job selection. There’s promising evidence from psychology that good old-fashioned consciousness-raising has a role to play, too.

None of these approaches will be a panacea, and to some aesthetes among us, even trying to counter the bias may sound ridiculous. But the reason to seek fairness for the less glamorous isn’t just social or charitable. Our preference for beautiful people makes us poor judges of qualities that have nothing to do with physical appearance—it means that when we select employees, teachers, protégés, borrowers, and even friends, we may not really be making the best choice. It’s an embarrassing and stubborn truth—and the question is now whether, having established it, social researchers can find a way to help us level the playing field.

Harrison Bergeron, please pick up the courtesy phone.

I have an oh so innocent question for the S-M-R-T SMART leftoid equalists pushing this latest load of reality transmogrification: If, as feminists and their consanguineous misfits (hi, fat acceptors!) are constantly telling everyone, beauty is subjective, socially conditioned, and in the eye of the beholder, how is it possible to make laws that punish beautiful people? If there is no innate biologically-based beauty standard (hi, Naomi Wolf!) that is fairly universally agreed upon in practice (if not in stated principle), then there is no way to know who is ugly and who is beautiful. That job applicant you think looks like a toad could just as well look like a goddess to another interviewer. After all, “you are a big, beautiful woman”. 😆 😆

Maybe the equalists want to gum up the machinery of civilization so badly because they harbor a self-annihilating death wish absent any strong authoritarian figure to dispense the discipline they sorely need? It’s as good an explanation as any. Leftoids are like emo Jesse on a meth bender acting out a “stop me before I hurt myself” tard tragedy.

Try to imagine a world where “lookism” laws were rigorously enforced. Will there be a “Caliper General” of the United States who runs the department assigned to measuring people’s faces for closeness to the golden ratio? Who will be qualified to serve as “Beauty Judge” if beauty is a matter of personal opinion, as liberals and fatties and liberal fatties have been swearing for generations? I can tell you if I were a hot babe I wouldn’t want a jury of jackal-faced feminists sitting in judgment of my pretty face. That’s enough psychotically bitter, self-loathing baggage projected onto me to make me persona non grata at any company afraid of attracting attention from malicious government operatives tasked with creating a better, fairer world.

The opportunity for gaming a lookism system created by liberals chin-deep in their self-contradictions is tremendous. Picture a handsome dude at a job interview or admissions office with a cadre of paid witnesses at his side to testify to his ugliness. “Ma’am, the dude is an ugly mofo. Just look at that jaunty cowlick. Have you seen a more repulsive deformity?”, “I wouldn’t touch him with a ten foot pole. And I know from hunkiness!”, “Ugh, I need a vomit bag. Go ahead. Measure my pupil dilation if you don’t believe me.”

Or maybe an ugly woman will be sitting in an EEOC anti-discrimination government office, and she has brought a penile plethysmograph and a male subject to make her case that his limp member proves she is the ugliest of them all, and she deserves recompense for suffering a lifetime under the cold gaze of looks privilege. Or maybe hot chicks start showing up to job interviews wearing potato sacks. (Won’t help. They’ll still look better than well-dressed fugs.) What will happen when master system gamers bring hard data to the table showing that beauty and smarts and charisma correlate, and thus there’s good reason why people naturally favor the beautiful? Or when the obvious logical connection is made that people shouldn’t be punished for an advantage in life they had no control over receiving? (hi, IQ denialists!)

You can see where this will lead: a mountain of lawsuits claiming reverse discrimination based on a misleading, subjective experience of beauty; an anti-anti-lookism argument, however tactically disingenuous, to which liberals who created the anti-lookism laws will have no counter, without transparently betraying their very own cherished beliefs and principles. Never underestimate the scope of the infinite logic traps into which equalists are capable of boxing themselves. You have entered… The Dissonance Zone.

The only way an anti-lookism legal apparatus could conceivably “work” — that is, operate long enough to generate substantial revenues for interested lawyerly middlemen —  without instantly imploding from internal contradictions is if liberals admit that beauty is objective and thus measurable with precision instruments. Without that cave on one of the liberal core tenets — without that craven loss of leftoid face — an anti-lookism bureaucracy won’t last any longer than the first lawsuit filed by an aggrieved hottie which claims beauty is a personal experience that can vary depending on the person observing it. The platitudes and pretty lies that so entrance liberals will ring like a symphony in the Courtroom of Playing Field Leveling, deafening liberals with their own dulcet ear poison. Oh, the irony, it is delicious.

Even were liberals to happily and expediently kick out a major pillar girding their ideology and proclaim in the interest of wallet-fattening litigiousness that beauty is not in the eye of the beholder but is an objective fact of biology and cosmic law, there would still be no way for “anti-lookism” laws to survive their intrinsic parodical nature. For as soon as liberals admit that beauty has a factual, objective basis they will be forced, by circumstance or by subversion, to also admit that other unequal distributions of favorable human traits have a sound, objective biological basis… and then the whole goddamn house of equalist cards comes crashing down in the ensuing rush for biological inequality reparations and anti-discrimination compensation. And once that path is taken, illimitable chaos must follow in its wake. The body politic will be bled dry, or it will seize a rationale for eugenics.

Coerced eugenics, if you think about it, is the logical end game of equalism.

I predict that the advocate of lookism laws in that article is a beautiful woman who feels guilty for catching breaks in life, and wants to atone for her sins. To satisfy my curiosity, I found her photo to see if I’m right.

Curses! Foiled again!

Equalists, I’ll make this very simple for you: Life is unfair. Deal with it.

Read Full Post »

Give this man a VIP pass to Le Chateau.

“you can still write an average rap song” 😆

Maybe it’s the hopeful side of CH, but is anyone else picking up the faint echo of RealTalk signals tripping the cosmic fantastic? Just in the last six months, it seems like a considerable number of mischief making subversives have infiltrated unguarded outposts of the Cathedral, setting the stage for a multi-pronged assault at some unspecified time in the not too distant future.

Eh, who are we kidding? Must be the sound of the wind blowing…

Read Full Post »

Game Is Real

Occasional testimonials of the awesome power of game are useful for new readers. Via Vox at Alpha Game,

Small example: I recently ran into a girl I’d been very interested in a couple years back and never really gotten over, but our conversation went very differently than it would have even 6 months ago. She’d effectively friend-zoned me a long time ago (or more accurately, I’d clumsily friend-zoned myself), but at one point after I said something that surprised her, I saw unguarded respect in her eyes. That’s a feeling I’ll not soon forget, and in an instant it confirmed more of what’s been said here to me than 100 logical arguments could.

The result was that I’m no longer friend-zoned, and I’m also no longer interested.. funny how when you change from responder to initiator you start seeing people differently. Now of course an Alpha will find all that amusing and a silly thing to call a victory, but that’s fine. It’s progress. Some guys have to start bench-pressing with just the bar, but they don’t have to linger there for long.

That “unguarded respect” is what I like to call a “Surge of Tingle”. It’s that feel women get when shocked by a blast of alpha-tude from a man whom they never expected such a blast. The Surge of Tingle sends lustblood to her physical and cortical extremities, and the perceptive man will notice it most clearly in her eyes, where the dull sheen of boredom with the world’s mediocre masses of beta males is swept away by a lively, shiny, moist expressiveness roused to ocular attention by a charismatically challenging man.

Sometimes all it takes is a few words that are different than all the words you have spoken in your life to women before. A path formerly untravelled, but rich with promises of breathtaking scenery, if you will only take a step forward on it. You have a license to charm. Use it. When you do, the reality of game will materialize like an obelisk from the retreating fog, and you’ll finally have your understanding.

Read Full Post »

The Wickedest Links

1. “[Taleb’s] antifragility not only resembles Game, it describes Game, and to a certain extent, it even explains why Game is so effective.”

2. “At that moment, I wondered if I was the only one of my group who hated with everything in my heart the slimy hypocrites around me.”

3. “The best map ever made of America’s racial segregation libertarian bubbles.”

4. “This threatpoint gives leverage to women in a marriage, giving her unilateral control over the future of the commitment.”

5. Commenter to Amanjaw Marcuntte: “In other words, Massachusetts profiles.”

6. “Brookings, like any not-for-profit organization, survives through contributions. And it is a fact of life that these organizations cannot afford to do many, if any, studies that are counter to the goals of the donors.

7. “and that’s the part that the happy leftists are missing from their thinking [sic] about epigenetics. epigenetics is obviously some sort of adaptation… so it must be coded for in our genes somewhere. that methylation happens to alter the expression of genes isn’t some miracle, however amazing it may be. it’s coded for.”

8. “If she moved into your apartment sans a ring, you’re better off than married folk in the happiness department, new research suggests.”

9. Opt out of global data surveillance programs.

10. “They had every Facebook post I had ever made in a huge file, along with all my wife’s information, and parent’s information,” As Vox says, your two choices when under assault by a power-hungry Big Brother 1984-ish surveillance state are either go dark, or go disinformation. Or, like CH, do both.

Read Full Post »

Think about the ecumenical change in society that, intuitively, must be happening with the widespread use of various hindbrain altering drugs, like the Pill and antidepressants. This is a change in biochemistry unparalleled in human evolutionary history. It’d be a miracle of serendipity if there weren’t blowback.

A reader surmises,

Great site. Good advice. But …

There is something to be said for all the anti-depressants/mood stabilizers/whatevers that women are taking these days. And I mean, a LOT of women on are on these psych drugs. You’re asking me so what, right? Well …

A lot of a man’s behavior toward women rests on the presumption (truth) that women are insecure and may get depressed at times, and when they do, they choose a man that has been solid for them. They either choose one, confide in the one they “love” or return to one. BUT, with these drugs, I think a lot of their negative feelings are prevented, making them less vulnerable.

It’s something I’ve noticed among professional women. Sure, maybe my game isn’t what it was, but I think it’s worth addressing. Women’s drugs are changing the game a little bit.

An interesting hypothesis we have here, and one that may go a ways to explaining why there is a growing impression among American men that their women are becoming manlier, sluttier, present-time oriented, and all-around less provocatively charming.

Here’s a lovefact sure to torque a feminist’s fat hamster into a tailspin:

Maxim #27: Beyond beauty, a woman’s attractiveness to men is partly a function of her feminine vulnerability, or her ability to mimic feminine vulnerability.

Corollary to Maxim #27: Men are turned off by overconfident, assertive, proudly self-sufficient women.

Yep, despite the delusional claptrap that feminists want the world to believe, men don’t swoon for women who act like men. Non-manboobed men with hanging testicles don’t, at any rate. Invulnerability is not sexy on women.

Men, at least K-selected men from the frigid Northlands where the cold winds blow and nothing grows for six months, are hard-wired with a protection instinct. We want to guard the carriers of our kingly posterity.

Evolution, therefore, has ensured that men respond viscerally to beautiful, weak women needing protection. A woman in need rallies a man’s ready seed.

Enter antidepressants. Suddenly women all over the sub-veneer tribal landscape are feeling invincible, unstoppable, and perfectly capable on their own. “No means no, creeper!” The manly protective (beta) instinct which warms the hearts of biochemically natural women leaves SSRI drugged-up simulacra of women feeling indifferent, even antagonistic, to the same signals of stoically masculine benefaction.

Multiply this effect a hundredfold in the homeland of the SWPL: The big blue whitening cities of the coasts, where every vibrantly atomized lawyercunt and her bovine cockblock are hopped up on happy happy happy pills. No joke, I’d bet 80% of Obama Country college-grad white chicks are dazed and confused with the help of Big Father Pharma. That percentage jumps to 99% when you expand the age range to include spinsters with two or more cats aka alpha male substitutes.

All successful game requires, in lesser or greater dose, the deployment, consciously or otherwise, of psychological tactics which raise the man’s relative status, lower the woman’s relative status, or both. This is a fact of the nature of the sexes, and it exists because the lifeblood of lust is fed to men and women by different veins. What excites a woman — the challenging company of a higher value, dominant man — is different than what excites a man — the company of a coy, vulnerable, pretty woman. You can rail to the ends of the earth about this fallen state of humanity, but you will never change it, not as long as there are two sexes evolved with differing reproductive goals.

It makes sense, then, that drugs which create a disturbance in the sexual polarity force would also have a downstream effect on courtship, both the traditional and the modern game styles of mate acquisition. A less vulnerable-feeling woman is a woman less receptive to beta provider game, and — this is getting deep into CH theory of modern dating dynamics territory — more receptive to sexy alpha bounder game.

An artificially happy and confident woman is, in short, a no-game-having beta male’s worst nightmare.

(A few of you wags might say that SSRIs are helping turn the US from a Euro mating market to an African mating market, where sky high self-esteem absent any supporting evidence is the norm.)

As a visionary acolyte of Le Chateau, you want to know how to make this new social reality work for you. (Some of you want to change it back to where it was before it turned wicked, but that is a concern for wise old men with rerouted energies.) A good start is dread game, which is the seducer’s answer to invulnerable women.

Some other proto-men, like the scalzied followers of male feminists, take the opposite tack, and submit themselves completely to the whim of Tsarina Bombas, in hopes, apparently, that their utter prostration would excite in women the pity fuck compulsion before it triggers their active repulsion reflex.

A specific skill of modern seduction, as channeled through game, will therefore need to be (sadly from a certain perspective) the ability to evoke, in pinprick psychological jabs, sadness, fear, worry and self-doubt in the Happy Harlots of Late Hour America. If you lack this skill, you’ll find more cynical men stealing your lamb meat off your white linened table.

Or, you could just wait out the coming collapse in your Galtian gulch, and watch the feckless loverboys starve in the streets live-streamed, as the newly vulnerable women rediscover the value of your warm hearth. But by that time, you’ll have stuccoed the entirety of your masturbatorium.

The antidepressant ruination of American women is a theory worth investigating, particularly in light of observational evidence in favor. Perhaps enterprising readers will unearth studies which connect the dots. Or perhaps they’ll just say “what the fuck”, and give the Supergirls a double dose of ego-smashing sexytime.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: