Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Vanity’ Category

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 »

Have you ever wondered what drives some women to the cult of feminism, when every real world observation refutes nearly all the foundational premises of feminism? Why do so many women cleave to such a wrong-headed, insipid ideology?

Chateau Heartiste explained the phenomenon of feminism as shivvily as possible:

The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.

Feminists, in other words, nurture a fantasy that by sheer force of blather they can remake the sexual market to suit their every whim and desire while curtailing to the maximum extent possible any romantic choice enjoyed by men.

This theory neatly clarifies the motives of all sorts of poopytalk that dribbles from the cheetos-stained lips of feminists. To wit:

Indignation over fat/slut shaming = Demands to be simultaneously as physically repulsive and depraved as one wishes while remaining attractive to any man one desires, regardless of men’s wishes to the contrary.

Social conditioning of sexual preference = Religious belief that men’s sexual preferences can be changed to find fat, ugly or old women attractive, while at the same time any preference women enjoy is empowering and immediately satisfiable.

Patriarchal oppression/privilege = Unfalsifiable rationale for the depressing consequences that unattractive women endure in the sexual market. Promotes idea that low SMV women can be happy once “male oppression” is defeated.

Rape culture = Limitless choice to women to redefine their sexual experiences however they please, (and to benefit from the labeling as they see fit). Men, in contrast, are burdened with automatically impugned guilt for any sexual transaction they may enjoy.

By the Beard of Amanda Marcotte, alongs comes ♥♥♥science♥♥♥ to slurp the CH knob to completion.

Value-added commenter (yes, value-added… hint hint to you dopier commenters) chris writes,

My God. I think he just described feminism here:

Second, high status and very attractive women need less help and protection from other women and are less motivated to invest in other women (who represent potential competition). Thus, a woman who tries to distinguish or promote herself threatens other women and will encounter hostility. According to Benenson, a common way women deal with the threat represented by a remarkably powerful or beautiful woman is by insisting on standards of equality, uniformity, and sharing for all the women in the group and making these attributes the normative requirements of proper femininity.

He is talking about this study here:

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1631/20130079

Abstract:
Throughout their lives, women provide for their own and their children’s and grandchildren’s needs and thus must minimize their risk of incurring physical harm. Alliances with individuals who will assist them in attaining these goals increase their probability of survival and reproductive success. High status in the community enhances access to physical resources and valuable allies. Kin, a mate, and affines share a mother’s genetic interests, whereas unrelated women constitute primary competitors. From early childhood onwards, girls compete using strategies that minimize the risk of retaliation and reduce the strength of other girls. Girls’ competitive strategies include avoiding direct interference with another girl’s goals, disguising competition, competing overtly only from a position of high status in the community, enforcing equality within the female community and socially excluding other girls.

So feminists’ promotion of anti slut-shaming and anti fat-shaming and anti ugly-shaming and anti single-mother-shaming etc, is really just an execution of women’s intra-sexual competitive strategies. It’s the bottom third of women versus the top two thirds. Or perhaps it’s the bottom quarter, as if I remember correctly only 20-25% of women identify as feminist.

With knowledge such as this, you can easily reframe any leftist/feminist argument about a war on women as instead a war by the bottom loser women against the top successful women.

It’s the SU’s (Sluts & Uglies) versus the HB’s.

The benefit of such tactical reframing is; what woman wants to be seen as a loser (ugly and slutty) and not as a winner (beautiful and lovely)? What woman wants to belong to the bottom quarter and not the top three quarters? To admit this would be to destroy their feminine egos. With such reframing, you could get the hamster working for you.

Great stuff. It’s a nifty addendum to the CH Theory of Feminism above. Low SMV women embrace feminism as a social mechanism to alternately decrease competition from more beautiful women and increase the sexual choice of, and the access to societal (read: male) resources for, uglier women.

Elevating the status and the perceived value of the ugly and the monstrous, and simultaneously disparaging the normal and the healthy, is the true motivation of feminists. Their nefarious goal is the renormalization of society and the sexual market to a lower aesthetic; one that is more congenial to the fates of the unloved women.

Feminism is not about a war on women; feminism is a war OF women. Womano-a-womano. All that bleating about equality and judgmentalism and slut shaming and the patriarchy is just the squid ink ugly broads expectorate to give them a fighting chance in the all-against-all, zero-sum competition for mates.

Feminists will lose, of course. The sexual market cares nothing for sophistry. In the final analysis, only the boner and the tingle matter.

Interestingly, a case can be made — hell, a case WILL be made — that the American obesity epidemic and quack-wave feminism have risen in lockstep out of necessity. As the population of reproductive-age women has increasingly become fatter and uglier, the number of women needing the equalist semantics of feminism to assure their place at the sexual market table has grown (heh) accordingly. More fatsos = more equalizing cant.

So you see how obesity, feminism, and equalism intersect, interweave, reinforce, and gluttonously feed each other. CH makes no glib assertion when we compare the obesity plague to the ugliness and lies of feminism and equalism. They are all born of the same toxic mentality, issuing from the breast of the Lord of Lies himself, and their waste and foulness and repugnance and stink and deception flows outward like hellshit, suffocating truth and beauty under an ash cloud of offal.

To the casual observer, a random fat chick may seem to have no relation to, say, anti-white animus. But they are connected in ways deep and true, even if the players themselves remain unaware of their invisible binds. This is why, when you fight one, you fight the other. Strike a shaming blow against obesity, and you draw blood from a degenerate open borders scumbag and a screaming banshee pushing for women at the front lines.

As a count or countess of CH, your enemy is, and should always be, the enemies of truth and beauty.

Read Full Post »

A grateful reader writes to say thanks to the demidongle of CH for changing his love life for the better,

I have to start out by saying thank you for this site. It has certainly opened my eyes and cured me of my societal conforming. Like most men I have had a couple good relationships, a couple bad, and some flings, ons’s in between. Your typical guy if you will. To preface this e-mail I had a 7y relationship as a young man and a couple year and a half ones up until this point. The first one taught me a lot about life, love etc. the ones that followed them were shit. In July of this year I met my current gf. After assessing this relationship time and time again I realize she is one of those girls that needs a guy in control, but if you’re not, she fucking hates you and the resentment infects her body like the plague. Ive seen both sides of it. Her undying affection and love; and her seething resentment. Her dad was absent in her life therefore she tends to overcompensate with the “control” of her life. She’s never trusted anyone to take care of her but herself. A wall to break through for sure.

Im one of those guys who learned to not care too much about the women I didn’t care about (naturally), and care a lot for the ones I do care for. So an aloof alpha when it didn’t matter, and a beta when it does. [ed: a common male malady] So I got into this relationship and things went fantastically for a few months and then she started in on me about things. From how we were before in the honeymoon phase I just figured well I’ll do what she wants and Ill be fine. Wrong. I couldn’t figure out why she was still requiring more from me after doing what she wanted. She was still unhappy. “you aren’t doing this”, “you aren’t doing that” “I cant live like this”… So I supplicated more, and more, until my brain was going to explode from the confusion. We had a few blow out fights that was basically my frustration for her unhappiness exploding, and her continuing to complain. I told her “you ask me to leap and I fucking leap, what the hell else do you want me to do?”.  But she would still tell me that she loved me even though at the same time she was telling me she was unhappy and treating me like a doormat. She never stopped telling me she loved me. Which probably confused me more. My fight or flight response was on FLIGHT but something kept me there..

So I was fed up, had no solution to the problem, I do love her and with my mr fix it attitude in full effect along with my commitment and resiliency.. I needed a solution. So I found your site… read the commandments. Read the beta/ alpha posts. Keeping attraction in a relationship. The story about the experiment with the husband and wife was especially eye opening. So from reading a lot of the posts that pertained to myself I decided to do what seemed counter intuitive. I chilled the fuck out, mentally strengthened myself and decided to love her fully even through her storm of emotions. One of the commandments states:

“Her emotions are a hurricane, her soul a saboteur. Think of yourself as a bulwark against her tempest. When she grasps for a pillar to steady herself against the whipping winds or yearns for an authority figure to foil her worst instincts, it is you who has to be there… strong, solid, unshakeable and immovable.”

So I stopped supplicating to everything. I started defending myself. She’d ask me what I wanted and then shit test me with “well why would you do it like that, that makes no sense, that’s stupid” So I said “you asked me what I wanted, I told you, and you aren’t happy with that. Don’t want my opinion, don’t ask for it” she just about fell over. I stood my ground. She left for work pissed but I didn’t go after her. I ignored it. She called me about 2 hours later to make sure everything was ok and was overjoyed to talk about what we were going to do that night for dinner. It was peculiar but I just went along with it. She came home and was like an excited girl again. A small victory. And a promising insight into her psyche. There have been many times since then (about 3 weeks ago) that she’s done the same and I’ve stood my ground. In that time she’s gone from seething resentment to joyful love again, which I enjoy along with the increase in fucking that has come because of it.

The last thing I’d like to say is that the guy I’ve been for the last month since finding your site is the guy I have always been.  I just thought that since I cared so much that I needed to conform to her wishes to make her happy. But she just wanted a man who was a fucking man and was going to put her back into her place. In turn that made her love even more, and come after me. She was testing my ability to lead the relationship and I was failing. She knows exactly what shes doing, and so do I, I just didn’t understand it. She was shit testing me every fucking day. So I stopped coming after her about what is wrong, why she’s quiet, just let her fucking be. The other day sitting on the couch she looks at me and says “I need you” I said “ok”, “no like I need you, I don’t know what I would do without you”…

Shes crazy. But my ultimate success is taming her, it’s a fucking game. It always is. I get off on it as sadistic as that seems.

Thanks Chateau Heartiste. You rock. You can use my story but please no personal information. And just because I know you get a lot of trolls I can tell you I most certainly am not. Hopefully some shit made sense in my rambling. Thanks again.

When strangers seeking answers amble across Chateau grounds and peer into its dusty libraries, two kinds of reactions follow:

1. Screeching and shrieking about the horror of this place, or

2. Solemn thanks of appreciation for saving a life.

Some people you just can’t reach. But some… they’re ready to be happy. The door is always open for them.

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 »

I Got A Tattoo

What’s the opposite of Jante Law? Jerkboy Law!

Related.

Read Full Post »

A new study concludes that placing different groups of people in close contact results in conflict.

As reported in the American Journal of Community Psychology, Zachary Neal found that neighborhood integration and cohesion cannot co-exist.

“Is a better world possible? Unfortunately, these findings show it may not be possible to simultaneously create communities that are both fully integrated and fully cohesive,” Neal said. “In essence, when it comes to neighborhood desegregation and social cohesion, you can’t have your cake and eat it too.”

The reason has to do with how people form relationships. Neal said people usually develop relationships with others who are close rather than far away, and similar rather than different from themselves (be it through race, religion, social class, etc.).

Neal ran computer modeling of different fictional neighborhoods and, after millions of trials, consistently found the same thing: The more integrated a neighborhood is, the less socially cohesive it becomes, and vice versa.

“These trends are so strong, it’s unlikely policy can change it,” Neal said.

CH is long on record asserting, by way of a digestible axiom, that diversity + proximity = war. A few readers agreed; most either rejected the formulation outright, or panderingly mewled it was hyperbolic. But, as usual, CH has been proven right by ♥science♥. Not that the imprimatur of science was necessarily needed; friggin’ common sense and honing that increasingly rare ability to observe the real world with open eyes and pricked ears was enough to comprehend the limitations imposed on the malevolent utopians by intractable human nature.

In time, everything that is written in the Chateau Heartiste tomes will come to be accepted privately, if not publicly, by the great majority as the truth. And when that day comes there will be no where else for the lords of lies to run.

Read Full Post »

In a recent comment thread, I asked a reader a very simple question, which remains, predictably, unanswered.

A very simple question for the Obamanauts who think their savior deserves the presidency: if he had been white, would he have been elected President? Reaction time in your answer will go toward your final score.

There is only one correct answer: no. There ‘s not a chance in hell Obama would have gotten anywhere near the White House had he been a white community organizer, aka shiftless bum. The beauty of asking leftoids this oh so innocent question with such an oh so obvious answer is that I get to enjoy a spectacle of self-debasement no matter how they answer. If they answer, “Yes, he would have been elected as a white man”, they must betray any belief in their personal virtue to lie so blatantly. If they answer, “No”, they betray their professed ideology and the true motives for electing Obama.

Obama doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of America’s future, because Obama was elected as a fighting symbol for the various warring groups that presently comprise the riven nation; groups who are ultimately driving the cultural and economic trajectory. He was always, and remains so, a totemic symbol with zero substance. Nothing more than a herald for malignant tumult already set in motion by the time he was bounced aloft by the vaporous politics of feels.

- SWPL coastal whites (Yankees in hereditary vernacular) voted for Obama so they could experience a full body orgasm from furiously stroking their tumescent egos for their enlightened attitude. Obama symbolized validation of their belief in their innate goodness.
- Hispanics voted for Obama so they could enjoy the blessings of government largesse. Obama symbolized leverage against more productive and smarter people.
- Blacks voted for Obama because he is (half) black. Obama symbolized the ascendancy of their tribe. (Temperamentally, Obama is about as black as Christian Lander.)
- Native Americans voted for Obama because they were drunk. Obama symbolized another round.
- Asians voted for Obama because he isn’t conspicuously Christian. Obama symbolized the opposite of those antediluvian religious whites who built America from scratch.
- Single white women voted for Obama because he’s the soulful sugar daddy who justifies their lifestyle and stifling conformism. Obama symbolized rebuke of boring beta white men.
- Other voted for Obama because, deep in their hearts, they know he is one of them. Obama symbolized the normalization of deviancy.
- The Top voted for Obama because he symbolized suppression of the Middle. The Bottom voted for Obama because he symbolized ingestion of the Middle.

Obama the Symbol. Obama the Shell Entity. Obama the Therapeutic Cipher. As diversity, both of the elite and commoner varieties, within a nation expands, so too does the need for ever more powerful yet increasingly empty symbols of each tribe’s worth.

What about those whites (aka Cavaliers) who didn’t vote for Obama? Romney did, after all, garner a majority of the total white vote, at levels unseen since the Reagan presidencies. (But, unlike the Reagan years when whites were still a ways from electoral diminishment, Romney couldn’t win with those substantial white tallies against the unstoppable force of demographic shift.)

To those whites not with the program, their vote was a blow against a terrible symbol of antagonism. They saw the bloody banner flapping in the wind as enemy tribes crested the horizon and slowly surrounded them. And they reacted with a swiftness, cleaving to their own symbol, even one as ineffectual and emotionally disconnected as Romney. But their numbers were just too few, and getting fewer by the day.

All you will ever need to know about the imprint that the Obama Presidency will leave on the psyche of this segregating nation was shrieked by delirious followers in the streets on election night in 2008:

Hope and Change!

Like the buffoonish, thin-skinned meathead who loudly proclaims his prowess to a doubtful crowd, the chorus of cultists repetitively singing the Hope and Change anthem till tears welled in their eyes betrayed a deep disillusion with the substance of their yearning. The lesson is unmissable: the more insistent the emotional incantations declaring universalistic hope and change, the more likely the chanters have base, tribal motives. Emotionalism is a hallmark of a people that no longer believe in anything but egocentric validation, and rationalizing by whatever sophistry necessary their will to self-endorsement.

In totally unrelated news, a “group of teens” is at it again! The Cathedral has become such a rank parody that the time is right to tactically step aside and let the enemy discredit itself. Why waste energy fighting a foe at full strength when you can just jeer at him as he punches himself in the nads?

Read Full Post »

The sensationalist news show “20/20″ is purportedly airing a special tonight on “the manosphere”. Two completely unbiased feminists report from the internet trenches, where HATE MACHINE ÜBER ALLES!

Yeah, you can expect as much journalistic integrity from two liberal arts graduate vapid shell entities as you could from a Pravda copy editor with a gun to his head. At least the Pravda guy has an excuse.

CH may not rightly be considered part of the manosphere (our hearts will go on), but this news should interest the CH readership, which crosses over with sites commonly recognized as manospherian. Actually, the news should interest all sorts of non-manosphere readers as well, such as those from the peripheral HBD, PUA, dissident and rascally right, and neoreactionary spheres. Thus, I pass it along.

No doubt this “20/20″ exposé will be unfair and unbalanced choir preaching to their fat frump female audience, but that’s largely irrelevant. The take home point is that RealTalk™ outposts are getting noticed by aristocratic Cathedral hacks nervous that their carefully manicured garden of pre-approved public discourse in which they frolic is about to get overrun by revolutionaries happy to take a shit on their marigolds. In response to the growing threat, they will smear and mock at first. And then they will roll over and die.

Pro Tip: The MSM leftoid juggernaut sets the frame and gets to define its enemies. This is, for now, the operating zeitgeist. The best way to win at that game is to not play. At least not on MSM terms, on their turf. But if you decide to enter the equalist arena to do battle, you should have a plan of action for reclaiming the alpha ground. This means, in practice, before you have answered any of their questions or even allowed them to ask a question, announcing for the world your assumption that your interviewers are incapable of impartiality.

“Before we begin, I really wonder if you can approach this subject matter with an open mind, like a true objective journalist. I mean, the mainstream media has a history of distorting the viewpoints of people they don’t agree with, and even lying to set the tone of debate. But maybe you’ll surprise us all by not immediately shouting “rape” when someone talks about legitimate topics that upset you.”

By preempting their attacks in this manner — airing their strategy of slander like dirty laundry — you weaken the effectiveness of their attacks when they want to deploy them later. It’s a classic reframe. Game can win over women and TV audiences equally.

PS For the record, CH has no opinion of Paul Elam, the main rep of the manosphere interviewed by “20/20″. Never read his stuff, so can’t make any judgment whether he’s a suitable spokesman or not.

Read Full Post »

National Geographic has an illuminating series on alpha males in the human wilds, documenting a slew of experiments which demonstrate that the term ‘alpha’ has validity as a descriptor of the top dog in emergent human male hierarchies. The bitter sperg denialists of the CH worldview are gonna have to retire their empty-headed argument that alpha is a taxonomic term that only applies to wolves. :roll:

There’s a lot to chew on in this video, so take some time to watch the whole thing. Right in line with Heartiste game techniques, the experiments vindicate the idea that adopting “power poses” and other mannerisms of the alpha male pack leader can actually make a man feel more alpha, and more importantly will make him be perceived as more alpha by other men and by women. This is nothing less than total validation of the game concept of “fake it till you make it”.

Video highlights:

- Being a big man automatically confers alpha status, but the effect is contextual. A small man with the right attitude, as you will see later in the video, can out-alpha a big man.

- Conversely, being a little man automatically confers beta status, unless the little man acts in a way to dispel the assumption. So, yeah, you shorter men have an extra hurdle to clear that taller men don’t have. But it is surmountable.

- There really are body language and voice “tells” that reveal whether a man is alpha or beta. These subtle mate value cues have been discussed numerous times before on CH. Check the archives. A man with tight game knows that body language and tonality — how to stand, sit, make eye contact, speak with authority — are crucial components of seduction.

- Don’t ever put your palm facing up when challenged by anyone. It’s a classic submissive gesture.

- Remember, when shaking hands, try to position your hand so that it lays slightly atop the hand of the person you’re greeting. Most people will acquiesce quietly to this dominance move. (Knowledgable CH readers will notice it right away and attempt a counter-maneuver, resulting in a hilarious hand-twisting spectacle resembling a game of thumb wrestling.)

- It’s better to hold eye contact to the point of discomfort than to avert your gaze prematurely.

- Men with salt and pepper hair shouldn’t bother getting it dyed. The touch of gray is a high status cue. (Note: Does not work the same for women, who will just look old and unsexy with gray hair.)

- When you hug, make sure your arms are on the outside of the hugbox.

- Take up space, own the space, claim other people’s space. Any vagina within that space will then assume it is subject to your jurisdiction, and behave accordingly.

- A smaller, less stereotypically masculine man, can out-alpha bigger and harder-looking men by using simple mannerism tricks. Proof that alpha is more about attitude than appearance.

- Don’t sit at the corners of a rectangular table.

- You might think that being the Number 2 Alpha would be enough to get plenty of girls, but female hypergamy is insatiable. Number 1 gets exponentially more attention than Number 2 gets from women.

- Alpha males PROJECT their voices. I have yet to meet a successful salesman who didn’t have a booming voice that commanded attention. You may think an obnoxiously loud voice is the Call of the Douchebag but, you know, chicks dig douchebags. Are you gonna bitch about it or are you gonna play to win?

- There’s a reason a seductive male voice is a register lower in tone: It sounds dominant. For those men who don’t have naturally deep voices, it is possible to practice speaking in a lower tone, and to avoid reverting to a higher-pitched beta singsong. See the “get out of my box” experiment in the video. Really outstanding demonstration of how a stronger vocal tone can immediately command respect and obeisance from others.

- Having a woman around you, silently and subconsciously judging your male qualities, can boost your alphaness. This may explain the phenomenon of beta male orbiters; perhaps they realize on some deep level that they act stronger in the company of a woman than they do alone, or with other men. This doesn’t compensate for their wretched beta supplication and willingness to be used as emotional tampons, but you can’t fault them for trying to find and exploit any edge, no matter how trivial.

- The “sneaky fucker” strategy really does work.

- Direct game (like the kind Naftalie uses on the girl at around the 28:30 minute mark) has its place in any man’s arsenal of allure, but it’s clear that bold direct game is a high risk, high reward proposition. If the girl doesn’t take your direct game bait, you can quickly be out-alphaed by *her*. Indirect game is lower risk, lower reward but, like the parable of the tortoise and the hare, it’s my observation that, over the long run, the ingenuity of indirect game will result in more successful pickups.

- For those interested in the racial angle, it appears black men have more “up front” alpha body language — that is, black men engage in more conspicuous alpha displays such as strutting, bellowing, and space monopolizing. But white men (and in particular nerdy ectomorphs) have a compensating version of alpha game that can neutralize heavy-handed posturing by more physically aggressive adversaries: They lean on their smarts. (See the tech-savvy display at the 27:30 mark.) There are, indeed, plenty of exceptions to this rule. See, for example, the total lack of strutting by another black guy in the group, Isem.

- Open body language beats closed body language, nearly every time. Exception: Any time a beatdown that you want to avoid is imminent. #LiveToSeduceAnotherDay

- If you posture or behave like a beta male, you will FEEL like a beta male, and women will practically SMELL the beta stink on you. So make it a habit to posture like an alpha male as often as possible. That alpha male posturing will transform you into a real life, breathing alpha male, even down to your hormones.

- WE ARE HARD-WIRED, BIOMECHANICAL AUTOMATONS carrying out the directives of ancient genetic algorithms. We are also expert at deluding ourselves otherwise.

- Acting like an alpha isn’t all poon-chasing fun and games. It also lowers cortisol levels. Low stress is a formula for a long, healthy life.

- Alpha humans, like alpha apes, react to the world with amused mastery. Grace under pressure is chicknip. Sometimes it’s to your benefit to sit back and let the beta males and the women squabble amongst themselves.

- At around 36:00 minutes in, we see what happens when the putative alpha male of the group, Naftalie, is challenged by an interloper alpha male (the AMOG). This scene is great as a teaching aid for how to handle AMOGs cramping your style. Commenter YaReally will be very pleased with this scene, because it affirms a lot of his anti-AMOG tactical knowledge; namely, stay calm, stay positive, groom the group, and don’t let the challenger get under your skin.

A few final thoughts:

Some men, like Naftalie, are great alpha males of MEN, but not so great alpha males of WOMEN. This is a not so uncommon disjunct that one finds in some leaders of men who are not very good at being seducers of women. We all know that captain of industry (in whatever flavor) who nonetheless acts like a dullard or an oaf in the company of women. Generally, alpha males of men are also alpha males of women, as the dominance required for the former is also attractive to the latter. But disjuncts do occur, and this opens windows of opportunity for men who may not be leaders of other men, but who are leaders of their own emotions and experts at speaking the female language of love.

Under extreme duress or threat, white knighting as a strategy to bang women may actually work, (see the last experiment in the video). But you have to be prepared to back up your white knight posturing with real intention.

Ever notice how most primatologists in the field are women? It’s almost as if… chicks dig dangerous apes!

Chateau Heartiste is proud to see the concepts of this community, and the wider game community, spreading into the mainstream. I expect the whining and shrieking denials of haters to reach a very beta-ish fever pitch in the coming years.

***

One more final thought: For those of you men still doubting the seductive power of alphatude, think on how you feel when you see a gorgeous woman with an hourglass figure, bodacious titties, and a firm round ass pass by you. Now remind yourself that the immediate thermonuclear blast of lust which you feel then is the SAME feeling that women have when they are in the company of a dominant alpha male. They, like you, can’t help themselves. It’s just the way they were drawn.

Read Full Post »

A recently published book by an old friend of Hitler’s called “The Young Hitler I Knew” offers amazing insight into Hitler’s personality and early life as a romantic teenager. Evidence surfaces that Hitler was (though the author never states it outright), by disposition or by experience, a beta male with a bad case of one-itis and zero game who pedestalized women.

Kubizek’s uncensored account throws a fascinating light on the fanatical mind of the future Fuhrer.

For it contains, for the first time, the full story of Hitler’s teenage obsession with a pretty girl called Stefanie Isak, whose surname has clear Jewish origins.

And although Hitler’s distinguished biographer Sir Ian Kershaw has rightly dismissed Hitler’s feelings for Stefanie as ‘a juvenile infatuation’, the passion with which Hitler stalked her and fantasised about kidnapping and committing suicide with her lets us glimpse the mentality of the person he was destined to become.

Furthermore, August Kubizek’s account reveals that Hitler was utterly unconcerned as to whether the girl after whom he lusted was Jewish or not.

Those “juvenile infatuations” are not to be underestimated in their power as origin sources of a man’s lifelong character; for from those experiences a man holds his deepest, most cherished or most regretted memories, and the shadow of their mark haunts him for life. Now let’s contemplate the evidence for Hitler’s betaness in the following account of his courtship rituals:

Kubizek dates Hitler’s infatuation with Stefanie, which lasted four years, from the beginning of his 16th year, to an evening in the spring of 1905 when they went out for a stroll in the Landstrasse in Linz: “Adolf gripped my arm and asked me excitedly what I thought of that slim, blonde girl walking along arm-in-arm with her mother. ‘You must know, I?m in love with her,’ he added resolutely.”

Kubizek recalled that Stefanie Isak, he didn’t reveal her surname during the Third Reich years when the book was published under strict censorship, for obvious reasons, was a distinguished-looking girl, tall and slim.

“Her eyes were very beautiful, bright and expressive. She was exceptionally well-dressed and her bearing indicated that she came from a good, well-to-do family.”

Yet that was all the two teenagers knew about Stefanie to begin with, so they took to standing in a nearby street every evening at five o’clock, waiting for her to walk over the bridge to the main square.

“It would have been improper to address Stefanie,” recalled Kubizek, “as neither of us had been introduced to the young lady. A glance had to take the place of a greeting. From then on, Adolf did not take his eyes off Stefanie. In that moment he was changed, no longer his own self.” For someone who despised and denounced the social conventions of the bourgeoisie, Hitler conformed to them rather meekly when it came to Stefanie, possibly out of stultifying shyness.

Hitler’s game so far: Shy glances.

The Landstrasse was a favourite place for friends to meet in Linz. “There was a lot of flirting and the young Army officers were particularly good at it,” remembered Kubizek.

It would infuriate Hitler whenever he spotted young officers talking to Stefanie. His friend sympathised: “Poor, pallid youngsters like Adolf naturally cannot compete with these lieutenants in their smart uniforms.” Instead of trying to engage her interest and attention through the exercise of charm or humour, however, Hitler simply fumed in the shadows. “Conceited blockheads,” he would say of his rivals.

Hitler the emo.

Kubizek wrote that Hitler’s hatred of them led to his “uncompromising enmity towards the officer class as a whole, and everything military in general. It annoyed him intensely that Stefanie mixed with such idlers who, he insisted, wore corsets and used scent”.

Hitler’s dislike and distrust of the officer class, especially generals, was to stay with him for the rest of his life.

Hitler the bitterboy beta. Instead of learning from his alpha male betters, he lashed out at them, much the same way our modern manboobs lash out at alpha male “douchebags” and “players”.

Fortunately, as she chatted happily with her Austrian officer beaux, the 17-year-old Stefanie, who Kubizek recalled had a “natural and open expression” as well as “a freshness and lack of affectation”, had no inkling that she was being stalked by Hitler.

Hitler the creeper.

Kubizek states: “Stefanie had no idea how deeply Adolf was in love with her; she regarded him as a somewhat shy, but nevertheless remarkably tenacious and faithful, admirer.

Hitler in the friendzone.

“When she responded with a smile to his inquiring glance, he was happy and his mood became unlike anything I had ever observed in him.

Hitler the overly hopeful beta.

“But when Stefanie, as happened just as often, coldly ignored his gaze, he was crushed and ready to destroy himself and the whole world.”

Hitler the easily discouraged beta.

Hitler soon set Kubizek to discover everything he could about Stefanie. Her mother, it turned out, was a widow and they lived in nearby Urfahr, while her brother was a law student in Vienna.

Hitler the obsessed beta.

For those four years between the ages of 16 and 20, “for Adolf, no other woman but Stefanie existed”, since for him, “Stefanie embodied the whole of femininity”.

Hitler with crippling one-itis. If CH had been around then for Hitler to read, he would know that women are interchangeable, and he would not have wasted so much time on a girl who barely knew he existed.

This enthusiasm took the form of writing “countless love poems” to Stefanie, with titles such as Hymn To The Beloved.

Ugh. As you can see, even maniacal dictators with dreams of world conquest can fall into the same horrible beta traps as your typical weepy 21st century brooding teen boy with xVideos tabbed for convenience. If only Hitler had the compiled wisdom of CH, he would remember the maxim that you do not reward a woman with your love until after she has rewarded you with her sex.

Perhaps it is fortunate they no longer exist, as Kubizek recalls Hitler reciting one to him in which “Stefanie, a high-born damsel, in a dark blue, flowing velvet gown, rode on a white steed over the flowering meadows, her loose hair falling in golden waves on her shoulders; a clear blue sky was above; everything was pure, radiant joy.”

Kubizek remembered “Adolf?s face glowing with fervent ecstasy” as he recited these verses. Yet in all the four years he worshipped Stefanie, Hitler never once plucked up the courage actually to exchange a single word with her. He insisted that once he met her, no words would be needed.

The elaborate fantasy world of the lovesick beta male. You know, a part of me feels not just pity, but even tender admiration, for young Hitler’s romantic idealism, so pure of thought and intention. This was a Hitler, however misguided, who denied a cynical world its tribute in parcels of his uncorrupted soul. How might things have turned out differently had a strong male presence — an alpha male mentor — shown him the way to fulfill his burning desire? Or at least told him to stop acting like a tool?

“For such extraordinary human beings as himself and Stefanie,” he told Kubizek, “there was no need for the usual communication by word of mouth: extraordinary human beings would understand each other by intuition.” Moreover, Hitler convinced himself not only that Stefanie knew what his views and ideas were, but also that she shared them enthusiastically. Such was the power of his crush on this unwitting girl that he even believed her capable of telepathy.

The young beta, before time and painful lessons have turned him bitter, is prone to these flights of ego-soothing fancy, whereby amorphous “connections” of the most tenuous nature with his love object become rationalizations for inaction and unrealistic expectations of a future together.

When Kubizek expressed doubt that Hitler could possibly know what Stefanie thought about anything, considering they hadn’t yet spoken, “he became furious and shouted at me: ‘You simply don’t understand, because you can’t understand the true meaning of extraordinary love’.”

Can’t you just imagine an American teenage boy, with little understanding of the nature of women, saying these exact words to his street smart buddy, or his patient father?

Hitler also somehow convinced himself that Stefanie was feigning interest in other men “as a sort of deliberate diversion to conceal her own tempestuous feelings for him”.

Nonetheless, “this attitude often gave way to fits of raging jealousy”.

We’re veering into almost omega male territory here. Can a school shooting be far behind?

What he never summoned up the courage to do was simply introduce himself to Stefanie’s mother on one of their walks and ask permission to escort them and address her daughter, which was the accepted way of effecting a meeting in those days.

To be fair to Hitler, it was a lot tougher to pick up a girl in his time. Could you picture some video gamer bro having to introduce himself to a girl’s mother to get in a word with the girl?

Hitler was disturbed when he discovered Stefanie enjoyed dancing, which was “as contrary to his nature as smoking or drinking beer in a bar”. Kubizek half-jokingly suggested he take up dancing lessons, and suddenly their walks were no longer dominated by his long diatribes about the theatre or Danubian bridges, but instead by the subject of dancing.

“Visualise a crowded ballroom,” Hitler said to Kubizek, “and imagine you are deaf. You can’t hear the music to which these people are moving, and then take a look at their senseless progress, which leads nowhere. Aren’t these people raving mad?” When Kubizek attempted to disagree, Hitler screamed at him: “No, no, never! I shall never dance! Do you understand? Once Stefanie is my wife, she won’t have the slightest desire to dance!”

Here we see another facet of the beta male mind: The strict adherence to logic and linearity, and the inability to go with the flow. A great seducer of women Hitler was not, at least not then, or he would have known that the art of courtship involves emotional tangents that can seem confusing to men, but are nourishing and necessary to women.

It was in the depression brought on by the news of Stefanie’s love of dancing that the Hitler of the future can suddenly be discerned: “He hit upon a crazy idea: he seriously considered kidnapping Stefanie. He expounded his plan to me in all its details and assigned to me my role. I had to keep the mother engaged in conversation while he seized the girl.”

This is what rejected beta males thought about doing before they had access to internet porn.

After this plot was abandoned for lack of funds to live on after their elopement, Hitler considered suicide. “He would jump into the river from the Danube bridge,” he told Kubizek, “and then it would be over and done with. But Stefanie would have to die with him”, he insisted on that.

“Once more, a plan was thought up, in all its details. Every single phase of the horrifying tragedy was minutely described.”

What’s worse than a beta male? A beta male with a psychopath’s eye for detail.

However, before any desperate plan could be carried out against Stefanie, Hitler’s mood brightened. In June 1906, at the Linz flower festival, he and Kubizek took up places in a street, the Schmiedtorstrasse, which was so narrow, the festival carriages full of girls and young ladies had to pass close to them.

“Stefanie had adorned her carriage not with roses as most of the others, but with simple wild blossoms: red poppies, white marguerites and blue cornflowers,” recalled Kubizek. “A bright glance falls on Adolf. Stefanie sends him a beaming smile and, picking a flower from her posy, throws it to him.”

The effect on Hitler was transforming. “Never again did I see Adolf as happy as at that moment.”

“She loves me!” he told his friend. “You have seen! She loves me!”

This is how beta orbiters are born and maintained in their orbital flight paths. Stefanie probably wasn’t even aware of what she was doing; she was following an unconscious evolutionary script that maximized her extraction of emotional resources from a beta swooner.

[Hitler] had an absurdly idealised view of this pretty but otherwise normal Austrian teenager, and, as Kubizek understood, “the slightest divergence from this picture would have filled him with unspeakable disappointment”.

Now you know why the archipelago of misfit manboobs, male feminists, slam poets, game denialists, and suck-up white knights are so vehemently enraged when a realtalker like yours truly comes along to put the screws to their carefully mani-pedi’ed worldview. They have too much invested in their powerlessness.

In fact, it later transpired that, despite her surname, Stefanie was not Jewish. But crucially, Hitler and Kubizek did not know this at the time, signifying that the future perpetrator of the Holocaust had no animus against Jews as a young man.

Did he therefore cynically invent his hatred of Jews as a useful vehicle for gaining power in post-Great War Germany? This explanation is even more sinister than any of the myriad others as to where and when he contracted the bacillus of anti-Semitism.

Or perhaps, even more sinisterly, Hitler became the man he did when, as a young man in the grip of hot unrequited love, his Jewish princess “rejected” him for the charming alpha males Hitler despised. What followed from that irreparable wound to his heart was an act of id vengeance that would set fire to the world. Was WWI then, the revenge of a beta male scorned?

Chateau Heartiste has written that game can save the West. Disbelievers scoff. But if this outpost of sanity had been around during Hitler’s flowering youth to enlighten him about the nature of the fairer sex, the West might very well have been saved. Saved not just from war and genocide, but from every evil — cultural Marxism, feminism, equalism, and now racial self-annihilationism — that has come after.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,839 other followers

%d bloggers like this: