Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Vanity’ Category

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 »

Frequent commenter Kate (who used to go by the handle GeishaKate) reports that she is engaged to a manosphere writer, Mark Minter. Naturally, your genial hosts wonder if the passion-inspiring auspices of Le Chateau brought these two lovebirds together into a promise of holy matrimony. What a slap in the face this news must be to the barbarian peasants who incessantly claim CH is about nothing but pumping and dumping bar skanks. Excuse me, good haters, but I don’t see your blogs resulting in any nuptial engagements.

Read Full Post »

1. Chateau Heartiste is fond of metaphorically describing the biologically innate and intractable sexual urge as originating from the “hindbrain”, and that the compulsions of the ancient hindbrain motivate nearly all human behavior, and in fact are so fundamental to human nature that the forebrain evolved mostly to rationalize the desires of the hindbrain. From this premise springs another CH concept: the sexual market. The sexual market is the foundational market which anchors the functioning of all other markets. It’s as real and as relevant to your day to day life as is the practical application of the economic supply and demand curve. More real, in fact, because it’s operational even when you’re not engaged in any productive activity. Now SCIENCE has come along to vindicate (this is getting to be a habit) the boorishly reductionist CH worldview, albeit through the medium of rats. A study found that female rats who had their forebrains — the neocortex — removed continued to function sexually.

Humans, like all animals, have no control over their sexual attraction, though they may exert control over the expression of that attraction. The forebrain exists to give the moral stamp of approval to the desires of the hindbrain, and what this study implies more than anything else is that no amount of social or cultural conditioning — the favored explanation of feminist termagants and equalist twats the world over — can alter the id-shaped sexual urges of the hindbrain; not even complete removal of large parts of the higher order brain can alter these primal urges. We are automatons underneath our advanced cortical embroidery.

2. But, wait! The SCIENCE VINDICATES CH stroke-a-thon doesn’t stop there. We have a long record advising men to either refrain from Facebook and other social media-type pick-ups, or to actively work to lower the self-esteems of girls on social media, because there is an exaggerated self-esteem boost that women experience on these websites thanks to the constant fawning of millions of ass-lapping betaboys with no game. Now a recent study has come out which shows that Facebook profiles raise users’ self-esteem and affect behavior. Additionally, self-esteem-boosted Facebook users feel less motivated to perform follow-up tasks. This is perfectly in line with CH game teachings that high self-esteem women (and alpha males) will comport themselves with an attitude of aloofness and entitlement that translates into behavior indicative of “being the chasee” in any heated sociosexual interaction.

3. Deep in the archives rests the seminal post “Defining the Alpha Female“.

Besides hotness, there is one other factor that influences female SMV (Sexual Market Value) rank — the maximum level of commitment she can extract from her best option.  Her personality, charm, sexiness, character, and nurturing ability will make the difference here.  The best option rule is essential – men who are below her first choice offer unwanted commitment while men who are too far above her are guaranteed to put less effort into the relationship.

All women want it all, but only hot babes can turn that desire into reality, and therefore only hot babes regularly behave in ways that suggest they have realistic expectations of getting it all. And what is “all” for women?: The most alpha man they can coax into a long-term monogamous commitment. Now science (there it is again!) comes along to provide ample evidence for the above CH observation (via reader chris):

[T]he findings provide partial support for the main hypotheses that low mate value women would have more pronounced changes in preferences across the menstrual cycle. When the implicit measure was examined, women low in mate value had weaker positive implicit associations with characteristics associated with high quality genetic material when they were in the less fertile part of their cycle and, alternatively, with women higher in mate value this reduction in positive associations during the less fertile part of their cycle did not occur. These results are congruent with the proposition that a mixed mating strategy (pursuing short-term relationships with high genetic quality males while maintaining long-term relationships with a lower genetic quality male) would be most adaptive for low mate value women who are unable to obtain mates that are high in both genetic quality and resources.

Hot (high SMV) women don’t go in for the cuckolding stuff because they are more able than uglier women to get everything they want in a man in one package. Less attractive women can’t, so they must resort to downlow tactics for a deliriously brief shot at non-omega male seed.

4. Study shows that women are attracted to men with “appetitive-aggression”, i.e., a lust for violence. Chicks dig jerks. Did you hear that? Neither did I. The feminists and nancyboys must be tongue-tied.

5. Why do women fall for serial killers? Blame their native wiring.

Consciously, most women would like their men to be kind, empathic, understanding, and respectful. But there’s something in their native wiring that makes a great many of them susceptible to “bad boys.” Possibly because, as the authors quote Angela Knight as reflecting (in a sentiment that echoes the conclusions of most evolutionary psychologists): “[Their] inner cavewoman knows Doormat Man would become Sabertooth Tiger Lunch in short order” (p .97).

Moreover, in responding to the question as to whether some men, such as “serial killers, violent offenders, and rapists,” might be too dominant for women to accept, Ogas and Gaddam note: “It turns out that killing people is an effective way to elicit the attention of many women: virtually every serial killer, including Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, and David Berkowitz, have received love letters from large numbers of female fans” (p. 98). [...]

It’s no coincidence that the whole genre of fictional romance is so hypnotically enticing to so many women that—surprise, surprise!—it actually outsells the pornography everywhere out there that’s expressly designed to appeal to the male brain (which, alas, focuses far more on female body parts than anything pertaining to “romance”). Women regularly purchase an astronomical amount of romance fiction (and, more and more, anonymously through the Web). And what this suggests is that while those who fall for serial killers may represent a pathological exaggeration of a female’s erotic mind, many women (at least secretly, or subliminally) can’t help but be drawn toward cold-blooded, controlling, “bad boys” whose dominance symbolizes quite the opposite of what in relationships they’re consciously seeking.

Sounds almost word-for-word what CH has been saying about female sexual nature. The whole article is great, and pretty much takes a steaming dump on the usual female rationalizations for the allure of the killer badboy.

6. Are the lovers of violent men really taken by surprise when they discover the demonic pasttimes of their alpha paramours? Feminists insist they are (what else are they gonna say?), but the facts show otherwise: What predators’ wives really know.

For too long many spouses of child molesters have hidden behind the pretense that they were unaware of the crimes going on in their homes. The myth that these women didn’t know of the depravity which played out under their roofs is just that: a myth. Reality tells a different story. The truth is sickening and may be shocking to some readers whereas other readers may have known this all along.

In my years of profiling violent crimes, I have found that in the majority of cases that I studied, the spouses knew about the child molestation which was carried out by their spouses. They knew because either the offenders told them or they witnessed the abuse! Of course the wives never admitted this once an investigation was opened; however, victims have often stated that the wives of their abusers were present when the attacks took place. As the victims called out for help, it was common for the wives to walk away and shut the door behind them. In other cases, the wives would see their spouses bringing children into their bedrooms but said nothing. Many victims tell their mothers that their fathers are molesting them, and they are not believed.

And how ’bout them female rationalization hamsters? First up, the Pleading Ignorance Hamster:

But never fear. These women are phenomenal at explaining themselves. First and foremost, they are adamant that they didn’t know what was going on. Amazingly, these women who were teachers, physician assistants, and charity fundraisers became stunningly stupid when it came to the sex abuse. Though considered intelligent, these women claim that they couldn’t put two and two together that their husbands were doing something wrong when there was an endless parade of young boys or girls going into the marital bedroom with their spouses.

When that hamster tires, the Poor Me Hamster relieves it:

If for some reason, the wives’ pathetic excuse of ignorance doesn’t fly, the women immediately run for the sympathy card. They can’t be held accountable for the actions of their sick spouses. After all, they have children to raise. What would their children do if they were put into prison? Many are church goers who vehemently apologize that they didn’t do more for the children (translation: I am sorry I got caught).

Some wives will fill their eyes with crocodile tears and cry of their own abuse in childhood. They will claim that they were too mixed up emotionally to step in and help the victims. How could anyone cast a nasty eye at them? They were victims as children, so how could anyone expect them to do anything to help anyone? “Poor me,” they whine.” I was hurt; feel sorry for me! Yes, I knew about the abuse and did nothing, but don’t you dare point a finger at me.” These are their words, and they will even go so far as to say that they were good parents, even if the victim was their own child.

After the Poor Me Hamster exits the stage, the Badboy Forgiveness Hamster swaggers in for the final aria:

For other women, there is a deviant bond which makes them feel close to their spouses. If a molester confesses his secrets to the wife, then she and he share a unique experience. To trust her enough to tell her means that he must love her. And if she loves him how could she turn him in? A type of magical thinking emerges where the females believe that they are in a very special relationship that will all turn out just fine.

There are many other identifiable hamsters, including the Gravy Train Hamster, the Social Stigma Hamster, the Excited Fearfulness Hamster, and the most twisted of them all, the Sexual Deviant Hamster:

Then there are the most sick of these women. These are the ones who not only know about the abuse but get sexual excitement from it. They enjoy it and use it in their sexual fantasies. I know of such cases where the wives had their husbands tell them every raw detail of the abuse as the couple was having sex.

The author (a woman) has a PSA for feminists who are working hard to create a femtopia where female accountability is reduced to zero:

This idea that spousal participation is not important has to change. When there is no price to be paid for their part in the abuse (keeping silent), the behavior will not ever change. Thus this perpetuates the cycle. More scrutiny needs to be placed on spouses of molesters if there is suspicion that they knew. If it can be proven that they knew of the abuse, they should be held accountable.

I have talked to women who knew of their husbands’ actions but did not come forward. It is absolutely sickening to listen to these women. They were some of the most self centered and self serving people I ever met, and they were not sorry. The only sorrow they felt was for themselves. [...]

Children deserve better protection, and one can only wonder how many could be spared being raped if only one of these spouses would simply open their mouths and tell the truth.

The problem is that a lot of these women love their psychopathic spouses. Love is the fuel that feeds their rationalizations and excuse-mongering. This sort of thing won’t change unless you could reconstruct the female brain to feel no love for malevolent men.

In related news, women have no trouble at all accusing beta nerds of quasi-rape for telling goofy dongle jokes.

7. “[I]ndividualism is not a consequence of modernization, but rather modernization is a consequence of individualism.” My question: Are highly individualistic peoples more prone to pathological altruism? Or is it just a white thang?

8. It’s their world now. And that means you must take measures to protect yourself. You can start by hiding your online activity from the Hivemind behemoth. It appears that the Firefox browser gets the best reviews from privacy advocates. None of these anonymizing services guarantees your privacy, but they do make it orders of magnitude more difficult for government snoops to identify you. And that can mean the difference between expressing yourself unmolested and a knock on the door at 2AM. Think it ridiculous? That’s what everyone says right before the gun barrel is trained on their heads.

Read Full Post »

The corn&porn arm of the MSM is catching up with CH teachings. A woman has written an article about female infidelity warning signs, (supposedly culled from women who have cheated on their partners), and the information sounds suspiciously similar to earlier Chateau Heartiste red flags for women who are high infidelity risks. For instance:

MSM fem entity:

Sign No. 1: She accuses her man of cheating. This common sign is an attempt to divert the guilt away from herself, and to project her dishonest behavior onto her partner.

Ministry of PoonandGrabass CH:

She asks you how many women you’ve slept with or accuses you of being a player. One word: projection.

MSM fem entity:

Sign No. 2: She starts dolling herself up. If a woman suddenly starts taking hours to get ready for places like the gym or the grocery store, then there may be someone she’s trying to impress.

CH:

She undertakes beautification projects. [A] girl who suddenly begins an exercise program or wearing carefully applied makeup or buying new sexy cocktail dresses is prepping herself for a return to the market.

MSM fem entity:

Sign No. 3: She tells her husband she needs space.

CH:

Chances of re-notch success are much lower once she has verbalized her need for space, but with proper post-relationship game you can improve your odds dramatically.

MSM fem entity:

Sign No. 4: She drops hints that she’s not happy.

CH:

A woman is honed like a machine to be a first responder to relationship crisis. She uses her intuition to pick out subtle nicks in the relationship armor that could grow to chasms if left untended. [...] Women therefore have evolved an exquisite sense for sniffing out warning signs that a man is losing interest, or that his love, and hence his commitment, is cooling. Women therefore have evolved an exquisite sense for sniffing out warning signs that a man is losing interest, or that his love, and hence his commitment, is cooling.

MSM fem entity:

Sign No. 5: She has a new BFF her partner has never met. For starters, this new “friend” may not even be a girl at all. The friend could also be a single gal pal looking for a wing woman… and sometimes a woman is all too eager to go along for the ride.

CH:

She has a lot of slutty friends. Ye shall know her by her support group.

MSM fem entity:

Sign No. 6: She changes her plans… at midnight. If she consistently ends up staying out all night, then it’s time to question her loyalty.

CH:

This red flag is so obvious — hey, my girlfriend/wife is out again at midnight without me! — that I don’t need to dig through the CH archives to find a record of this blog stating the same thing.

MSM fem entity:

Sign No. 7: Someone else thinks she’s cheating. “I knew someone who had firsthand knowledge my girlfriend was cheating,” Mark says. “But I believed her when she said it was a lie, because nobody wants to believe the worst, no matter how obvious it may be.”

CH:

This is a milder version of catching her in flagrante delicto, *when it’s from a third party*. But there’s the rub. Many of your girlfriend’s or wife’s friends will not be your friends. If you hear something that suggests your wife’s infidelity from an oblivious sidewalk grocer, you should take the accusation seriously. If you hear it from her BFF who secretly hates you (or loves you), default to skepticism.

MSM fem entity:

Sign No. 8: She has a sudden increased interest in her partner’s whereabouts. A woman carrying on an affair needs to cover her bases. If she starts wanting to know her man’s plans for the day, especially when she’s supposedly at work or otherwise busy, then she could be making plans of her own.

CH:

This is pretty good advice for an MSM fem entity, but its accuracy as a warning sign depends a great deal on who’s downlow-ing whom. A wife will show increased interest in her spouse’s whereabouts if she suspects *him* of cheating, too. So if you are a faithful dude, and your wife is suddenly asking a lot of questions about your schedule while sounding like she’s pretending to ask in a spontaneous manner, as if it “just popped into her head”, then you may have something to worry about.

MSM fem entity:

Sign No. 9: She gives excuses to not have sex.

CH:

[W]e now know the number one dead giveaway that your wife or girlfriend is about to cheat on you:

Is she withdrawing sex during days 10-16 of her monthly cycle? Then you, my friend, are about to be betrayed.

If you hear from your woman “I have a headache” any time during her peak fertility, she has either cheated on you, is thinking about cheating on you, or is getting sufficiently turned off by your burgeoning betaness that cheating will soon become an option in the calculation of her moral universe.

MSM fem entity:

Sign No. 10: She’s checked out. If another man is meeting a woman’s emotional needs, then she will lose her enthusiasm in her current relationship, even when it comes to things like arguing.

CH:

[M]en are capable of fucking more than one woman concurrently without losing that loving feeling for any one of them. Women, in contrast, tend to have to fall out of love with their man before they can comfortably move on to fucking another man.

So, did this MSM fem entity plagiarize CH, or is it just a coincidence that there happens to exist in the world a woman who can speak as truthfully as the lordship of Chateau Heartiste?

Ps You have to love the spate of articles in recent years about cheating women. Is this a subject that would have been broached so explicitly in any putatively mainstream outlet fifty years ago? Either the culture has become less queasy about parading in print the true nature of women, or more women are cheating and the need to discuss the topic has reached critical mass, or both. Whatever the reason for the trend, it doesn’t do much for American women’s marriageability.

Read Full Post »

Or that it can work.

Anyways, how did I miss this? Scientists actually reviewed Mystery’s accelerated seduction blueprint, and what they discovered will surely wither further the already diminutive hearts of manboobs, freaks, monsters, feminists, losers, dweebs, omegas, white knights, traditionalists and slithery “academics” pretending to be feminists in order to score hipster chick poon: The concepts underlying game strategies are factually grounded, and game works!

The dating mind: Evolutionary psychology and the emerging science of human courtship

ABSTRACT

In the New York Times bestselling book The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists (2006), the world was granted its first exclusive introduction to the steadily growing dating coach and pick-up artist community. Many of its most prominent authorities claim to use insights and information gleaned both through first-hand experience as well as empirical research in evolutionary psychology. One of the industry’s most well-respected authorities, the illusionist Erik von Markovik, promotes a three-phase model of human courtship: Attraction, building mutual Comfort and Trust, and Seduction. The following review argues that many of these claims are in fact grounded in solid empirical findings from social, physiological and evolutionary psychology. Two texts which represent much of this literature are critiqued and their implications discussed.

Jesus H. Christmas, this entire paper reads like it was ripped straight from Chateau Heartiste archives. And what was that muffled sound in the distance? Ah yes, the pffft of aneurysms popping in the heads of game denialists posting hater comments from under their beds.

This review deserves a detailed look, so let’s begin.

For the present analysis, we examined several popular works from the [dating coach and pick-up artist] Community. The Community consists broadly of heterosexual men who market various tactics, techniques, and methods to meet, date, and ultimately seduce women. Both published books and online forums offer opportunities to garner and share this information with a wide audience of people interested in improving their dating and romantic success.

Two main texts were chosen for this analysis. The first text, entitled The Mystery Method: How to Get Beautiful Women into Bed (Markovik, 2007), is widely regarded as one of the most important works in the Community. The second text, written by Markovik’s protégé and New York Times columnist Neil Strauss, also known on online forums as Style, is entitled Rules of the Game (Strauss, 2009). The two texts were selected mainly for the authors’ prominence and popularity in the Community.

I don’t have a problem with the two texts the review authors chose to analyze. [Disclosure: I never read Rules of the Game, so my opinion is based on what others have told me about it.] You can argue for this or that seduction manual or PUA forum compilation, but if you had to pick only two sources, these two would qualify as legitimate encapsulations of the major pick-up strategies.

The general starting point for much of the Community’s literature, whether explicitly stated or not, often begins with Trivers’ (1972) theory of parental investment.

According to Trivers’ (1972), the sex with higher parental investment (i.e., time and energy spent in gestation and rearing offspring) will be choosier with respect to mate selection. As a consequence, women very rarely accept propositions for casual sex with strangers (Voracek, Hofhansl and Fisher, 2005), typically imposing a much more careful and rigorous screening process before consenting to sexual activity (Grammer, 1989; Pawlowski and Dunbar, 1999; Pawlowski and Dunbar, 2001). On the other hand, human males as the biologically less investing sex, often have little to lose by mating with as many females as possible (Buss and Schmitt, 1993). Indeed, Schmitt et al. (2001) have shown that men desire more lifetime sex partners, seek sexual intercourse sooner, and are frequently more motivated to seek casual sex than are women.

In the absence of a clear understanding of the biological bases of such differences, the courtship process and ensuing relationship dynamics can often appear confusing, frustrating and even debilitating. Such conflicts of interest in men and women’s sexual strategies (Buss and Schmitt, 1993), often coined “the war of the sexes”, can be a significant cause of conflict and ultimately failure to find and maintain a lasting long-term relationship. However, as we will argue, this conflict is not inevitable. The knowledge of our evolved sexual strategies gives us significant capability to improve interactions between the sexes by choosing appropriate actions and deactivating others – ultimately reducing conflict between men and women. In this respect, we argue that when properly and ethically understood, the dating and seduction industry, despite its provocative label and origins outside of academia, is founded on solid empirical research as well as first-hand courtship and relationship experience. Ultimately, it is our suggestion that an informed appraisal of this information will ultimately help to lessen conflict and improve dating and relationships between men and women.

Knowledge of female sexual nature and game can improve relationships between men and women? Now a whoosh is heard. The game haters just spontaneously combusted.

Direct conversational openers typically begin with a very bold and straightforward proclamation, directly to one’s prospective romantic interest. For instance, a typical example of this type of opener might be: Hi, I saw you standing there, thought you looked attractive, and wanted to say hello. While apparently awkward or unimpressive to the inexperienced, many Community enthusiasts will swear by the ability of this approach to generate instant attraction in a prospective romantic interest. And indeed, there may in fact be psychological research to legitimate this claim. For instance, research has shown that expressions of social dominance (Sadalla et al. 1987), social risk-taking (Wilke, Hutchinson, Todd, and Kruger, 2006), and courageousness (Farthing, 2005; Kelly and Dunbar, 2001) are often attractive to women (as such an approach would clearly seem to demonstrate).

A direct opener will signal social dominance, self confidence, and high status by its mere use. The brazen opener is itself the alpha male signaler. My suggestion when using direct openers is to be sure your body language is sufficiently alpha to be congruent with the words you are saying to the girl. Otherwise, you will quickly get blown out, because incongruence during the opener is usually the death knell for any seduction attempt.

The second type of conversation starter, referred to as an indirect conversational opener, often begins with an off-handed opinion or question, at first merely designed to capture attention. For example, indirect openers often include apparently random queries such as, Excuse me- a friend and I were debating something. Could I have a female opinion on how a man should treat a lady on a first date? (Markovik, 2007; Strauss, 2009). In stark contrast to a direct opener, the specific content of an indirect opener is often irrelevant; the more important objective is often to smoothly get a conversation started.

The big advantage of indirect openers is that you can generally hit on hotter women than you can with direct openers, because the latter tends to elevate the risk of getting insta-rejected if the girl happens to dislike your look, style, walk or wiry nose hairs, all of which are traits you display before you’ve even opened your mouth. Plus, hotter girls expect to get hit on more, so indirect is better for catching them off-guard, and for settling your nerves. (This rule of thumb breaks down when you get to the 9s and 10s of womanhood, who are so intimidatingly hot to most men that they paradoxically get hit on less frequently than their looks would suggest they do.)

[T]he conversational content at this point generally moves into interesting personality conveying material, such as humor, an exciting personal anecdote, a fun game, or even a simple piece of stage magic, intended to solicit attraction from a prospective romantic interest (Markovik, 2007; Strauss, 2009). Markovik (2007) describes the advertisement of such qualities as “Demonstrations of Higher Value” (DHVs), which it is claimed, cause an increase in mate value and create attraction, thus providing the person access to more desirable mates. And indeed, psychological research has shown that many of these qualities, when well-presented, can often be quite attractive to the opposite sex.

For example, in a recent sample of UK personal advertisements, women rated charming social skills, wittiness, and a good sense of humor as among the most desirable traits in a prospective date (Pawlowski and Dunbar, 1999; Pawlowski and Dunbar, 2001), which would seem to reinforce the claims made by the community (Markovik, 2007; Strauss, 2009).

“Looks are everything.” – some loser justifying his inaction.

The Community further advocates a peculiar strategy known as “pre-selection” which is claimed to be often useful in crowded social gatherings (Markovik, 2007). Pre- selection is a strategy whereby a man in a public gathering will establish an innocent acquaintanceship with an attractive woman, gaining her trust, comfort, and friendship, only to later use her presence by his side to attract other surrounding women that are actually the intended object of his desire (Markovik, 2007). The phenomenon where females will copy or imitate the preferences of other females for a particular male mate has been documented in a wide variety of species, and is commonly referred to by evolutionary biologists as mate choice copying (Bennett, Lim and Gilbert, 2008; Dugatkin, 1992; Freed-Brown and White, 2009). Moreover, there is now increasing evidence to suggest that such strategies, whether intentionally practiced or consistently understood by those using them, are also found in humans (Eva and Wood, 2006; Hill and Buss, 2008; Place, Todd, Penke and Asendorpf, 2010).

A hot female friend who is willing to be your pivot is worth her weight in fluffy stuffed animals.

The second reputed phase of human courtship, building mutual Comfort and Trust, further seems to have a significant degree of support by various psychological research studies. Firstly, once Attraction has been established, community literature advocates the importance of taking the time to build rapport, comfort and trust before proceeding with seduction (Markovik, 2007; Strauss, 2009). Indeed, psychological research has shown that many particular moral virtues are not only sexually attractive, but also relationship-stabilizing (see Miller 2007, for a review).

The popular game forums focus more on attraction than on comfort building, and the reason is likely because most men are naturally worse at the former. But in my experience, I see a lot of men dropping the ball during the comfort stage. I can’t count how many times I’ve witnessed some girl smiling broadly when she first meets a guy, and then watch as her smile fades to a grimace the more he talks. (I like to jump in at these opportune moments, because girls are… how shall I say?… more pliable to my charms when left in such a dispiriting state by some other inept man. You could call this strategy, Attraction by Comparison. It’s a productive strategy because most men are inept with women.)

Trust and comfort is often further established through the use of kinesthetic touch, or what the Community often refers to simply as “kino” (Markovik, 2007; Strauss, 2009). For instance, from a study of courtship behavior in singles’ bars, Moore (1985) found that incidental touching, prolonged eye contact, swaying the upper body towards a prospective romantic interest while talking, and a number of other tactical devices designed to attract attention were frequently implemented.

If you showed me twenty men hitting on twenty women, and all I could see was how many times the men touched the women, knowing nothing else about their interactions I could predict with stunning accuracy which of those men would be getting the lay.

The final reputed phase of human courtship, Seduction, begins once mutual Attraction and Comfort and Trust have been established between two individuals. For instance, women typically require more time and intimacy to develop the same amount of passion as men (Baumeister and Bratslavsky, 1999). Consistent with psychological research, the Community often advocates what is known at the “seven-hour rule”; the idea being that a woman typically needs a minimum of seven cumulative hours of rapport- building in order to develop a strong emotional and intellectual connection (including shared interests, shared values, and a deep inter-subjective understanding) before consenting to sexual activity (Markovik, 2007; Strauss, 2009). In order to accomplish this objective, the community encourages a process of mutual self-disclosure, whereby each gets to know the other person on a very deep and intimate level (Markovik, 2007; Strauss, 2009), reinforcing psychological research on the development of relationships (Collins and Miller, 1994) and compassionate love (Hatfield and Rapson, 1993).

Alpha males are not stone walls. They understand that there will be a give and take in any seduction. They just know that it’s better to give a little less than they take.

In conclusion, it would seem clear that there is in fact a substantive degree of psychological research to support many claims made by the Community. The three reputed phases of courtship, Attraction, building mutual Comfort and Trust, and Seduction, are supported by a significant and steadily growing literature based in physiological, social and evolutionary psychology research. [...]

In light of these findings, it is equally important to note that many of the strategies advocated by the community are not currently supported by peer-reviewed literature. For example, one particular strategy known as “peacocking,” (in dubious reference to Zahavi’s (1975) handicap principle) involves wearing very ostentatious clothing specifically designed to exploit evolved cues for what women find attractive (Markovik, 2007). Although research has shown that women generally find social status attractive in men (Buss, 1989; Pawlowski and Dunbar, 2001), thus far there is no direct evidence in support of this particular behavior. A similar strategy, known as “negging”, has been claimed to increase a male’s attractiveness by demonstrating he has high standards (Markovik, 2007). For example, a male might exclaim, Wow, those are great fingernails! Are they real? Oh, no? Well, they still look nice. Consistent with this argument, Eastwick, Finkel, Mochon, and Ariely (2007) have shown that men who appear to have high standards are considered more attractive than males who do not; nevertheless, there is currently no direct evidence that “negging” is universally effective. An important area for future research would be to more closely analyze a broader spectrum of community literature and determine the scientific veracity of unsubstantiated claims.

Hopefully, academic feminists and sniveling manboobs will retreat to their cuntcaves under my assault of brutal mockery and real sociologists can in future conduct studies examining the effectiveness of other, specific game and seduction tactics, such as the aforementioned negs, and even pick-up and relationship techniques CH has introduced and described here, including “agree and amplify” and “instilling dread“.

Maybe, just maybe, they will even have the courage one day to study the peculiar allure assorted assholes, douchebags, psychopaths and jerks exert on attractive women.

[T]here may be important unrecognized ethical implications from using portions of this material. For instance, it has been argued that the initiation of touch or “kino” throughout the courtship process and alleged prioritization of physical over verbal consent may at times problematize interpretations of consent (Denes, 2011). To this end, we do contend that such material has the potential for abuse and urge caution with the use of the Community’s material, especially in the context of short-term relationships where sexual activity may be the sole objective. On the other hand, within the context of helping people to initiate long-term, stable relationships, we argue that informed male behaviors are not so unlike women attempting to manipulate perceived attractiveness through the use of perfume, cosmetics, clothing, liposuction and cosmetic surgery, and thus disrupt normal mate choice by men (Roberts, Miner and Shackelford, 2010). Therefore, if such practices allow men to approach, attract, and connect with women in similar fashion, we wholeheartedly endorse the ethical practice of such materials for establishing meaningful long-term relationships.

I believe it is this blog, this seducer’s stronghold, this digital palace guarding a horde of priceless knowledge that pierces the puzzle of pussy, which was at the forefront of elucidating for the skeptical masses how game could be useful for long-term relationships and marriage. Chateau Heartiste makes it impossible for knee-jerk haters and ignoramuses to caricature the science and art of streamlined seduction and learned charisma as the domain of frat boys spitting corny lines, or oily club hounds sidling up to skanks for a shot at the bathroom BJ.

Not that there’s anything wrong with bathroom BJs, but the caricature has been demolished, and now the haters must face the gut-punch reality that game works, and works well for men from all socioeconomic backgrounds and all romantic circumstance.

One day, perhaps sooner than the haters would dare contemplate in their most fevered nightmares, this formula:

will come to be seen as revolutionary to the human sciences as E=MC² was to the physical sciences.

Read Full Post »

This commune of cosseted corporeal delights gets its fair share of female readers emailing the proprietors with requests (nay, more like demands) to rank them on a 1 to 10 beauty scale. Photos are included, along with promises that all info will be kept private (naturally). The proprietors abide the second request, but rarely the first, because it is quite obvious that what these women seek they already know, and are simply fishing for a little of the ol’ ultrastroking of their egos by the lead pack animal with fur of woven gold and claws stained with mortal triumph.

A recent example of the genre appeared in the Inbox of Consummation, and, as is usual in these cases, the woman in the photo is quite fetching, a solid 8. She too, asked for privacy, so I will not reveal any details here, except to say she is younger than lawyercunt age and was eager to leverage her looks for a family and babies before it was too late, evidencing a feeling of deadly urgency not often observed in women so young which she acquired, so she says, through reading this blog. She valued the opinion of the Rectory’s Grandmaster, and wished to know if a “lesser alpha” was within her purview.

Yes, you slinky pantherette, you can get a lesser alpha if you put your heart to it.

The overwhelming majority of these “rank me” emails feature women sitting comfortably above the 7 and above looks rating. I can only remember two who were otherwise; one girl was a 6 and the other was frolicking dangerously close to the soul-burning fires of a 4 or 5 rating. A lopsided number of them are 8s and higher.

Why would only good-looking women email for reassurances of their good looks? If women were really oblivious to their sexual market values, you’d expect to see a more even distribution from women at all points of the looks scale searching for unbiased third party opinions.

The premise is, of course, all wrong. Women are VERY AWARE of their SMVs, both absolute and relative, and that is why ugly women rarely ask for opinions on their looks: even the nicest niceboi would be hard-pressed to sufficiently conceal his discomfort at having to gently fib to a mastodon that she really looks like a Venus. And women are quite skilled at picking up subtexts and subcommunications and subsubmeanings within submeanings telegraphed through body language and quivering supplicating voice.

The same reason fugs avoid tempting the sizzling light of judgment is the reason hot babes welcome it: the latter love reminding themselves how hot they are by provoking reactions from men (betas) eager to feed their womanly need. Unless you are running an online presence and don’t go out of your way to meet such women IRL, you’d best follow the hallowed prescription to avoid giving attractive women the ego boosts they crave if you don’t want to be chucked into the boring manboob discount bin.

The other interesting angle to all this is the question of why, when the world is full of men with nearly universal tastes in women, do some hot women feel compelled to coax unnecessary flattery from an ASCII ghost? The answer to that, I leave as an exercise for the reader.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,949 other followers

%d bloggers like this: