Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Vanity’ Category

I’ve been receiving an increasing frequency of emails from gaystream media whores soliciting this blog’s lordship for a roll in the clickbait hay. All of them, to date, have requested absolute privacy (the irony), so I won’t divulge details on threat of (((legal))) recriminations, but I can offer a general impression of what they’re asking. For instance, one media whore speaking on behalf of a well-known whoresite is part of a team putting together a piece of agitprop art on the manosphere and wanted CH’s scintillating contribution to the effort.

I’ve wondered for a few months how best to respond to these inquiries. So far, the CH policy has been to ignore and plow. No j/k, it’s been to ignore. Period. I never respond, partly because, what’s the use? I won’t persuade a shriek of shitlibs to accept in their hearts the Rude Word of the Chateau, and I certainly can’t expect to be treated fairly by these toads. More practically, I am very careful to guard my shadowy dimensions, and there is a risk, however muted through multiple proxies and TOR nodes, that a reply by me would be scoured for identifying info by a black ops team at Fusion GPS (stands for Grabbing Pussy Systems).

But the inquiries are getting more insistent and coming from bigger and bigger names. So I’m reconsidering my standard policy of ignoring them; perhaps for an upgrade to a “lol suck a dik” response? I have toyed with the idea of a conditional reply. That is, I set the ground rules and they swear by them in writing before I offer any penetrating insights of my tumescent wisdom.

For instance, we all know leftoid gutter filth can’t help litter their reporting of deplorable subjects with smear terms and baseless slander. One can’t hold a gun to reporters’ heads (yet) to demand honest and accurate journalism, but one can bind them to abide at least a rudimentary schedule of fair play. I believe two of the Original Shitposters, weev and Anglin, have a lot to say about this tactic when dealing with the globohomogenized media and their skypistry.

For instance, I would demand any reporter refrain from using the term “White supremacy” in any article about Chateau Heartiste, and if needed for context to substitute the term “White competency”. Similarly, they would be required by the CH Vajeena Convention rule 69, subsection 14.88, to replace the word “racist” with “totally rad race realist”. And “misogynist” would become “man who doesn’t bow and scrape before delusional feminist cunts”.

Any violations of the terms of agreement would result in an immediate public shaming and an army of weaponized autistes leaving pig entrails on the reporter’s super zip front door.

And, to punctuate my seriousness of intent, neither would the reporter be permitted to insert a disclaimer that contained the words “white supremacy”, “white supremacist”, “racist”, “misogynist” or other favored term of othering the leftoid equalism cuntsortium employs to maintain their icy grip on their quack Narrative.

I throw my quandary to the studio audience. What do you think is the best way forward to deal with slithery solicitations from Snakes and Merchants of Fake?

PS Vox Day has written about this topic: Don’t talk to the media.

Read Full Post »

Flaky Flakeberg Text Game

The Chateau’s Flaky McFlakester text Game is acquiring a lot of devotees. A reader adds to the cacophonous encomium,

CH,

When am I going to give up the struggle in my heart and just accept that you are the source of all knowledge?

dein kampf.

I’ve been commenting on your posts for awhile – recently about my adventures on Tinder as a married man. I had a girl lined up this weekend, and she was ready to go… until her mom called from across the country and it fell apart. We texted a bit the next day, and it trailed off.

Sitting here today, and I go through the CH archives and come across your advice for reversing a flake. I figured, what do I have to lose? I edited a bit cause I know she’s Jewish, and texted her “what’s up, flaky flakeberg?” Got three texts back in under two minutes.

Honestly, my schedule is complicated since I have a wife to work around, so I doubt she and I will be able to connect again. But hey, I got a response, and a few more dirty pictures to add to my collection. And you can’t put a price on that, can you?

Thanks again,

[WHOO BOY YOU BET THE NAME IS REDACTED]

Folks, I am but a humble messenger of the True Nature of Woman. Sup from my banquet of knowledge at your own risk, and prepare to receive the shwings and furrows of indignant tradcons.

Read Full Post »

Via the Grauniad (so take with a flat of salt):

Scientists discover brain’s neural switch for becoming an alpha male

Timid mice turn bold after their ‘alpha’ circuit is stimulated as results show ‘winner effect’ lingers on and mechanism may be similar in humans

Brash, brawny and keen to impose their will on anyone who enters their sphere of existence: the alpha male in action is unmistakable.

Now scientists claim to have pinpointed the biological root of domineering behaviour. New research has located a brain circuit that, when activated in mice, transformed timid individuals into bold alpha mice that almost always prevailed in aggressive social encounters.

Determinism getting you down? AYO HOL UP FOR DAT SCIENCE SEQUEL

In some cases, the social ranking of the subordinate mice soared after the scientists’ intervention, hinting that it might be possible to acquire “alphaness” simply by adopting the appropriate mental attitude. Or as Donald Trump might put it: “My whole life is about winning. I almost never lose.”

#InnerGameIsReal

The brain region, called the dorsal medial prefrontal cortex (dmPFC), was already known to light up during social interactions involving decisions about whether to be assertive or submissive with others. But brain imaging alone could not determine whether the circuit was ultimately controlling how people behave.

The latest findings answer the question, showing that when the circuit was artificially switched on, low-ranking mice were immediately emboldened. “It’s not aggressiveness per se,” Hu said. “It increases their perseverance, motivational drive, grit.”

This is a rebuke to all those dummies who falsely equate “alphaness” with aggression. Studiously refusing the temptation to be a wilting betaboy flower watching the world of women go by is not the same as unloading ten clips of aggro douchebaggery on unsuspecting innocents.

With brain stimulation, low ranking mice won 90% of the time against animals they would normally have lost to.

Lesson for beta males: YOU HAVE IT IN YOU. Romantic failure is not a fate you must quietly await.

“When we took mice that used to lose in the tube test they could win within just several seconds of stimulation,” said Hu.

Someone will invent an Insta-Alpha pill that will give betas a temporary boost of sufficient fortitude to ask women out, and it will radically change the sexual market like nothing else has, not even porn.

Intriguingly, the experience of winning appeared to leave an imprint on the mice, making them more assertive, even when their brains’ were no longer being artificially controlled. They were found to be more combative in a second scenario in which they competed to occupy the warm corner in a cage with an ice-cold floor.

“We observed that not all the mice returned to their original rank,” said Hu. “Some mice [did], but some of them had this newly dominant position.”

The scientists described this as the “winner effect”, hinting that there may be a grain of truth in the self-help mantra “fake it ‘til you make it”.

Spare a moment for me preen? CH, 2008:

Fake it till you make it means faking that internal confidence as well as the external behavior. This is not as hard as it sounds. Every time you feel self-doubt and talk yourself into inaction, yell “Stop!” out loud, and your brain will reboot. You then consciously reframe your thought processes to put the burden of approval seeking on those around you. With good inner game you can say just about any ridiculous routine and the girl will be intrigued.

The most important change in thinking you can make:

You are not there to win over women, they are there to win over you.

Keep saying this over and over until you begin to believe it. You are re-wiring yourself. Don’t worry about the truth or falsity of it. That’s irrelevant.

Of mice and men.

Read Full Post »

I’m not given to retrospectives (mortality reminders are a buzzkill), but this reader’s email deftly describes the incredible cultural influence of the internet realtalk revolution collectively known as the manosphere, a loose affiliation of men who, cutting to the pith of it, were tired of pretty lies and wanted the ugly truths. The manosphere itself was a child of seduction forums, where men actively trying to crack the code of female attraction would share ideas, with all the SJW and PC window dressing stripped clean. They were the proto-shitlords of their day, uninterested in virtue signaling or status whoring for the benefit of admittance to polite company. The manosphere later expanded and fed a whole new vocabulary and theoretical framework to dissident factions like the alt-right, /pol/, Frog Twatter, and neoreaction. (Even MPC, no friend of the PUA life, has a thread titled “Examples of Beta Male Faggotry”. The lure of realtalk, no matter the source, is irresistible to iconoclasts and modern heretics).

What started as a get laid guild became the greatest unleashing of rhetorical and memetic testosterone in modern American history. Cucks, shitlibs, manlets, fatties, and feminists were swept aside by this tsunami of refocused and revitalized T, particularly of the White man’s T. The question remains whether the manosphere’s Frankenbeans monster — their testicular shiv of the bloated and sclerotic Lords of Lies — has achieved apotheosis in President Donald J Trump, or if there are bigger and ballsier reckonings to come.

Message I sent to someone that may be of interest:

One funny thing about the game guys. They are empiricists because they wanted to meet women and, as CH puts it, get love and sex. It is really wrong to say it is just about getting the rocks off. They really wanted girlfriends, too, but the girls of today are all too often damaged goods. But to do any of that they had to overcome a lot of lies and programming, and even learn new vocabulary, and be hardcore realists and empiricists. Only facing reality and facing the truth about men and women would get the girl back to the crib and get the panties off. No emotion-protecting lies will do it. And over the decade or so this conversation has been going on, the habit of being hardcore realists and empiricists has spread into all areas of thinking and acting. And also the guys involved in the conversation are maturing. Ten years is a long time in any human life, especially from the 20s into the 30s and beyond. So ingesting the red pill was like a magic potion that was supposed to make you into a mighty poon-slayer, and it worked! But the magic was far more powerful than anyone dreamed. And it kept working and all kinds of new powers kept emerging until the initial thing became secondary to the larger goal of living a life aligned with reality, which may even mean moderating the demand for female bodies, as nice as they can be, and as necessary as they sometimes seem to be.

Strange to have been watching this from the sidelines all these years.

No one would have predicted how it has played out so far.

“A life aligned with reality”. A government aligned with reality. A nation aligned with reality.

That is the manospherian Realtalk Revolution’s legacy, and it is as Beautiful as it is Truthful. Instructions for a life well lived inevitably became a warning and a remedy to a society rapidly draining its life force in the abattoir of anti-reality. The Virtue Snivelers can deny reality, but reality will always belie their denials.

And ironically, I don’t consider the Chateau a “manosphere” outpost. I don’t know what I’d label this place, but “manosphere” seems too constricting. I’ll call it what it has meant to its many guests and wanderers: A rejuvenating retreat from a mad world, and a beacon to those who feel like strangers in their own land and time. The best description may be in how you leave this place, rather than in how you came to it: as purposeful and impassioned men.

Read Full Post »

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 »

More here. That Neil DeGrasse Tyson, he is a wise black man!

Credit to Pax Dickinson (@pax on Gab) for creating these. I only wish he had done more of them.

Read Full Post »

A reader alerted me to a video by Jordan Peterson, whom the reader believes is a secret Chateau reader. It’s a good vid as Peterson describes the personality profile of the typical SJW and relates it to fundamental psychosocial differences between men and women.

There are plenty of ugly truthgems in Peterson’s talk.

  • “the SJW equality above all else philosophy is more prevalent among women…is predicted by the personality factors that are more common among women”
  • “historically, women were responsible for distribution, men were responsible for production”
  • “there’s an antipathy between [equalism] and the reality of differential productivity”
  • “we don’t know what women are like when they have [mass] political power, because they’ve never had it [until now]”
  • “men tested ideas, and women tested men”
  • “is there an attraction that’s emerging among the female radicals for that totalitarian male dominance that they’ve chased out of the West?”
  • “as the demand for egalitarianism and the eradication of masculinity accelerates, there’s going to be a longing in the unconscious for the precise opposite of that”
  • ‘the more you scream for equality, the more your unconscious is going to admire dominance”

I would say in the case of women surrounded on all sides by lickspittle appeasing beta bitchboys, their hindbrains are going to DESIRE male dominance and not be content to just admire it.

Jordan Peterson has basically recapitulated a core tenet of Chateau Heartiste in his talk describing the SJW personality profile:

Chicks dig power.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: