Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Love’ Category

Jesus Had Game

Jesus wept? Oh no, my friends. Jesus charmed!

Jesus, like so many leading protagonists in the great books for men, had game, and used it to mesmerize the fuck outta his audiences of admirers. There’s a direct line throughout history leading from the thorny crown to the furry hat. Jesus was mystery, and Jesus was the first Mystery.

Proof of Jesus’ mad skills with the coy doubters comes to us via this nifty list of his best follower pickups.

One of the best-described of all charismatic leaders is Jesus. About 90 face-to-face encounters with Jesus are described in the four gospels of the New Testament.

Notice what happens:

The Son of God is about to raise your buying temperature.

Jesus is sitting on the ground, teaching to a crowd in the outer courtyard of the temple at Jerusalem. The Pharisees, righteous upholders of traditional ritual and law, haul before him a woman taken in adultery. They make her stand in front of the crowd and say to Jesus: “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. The Law commands us to stone her to death. What do you say?”

The text goes on that Jesus does not look up at them, but continues to write in the dirt with his finger. This would not be unusual; Archimedes wrote geometric figures in the dust, and in the absence of ready writing materials the ground would serve as a chalkboard. The point is that Jesus does not reply right away; he lets them stew in their uneasiness.

Jesus used tension to build attraction.

Minutes go by. One by one, the crowd starts to slip away, the older ones first– the young hotheads being the ones who do the stoning, as in the most primitive parts of the Middle East today.

Finally Jesus is left with the woman standing before him. Jesus straightens up and asks her: “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”  She answers: “No one.” “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus says. “Go now and sin no more.” (John 8: 1-11)

Jesus is a master of timing. He does not allow people to force him into their rhythm, their definition of the situation. He perceives what they are attempting to do, the intention beyond the words. And he makes them shift their ground.

Jesus forced others into his frame.

He does not allow the encounter to focus on himself against the Pharisees. He knows they are testing him, trying to make him say something in violation of the law; or else back down in front of his followers. Instead Jesus throws it back on their own consciences, their inner reflections about the woman they are going to kill. He individualizes the crowd, making them drift off one by one, breaking up the mob mentality.

Jesus passed shit tests.

Jesus is a charismatic leader, indeed the archetype of charisma. Although sociologists tend to treat charisma as an abstraction, it is observable in everyday life. We are viewing the elements of it, in the encounters of Jesus with the people around him.

Game is applied charisma. I wonder if Jesus was a Dark Triad? Or should I say, Dark Trinity?

(1) Jesus always wins an encounter [...]

Jesus never lets anyone determine the conversational sequence. He answers questions with questions, putting the interlocutor on the defensive. An example, from early in his career of preaching around Galilee:

Jesus has been invited to dinner at the house of a Pharisee. A prostitute comes in and falls at his feet, wets his feet with her tears, kisses them and pours perfume on them. The Pharisee said to himself, “If this man is a prophet, he would know what kind of woman is touching him– that she is a sinner.”

Jesus, reading his thoughts, said to him: “I have something to tell you.” “Tell me,” he said. Jesus proceeded to tell a story about two men who owed money, neither of whom could repay the moneylender. He forgives them both, the one who owes 500 and the one who owes 50. Jesus asked: “Which of the two will love him more?” “The one who had the bigger debt forgiven,” the Pharisee replied. “You are correct,” Jesus said. “Do you see this woman? You did not give me water for my feet, but this woman wet them with her tears and dried them with her hair… Therefore her many sins have been forgiven– as her great love has shown.”

Jesus doesn’t follow conversational threads like an attention starved beta; he breaks them and makes his own. He answers ambiguously. He puts people in the defensive crouch, where tingles are born. Jesus follows the statement-statement-question format of effective discourse control.

The priests send spies, hoping to catch Jesus in saying something so that they might hand him over to the Roman governor. So they asked: “Is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”

Jesus knowing their evil intent, said to them, “Show me the coin used to pay taxes.” When they brought it, he said, “Whose image is on it?” “Caesar’s,” they replied. “Then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”  And they were astonished by his answer, and were silent.

Jesus the charismatic alpha male was unpredictable. You expect him to say one thing; he says another. AMOGs show deference and vaginas weep on cue.

(2)  Jesus is quick and absolutely decisive

As his mission is taking off in Galilee, followers flock to hear him. Some he invites to come with him. It is a life-changing decision.

A man said to him: “Lord, first let me go and bury my father.” Jesus replied: “Follow me, and let the dead bury their dead.”

It is a shocking demand. In a ritually pious society, there is nothing more important that burying your father. Jesus demands a complete break with existing social forms; those who follow them, he implies, are dead in spirit.

Chicks hate mincing betaboys. Jesus was not a mincing betaboy. Chicks dig rule breakers. Jesus was definitely a rule breaker.

The Pharisees complained, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?” Jesus replied, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

Jesus perceives who will make a good recruit, and who will not.

Jesus was practiced in the art of target selection.

(3) Jesus always does something unexpected [...]

Some of the disciples said indignantly to each other, “Why this waste of perfume? It could have been sold for more than a year’s wages and the money given to the poor.” And they rebuked her harshly.

“Leave her alone,” Jesus said. “She has done a beautiful thing to me. The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want.  But you will not always have me. She did what she could. She poured perfume on my body beforehand to prepare me for my funeral.” (Mark 14: 1-10; Matthew 26: 6-13)

A double jolt. His disciples by now have understood the message about the selfishness of the rich and charity to the poor. But there are circumstances and momentous occasions that transcend even the great doctrine of love thy neighbour. Jesus is zen-like in his unexpectedness. There is a second jolt, and his disciples do not quite get it. Jesus knows he is going to be crucified. He has the political sense to see where the confrontation is headed; in this he is ahead of his followers, who only see his power.

When was the last time you saw an alpha male do the dull, boring thing? Never.

(4) Jesus knows what the other is intending

Jesus is an intelligent observer of the people around him.

Jesus was situationally aware.

He is highly focused on everyone’s moral and social stance, and sees it in the immediate moment. Charismatic people are generally like that; Jesus does it to a superlative degree.

Jesus lived in the moment. Jesus did not suffer “paralysis by analysis”.

Jesus’ perceptiveness helps explain why he dominates his encounters. He surprises interlocutors by unexpectedly jumping from their words, not to what conventionally follows verbally, but instead speaking to what they are really about, skipping the intermediate stages.

Jesus knew how to “elicit values”, and build deep connections with people.

(5) Jesus is master of the crowd [...]

Crowds are a major source of Jesus’ power. There is a constant refrain: “The crowds were amazed at his teaching, because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.” His enemies the high priests are afraid of what his crowd of followers will do if they attack Jesus.

Jesus was socially proofed.

[His disciples] are the privileged in-group, and they know it. Jesus admonishes them from time to time about their pride; but he needs them, too. It is another reason why living with Jesus is bracing. There is an additional circuit of charismatic energy in the inner circle.

Push-pull game.

Jesus can still arouse this crowd, but he cannot silence it. He does not back off, but becomes increasingly explicit. The metaphors he does use are not effective. His sheep that he refers to means his own crowd of loyal followers, and Jesus declares he has given them eternal life– but not to this hostile crowd of unbelievers. Words no longer convince; the sides declaim stridently against each other. The eloquent phrases of earlier preaching have fallen into cacophony. Nevertheless Jesus still escapes violence. The crowd is never strong enough to dominate him. Only the organized authorities can take him, and that he does not evade.

Alpha males can be taken down by a state-sanctioned beta male show of force.

(6) Jesus’ down moments

Even an alpha male occasionally gets cockblocked.

Leaving aside the miracle itself and its symbolism, one thing we see in this episode is Jesus conflicted between his mission– to demonstrate the power of resurrection– and his personal feelings for Lazarus and his sisters. Jesus let Lazarus die, by staying away during his sickness, in order to make this demonstration, but in doing so he caused grief to those he loved. The moment when he confronts their pain (amplified by the weeping of the crowd), Jesus himself weeps. It is the only time in the texts when he weeps. It is a glimpse of himself as a human being, as well as a man on a mission.

Vulnerability game.

Finally Jesus is taken before Pilate, the Roman governor. Jesus gives his usual sharp replies, and indeed wins him over. “Are you the King of the Jews?” Pilate asks.

King of the Poon, amirite?

“Is that your own idea,” Jesus asks in return, “or did others talk to you about me?”

“Am I a player? Only if you want me to be.”

In the crises, Jesus’ interactional style remains much the same as always; but the speaking in parables and figurative language has given way to blunt explanations. Parables are for audiences who want to understand. Facing open adversaries, Jesus turns to plain arguments.

Sometimes it’s necessary to drop the flirty banter and aloofness and draw a line in the sand that you don’t want a woman to cross.

Jesus the alpha male. Jesus the PUA (of disciples). Jesus the master of the crimson arts. Men followed him. Powerful men feared him. Prostitutes paid *him*.

Jesus is risen, indeed!

Read Full Post »

Alpha Male Of The Month

now let’s see if you can suck dick at the same time.

When a woman publicly, willingly, and happily prostrates herself to a powerful alpha male, it triggers the egalitarian instinct in northwest Europeans (men and women) who, feeling vicarious indignation, snark and sputter their displeasure. For instance,

Proof that men are completely helpless.

Yes, it could be proof of that (if you ignore the fact that he appears to be a healthy man capable of standing on his own without aid). But much more likely it’s proof that his beautiful lover takes great pleasure in serving him.

To the modern, equalism-addled Western mind, such displays of raw female submission to raw male sexuality are both alien and unsettlingly evocative of sexual relations as they may occur without social censure, or as they may have occurred in the distant past when fewer formalized rules were in place to constrain the sexual gluttony of alpha males and the dewy-eyed slavishness of the women who loved them. Threatening, too, because the occasional display of stark sexual polarity in egalitarian societies, consensual and brimming with joy by both parties, is a shivvy reminder to the mass of mediocrities of their own organically constrained romantic options.

In short, sour grapes and snark are the typical reactions by losers suffering the ceremony of winners.

Read Full Post »

Perspicacious and numerate commenter “St” writes in response to this post about Shakespeare having his male characters utter fewer words than their romantic female counterparts,

CH,

I hope you realize that 101/155 = 65.1%

Which is disturbingly close (1.6%) to the 2/3 male-to-female text communication ratio you advise.

If that’s not another exogenous vindication of Chateau principles, I don’t know what is.

“St” is referring to CH’s Poon Commandment V:

V. Adhere to the golden ratio

Give your woman 2/3 of everything she gives you. For every three calls or texts, give her two back. Three declarations of love earn two in return. Three gifts; two nights out. Give her two displays of affection and stop until she has answered with three more. When she speaks, you reply with fewer words. When she emotes, you emote less. The idea behind the golden ratio is twofold — it establishes your greater value by making her chase you, and it demonstrates that you have the self-restraint to avoid getting swept up in her personal dramas. Refraining from reciprocating everything she does for you in equal measure instills in her the proper attitude of belief in your higher status. In her deepest loins it is what she truly wants.

It appears that CH, knowingly or unwittingly ;), stumbled upon a deep and abiding truth about sex, love and the erotic nature of women that was known to the literary greats of the distant past.

Heartiste and Shakespeare… truly, madly, deeply in ❤️!

Read Full Post »

It’s hardly a secret, even among the SWPL hypocrati, that IQ is important to individual life outcomes, (and, on a grander scale, to a nation’s civilizational supremacy), that it correlates to a host of happy behavioral traits, and that dysgenic mating trends threaten to “decivilize” the West if nothing is done to reverse them. Given these accepted premises, many well-meaning but marginally spergalicious bloggers argue for the glories of assortative mating, (though in point of fact many assortatively sorted couples are meeting based less on shared IQ or unspoken eugenic hopes than on simple segregated convenience). This post may then come as a surprise, advocating as it does for a marital boycott of overeducated women.

IQ (and a woman’s educational level, insofar as the latter is an IQ proxy) is undoubtedly relevant if you’re interested in improving your future kids’ economic prospects, and likely getting more so thanks to increasing occupational cognitive demands, but it isn’t the alpha and omega of the good life. Myopic IQ fetishism notwithstanding, CH has spilled a fair amount of ASCII ink ridiculing equalists who despise the idea of an immutable general factor of intelligence and the consequent futility of public policy that fails to account for its reality. This is because the equalists are today those in power, and thus the most scrumptious targets for the Shiv Wielders.

Implicit or explicit support for assortative mating to boost a country’s “smart fraction” is arid frank & beans counting. Breeding Sorters say we are doomed if we don’t pair off high IQ partners in marriage to make high IQ babies. But there are more things in love and marriage, than are dreamt of in their social science laboratories. And there are more negatives to assortative mating than eugenicist whisperers are willing to admit.

There really is no point to marriage unless one wants children. Absent children, all the good things about marriage can be had in cohabiting relationships. This is even true of raising children if your blood is of Northern European stock, for whom the people of your motherlands demonstrate a facility at successful childrearing in non-marital cohabiting households. (Not to be confused with craptastic American-style single mom households, of which there are blessedly few in Scandinavian countries.)

So a major justification for marriage (and a reminder of the silliness of gay marriage) is that having children within a healthy functioning nuclear family environment benefits their development.

Right there is Problem Number One you’ll encounter if you marry an overeducated woman: She is likely to be far less fecund than less credentialed women. If you want at least the 2.1 kids necessary to replace you and your wife in the next generation, don’t marry a woman with a 4-year college degree and especially not a woman with a doctoral degree. You may as well line the spare bedroom with kitty litter.

Problem Number Two with overeducated women: Over the last 30 years, the happiness of women with graduate degrees has dropped faster than that of women with less than a high school education. (See Table 3, Panel E) The secular trend in happiness is down for women across all educational levels (which is not the case for men), but having more than a four year college degree accelerates the female unhappiness trends to rates above that for high school dropouts. Men are happier when their wives are happier, which means you should avoid marrying a credentialist status whore. And since there is scant evidence that children make you happier, it pays to find a woman who won’t exacerbate an already unhappy prognostication.

Keep in mind, too, that women get a lot unhappier with age than do men. So if you marry a spry 35-year-old post-doc she’s gonna be a real barrel of fun when she’s pushing 50.

Problem Number Three with overeducated women: Pairing them off with smart, accomplished men exacerbates social inequality. And not just because it amplifies white stratification by zip code; it also increases white stratification by IQ (and its attendant cultural fracturing). Society is best served when men with high IQs are free to inject their gifts into the wider world of women, instead of having all that gold-plated DNA locked up in the semi-barren wombs of Ivy Leaguers pushing social constructivism and infinity-wave feminist theory as a day job.

Problem Number Four with overeducated women: They’re sexually frigid. While sex surveys are more prone than any other type of survey to tempt respondents to lie, the results do offer a clue as to which way the tingles vibrate, and according to the data the tingles are practically buried dead underneath a mound of post-grad student loan debt.

For further confirmation of this nonsexular trend among superfluously credentialed women, see this screen capture of poll results on a message board for upper middle class married white women, most of whom probably have college degrees or better. The question asked is how many blowjobs do they give per month (presumably to their husbands). Since it is a private message board among women and not a publicly announced survey with social expectation bias built in, you can expect these responses to better reflect the reality of their marriages.

If you’re a man with a set of functioning gonads and not a sufferer of cerebral scalzi, you will want to avoid hitching yourself to an overeducated woman whose dusty muff and schoolmarmish mouth will open for business once every lunar cycle.

As CH is a cuntoisseur of the overeducated SWPL chick, some may wonder why the Lord of Lasciviousness would deign to game sexually frozen prey? Easily explained. First, a gentlemanly selectiveness honed by years of experience and psychological nimbleness has proved adequate at filtering out women likely to lay like dead fish in my roiling sea of sperm. Second, pre-marriage, pre-kids SWPL chicks are ravenous in a way they never will be within the confines of the marital home, copulating with an alacrity that belies their furtive fear that their future husbands will be unable to arouse in them the same fervor. Third, one must accept that many overeducated women are sexless termagants because they are married to beta males; they’ve lost that lovin’ feeling, and only a suave rico will summon it back.

But, if you don’t have the skill to reintroduce overeducated women to their bygone libidos, it makes sense to find yourself a less educated woman with a naturally higher sex drive and/or less benumbing experience in the desiccating company of anhedonic beta males.

Problem Number Five with overeducated women: They’re uglier. Now I know what you’re thinking. IQ and beauty, according to the evidence compiled, correlate to a nontrivial degree. All else equal, if you date only women with above-average IQs, you are probably dating women with above-average looks as well. But the formula, at least anecdotally, appears to break down once you move into the ranks of women with much higher than average IQs or years of accumulated education. Trawl any lofty Ivy campus and you can’t help but notice how poorly the super smart women compare aesthetically to their earthier competition. State U girls have it in spades over H Bomb girls. If you are a man, this matters for your marital happiness and stability.

***

All together, CH has laid out a fairly convincing case against marrying overeducated women. Yes, intelligent women will get your stupidly ironic SWPL jokes, but that’s not what makes you hard, is it? No, what makes you hard is a cute face perched atop a slender hourglass figure, guided by an electric ham that’s willing to put all those delicious assets to good use. So why are you contemplating marrying an overeducated woman? To have extra money to purchase pixellated distractions? To brag to your buddies that your homely wife has a PeeAcheDee, only to notice how none of them are remotely impressed by that? Sounds like the winning life of a true warrior of the West. Not.

Nothing in this post should impress upon the reader that dumpster diving in the ghetto for sub-80 IQ battering hams is the wise course of action. An aversion to overeducated women is not the same as a desire for the love of blank-eyed obese monstrosities. The undereducated woman has her own laundry list of problems, many of them equal to or worse than the vices of her smarter sistren. To wit, here is a representative of the pro-educated woman, pro-assortative mating crowd, a real “lion” of the commentariat, reader “SC”, who lays out his side’s argument for sacrificing passion at the altar of social status whoring:

And what is it with you and high IQ/high education women?

I know them better than they know themselves.

Just because you have had bad personal experiences with them…

I’ve had very few bad experiences with SMRT overeducated women. In fact, the bulk of my romantic life has been nestled in the boobies of college+ grads (along with some very exciting exceptions I won’t ever regret). But I also have a bad habit of calling it like I see it, and overeducated women come with their own peculiar set of psychological baggage and magical thinking. And I’m a guy who likes to take a big picture view. Individually, these women have been great fun in my life; societally, they are the cuntary in the coal mine.

…doesn’t mean that they are worse than low IQ/low education women in aggregate.

I didn’t say they were worse. Think of this blog as bringing balance to the force.

I am willing to bet any amount of money that high IQ/high education women are: less violent,

…more emotionally manipulative. Or at least better at it.

less likely to have an illegitimate kid,

…more likely to fuck two men concurrently. Overeducated women are less beholden to sexual norms.

less likely to get divorced,

…less likely to get married before they’re haggard. IQ and credential fetishists love to write about the low rate of divorce among the overeducated, but what they always fail to grasp is that a big reason for this is the decrease in sexual market options among the high IQ that accompanies their later in life marriages. So yeah, you get a more faithful wife with crows’ feet and a saggy butt. Lack of options = stability. Worth the trade-off?

If anything, it looks as if the best bet, if you want to avoid divorce, is to 1. skip marriage altogether or 2. marry a woman who will be a stay at home mom and won’t make more money than you. That means, in practice, avoiding women with masters or doctoral degrees, since it is likely they will have upper quintile incomes.

less likely to have a criminal record,

…more likely to snort coke. How many readers have real experience dating and fucking blue city SWPL chicks? I mean, on the order of 30 or more lovers? If you do, then you know how much coke overeducated girls hoover up their dainty noses.

less likely to be on welfare,

…more likely to max out daddy’s credit card. But yeah, if you date an overeducated SWPL chick, she won’t feel much of a need to lean on you for financial support, which is a good thing… if you’re a player. If you’re a beta offering nothing but free dinners, eh, not so good.

and less likely to be overweight than their low IQ counterparts.

That’s true, and that’s the biggest advantage that overeducated women enjoy.
Fatness is the boner-killer.
Fatness is the heavy weight that brings erection annihilation.
I will scorn that fatness.
I will permit it to wobble past me and far away from me.
And when it has stampeded past I will turn the serrated shiv to see its path.
Where the fat chick has gone there will be belly fold fungus.
Only sexy chicks remain.

Just walk through the campus of Harvard or MIT sometime. Hardly any fatties with bastard kids. Every trailer park/ghetto/barrio has TONS of tattooed fatties with bastard babies.

There’s a world of women between Harvard yenta and trailer park methhead. What is the total percentage of 18-year-old American women who attend Ivies? 1%? I gotta laugh at some of these HBD hermits. To them, the world of dateable lovelies is either toothless COPS extras or 140 IQ Harvard students. I thought they were supposed to be numerate? Fellas, step outside. There are a lot of pretty girls with normal lives who aren’t welfare queens or PhD overachievers.

Here’s valuable CH advice you HBDingalings won’t regret following: Learn game. Use your knowledge of the seduction arts to find a cute girl with an associates or bachelors degree, 105-115 IQ, under 27-years-old, with no children and no stated feminist beliefs, whose greatest career aspiration is nursing or teaching and sucking the life force out of your two standard deviation schlong on the daily. If you can do that, all worries about an impending dysgenic disaster will fade to irrelevance.

Read Full Post »

Sweet Rosalie writes,

I don’t understand how the married guy is “happily married” if he drinks so much and sounds so desperate. If I had been his wife I would have divorced him not for cheating, but for being such a desperate clingy beta (for a 36-year-old who treats him like s#it nonetheless). I wouldn’t mind too much my husband having an affair if he acts like a grown-up, but the sight of my husband losing his head like a (drunk) teenager would be unbearable.

It’s helpful to remind oneself that the male mind is as, if not more, unfathomable to women as the female mind is to men, and this is particularly so when we speak of the primeval parts of the brain responsible for regulating romantic feeling. Rosalie is Exhibit A. She can’t understand how a man can be both happily married and desperate to bang an office hottie. But men are perfetly capable of compartmentalizing sex and love, something women can’t do or can only do with strenuous mental exertions that defy their natural psychological predisposition.

FACT: Most men can simultaneously love their wives and lust for their mistresses.

FACT: More men than women are capable of LOVING two or more romantic partners concurrently.

FACT: A man can sustain and reconcile a happy marriage and a romantic fling for decades without feeling an urge to give up on either one.

Women have trouble doing any of the above three axioms with the same ease of execution and peace of mind that men naturally possess. There are exceptions, but this is the way to bet.

Rosalie, therefore, is befuddled. And Rosalie should not be chastised (gently mocked, yes) for her befuddlement, because it is the nature of her sex to project her own desires and compulsions onto the motivations of men. It is a rare woman indeed with the self-awareness to understand men’s romantic desires and to predict men’s actions based on that understanding. It is the rarer woman still who will forgive men for following their desires in the same reckless manner that women unabashedly follow theirs.

Rosalie’s confessional blurt reveals something else of the character of women. It isn’t the cheating per se that offends her; it’s the man’s clinginess and betatude with which the hope of cheating is pursued that gets under her skin. This is in line with the CH contention that, deep beneath the reservoir of polite social expectation that wraps cortically around the id monster, women aren’t so scandalized by a cheating lover as they are emotionally traumatized by a cheating lover who cheats with sub-par fare and does so with the mien of a mewling betaboy in a rush of love. (That post, btw, garnered a response from a more optimistic man than I.)

Rosalie is woman. The sex act of the cheater is not the crisis of heart for her. The betrayal of *love* is what sets her off. Like most women, what she truly fears is infidelity of the heart, not infidelity of the groin. This is why it’s so jarring to her to hear about, or visualize, an older husband falling gaga in love with a younger woman, and reverting to a primordial beta prototype in the process.

Sweet Rosalie, if only there were more women like you who spoke truth to id, and understood that alpha husbands sometimes need sexual and romantic outlets, and that this male desire needn’t mean the end of their marriages. Are you French, by any chance?

Read Full Post »

Merry Christmas

Many thanks to all the readers who showed their superlove for CH by donating to the blog (see Donate button at right). It is appreciated.

Read Full Post »

This one time, in gigolo camp…

I’d like to relay a conversation I had with a past lover who asked a very pointed question as we were strolling along a riverbank (yes, really! Hallmark called and wanted their moment back), in hopes that it will impart a valuable lesson for the next generation of pussy houndlings. Our love ended when she moved far away, but she later returned for a few weeks and met with me to wax nostalgic over old times. The pertinent part of our convo follows:

Her: Did you use game on me?

Me: (momentarily rattled) What do you mean?

Her: I mean did you say things that would make me fall for you? Were your feelings real?

After a few seconds pause to collect myself and stop from blurting an ill-formed, self-incriminating reply, I stowed my easy smile and summoned my Very Serious Face.

Me: Since when did you become so cynical? One thing I’ll always regret is turning a woman like you into a cynic. It doesn’t suit you.

Her: I’m not cynical. I was just wondering if you meant what you said to me.

Me: Tell me, was I a bad influence on you?

Her: No.

Me: But I was. You sound like a different girl today. That’s not good. You’ve lost something, and it kills me inside.

Our conversation took a detour at that juncture, as we passed a store that reminded her of the place where I picked her up. When we returned to the subject, she asked me what I meant when I said she was different now than when I met her. All talk of “game” had ceased.

Note three themes: 1) I never answered her question directly. 2) I redirected the conversation so that she was put on the defensive, having to reconcile both a possible change in her personality for the worse, and blame for making me feel like “it was killing me inside”. 3) The “bad influence” assumption fed her desire for JERKBOY drama.

The wild-eyed feminist reader shrieks, “That’s manipulation!” Is it? Substantively, nothing I said was false. Her fling with me really did provoke in her a small measure of cynicism. It’s also true that she was a naturally big-hearted girl for whom cynicism conflicted with those temperamental attributes that made her special to me. And finally, I did in fact feel kind of bad for arousing in her dark suspicions. And it is a fact as well that women welcome a bit of badboy excitement in their love lives.

But there would’ve been no gain to be had, for either of us, from admitting under interrogation that I had used game on her or from expressing regret for the use of game rather than regret for the effect that it had on her uncorrupted, trusting love. Because I knew from experience that when women ask seemingly pointed questions, what they really want to know goes much deeper, to primal feelings that women hold near and dear, like, for instance, the nature of loving reciprocation. Directing my replies to those deeper feelings in her, as if I was talking to a separate being or the real woman behind the curtain, would yield fuller intimacy.

So I had used game. And I meant what I had said to her when we first met. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. Game was the best way to persuade her that my feelings for her were genuine, because I knew that she would need that professionally administered seduction to be open to receiving my sincere message of love. Yes, you evade tough questioning from a woman to sidestep discomfort and bad feelings, but you also evade her dead end inquisitions to grapple with the turbulence of her hidden, animating emotions. The art and science of seduction can be as enlightening as it can be bewildering. And there’s no woman in the world who doesn’t love it for both reasons.

Read Full Post »

This was the advice of an Italian female author of a bestseller book titled Cásate y sé sumisa – “Get Married and Be Submissive”. The book is now a hit in Spain, where the fertility rate of the native Spaniards is very low as one prime fertility generation of women after another squeezes into the crowded and expensive cities to pursue the accumulation of alphas and gadgets instead of betas and cherubs.

Naturally, Spain’s feminists (is there no Western nation safe from the shrieking of the clams?) are outraged, OUTRAGED I tells ya, by the book’s premise, and are, as is the wont of this subspecies of open-minded and tolerant leftoids, calling for it to be banned.

The book, which was a bestseller in Italy, preaches a message of “loyal obedience, generosity and submission” on the part of the new wife and offers nuggets of advice for the newly-wed on how to please one’s husband.

The book currently appears at number 15 on the Amazon bestseller list in Spain but has raised the hackles of modern-minded Senoras who even staged a public demonstration against the tome, where they tore up copies.

Women’s groups are considering legal action to get it banned arguing that it promotes gender violence.

Here is a photo of the Italian authoress, Costanza Miriano, advocating a wife’s submission to her husband:

Here is a photo of a group of Spanish feminists tearing apart copies of the book:

I could drop the mic right here and walk off stage, confident that the argument against the feminist position, such as it is, remains incontestable. But tragically there are still people in the world who believe raw ugliness exerts no influence upon one’s warped beliefs or bizarro worldview, so the shivvings will continue until morale improves.

One passage suggests: “We [women] like humiliation because it is for a greater good.”

The Story of Oaths. Women in traditional marriages are happier than women participating under more “egalitarian” marital auspices. Lovely Costanza is correct; the nature of women… unchangeable, sculpted in the crucible of a millions-year old mating environment that has bred in them an instinctual adoration for the powerful man who by force of will extracts from his lovers a damegeld, i.e., submission to his prerogatives… is a wild beast that needs a dose of loving humiliation to remind it for whom it ploughs and pleases.

Miriano has touched on something important here, something very dark and naturally suited for examination by the learned scribes of Chateau Heartiste. A woman seeks her submission to a better man, belying her own socially greased words to the contrary, and will take the measure of a man in part by his willingness to indulge in humiliations, usually small, sometimes great, as proof of his worthiness.

What does Miriano mean by “for the greater good”? I believe she alludes to an idea articulated at CH in the past: the idea that women’s unbridled sexual nature is wilder and more dangerous than man’s sexual nature, and that leaving women’s ravenous desire to its own devices — that is, giving women the freedom as demanded by feminists to hunt in an endless chase for perfect romantic fulfillment, no matter the consequences — will in the end breed deep discontentment, and the restless queefly quest that can never be quenched will transform the ancient courtship rituals into an acid bath disintegrating the last fibers of social connectedness.

Women, slave to limbic compulsions far beyond the mere abilities of prefrontal willpower to contain, need a man who will stop them embarking on this quest, whether embarking in reality or fantasy (both are caustic to social and familial bonds in their own ways), and the only assurance that a woman will be satisfied leaving the quest behind is if a man wrests her from pursuing it.

The author claims the book is based on the teachings of St Paul and that a perfect wife should be submissive.

Paging Matt King…

“It’s true, you’re not yet an experienced cook or a perfect housewife,” she writes. “What’s the problem if he tells you so? Tell him that he is right, that it’s true, that you will learn. On seeing your sweetness and your humility, your effort to change, this will also change him.

Smart women understand that men won’t move heaven and earth for unfeminine shrikes. Even an ur-leftoid like Maureen Dowd, by way of a fortuitous brush with brotherly reality that would have made her a wiser woman had she heeded the unmissable lesson instead of lied to herself her whole life for status whoring points at her New York Beta Times cocktail circuit, comprehends that feminine niceness, and nothing but feminine niceness, is a balm of which men will never tire.

The sassy, snarky, arch bitch inspires the competitive instinct in men, and weakens their protective instinct. Men won’t feel motivated to change for a woman who isn’t capable of evoking vulnerability and, yes, submission. Men will fuck the invincible modern woman, and then leave her unloved, untroubled that such a woman softly weeps herself to sleep at night.

Granada’s Archbishop Francisco Javier Martinez, who chose to publish the book has defended its content and insists that the furore surrounding it is “ridiculous and hypocritical” in a society that allows abortion, which he argues is a much clearer example of violence against women.

The Fifth Wave Feminist: Keep hacking at those fetal limbs but zero tolerance for awkward nerds committing microaggressions by telling dongle jokes.

The present condition of Western elite thought is unsustainable. Something will give, soon. And then those who always felt the Western world was amiss but were too cowardly to say so without twelve layers of sniveling PC ass-covering will embrace the wrought iron door to the Chateau and enter, imbibing its teachings without apology, without reluctance, and with only regret at having not arrived sooner.

Read Full Post »

Remember Ice Cream Guy who jerked his ice cream cone away from his girlfriend when she reached over with a spoon to take a scoop? The good and the great were offended by this raw moment of microalphatude, but CH guests of honor knew better. This guy had his girlfriend wrapped around his finger. So wrong, he could do no wrong.

Well, Ice Cream Guy is back in the news. The couple was on TV recently as “Fans of the Week”, and the pre-game hosts were giving Jake — he of ice cream guardianship fame — a hard time. He was ribbed “when’s the wedding?”, and in true alpha style he responded, “Ohhh, shit.”

Another quickie microalphatude dropped like a daisy cutter on his Daisy, and naturally she reacted by… waaaiiit for it…

… can you guess?

…yeah that’s right, by gazing at him adoringly.

His “oh shit” reaction was spontaneous, but neophytes to game should know that alpha spontaneity comes with practicing the behaviors that distinguish alpha males. What was once canned will, over time, start to spill from your presence unbidden. Fake it till you create it.

There are other alpha male tells in this video, which the learned reader should be able to easily identify, so I won’t belabor them here. (Ok, here’s one: notice their body language. She is turned slightly toward him, leaning into his body, while his torso is pointed straight ahead, neither rejecting nor obsequiously receiving her feral affections. He is a rock, upon which she may lay her loving submission.)

The amoral tale of the tape is that you can get… and keep… a cute girl by acting like God’s gift to women, by doing the opposite of what conventional society advises, and by remaining unapologetic for your JERKBOY CHARISMA. You can even do all this while insouciantly announcing that you’re “too broke” to take your girlfriend to a basketball game. She won’t mind, because she’s in love.

Read Full Post »

The Wickedest Links

1. Is low fertility hereditary? Francis Galton thought so. He analyzed English peerages (excerpted from R. A. Fisher’s The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection) and found that those high ability men who had married heiresses — who are the “sole issue of a marriage” — produced fewer children. Thus, the genes of men in high social classes were mingled with the genes of women with a tendency to sterility. Infertility then “gains social promotion”. Sound familiar? Money quote (from Fisher):

[I]n a barbarous society, in which the heroic qualities do possess an intrinsic tribal advantage, the power to appreciate and the proneness to admire such qualities will be enhanced, so long at least as reproduction is actually greatest in the predominant families. The reader who will candidly compare the current attitude towards rash actions in any long civilized society with that among the peoples under discussion, will scarcely doubt that the hero-worship of barbarous peoples was in fact a mental attitude which, however useless to modern man, played in their lives a very essential part. Changed conditions which have reversed the advantage of the heroic qualities, have also reversed the advantage of being able to recognize and appreciate them. It is obvious that the barbarous element in the tradition of our culture is that which emphasizes and indeed exaggerates, the natural inequality of man, whereas the religious and legal elements emphasize his civil equality. From the fact that the barbarians valued more highly certain qualities of human character, it is a fair inference that they perceived such differences more clearly than do civilized men.

Fisher agress with the CH diagnosis of the postmodern West that the end days of a civilization are characterized by an exaltation of deviancy (equalism) and a debasement of normalcy (sophism). We in the West long ago abandoned our barbarian ethos. In return for this “moral progress”, we have limitless pleasures of the flesh and material comforts. But we also have complacency, self-annihilating moral universalism, and infertility. Perhaps a return to barbarian values is just the medicine to save the West from a long walk in the shadow of the valley of death.

The patented CH solution to dysgenic fertility is to break the stranglehold of assortative mating by IQ that is currently aided and abetted by the helicopter parent ethos, and return to traditional pairings of powerful, high ability men with pretty but less educated and accomplished women. Call it the CH boss-secretary sexual strategy to renew Western vitality. This will increase fertility, increase total happiness, and decrease the degenerate SWPL culture monolith that is at the lead of decivilizing and ethnically cleansing great Western nations.

2. Another impolite stereotype confirmed: Girls with daddy issues are easier to bed. This experiment is interesting because it seems to affirm a causal effect that runs from absent dad -> slutty daughter through the use of a psychological technique known as “priming”.

Researchers found that students primed to think about paternal disappointment were more likely to complete the word stems in a sexualized way (SEX for S_X, NAKED for _AK_D) than those who were conditioned to think about fatherly support.

They also revealed more sexually permissive attitudes on the questionnaire.

Miss DelPriore and her team write that their ‘results provide the first true experimental evidence supporting a causal relationship between paternal disengagement and changes in women’s psychology that promote risky sexual behavior.’

Jayman will be interested in this study. Prediction: the coming population explosion of teen daughters of bitter single moms will transform the American dating landscape into a coast-to-coast r-selected plunderland for sociopathic badboys with no scruples. *cracks knuckles*

3. “There will come a time when patients stop asking their doctors to make them thin. It will either be because fatness is rare again, or because it has become entirely accepted.” Fat city. Memo to fatties: you eat too much. Get off your fat asses and stop shoving so much crappy food into your pieholes. That’s the cure for obesity. #FatShamingForever

4. Liberals are more likely to kill a white person than a black person to save 100 people. So it’s not that liberals are more moral than conservatives, it’s that they’re “differently moral”. I suppose if you like living with people you can trust, you’d want to stay the hell away from liberals, who obviously suffer from a mental disease that compels them to aid in the extinguishment of their own tribe. It’s a shame they have the run of the place at the moment. On the upside, their disorder guarantees that their power has an expiration date. Heh.

5. The liberal rationalization of discrimination.

In other words, people don’t seem to have an issue with the idea of using useful data to discriminate amongst groups of people itself, but if that discrimination ended up affecting the “wrong” group, it can be deemed morally problematic. As Tetlock et al (2000) argued, people are viewing certain types of discrimination not as “tricky statistical issues” but rather as moral ones. [...]

Accordingly, one manages to create a “better” victim of discrimination; one that is proportionately more in need of assistance and, because of that, more likely to reciprocate any given assistance in the future (all else being equal). Such a line of thought might well explain the aforementioned difference we see in judgments between racial discrimination being unacceptable when it predominately harms blacks, but fine when it predominately harmed whites. So long as the harm isn’t perceived as great enough to generate an appropriate amount of need, we can expect people to be relatively indifferent to it. It just doesn’t create the same social-investment potential in all cases.

This is why leftoids won’t countenance the data — real world and scientific — showing that their religious equalism is a fraudulent belief; once they accept that premise and abandon their old faith, the emotional justification for their discrimination in favor of out-groups evaporates.

6. A reminder what an open borders America, courtesy of Bryan Caplan and Cheap Chalupas, would resemble. Yes, the ghetto underworld is as bad as your most fevered nightmares can concoct.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,836 other followers

%d bloggers like this: