Feed on

The Wickedest Links

Why did this dude move out of the way and let his girlfriend get hit by a homerun ball? Mincing beta? Yes. Better answer: his girlfriend is chubby. Men don’t feel inspired to gallantly sacrifice for low value fat chicks.


A 2009 metastudy of human rape (apparently rape occurs in chimps, too), authored by a woman, found that

Among college-aged women,approximately 40% of rape victims report continuing to date their attackers (Wilson and Durrenberger 1982; Koss 1989).Women’s positive expectations for a relationship correlated to self-blame and reduced anger in response to coercion (Macy et al.2006).

Brutally ugly. Brutally anti-feminist. Amanda Marcuntte’s forested dickclit just shot a venomous dart at the heart of the world. Now why would peak nubility chicks dig rapist jerks so much so that nearly half of them find ways to rationalize their continued relationships with these ur-assholes? The study offers an intriguing explanation that is in line with Chateau teachings:

A morally troubling prediction of Smuts and Smuts’s [ed: heh] hypothesis is that use of sexual aggression may be effective in continuing a male’s sexual access to a female.

Science comes around to vindicating not just the milder Chateau truths, but the uglier, darker, beastlier Chateau truths as well.


Ex-leftoid admits what guests of Le Chateau knew all along: Leftoid whites hate their own culture and are engaged in a long-running, simmering status whoring war with struggling, non-SWPL whites. Prediction: the leftoids will not like the fruits of their cultural victory.


The Obama Administration has deleted a Bureau of Justice Statistics webpage that detailed some uncomfortable truths about race and homicide. You thought 1984 was hyperbole. You thought wrong. No, really. You thought wrong.


Via Jason Malloy, an unpublished study, titled “Blindness, Deprivation, and IQ: A Meta-Analysis”, opens with this bombshell:

… The present study performed a meta-analysis of studies of the IQ of visually impaired children and adults. The results of our analysis demonstrated that visual deprivation showed no effect on the average IQ scores of a severely handicapped group, and therefore it disconfirmed the cumulative deficit hypothesis … Further, the fact that the severely deprived environment of visually impaired has no impact on their average IQ score makes it less likely that the arguably less deprived environment of, for instance, Blacks in the U.S. or immigrant groups in Europe is the cause of their lower mean IQs. Our meta-analytically based study makes environmental causes of group differences in IQ less plausible and therefore genetic causes less implausible.

Homo economicus is a phantom. Gated communities are not.


White privilege is a term that’s been thrown around a lot lately, mostly by manboobed, scalzied whites with sexual dimorphism issues. But what is white privilege, really? Here’s an answer that’s logical, reasonable, truthful, and admirably restrained.

(As long as the status jockeying, anti-white ruling class continues in their propaganda campaigns, CH will continue to keep its cruel shiv unsheathed, aimed at their black hearts.)


Ross Douthat, mild-mannered, powerfully-browed Cathedral infiltrator and pilferer of original Chateau ideas (sniffed with the utmost butthurtness), has a good post on the intersection between culture, class, growing gay marriage support, and the declining rate of marriage.

Liberal doubts about the past existence of a procreative grounding for marriage notwithstanding, there’s a general understanding that the combination of the sexual revolution, economic change, and shifting gender norms have altered the way Americans conceptualize marriage, what they expect out of the institution, and how it shapes their romantic and reproductive choices. […]

So we have this convergence, which is mostly middle America drifting toward upper middle class norms and ideas about marriage, and drifting away from the (mostly religious) institutions that preach a stronger connection between sex, procreation and wedlock. And here’s what’s striking: As middle American ideas about marriage have converged with upper class ideas, their outcomes have converged with the destabilized lower class. Middle American divorce rates and out-of-wedlock birth rates tracked with the college-educated until the 1980s; they’ve been converging with high school dropouts ever since. A generation ago, it seemed at least plausible that 21st century America would have two (relatively) stable marriage cultures — one upper middle class and more socially liberal, one lower middle class and more socially conservative. But in the current generation, the upper class’s values have triumphed, and the lower-middle marriage culture has gone into steeper decline.

Well worth reading in full. But would it kill Douthat and others of his ilk to mention who precisely was the source of these and similar ideas now percolating through the betastream media organs? Yes, I suppose it would kill him. Or at least kill his job security.


Segueing from Douthat’s column, here’s Vox riffing on an interview with actor Jeremy Irons, who said that “same sex marriage could lead to fathers marrying their own sons to avoid inheritance tax.”

I’d always assumed that the primary problem was that once it is decided that marriage could not longer be limited by sex, obviously it could not justly be limited by quantity either. But, as Irons has correctly perceived, merely removing the sex limit is sufficient to produce a truly perverse set of incentives.

Polyamory’s Box is open. Per Douthat above, the redefining of marriage from a procreative institution to a soulmate/”capstone”/love ideal (one reason for the upper class trend of egregiously expensive proposals and weddings) will inexorably redirect marriage down the path of the logic of love. If you love it, the state will let you marry it.

Love two women, and two women love you? Married! What’s that? You’re not a fan of polygamy? Equal rights!

Love your daughter in that special way? Married! What’s that? You’re not a fan of incest? Anti-love bigot!

Love your cat? Married! What’s that? Bestiality not your cup of tea? Regressive moral throwback. Don’t you know only fairness and harm are legitimate grounds for a state-sanctioned morality?

You laugh, but the logic is inescapable, and immune to legalistic legerdemain. As one anonymous wag put it, “This isn’t the slippery slope. This is Splash Mountain.”

Now personally, I don’t care about same sex marriage. Its allowance or banning has no effect on the eddies of my life, because I have always been aware that love doesn’t require signing on the dotted line. But as anti-marriage as CH has been, we must respect the Dark Enlightenment argument that the redefining of marriage as a secular social status sacrament certifying Pure Love and Flush Stock Portfolios will have far-reaching negative consequences. Marriage as an equalist wet dream means, in reality, single moms and bastard spawn as far as the eye can see. Plus, perhaps, dads marrying sons for the tax break.


What is the “Cathedral”? It’s high time Le Chateau gave credit where it’s due, to a one Mr. M. Moldbug. In shortened form, the Cathedral is the sum total of the American entertainment, media, academic and government industrial complexes, staffed, led, and filled out to brimming by hordes upon hordes of self-annihilating, snarky leftoids propagandizing their infinite lies to their masters in the belching hells.

Cathedral, meet the Chateau. Le Chateau proprietors, escort the Cathedral to the Hall of Endless Wounding and introduce its degenerate apparatchiks your guest of honor to The Shiv. Beautiful Shiv, sparkle for your Lord. Plunge deep, and carve the mewling id from your foes.


Leave a Reply