When A Girl Intercepts A Communique Between Her Brain And Vagina

Chicks dig jerks.

If you want to be the jerk chicks dig, don’t appeal to her forebrain.

Try rubbing her hindbrain.

That means yelling a little and generally behaving like the dominant, self-entitled man truly loved by women who indignantly insist otherwise, instead of like the appeasing yes-beta lackey who gives women everything they claim to want.

After all, you can’t fuck a woman’s frontal cortex. (Fuck with, sure, but that’s filed under Relationship Management Game.)

Read Full Post »

The Look Of Lovelessness

Poor guy. He shoulda bailed with one of the bridesmaids.

Fame Game is all-powerful, so don’t expect many women to be able to resist smiling ear to ear when in the presence of a famous man. What you should worry about is when your wife can’t summon the same smile on her wedding day that she did standing next to Rob Lowe for 30 seconds (that we know of).

Game can’t stop a woman from auto-splooging around famous men, but it can sufficiently turn on her heart light so that she doesn’t look like she’s being forced into an arranged marriage with John Scalzi during the wedding day photo shoot. You want your girl smiling as broadly with you, in grateful acknowledgement of the sacrifice you’re making to be with her alone and to foreswear all other poon, as she would be smiling when posing for an Instawhore pic with 55 year old Rob Lowe. Or: If your girl acts like your groupie, you’re doing it right.

(This brings to mind a good rule for any kind of relationship: I call it the Smile Disparity Rule. If your girl smiles less than you in photos, you need a relationship course correction. If you both smile equally, have fun but don’t get complacent. If she smiles more than you do, she’s your love slave. Be discreet about your mistresses but don’t fret if your main dame discovers one of them. She’ll cry about it for a few minutes then concede she can’t stop loving you.)

More than anything, the photo comparison above exposes female hypergamy in its full flower. Ecstasy is her reaction when an alpha male so much as grazes her shoulder or asks for the time; barely concealed disappointment is her reaction when she knows she’s settling for ol’ dependable beta male who will provide her a lifetime of comfort and adoration. Not every woman will act on her hypergamy, but every woman will feel its tremors deep in the pit of her womb.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to reorient society so that informal regulations on the ability of women to satisfy their hypergamous urges are established for the benefit of civilization. Good luck!

At the very least, don’t be a self-deprecating cuck and act like there’s something funny or endearing about your woman swooning for another man while she looks at you like you’re ball-less ballast. If your wedding pic resembles the one above, prepare now for the inevitable divorce industrial complex ass ramming, and start sexting Schneiderman’s brown slave exes. Their nights are free now (praise be upon Trump and his long memory).

Read Full Post »

It Takes A Village (To Birth Geniuses)

Tucked within this post by Steve Sailer on the last surviving WWII physicist Freeman Dyson, might be the most subversive argument against globalism and mass scale urbanization I’ve read yet.

Steve quotes Dyson in a review Dyson wrote of Scale: The Universal Laws of Growth, Innovation, Sustainability, and the Pace of Life in Organisms, Cities, Economies, and Companies by Geoffrey West of the Santa Fe Institute.

(By the way, you ever notice how so many suprageniuses are ectomorphs?)

On the average, people in villages are not more capable than people in cities. But if ten million people are divided into a thousand genetically isolated villages, there is a good chance that one lucky village will have a population with outstandingly high average capability, and there is a good chance that an inbreeding population with high average capability produces an occasional bunch of geniuses in a short time.

The effect of genetic isolation is even stronger if the population of the village is divided by barriers of rank or caste or religion. Social snobbery can be as effective as geography in keeping people from spreading their genes widely.

A substantial fraction of the population of Europe and the Middle East in the time between 1000 BC and 1800 AD lived in genetically isolated villages, so that genetic drift may have been the most important factor making intellectual revolutions possible. Places where intellectual revolutions happened include, among many others, Jerusalem around 800 BC (the invention of monotheistic religion), Athens around 500 BC (the invention of drama and philosophy and the beginnings of science), Venice around 1300 AD (the invention of modern commerce), Florence around 1600 (the invention of modern science), and Manchester around 1750 (the invention of modern industry).

These places were all villages, with populations of a few tens of thousands, divided into tribes and social classes with even smaller populations. In each case, a small starburst of geniuses emerged from a small inbred population within a few centuries, and changed our ways of thinking irreversibly. These eruptions have many historical causes. Cultural and political accidents may provide unusual opportunities for young geniuses to exploit.

“Starburst of geniuses”. Evocative term.

But the appearance of a starburst must be to some extent a consequence of genetic drift. The examples that I mentioned all belong to Western cultures. No doubt similar starbursts of genius occurred in other cultures, but I am ignorant of the details of their history.

West’s neglect of villages as agents of change raises an important question. How likely is it that significant numbers of humans will choose to remain in genetically isolated communities in centuries to come? We cannot confidently answer this question. The answer depends on unpredictable patterns of economic development, on international politics, and on even more unpredictable human desires.

But we can foresee two possible technological developments that would result in permanent genetic isolation of human communities. One possibility is that groups of parents will be able to give birth to genetically modified children, hoping to give them advantages in the game of life. The children might be healthier or longer-lived or more intellectually gifted than other children, and they might no longer interbreed with natural-born children.

I have predicted that sexbots will gravely disrupt the functioning of the Western sexual market.

The other possibility is that groups of people will emigrate from planet Earth and build societies far away in the depths of space. West considers neither of these possibilities. His view of the future sees humans remaining forever a single species confined to a single planet. If the future resembles the past, humans will be diversifying into many species and spreading out over the universe, as our hominin ancestors diversified and spread over this planet.

Aspie sci fi masturbation. Let’s make Earth the best it can be before we engage on quixotic quests to seed the universe with our species. As AnotherDad commented,

Respect Freeman Dyson for being a freethinker, skeptic and willing to call b.s. on establishment fads.

However, his scifi-ish flights of fancy (nerdbait) are the kinds of things that i had a so-so interest in as an adolescent. But one of things even a nerdy scfi reader should grasp as he matures is that the earth–however prosaically present–is what matters.

Space–even if some things making terrific dramatic pics–is actually mostly cold and boring. The earth in contrast is full of contrast, full of life, full of interest–incredible interest. And unsurprisingly we are terrifically well suited for life on earth–after a couple billion years of evolution coughed us up.

Space may be of some modest–or even great–interest way, way down the road, but what’s absolutely critical is to not screw up planet earth. Not destroying the planet, and preserving and building on the best humanity has achieved. The critically important stuff is … well cue Steve’s “world’s most important graph”.

Getting back to Dyson’s lucid argument for the value of village life (and concomitantly for the de-scaling of America’s managerialist administrative state and a de-urbanization of its big blue coastal shitlibopolises), what he’s suggesting — that small isolated towns and villages produce the geniuses who create and expand civilization — is profound beyond words, because it contradicts in every fathomable way the neoliberal globohomo orthodoxy.

Dyson is saying that the opposite of globalist miscegenation agitprop — inbreeding in small, local, racially distinct communities — is the ENGINE OF PROGRESS.

The restrained and range restricted sexual market of the village dating life is the source pool for the starbursts of genius and the Truth & Beauty which shoot out like a supernova from those starbursts.

Think on that and laugh, because a more total refutation of leftoid equalism you won’t find anywhere (except at places like this blog).

Dyson then warns us on the likelihood of humans choosing to “remain in genetically isolated communities”. Our neoshitliberal effetes want to herd us all into ever-larger and dysfunctional megacities. They WANT to depopulate the countryside and crush the small town and village because they know, even if they’ll never come right out and say it, that those goy outposts are where rebels, revolutionaries, and great new thinkers will come from to challenge their despotic orwellian surveillance state gynarcho-tyrannical rule.

Dyson’s warning is unfolding. The trend away from small town America and into Citizen of the World Coastal MegaBabels has only accelerated in the time since the West birthed those starbursts of genius and changed the world forever. Americans, and Westerners in general, and young fertile women in particular, are choosing to leave those genetically isolated communities for the genetic slop bucket of the anonymous urban sexual jungle.

The future is grim for the West and hence for humanity, if Dyson is right.

In effect, the small town and village are an organic constraint on female sexuality. Women of genius-bearing age are limited by small town life in how aggressively they can satisfy their hypergamous urge; instead of the density of alpha males in the cities where anonymity protects against the consequences of impulsive romantic choices, the small town offers no such cockucopia possibilities or protections for women. They must choose from among a smaller pool of men, and they will often settle happily for their small town men because male SMV is relative, and without the glut of cads that the city presents to women their small town men look better for the lack of comparison. This gives those starbursts of genius genes a chance at a foothold (or poonhold) in young willing women, and the opportunity to multiply in large families where cost of living is low and lebensraum is expansive.

Restricting female sexuality is the formula for unleashing civilizational genius! Who woulda thunk it?

Read Full Post »

The Myth Of Female Cooperativeness

Gossip and salt and blame-shifting fault, that’s what older girls are made of.

Via reader Pepe, ¡SCIENCE! once again shits in the faces of feminists and pabulum spewing equalists.

This is not the place for this comment, but then again SCIENCE: Women are way less cooperative than men.

This goes against the leftist myth that the world would be a better place if women ruled.

“We confirmed a puzzling gender difference: men cooperate much more than women” [in a repeated Prisoner Game]. Also, cooperation doesn’t fade over time, as previously thought.

The numbers:

And from other study:

No doubt that men are the civilization builders, and no wonder why feminazis and manginas hate evo psych so much.

The Fuggernaut hates anything that disproves their belief that one day, soon, the Armies of the Disfigured will rise up to claim their equally distributed share of Facecock Likes.

The labcoat unearthing of the ancient wisdom that women are far less cooperative than are men is another step forward in the recent progression of scientific studies rediscovering the truths at the center of every stereotype. As usual, I was on top of this before the four eyes crowd…women aren’t cooperative, they’re (superficially) non-hierarchical, which is a different thing entirely (but shitlibs and femcunts are happy to confuse the two).

Besides the primary finding, there are two other results of interest to Chateau readers:

One, cooperation didn’t fade over repeated iterations of the Prisoner’s Dilemma game. I’d bet most of the test subjects were WEIRDO Whites, because there’s a racial confound to measurement of cooperativeness. If cooperativeness is partly heritable, then the disposition to cooperate will show durability even under the stress of PD games.

Two, men fight for dominant status, women are eliminationist. As I alluded to in a previous post about credentialism being inherently feminine and hierarchy inherently masculine, research shows men follow a “compete then cooperate” model and women follow a “compete and cast out” model. The two strategies exist because men and women have differing reproductive goals and sex roles. Men must gain status and then use that status to acquire fertile women and resources and to protect those resources from rape and pillage by competing tribes (which requires intratribal cooperation with other men).

Women don’t have the role of protecting the tribe from invading tribes or of accumulating resources to win the love of high value men, so their intrasexual strategy doesn’t require cooperativeness, but since men are attracted to young nubile women and are thus a persistent abandonment threat to women, the female intrasexual strategy does require competing against other women to retain a male provider. Ominously, because other younger women are a continual poaching threat, women will seek to eliminate them from competition rather than dominate them. Intrasexual female domination is useless from a Darwinian perspective because men aren’t attracted to dominant women (they’re attracted to sexy fertile women).

From a Game perspective, these studies basically reiterate CH’s Dread Game — the exploitation of a woman’s fear of abandonment for another hotter, younger, tighter woman via intimations of infidelity and wandering romantic interest.

***

The compulsion in women to gossip and tear down other women when they’re out of earshot can be exploited by the smart Gamesman. The idea is to raise, in absentia, the SMV of the other woman your girl is bitching about. By raising her competition’s SMV, by the zero sum property of female ego credits, you implicitly lower the SMV of the girl you’re talking to, and thus raise your own SMV. The relative SMV comparisons, now structured to favor you getting the bang, are a key element of pickup.

Read Full Post »

The Crone Police

The form and the function. Women abide the form, men abide the function. MagyarFaszALegjobbFasz (i’m as puzzled as the rest of you) has a great comment implicitly tying together the female predilection to act as Tone Police with the overrun of Western societies by Dirt World Dreck.

This is classic feminine TONE POLICE. Ask any married man, he’s heard this shit a thousand times. In her moral calculus that the white knight’s tone is actually worse than the Slav drunkard’s behavior.

“I agree with you but I don’t like the way you said it.”

This comes pre-installed in every women — the question is how high is the dial set to?

1-3 = girl next door
4-6 = bitch next door
7-10 = feminazi shrike

The feminine is all about the form, and has no respect for function. This is why most masculine men find women boring, trite and superficial. It’s why women love credentialism. All surface, no depth.

The mistake the British white knight made is that he paid any attention to her and treated her like an equal/adult and/or expected her to support him.

Never expect courage from the feminine. It happens, but it is rare. Remember, men move to danger, women move away from it. (That is exactly what happened in the clip too.)

She’s a child. She should keep her mouth shut and not interrupt adults. He should have signaled that.

I am sure heartiste et al have strategies to deal with tone police shit testing. Now would be a good time to share them given the obliviousness of the commenters on this post.

The Tone Police, or rather the Crone Police because schoolmarmish tut tutting has the effect of prematurely aging women and robbing them of their tender femininity, is a real problem in the West. Our Western White women are, among the world’s races of women, most severely afflicted by the urge to scold nonconformists to the reigning shitlib orthodoxy. (NonWestern women learn real quick what happens to them when they betray their men for the favors of invaders and effete UN monitors.)

It is inarguable that in general women are the sex more risk-averse, socially conforming, and superficially wedded to universalist norms of behavior. Men concerned with the wholesale abandonment of their homelands to invader ingrates for the pennywise pound-foolish siren call of cheap labor, moral preening, and real estate churn need to have strategies and tactics at the ready to disarm their hovering Crone Police.

As with pickup and Game tactics, the best defense is a good offense. Shit testing Crone Police should be answered similarly to how shit testing bar thots are answered:

1. Agree & Amplify (“I’M SO SORRY, I want our country to turn into a Third World heaven just as much as you do.”)
2. State Control (“Thanks. I’ve been working hard to improve my racism.”)
3. Dismissiveness (“lol you’re gay”)
4. Shock & Awe (“Shut up, cunt”)
5. Id Vivisection (“If you want to fuck him, just ask.”)
6. Amused Mastery (“I’m glad you like it”)
7. The Asshole Counterattack (“Was I talking to you?”)
8. Assume the Sale (“This isn’t the time for flirting with me.”)
9. The Aggro Asshole Counterattack (“Your ugly face offends me.”)
10. Amused Mastery 2 (“That’s Mr. Racist to you”)
11. Assume the Sale 2 (“Sorry, I’m not your type”)
12. The Disregarding Brush-Off (“yup” or “see ya”)

The take-home lesson is that you’ll always be on the winning side as long as you aren’t flustered or defensive. Be vigilant and prepared for the Crone Police, and you’ll never let yourself, nor your country, down.

Read Full Post »

Explicit Sexual Consent Is No Guarantee Against False Rape Accusations

The Judge says giving women all the responsibility for initiating and controlling the pace of sex is the answer to false rape accusations.

Women are just dishonest to the bone, 24/7. You can think everything is cool because the dumb bitch doesn’t say anything, next thing you know, she claims you raped her, or she “felt half-raped”.

In such a climate, Game…CHARISMA…is needed, because the only safe sexual encounter is one initiated and controlled by the dumb bitch.

The Judge is well-meaning but his suggestion will actually make the problem of women blaming men for the regret and emptiness women normally feel after impulsive hookups much worse. Ceding the domain of bedroom escalation to women is no guarantee of a safe sexual encounter. As we all know, a woman will back-rationalize any sexual encounter into a distant facsimile of actual events to support whatever her feelings require in the moment, and that includes sexual interactions she initiated and controlled. Even if you signed a consent form with a lawyer present and tied your hands behind your back so that she would have to undress you and guide your penis into her three holes, if she felt bad about it the next day she’ll concoct a load of self-serving sophistry to excuse her actions and relinquish her accountability, which in practice means IT’S ALWAYS THE BOYIM’S FAULT.

Paradoxically, the closest thing men have to a guarantee against a false regret rape accusation is to DOMINATE and LEAD the girl to a sexual encounter in which she CAN’T CONTROL her erupting arousal and EAGERLY SURRENDERS to the man. (Then make sure you give her a peck on the cheek and tell her something nice before bolting in the morning. Leave em wetter than you found em.)

The problem with the physically and personably unattractive amy schumers of the world is that they are fated to date weak men, soyboys, gloryhole faces, male feminists, john scalzis, and simpering omega nerdos. A woman who initiates and controls the sexual encounter from start to finish with one of those kinds of un-males will FEEL LIKE she was raped afterwards, because her contaminated womb will be crying out for a mercy killing. Naturally, this bad feeling of existential darwinian regret will compel her to deny her role in the consensual sex and to seek absolution by shifting a fake blame onto the unwitting loser male who thought she was enjoying his tepid romantic advances.

A woman sexually in control is a woman emotionally in doubt. Give her control over sexual progression and the only guarantee you’ll get is her post-coital spite and resentment. Few women, deep down, want to lead a man. Most women, deep down, want to follow a man. You, as a man, deny this want of women at your peril.

Read Full Post »

Generation Anhedonia

Menaquinone4, a funny and talented shiv wielder booted off Twatter to join the rest of us deplorable hate-istes, had a thread musing about the Anhedonia Strain that seems to have swept like a virus through his generation. (Note: this post was dredged from the recesses of the draft folder, so you’ll excuse its dated source.)

That’s a great point about the deception of intensifying sexual ostentation (in both the mate signaling and inner-directed psychological senses) paradoxically indicating a flagging libido. When libidos are high (at least in the Eurasian races of Man), it takes but an uncovered calf to get the pump primed. The twerking and posturing and yoga pants and stripperwear of da club girl is needed to cut through the r-selected meat market noise and possibly through the fog of diminished libidos.

More germanely, a puzzling aspect of the post-America, gynarcho-tyrannical sexual market is the superficially contradicting trend of higher partner counts (increased cock carousel ridership) coupled with lower sex frequency. What gives? Four factors immediately come to mind which may account for this strange cuntfluence: one, higher partner counts could reflect lower desire for longer term relationships, or less ability to keep an LTR, and sex is generally more frequent within relationships than without (there is for most people a lot of incel downtime between lovers, unless you are a master class skirt chaser).

Two, higher partner counts could be a consequence of unrestrained female hypergamy, in which economically self-sufficient careerist shrikes bounce from partner to partner seeking the next alpha male thrill and beta males bounce from partner to partner out of necessity because women are delaying relationship and family formation. (Alpha male cads will also partner bounce, but for a different reason: variety is the spice of life.) Again, a lot of cock or cooch hopping can decrease sexual frequency if there is significant downtime between fuck buddy acquisitions.

Three, biomechanical and sociocultural influences like Big Pharma, Big Soy, Big Obesity, Big Vidja, Big Porn, Big Diversity, Big Wage Stagnation, Big Feminism, and Big Poz can contribute to physiologically lowered libidos as well as to a psychologically stunted desire to build a romantic relationship with the opposite sex. Years and years of frivolous, short term “hooking up” intermingled with lengthy bouts of social isolation can run up partner count without padding intercourse frequency.

Four, Americans (and Westerners generally) are becoming pathologically narcissistic. The blame for this can be apportioned to multiple causes (social media, digital cameras, online anonymity, thirsty beta males, lifestyle instead of wealth-based SWPL status striving etc), but the end result is men and women with extremely fragile egos refusing to accept the possibility of romantic rejection and therefore shying from taking a risk in the mate market, preferring the zero-investment option of occasional and nebulous hook ups that avoid risky declarations of love (or even ONS interest) in favor of noncommittal “hanging out” in which soypenis somehow, through gay alchemical magic, slips into piercedvagina. And from this consortium of mate market confusion, Regret Rape, #MeToo, Xanax, and mixed signals accelerate the retreat from LTRs and marriage. This toxic androgyny can have another effect: it kills sexual desire and neuters hook ups until those precious moments are reduced to fingers jammed into dry vaginas and lockjaw blowjobs delivered with the perfunctory rush of someone eager to get home in time for the latest streaming effluvium on Pussyhat TV.

The solution is patriarchy, because only under patriarchy are women’s beauty and femininity, and men’s strength and masculinity, fully appreciated.

Sexy men and women create sensual times.
Sensual times create soy males and manjawed bitterbitches.
Soy males and manjawed bitterbitches create anhedonic times.
Anhedonic times create sexy men and women.

Read Full Post »