Fat Moms Give Birth To Mangled Offspring

Non-black men are viscerally disgusted by fat blobby broads, and this disgust has its evolutionary logic at least partly in the fact that fat moms are more likely to birth children with congenital malformations.

Results A total of 43 550 (3.5%) offspring had any major congenital malformation, and the most common subgroup was for congenital heart defects (n=20 074; 1.6%). Compared with offspring of normal weight mothers (risk of malformations 3.4%), the proportions and adjusted risk ratios of any major congenital malformation among the offspring of mothers with higher BMI were: overweight, 3.5% and 1.05 (95% confidence interval 1.02 to 1.07); obesity class I, 3.8% and 1.12 (1.08 to 1.15), obesity class II, 4.2% and 1.23 (1.17 to 1.30), and obesity class III, 4.7% and 1.37 (1.26 to 1.49). The risks of congenital heart defects, malformations of the nervous system, and limb defects also progressively increased with BMI from overweight to obesity class III. The largest organ specific relative risks related to maternal overweight and increasing obesity were observed for malformations of the nervous system. Malformations of the genital and digestive systems were also increased in offspring of obese mothers.

Conclusions Risks of any major congenital malformation and several subgroups of organ specific malformations progressively increased with maternal overweight and increasing severity of obesity. For women who are planning pregnancy, efforts should be encouraged to reduce adiposity in those with a BMI above the normal range.

Lay with a land whale, unprotected, and you raise the risk of bringing into the world a child with severe organ malformations and limb disfigurement.

I wonder what the fat acceptance and fat encouragement crowds think about the horrifying deformities that fat moms visit upon their newborns? Rhetorical. They don’t think about it at all. They stuff their giant bloated heads in the sand and wait for the bad feels to pass, like an impacted carboturd.

Fat Acceptors = Child Manglers. It’s more than just sadistic fun to shiv the blubbery hides of fat apologists; it’s a fucking moral imperative.

SHAME A FATTY, SAVE A CHILD

Read Full Post »

The Four Regional Approaches Whites Take To Racial Desegregation

A great comment from Rotten, on how Whites from different American regions have responded to the forced desegregation of their nation.

Heartiste has talked about ‘Good Schools’ and other hidden taxes on whites, like the above examples of regulations and HOAs.

He’s also commented on how these taxes drive down “affordable family formation” by significantly raising the costs to have kids.

All of this relates to how boomers handled desegregation.

The California/Western approach was Racial Covenants, but the govt outlawed this (example: two future presidents lived in all white Compton, CA in 1947, blocks away from the beach and 6 miles from downtown or 5 miles to the port, but, by 1987, Compton is the most famous ghetto in America.)

The Sothern Approach was to live in the same neighborhood but have segregated facilities (similar to today’s Northern Ireland). This was struck down by courts (famous example, Selma AL was turned from a prosperous nice working city into an impoverished hellhole).

The Northern & Midwest Example was for whites to live in and sell to their own ethnic groups informally and extralegally. A city might have a little Italy and a little Germany and a little Poland. And some of this approach survives today in places like Madison, WI. But, The government mostly crushed this with school bussing, part of the Johnson and Nixon administration’s attempt to crush the power of ethnic whites within the Democrat party. (White people fled bussing, their ethnic neighborhoods didn’t re form, and midwestern cities like Detroit, or more recently Milwaukee, became shitholes).

The last legal was to discriminate was to the Puritan method (found almost exclusively in cities founded by former Puritans). Simply make everything so expensive that the diversity can’t come. To this day, San Francisco, Boston, Portland, Seattle, are all relatively peaceful and prosperous. It’s the only currently legal way to prevent diversity. But this costly model isn’t affordable or sustainable. White fertility is such places nears zero.

And cities everywhere are now trying to copy the Puritan approach, which is making the bigger problem (low white fertility due to high costs and the destruction of the white lower and middle classes) even worse. Moreover, those whites who are able to buy their way out of diversity by paying hidden taxes coalition with the Democrat party to preserve their way of life from all of the diversity that free enterprise will inflict on them. And this coalition prevents any honest discussion of race in America.

Western Whites – Racial Covenants
Southern Whites – Jim Crow
Midlands Whites – Ethnic nepotism
Puritan Whites – Discriminatory pricing

Jim Crow has received the brunt of GoodWhite Fake Moralizing, but all four approaches are designed to help Whites avoid the same end: racially mixed District 9 neighborhoods and all the crime, dreariness, annoyances, and ugliness that entails.

On the moral ledger, Puritan Whites are NO MORE MORAL than the BadWhites they have spent the past sixty-odd years demonizing for social status points and virtue sniveling accolades. The only difference is that Puritan Whites have tackled the problem obliquely instead of directly, through price and zoning controls, allowing them the necessary plausible deniability when confronted on their covert race realism.

Another civil war is all but assured as long as the regional Whites see fit to posture and deny reality for the pleasure of beating each other up for a warm glow of sanctimony; the system just cannot accommodate another sixty years of this race denial bullshit. The money or the patience will run out, and then the score settling begins.

Read Full Post »

Jordan Peterson On Female Hypergamy

I’m convinced Jordan Peterson, perhaps Canada’s only shitlord worthy of the appellation, is a long-time reader of the Chateau. Watch this video of him discussing the reality of female hypergamy (a topic covered extensively at this blog) and its influence on the dating market and you’ll see why I think that he’s been a guest at the Chateau under a pseudonym.

1:26 — “human females engage in hypergamy…women mate across and up dominance hierarchies, men mate across and down”

1:49 — “the socioeconomic status of a woman determines almost zero of her attractiveness [to] a man, whereas the socioeconomic status of a man is a major determinant of his attractiveness to a woman”

“and it isn’t his wealth [that’s attractive to women]… it’s his capacity to generate and be productive and to share”

Welcome to the Chateau, Jordan. I’m sure you’ve enjoyed your stay here.

Game is learned charisma. Another way to look at it: Game is male hypergamy, allowing men to date “across and up” in the instinctual manner that women date. The art of charisma and social dominance is essentially a flip of the evolutionary script, in which the savvy man pulls the same biomechanical levers that the average woman pulls to satisfy her urge to date up or at minimum to date across.

A good metric for determining whether your Game is Tight is to keep a mental tally of the quality of women you bed compared to your pre-Game dating life. If the number of times you dumpster dive is decreasing and the number of times you successfully grab the HBrass ring is increasing from what you used to pull in your beta days, then Game has been your friend in fitness maximization.

PS Here’s Jordan on “the shackles of marriage”:

I laughed at this because it’s a backhanded and cynical defense of marriage. JP is saying that the benefit of the marriage shackle is that you’re forced to surrender the illusion of romantic idealism for the low expectations of a humdrum honesty. Hence, the popularity of Fifty Shades of Bullwhip with married women.

Read Full Post »

Diversity + Proximity = Rootlessness

One oft-ignored or unremarked upon consequence of proximal Diversity™ is the feedback loop it establishes with rootlessness. Rootlessness — aka social atomization — can enter a dissolution spiral when racial diversity passes a numerical threshold in which its social impacts are widely perceived and even more widely denied by anyone caught within its vibrancy perimeter.

White homeownership is probably the best economic indicator of the social connectedness that has defined Heritage America until 1965; most people buy homes for the long haul, so they expect to spend many years living side by side with neighbors they hope to tolerate, if not warmly befriend. If neighborhood churn is too high and demographic transitions from White to non-White are the norm across America rather than isolated trends, there will be a White generational retreat from home-buying because no one wants to invest in a neighborhood that may turn to shit in ten years time. Occurring alongside this retreat will be an increase in the numbers of Whites willing to roam the country and temporarily settle far away from friends and family for the promise of affordable rents and glimmers of a past homeland unfractured by racial shock waves.

So what happens in a Diversitopia is an increase in the White rate of renting and in the years spent renting before buying, negative trends which an obstinately pro-diversity, open borders government will try (and fail: cf 2008 housing crash) to artificially reverse. Juvenilia, urban coccooning, ideological cuckery, and arrested psychological development can be seen as ego-stroking accommodations to expanding diversity and the disincentive it creates to home-buying. If age of first home purchase and age of first marriage and first child are delayed, then a suite of emotionally regressive adaptations to the changed reality will help Whites rationalize their lowering living standards.

As the native White share of America’s total population dips below 50% in the coming decades, expect the juvenalization trend to accelerate.

Read Full Post »

The Great Men On Racial Envy

Joe Sobran, a journalist of integrity and fearlessness before the occupation became utterly discredited by venal leftoids, on racial envy of Whites:

And yet we in the West (hi, single white women!) are inviting into our homelands millions of nonWhites with burning, searing racial envy in their hearts, to live as our neighbors in name only, waiting, waiting for the day when their numbers are sufficient that they feel empowered to release their envious hate in an orgy of vengeful bloodletting.

Bad move.

An irony of the ugliest truths is that remembering and accepting them will best preserve the most honest beauty in the world.

Read Full Post »

The Five Stages Of Game

A cheeky wag commenting on a blog post titled “The Five Stages of HBD” offered the Game version of the post’s subject:

Stage-1 (Denial): “What is this cavemanish-sounding “Game” of which you speak? Actually, I’d rather you didn’t answer that.”

Stage-2 (Anger): “SEEEXIIISST!!!”

Stage-3 (Bargaining): “… but even if Game is real, it doesn’t mean anything, does it? You know, women like soft cuddly fat guys, right? Game only works on a certain kind of girl… (or something).”

Stage-4 (Depression): “Who could possibly have imagined that reality was so evil?”

Stage-5 (Acceptance): “Feminism really has been a mountain of dishonest garbage, hasn’t it? Guess it’s time to learn Game or die lonely in Mom’s basement playing World of Warcraft…”

Interestingly, that post was from 2013, so the Rude Word of Game has been percolating through the blogocultural consciousness for a while. Le Chateau Heartiste may be a world wide web outpost, but its ideas have traveled the globe enlightening minds and engorging…souls….from a time when the red pill was still a Matrix movie gimmick and not a manosphere or alt-Right buzzmeme.

Read Full Post »

Chicks Dig Violent Porn

Recently, researchers have discovered what yer ‘umble proprietor of this scandalous Chateau was telling you long long time: chicks dig violent, rape-y, dominating sex because it is in the nature of women to feel incredibly aroused submitting to a powerful, even sadistic, man, and this feeling is universal among women.

Credentialist (((cipher))), 2017:

The popular feminist narrative would have you believe that porn is largely consumed by men, and that depictions of violent — or at least rough — sex would be a primarily male-dominated interest.

This is untrue, states researcher Seth Stephens-Davidowitz, who says that porn featuring violence against women is significantly more popular among women compared to men. […]

“The rate at which women watch violent porn is roughly the same in every part of the world. It isn’t correlated with how women are treated,” he stated.

Perspicacious Heartiste, 2010:

Romance novels, read almost entirely by women, are flush full of rape fantasies. If fantasy (or as I like to call it, “hyperreality”) didn’t reflect reality then we would hear and read of fantasies by women featuring beta males, short dweebs, nerdos, fatsos, and charmless stutterers in the role of desired man. But we don’t. Women’s fantasies, like men’s fantasies, provide a window into a wished-for reality where all options are available, all choice catered to, all desires quenched. Rape fantasy, despite the protestations to the contrary of the “fantasy is different than reality” crowd, is as much a reflection of real female desire as any other form of sexual fantasy.

Women fantasize about a lot of things that no one argues don’t reflect reality if that reality were an option. What fantasizing woman wouldn’t truly want to be a princess who gets swept off her feet by a prince living in a castle? What single woman who dreams it wouldn’t sleep with Johnny Depp in real life if he propositioned her? These are common fantasies of women which they never argue aren’t reflections of how they wish reality were. So why should we grant a plenary indulgence to rape fantasies? How is it that rape fantasy is the one glaring exception to the reality-reflection rule? Men also fantasize about stuff like threesomes with supermodels, but no one in their right mind would argue that men don’t actually want threesomes with supermodels in reality, if having them were possible. (Wives or girlfriends, don’t bother asking your partners. You won’t get an honest answer.) […]

Rape fantasy reflects a deep, inborn, uncompromising sexual desire by women to be rendered helpless, almost childlike, by a more powerful man. It is the submissive scrawling of their hindbrains, a message in a novel sailing forth from the female limbic labyrinth. And from submission to a dominant male force is born the strongest love.

I loved that he was so powerful I was nothing.
– O

Does this mean women would be sexually turned on by real life rape? It is a question not so easily dismissed when we begin to examine closely the sexual fantasies of women. Dismissed it is, though, because no one — man or woman — wants to creak open the vault door that houses such primeval female decadence. For if women do harbor secret desires for dark seductions, then what is left of the pretext to chivalry? Women benefit from some amount of cultural pedestalization. *Societies* benefit. There is no room in a healthy, functioning society for mischievous inquisitors to lay bare the true soul of woman.

If you want to read the raw uncut ugly truths about women before they’re regurgitated in opaque chunks by big data nerds and media whores years later, you read at Chateau Heartiste. Accept no substitute.

Read Full Post »