What Is The Point Of Telling Ugly Truths?

The subject of this post is the new plaintive wail you lately hear spilling from the schoolmarmish pursed lips of liberals and status quo-ers who are suddenly becoming very uncomfortable with the torrent of discomfiting truths penetrating the airwaves, and especially with the truthbomb throwers like the proprietors of this blog who actually sport a working sack and don’t give a flying fuck what offense the perpetually fake phony fraudulent grievance constituency takes when their cocktail party discourse is crashed by mischievous pricks.

“What is the point of telling ugly truths? Don’t you know it will hurt people? What good can come from it?”

The value of truth is self-evident. The pursuit of it needs no explanation. The fact that a growing chorus of institutional(ized) ruling elite is starting to think that some truths are best left locked in an attic chest bodes ill for the future of freedom of speech in America. I predict within ten years legislatures and courts across this land will impose restrictions on the First Amendment. And the Founding Fathers, having already rolled a million times in their graves, will roll one last time, and the earth will swallow whole the America we once knew, but which will be no more.

You think I’m joking, or that I’m posing in martyr garb. Ok, think that. Then get back to me in ten years, and we’ll see if you still have the confidence of your snarky smirk.

But I am in a magnanimous mood. Some ask the question from genuine motives. They sincerely don’t, or can’t, see the value in exposing pretty lies and ugly truths. And they want to know, “Where’s the Benefit?” One such topic of discussion which often elicits this bristled reaction is honest discussion about average human population groups differences (along numerous metrics). I understand the urge to silence, or cavalierly dismiss, open discussion of this topic. The human ego is the most powerful force in the universe, more powerful even than the female tingle. We are constructed of origin material that impels us to wrap our senses of self-worth in the neuronal equivalent of three foot steel-reinforced concrete bunkers, and to associate, no matter how unjustifiably, attacks against our tribe as judgments on ourselves.

I get it.

And… you know what? I don’t care.

Not anymore.

Not when the opposite of the truth — the filthy, acrid lies we here have been choking on for fifty years or more in this country — has been, and continues to be, used as a cudgel to bludgeon the skulls of the favored whipping boys and to take a huge steaming dump on reality.

It is an affront to my lying eyes. It is Orwellian in philosophy and practice. It is a humiliation, a personal slap in the face, to parade this stinking carcass of bullshit in front of me as if it is the Word of God and I should swallow it whole, for my own good you see.

I say fuck you to all of that. And I dream of the day when the rope will be knotted and the lampposts freshly lacquered for the vengeance upon my enemies, my betrayers, that is so sweet. So sweet.

Ahem.. oh yeah where was I… just had a caffeine moment… phew.

Anyhow, some persons of what I judge to have good hearts, ask if any good can come from discussing AICH BEE DEE. They ask what, if anything, would change if the ugliest truths were accepted by the ruling class? What is the practical benefit of hurting some people’s feelings? The reader Thursday emailed what I think is a very good reply to this question, and so I reprint it here:

Some practical applications of HBD:

1. Immigration restriction.  You need a certain number of high IQ people to keep a First World society going.
2. An end to affirmative action.  Minority underperformance is not due to racism, so affirmative action is grossly unfair.
3. Discouraging dysgenics, i.e. not subsidizing single motherhood through welfare, regardless of disparate impact on minorities.  See #1.
4. Shutting down movements to let minority prisoners out into society.  (I’m open to other equally effective methods of controlling crime, but they should be applied to all, not just minorities.)
5. An end to blaming white racism for all the problems of the world.
5a. This may seem like mostly a minor annoyance.  But really intellectual hygeine is reason enough to get rid of it. Forcing people to believe lies is generally corrupting.
5b. It prevents people from thinking seriously about solving the problems among low IQ groups.  You can’t solve a problem unless you think clearly about its cause.

You could make a case for some of these things without recourse to HBD, but we all know how effective that has been. For example, you can’t just talk about IQ without talking about HBD.  The disparities between high and low IQ racial groups just are there and are used to discredit the idea of IQ in general.  These days you really have to quote chapter and verse with hard data to show you aren’t racist.

As for inferior, well that is a judgment call.  In some important ways, blacks may be superior to whites and not just in regards to sports and celebrity.  T. is Haitian and I’d note that Haitian art is just way better than anything done in America in the past 50 years or so.

Whites have created liberal modernity and it is not without its significant downsides, spiritual, artistic and even intellectual.

Of course, blacks and many of these other groups don’t seem very good at creating and maintaining a crime free, high tech society.  Though I’d note that high levels of black crime and social dysfunction are at least partially a response to living in certain societies.  I’ve visited St. Lucia, which is a very black place, and, up until the recent influx of tourodollars, it had been mostly crime free and is still relatively so.  Blacks in the South up until the 1960s were relatively peaceful and well ordered too. But modernity + blacks seems to equal lots of crime and social dysfunction.

This is just a taste of the good — GOOD — social benefits that would come from listening to the truth instead of running from it or trying to shut it down. IQ is but one measure of a man’s character, and but one ingredient contributing to a culture’s prideful sense of self and trust in fellow-man. The truth covers much more extensive territory than just the particulars of abstract thinking ability. Any lie-pusher who attempts to reduce the debate to a disingenuous IQ war is engaging in deliberate obfuscation of the myriad other truths which pulse through the veins and capillaries of the human panoply of difference.

The consequences of lies matter. They matter more than most are willing to admit.

Judging Sluts

The Man Who Was… comments:

It’s hard for men to hold two contradictory attitudes towards sluttiness at once, so PUA advice to just be non-judgmental is better if your only goal is getting laid.

Some readers are under the mistaken impression that my posts about slutty women and the deleterious effects they have on society and marital/LTR stability must mean that I conduct my dating life with a stern judgmental attitude toward women and with the goal of flushing out sluts from my pool of prospects.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I will conceal my true feelings when concealing them is personally advantageous. No way no how am I getting the play I do if I decide to accost every girl I date for a spreadsheet of her sexual history. Real life doesn’t work that way. I want to disable women’s anti-slut defenses, not power them up. I don’t know about you, but when I date, my idea of a successful close is the opposite of the girl clamping her legs shut.

Now, if I am in the market for a long-term girlfriend, I will, post haste, covertly judge my dates for their sexual modesty, and screen out those women who strike me as being world class cock consumers. This, too, is to my personal advantage, for the chronic slut is a potential cheating risk, not to mention a barrel of drama queen laughs that gets tiresome sooner rather than later.

Commenter YaReally is correct to say that adopting a pose of non-judgmentalism as regards women’s sexuality is practically a sine qua non for womanizers. I have yet to meet an experienced player who harshly condemned women (to their faces) for any perceived sluttery. And, let’s face it, when you’re an unmarried guy just looking for a piece of tail, you’re more apt to light up with happy anticipation than power down with clucking disapproval when you learn that the girl you are talking to is handicapped in the sexual self-control department.

“She’s good to go!” isn’t a male rallying cry for nothing.

All that said, I find it off-putting when players try to spin certain obviously self-serving game strategies into self-righteous moral crusades. Some famous PUAs are particularly susceptible to this (cough Neil Strauss cough). Encouraging women to be comfortable with expressing, and surrendering, their sexuality as part of a designed pickup strategy is not equivalent to some grandiose philosophy about the life-giving blessings that sluts bring to the cosmic symphony. Sluts are, in fact, anti-civilization; so if you like being surrounded by the good things in life, and living in a prosperous nation, you would not want too many women to embrace the cock-hopping credo.

Which brings me to the crux of this post. A campaign to relieve women of their sexual coyness and take up the slut banner would, given enough converts, actually work against the goals of players. You see, the sexual non-judgmentalism player pose only works when there is a dominant social current that encourages the opposite. The “secret society” and “you and me against the world, baby” subliminal connection that bonds a woman to the player and tempts her to unleash the loin needs an over-arching force to push against, or it withers from its own growing conventionality and dullness. There is no giddy feeling of taboo breaking when every other girl is happy to give it up for pennies to the dollar, and every other man is spouting the same tired non-judgmentalism schtick.

So, paradoxically, players ought to pray that the greater society keeps their lasses on a leash, else they might see their prey decide that laying down with lions is not as much fun as it used to be.

Comment Of The Week: The Parable Of The Gift And The Ass

Famed commenter gig (a Chateau VIP) passes along this story from a friend:

Fun story, not mine, from a friend.

He was in first or second year in college, and dating a girl still in high school. He’d started working, unlike her. So he had much more money than her. And he gave her a very nice gift for Christmas, in her view. But the girl got embarassed because she couldn’t match his gift. And they started talking about how could she “repay” him.

Well, after some talk, he came to the answer. Everything would be settled, and she would have no reason to be embarrassed, if she gave him her ass for his birthday, several months ahead. He argued that her ass was something very special for him that it would cement a very strong bond between them and make their relationship much deeper. If you know what I mean….

So he spent the next months “dreaming” about the day. And the day came. But the girl said that she couldn’t do it, it would hurt her, she was not of that type, she couldn’t do it. He decided to break up with her because of that.

fast forward a couple years. They meet again. He asks her to come to his new apartment. He didn’t ask anything, just went for the kill. And he got her ass. I did try to find some moral teaching here, but I have failed so far….

Moral of the story: You don’t barter for a woman’s sex; you occupy it.

That’s what women secretly want you to do, but they don’t like having to spell it out for you. Unfortunately, most betas are socially dyslexic and need it spelled out, which of course ruins the romance.

Cultural Eugenics: A Theory

The top and bottom against the middle. White status whoring with minority pawns. SWPL hypocrisy. Anti-white anti-racists. Two Americas. Jesusland.

You’ve heard all these before. The Orwellian prognosis of a political culture steeped in a mountain of lies and suppressed crimethink. Astute observers of the American scene can’t help but notice that something foul is afoot, and they’ve given it a contour: the white ruling class has it in for the white working class.

The WRC is working diligently to make life as difficult as possible for the WWC. The white elite are successfully putting their hate for “those other whites” into policy form, the result being open borders, quotas, AA, outsourcing, emasculating indoctrination, Section 8, credentialism, etc. These policies hurt the WWC much more than the blowback hurts the WRC because the latter has the money and foresight to live in carved-out enclaves full of upper class and upper middle class whites like themselves. But they speak out of both sides of their mouths, for they do not want the WWC to know that the elite don’t really practice what they preach.

I have a theory that I believe has even more explanatory power than irrational ruling class hatred for working class co-ethnics. I call it “cultural eugenics”, and it basically states that, within the ruling minority — in this case, the WRC — there percolates a subconscious mental algorithm, shaped by ancient genetic imperative, which compels the WRC (the alpha males of the national pack) to “filter” or “select” whites lower on the status hierarchy for the ability to navigate the WRC’s cruelly labyrinthine cultural obstacles. It is similar in function to how a small hunter-gatherer tribe has rites of passage for its adolescent males, and how the tribe will viciously ridicule members who fail at a task or embarrass themselves in some manner. The purpose is not to kill them off, but to make them stronger. More like the alphas of the tribe.

The WRC doesn’t intend to do this culling specifically; it is an organic phenomena that arises out of a social milieu in which clearly delineated status hierarchies are becoming even more starkly delineated. The book “Albion’s Seed” goes into detail how these status hierarchies were always a part of America going back to her colonization, because they reflect pathways laid down hundreds of years ago by different tribes of Englishmen.

So in a way you could argue that, perhaps subconsciously, perhaps with awareness, the WRC has had, until now, the WWC’s best interests in heart — to make them better whites. The problem has become that racial diversity — one of the “betterment sufferings” the WRC has deployed to ostensibly strengthen the moral character of the WWC — has severed the comity and the trust and the simple visibility between the white classes, and made the task of scaling the WRC’s obstacles that much harder for the WWC to accomplish. A grave malaise, even an emotional regression, has settled in on the minds of the lower status whites, and instead of fight for their place at the white table and look with pride upon their co-ethnics who have succeeded (pride, because there was historically an implied understanding that the WRC life could be theirs with devotion to self-improvement), they have reverted to aping the crass lifestyle of those indigents who surround them and who are their most visible alpha males of the pack.

In sum, the white ruling class lost its sense of shared destiny and obligation, and the white working class lost its kindred alpha male to emulate. The cultural eugenic program has morphed from one to lift the weakest tribe members and humble the strongest tribe members, to one in which the strong tribe members have decided to kill off or banish to the wastelands the weaker tribe members.

This is not a recipe for national greatness. Or even survival.

Reformed Beta Of The Month

Le Chateau has highlighted great and gruesome stories of alphas and betas, but what about those beta males who transcend, through sheer force of will, the prison of their supplicating souls? More than a learning tool or a life lesson, these enlightened post-betas are inspirations. The 80% or so of men who qualify as beta males need a role model like them; someone who can show them the way. There is a better life if they would just take it, and the reformed beta is proof that you don’t have to be born an alpha to have the good things in life and experience the flush of power that the alpha male takes for granted.

My prudish husband has left me because I lied about my sex life

When I met my husband 40 years ago I knew he was ‘the one.’ He had firm opinions on sex before marriage (outdated even then) and was a virgin.

As I got to know him, it became clear that he’d never consider marrying somebody with ‘history.’ He thought sex special and wouldn’t want to imagine his wife having it with others.

But, by 22, I’d been having sex for four years. Madly in love and wanting him to marry me, I lied.

He was bound to realise I wasn’t a virgin, so I made up a story that I’d been in a long engagement, giving up my virginity under pressure only a month before my wedding day, then reluctantly had sex twice with my fiancé, who then dumped me, leaving me devastated and ashamed.

He was very understanding and proposed soon after. We married and moved to his home town — a relief, as I’d worried we might bump into a friend who might speak out of turn.

We had two children and a very happy and successful marriage. But a few weeks ago, an old friend contacted me over the internet, and I invited her round.

My husband left us to talk and went off to the garden. Inevitably we talked of the past.

After she left, I found my husband looking devastated. He said he’d gone into the conservatory to read and heard everything.

He said he felt utterly betrayed, as he had a right to expect honesty, but our entire marriage had been based on a fundamental lie.

I said we’d had a wonderful 40 years, so what could it matter what I did before I met him?

He moved in to the spare room and avoided me. A week later he moved to a bedsit and told me he wanted a divorce.

Nothing would change his mind. Our adult children have tried, but he is absolutely fixed.

Men who want to find a woman for a long-term relationship or marriage (a codified LTR) are put off by histories of a slutty past. The woman who has given herself freely to men before him proves that old GBFM aphorism that it makes no sense for a man to pay for the pussy that was handed over no strings attached to other men when it was younger, hotter, tighter. You don’t seriously invest in a rode hard and tossed away wet pussy; instead, you ride it harder and wear it out a little more, then look for fresher pussy that doesn’t need its 60,000 cockas maintenance as soon as you sign the dotted line.

My method may be glib, intended to inflict maximum emotional pain for make benefit of my personal amusement, but the foundation upon which the glibness rests is true. Men have evolved intricate mental algorithms that subconsciously push them to devalue women with extensive sexual histories as long-term partners. The reason for this is obivous: the slut is a bigger infidelity risk, and thus a bigger cuckolding risk, than the chaste woman. Science has proven this, in yet another example of the lab coat crowd catching up with conventional wisdom and common sense observation.

Therefore, when a long-loyal husband finds out his wife rode the cock carousel, even if discovered to have occurred in a prior life of hers, his respect for her drops a notch. His love for her shrinks three sizes. His honed beta ability and predilection to put her on a pedestal and adore her suffers a grievous diminishment. She has, in a word, become a less worthy woman in his eyes. And, likewise, in the eyes of all men, because men, like women, share universal preferences for certain types of mates.

So good for this reformed beta for walking away from his once-whore wife. In the big picture, the sin she committed may be small, but sometimes it takes horrible and swift retribution by a man to violently shake a woman, and women in her sphere of influence, from comfortable delusions and easy expectations regarding the self-imposition of controls on their behavior. All it takes is a relatively few betas to toss a stone cold rock in the world of women and the ripples will eddy and swirl through the masses. The beta male has suddenly become uncontrollable, unpredictable, untamable! This is the stuff of revolution, and it will set women on the path to happiness more powerfully than a million grrlpower tomes, feminist blogs or fat acceptance hugboxes.

The haters are apoplectic. Their splutter is the stuff of delicious slo-mo videos. “But but but,” they will protest, “I can be slutty and still land a man! Any man who leaves me because I’m a slut doesn’t deserve me!”

Deservin’s got nothin’ to do with it, honey. It’s biomechanical turtles all the way down.

But I’ll throw the haters a bone, here. Yes, it’s true that a slut, assuming she is sufficiently physically attractive, can cajole a man into a relationship. Men are, before all else, born slaves to a pretty female face, and it takes effort to break those chains forged of unalloyed pulchritude. Many men do indeed slavishly pursue sluts simply because those sluts are hot with perfect apple bottoms.

But “sufficiently attractive” is the key word. The higher value the man, the more beautiful the slut has to be to ensnare him in a relationship. High value men, aka alphas, have options in the mating market that beta males don’t; these men, when they aren’t just plowing through sluts for fun and penile profit, will generally balk at dating sluts in favor of settling down with more modest, and less sexually experienced, women.

There is, then, a tacit assumption that the sorts of men the feminist sluts are pulling aren’t exactly the top of the alpha male heap. They are likely beta males, maybe some of them greater omegas with cute undulating manboobs and receding chins, who are so desperate for sex and female love that they can readily suppress their distaste for sluts if it means having a girl on their arms.

Maxim #56: The more limited a person’s options in the sexual market, the laxer his or her mate standards.

(For those interested in the science behind this, I believe there is a study floating around internetland which purports to show that very beautiful women with extensive sexual histories don’t suffer too much of a hit to their marriage marketability, because the betas who marry them are quick to forgive their slutty ways. In short, very hot women are so intoxicating that many men will assume the higher risk of getting cuckolded by them for the chance to enjoy a few years of glorious, incomparably pleasurable sex.)

In stark contrast, have you ever seen what an alpha male does to plain-looking sluts? It isn’t pretty. To call it pump and dump would be a euphemism. Think more along the lines of “facelessly screw and scatter to the wind”.

These realities of the sexual market aren’t often instantly apprehensible. You can go a few years only subconsciously picking up cues that your behavior is hurting your mate value. But in the aggregate of many lifetimes, and over each lifetime, the god of biomechanics imposes his relentless, merciless, unavoidable will. And you will bend the knee to him, sooner or later. You have no choice.

Thanks, Suffrage!

New meme over the starboard bow, courtesy of yours truly.

In case you didn’t get the message, the meme is a celebration of female suffrage and the wondrous blessings it has bestowed upon the United States of America. Thank you, ladies, for bringing freedom, freedom, and even more freedom to the most forgotten among us, and for shitting shining your light of moral rectitude on the poor benighted souls who wallow in ignorance. America is a better nation today for the collected contributions of your wisdom.

Intermittent Love

Providing evidence ♥♥♥YET AGAIN♥♥♥ for another Chateau Heartiste maxim, a study has come out which finds that women love men who parcel their displays of love unpredictably (h/t: reader George).

I Heart Unpredictable Love

TO love is to suffer; to be happy is to love. So must one suffer to be happy? This syllogism won’t win any prizes in logic, but it accurately describes a curious paradox of human behavior: the allure of unpredictable romantic partners. […]

This kind of amorous attachment is like gambling — except that the currency is affection and sex. The key is that the reward is unanticipated, which makes it particularly powerful and alluring to our brains.

To understand why, consider what happens in the brain when people are given rewards under two different conditions: predicted and unpredicted. The psychiatrist Gregory Berns did just that in a study in which subjects were given fruit juice and water, both naturally pleasurable rewards, while scanning their brains with an M.R.I. During part of each session, subjects received water and fruit juice at random intervals; during another part, the water and juice were administered every 10 seconds.

Professor Berns discovered that the water and juice elicited greater activation in the brain’s reward circuit when the reward was unanticipated than when it was delivered in a predictable fashion. The pattern held true whether the reward was water or fruit juice — even though most subjects claimed a clear preference.

When the reward circuit fires, it also tells the brain something like, “Pay attention and remember this experience because it’s important.” This circuit releases dopamine when stimulated, which, if it reaches a critical level, conveys a sense of pleasure.

Intermittent rewards are far more powerful a bonding agent than predictable rewards. This is why aloof and inscrutable men are so intoxicating to women — they are like the unanticipated glasses of water and juice. You want to keep a woman on her toes by showering her with your loving lovingness in a very haphazard fashion, what pickup artists like to call hot/cold/hot/cold. The more astute readers will notice that the hot/cold/hot/cold routine is frequently and instinctively deployed by women when they are in the early stages of dating a new man, and need to test him for alpha male congruence. You, as the hopeful womanizer, should know from reading this blog that adopting the psychological tricks of women for your own nefarious ends is quite a potent weapon in the battlefield known as the sexual market.

This blog long ago discussed the relevance of intermittently rewarding women for good behavior and promptly punishing women for bad behavior.

VI. Keep her guessing

True to their inscrutable natures, women ask questions they don’t really want direct answers to. Woe be the man who plays it straight — his fate is the suffering of the beta. Evade, tease, obfuscate. She thrives when she has to imagine what you’re thinking about her, and withers when she knows exactly how you feel. A woman may want financial and family security, but she does not want passion security. In the same manner, when she has displeased you, punish swiftly, but when she has done you right, reward slowly. Reward her good behavior intermittently and unpredictably and she will never tire of working hard to please you.

The article about the study goes on to discuss why people are attracted to intermittent rewards.

The reason this happens is simple. The brain’s reward circuit has evolved over millions of years to enable us to recognize and extract various rewards from our environment that are critical to our survival, like food and a suitable sexual mate. Unlike predictable stimuli, unanticipated stimuli can tell us things about the world that we don’t yet know. And because they serve as a signal that a big reward might be close by, it is advantageous that novel stimuli command our attention.

Which brings us to inconstant love. It turns out that human love and attachment are, like the fruit juice in Professor Berns’s experiment, natural reinforcers that can activate your reward pathway. The anthropologist Helen Fisher studied a group of 17 people in the grip of intense romantic love and found that an image of their beloved strongly activated the reward circuit.

If you are involved with someone who is unpredictably loving, you might not like it very much — but your reward circuit is sure going to notice the capricious behavior and give you information that might conflict with what you believe consciously is in your best interest.

Indeed, you may not even be aware of your own reward circuit’s activity. One of the curious things that Professor Berns found was that most of his subjects couldn’t tell the difference between the predictable or unpredictable condition in which the reward was given.

Since unpredictable rewards cause more dopamine release than predictable ones and more dopamine means more pleasure, one implication of this study is that people experience more pleasure with unpredictable rewards than with predictable ones — but they may not be consciously aware of this fact.

Poon Commandment VI… CONFIRMED. By science! Oh, and by real-world experience.

By the way, the fact that people aren’t consciously aware of the pleasure-giving power of intermittent love goes a long way to explaining why women can’t adequately tap into their true desires and explain them without resorting to pretty lie generating hamsterisms. They simply might not be cognizant of the primal emotional machinations fueling their tingles.

Not just that, but there was essentially no relationship between the subjects’ stated preferences and the observed activity in their reward circuit. This suggests that our reward pathways may not only be activated without our recognition, but perhaps even in ways that are contrary to what we think we prefer.

Did science unintentionally uncover more evidence for the existence of the rationalization hamster? Why yes, yes I believe it did! Proof that you should watch what women do, not listen to what they say, about matters of love.

These data might explain, in part, the paradox of people who complain constantly about their unreliable lovers, but keep coming back to them, time and again.

Science discovers that chicks dig aloof and indifferent jerks. Feminists disengage from scissoring to console each other with an uninterrupted stream of feelgood bullshit.

Science: 1. Game: 1. Chateau Heartiste: 1. Love: 1. Game denialists and haters and feminists: 0.

I feed your unfathomably bitter tears to my Galactus-sized ego. Yum.