Recommended Great Books For Aspiring Womanizers

Michael Blowhard once challenged CH and readers to look at what the great writers in the Western literary tradition had to say about courtship. Many responded.

Alas, it is not God’s plenty. A man who relies on literature for his models can easily get swept away by the glorious pedestalizing.

Ovid’s seduction manual, The Art of Love, is pretty uneven in its advice. Stendhal’s On Love is pretty good. Castiglione’s Book of the Courtier is a good manual for how to be an overall attractive man. (Both were used to good effect by Robert Greene in The Art of Seduction.) Moliere shows what not to do in The Misanthrope, as does Flaubert in Madame Bovary. Byron has some scattered good thoughts. Burke, from a more traditionalist perspective, has some profound thoughts on masculinity and femininity. I’ve never read Casanova’s memoirs so I cannot tell you how good they are as literature or as pickup advice. I haven’t read Laclos’ Dangerous Liasons either. It’s been a long, long time since I read Richardson’s Clarissa, with its famous seducer Lovelace. Freud expounds nicely on female narcissism.

I’d also throw in How to be the Jerk Women Love by F.J. Shark (truly a great classic in the annals of lit-ra-choor), Nine and a Half Weeks by Elizabeth McNeill, and Story of O by Pauline Reage. Even pulp romance novels, however hackish, can be helpful to your learned pursuit of utterly dominating a woman’s will and heart. As with the last two book recommendations, female authors will invariably reveal their pulsing erotic ids through their characters. The trick to reading romantic literature written by a woman is to pay attention to what TURNS ON the female character. Not what the character claims to want in a hypothetical boyfriend or husband, but what she specifically describes that got her tingling like a Van de Graaff generator. Editorial commentary can be ignored, because the prerequisite for becoming any woman’s ideal lover is to first become her actual lover.

Read Full Post »

Are Antidepressants Ruining American Women?

Think about the ecumenical change in society that, intuitively, must be happening with the widespread use of various hindbrain altering drugs, like the Pill and antidepressants. This is a change in biochemistry unparalleled in human evolutionary history. It’d be a miracle of serendipity if there weren’t blowback.

A reader surmises,

Great site. Good advice. But …

There is something to be said for all the anti-depressants/mood stabilizers/whatevers that women are taking these days. And I mean, a LOT of women on are on these psych drugs. You’re asking me so what, right? Well …

A lot of a man’s behavior toward women rests on the presumption (truth) that women are insecure and may get depressed at times, and when they do, they choose a man that has been solid for them. They either choose one, confide in the one they “love” or return to one. BUT, with these drugs, I think a lot of their negative feelings are prevented, making them less vulnerable.

It’s something I’ve noticed among professional women. Sure, maybe my game isn’t what it was, but I think it’s worth addressing. Women’s drugs are changing the game a little bit.

An interesting hypothesis we have here, and one that may go a ways to explaining why there is a growing impression among American men that their women are becoming manlier, sluttier, present-time oriented, and all-around less provocatively charming.

Here’s a lovefact sure to torque a feminist’s fat hamster into a tailspin:

Maxim #27: Beyond beauty, a woman’s attractiveness to men is partly a function of her feminine vulnerability, or her ability to mimic feminine vulnerability.

Corollary to Maxim #27: Men are turned off by overconfident, assertive, proudly self-sufficient women.

Yep, despite the delusional claptrap that feminists want the world to believe, men don’t swoon for women who act like men. Non-manboobed men with hanging testicles don’t, at any rate. Invulnerability is not sexy on women.

Men, at least K-selected men from the frigid Northlands where the cold winds blow and nothing grows for six months, are hard-wired with a protection instinct. We want to guard the carriers of our kingly posterity.

Evolution, therefore, has ensured that men respond viscerally to beautiful, weak women needing protection. A woman in need rallies a man’s ready seed.

Enter antidepressants. Suddenly women all over the sub-veneer tribal landscape are feeling invincible, unstoppable, and perfectly capable on their own. “No means no, creeper!” The manly protective (beta) instinct which warms the hearts of biochemically natural women leaves SSRI drugged-up simulacra of women feeling indifferent, even antagonistic, to the same signals of stoically masculine benefaction.

Multiply this effect a hundredfold in the homeland of the SWPL: The big blue whitening cities of the coasts, where every vibrantly atomized lawyercunt and her bovine cockblock are hopped up on happy happy happy pills. No joke, I’d bet 80% of Obama Country college-grad white chicks are dazed and confused with the help of Big Father Pharma. That percentage jumps to 99% when you expand the age range to include spinsters with two or more cats aka alpha male substitutes.

All successful game requires, in lesser or greater dose, the deployment, consciously or otherwise, of psychological tactics which raise the man’s relative status, lower the woman’s relative status, or both. This is a fact of the nature of the sexes, and it exists because the lifeblood of lust is fed to men and women by different veins. What excites a woman — the challenging company of a higher value, dominant man — is different than what excites a man — the company of a coy, vulnerable, pretty woman. You can rail to the ends of the earth about this fallen state of humanity, but you will never change it, not as long as there are two sexes evolved with differing reproductive goals.

It makes sense, then, that drugs which create a disturbance in the sexual polarity force would also have a downstream effect on courtship, both the traditional and the modern game styles of mate acquisition. A less vulnerable-feeling woman is a woman less receptive to beta provider game, and — this is getting deep into CH theory of modern dating dynamics territory — more receptive to sexy alpha bounder game.

An artificially happy and confident woman is, in short, a no-game-having beta male’s worst nightmare.

(A few of you wags might say that SSRIs are helping turn the US from a Euro mating market to an African mating market, where sky high self-esteem absent any supporting evidence is the norm.)

As a visionary acolyte of Le Chateau, you want to know how to make this new social reality work for you. (Some of you want to change it back to where it was before it turned wicked, but that is a concern for wise old men with rerouted energies.) A good start is dread game, which is the seducer’s answer to invulnerable women.

Some other proto-men, like the scalzied followers of male feminists, take the opposite tack, and submit themselves completely to the whim of Tsarina Bombas, in hopes, apparently, that their utter prostration would excite in women the pity fuck compulsion before it triggers their active repulsion reflex.

A specific skill of modern seduction, as channeled through game, will therefore need to be (sadly from a certain perspective) the ability to evoke, in pinprick psychological jabs, sadness, fear, worry and self-doubt in the Happy Harlots of Late Hour America. If you lack this skill, you’ll find more cynical men stealing your lamb meat off your white linened table.

Or, you could just wait out the coming collapse in your Galtian gulch, and watch the feckless loverboys starve in the streets live-streamed, as the newly vulnerable women rediscover the value of your warm hearth. But by that time, you’ll have stuccoed the entirety of your masturbatorium.

The antidepressant ruination of American women is a theory worth investigating, particularly in light of observational evidence in favor. Perhaps enterprising readers will unearth studies which connect the dots. Or perhaps they’ll just say “what the fuck”, and give the Supergirls a double dose of ego-smashing sexytime.

Read Full Post »

A Dying Culture’s Malignant Tumors

Prepare to glimpse into the belching maw of the Dystopia Abyss…

‘For reasons unfathomable to the court,’ BethMarie Retamozzo, 34, ‘would rather have [her boyfriend] in her life than to reunite with her children,’ judge wrote in Aug. 8 order.

The background:

A white single mom (if photo is accurate) has amassed a grand total of seven children by at least three different men, one white, one hispanic, one black.

This model mom is trying to regain custody of two of her bastard spawn, who are now under the care of her parents.

Her current boyfriend is a Class A badboy who has hit one of the kids with a belt and exposed himself to another.

She ignored her own protection order which she had against her boyfriend to be with him, and lied to the court about it, thus violating a court order barring the boyfriend from being present during her visits with the children.

WIth the help and/or incompetence of her visit supervisor/landlord, single mom abducts her kids and heads for a truck stop in South Carolina, where cops eventually catch up with her thanks to the trail of texts she sent to her boyfriend along the entire trip.

This is dysgenic idiocracy accelerated to warped speed. Every one of these losers is a cancer feeding on the soul of a once-healthy culture, which we all pay for the pleasure. And the elite, safely ensconced behind private schools, egregious zoning laws and sky high rents, mock from a safe distance, unwilling or unable to grasp how their policies and ideological pronouncements encourage the downward spiral, or how their sanctuaries shrink by the day, their overrun imminent.

I met an orphan from a deracinated land
Who said, ‘A mother and a judge in robes
Stand in family court. Near them at the table,
Half mad, a sadistic lawyer lies, whose greed
And rubbing hands and sneer of cold command
tell that its benefactor well its interests read
Which yet survive, stamped on these broken wards,
The handout that enslaves them and the heart that is bled.
And on the chamber door these words appear:
‘My name is Feminism, daughter of Equalism:
Look on my works, ye merry, and despair!’
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that cultural wreck, shameless and bare,
The lone and empty homes stretch far away”.

Read Full Post »

Generational Decline In Testosterone Levels

Chateau Heartiste was on top of noticing and alerting the public to this trend of feminizing men a long time ago. And now ♥science♥ is providing the ammunition for CH’s mighty Guns of Pattern Recognition.

During the past two decades, testosterone levels in American men have rapidly declined.

This information comes from a long-term prospective study that evaluated changes in serum testosterone on a population-wide basis.

The study was published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

“The interesting thing we discovered was that, on average, when we measured the testosterone in the blood of a 60-year-old in 1989 it was higher than that in a different 60-year-old measured in 1995,” said Thomas Travison, PhD, of the New England Research Institutes, Watertown, Mass. “We observed the same phenomenon over a wide range of ages.”

At baseline, the median serum testosterone level was 501 ng/d; at the first follow-up it was 435 ng/dL and at the second follow-up it was 391 ng/dL.

The estimated cross-sectional decline in total testosterone level was 0.4% per year of age (95% CI, –0.6% to –0.2%). The longitudinal within-person decline was about 1.6% per year (95% CI, –1.8% to –1.4%). The age-matched time trend was 1.2% lower per year (95% CI, –1.4% to –1.0%).

The decline was age-independent. “It is a little troubling,” Travison said. “The average differences are not very large, but they are big enough and occurring over a short enough time period to be the cause of some concern.”

These demonstrated population-level declines are greater than the cross-sectional declines typically associated with age, according to the researchers.

So American men really are becoming more physiologically pussified, emasculated, manboobed and womanish. And this hormonal change is expressing itself psychologically. Cf., John Scalzi.

The million milliliter question: Why?

“This population-level decline in testosterone concentrations in men is not explained fully by the usual suspects: increasing BMI and prevalence of obesity, certain other co-morbid conditions or decreasing incidence of smoking. Although the analysis by Travison et al did reveal significant age-related increases in adiposity and medication use and a welcome decline in smoking, the age-matched decline in testosterone concentrations persisted even after adjusting for these variables,” Shalender Bhasin, MD, of the section of endocrinology, diabetes, and nutrition, Boston University School of Medicine, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

He voiced concern over the decline and its public health impact on American men.

“This magnitude of change during such a short period is disquieting,” Bhasin wrote. “Although increasing adiposity and lifestyle factors that were recorded in the [Massachusetts Male Aging Study] could not account for the secular trends in testosterone level, it is possible that other lifestyle factors, such as increasing use of tight-fitting underwear, increasing room temperatures in American homes and offices during the past three decades, decreased physical activity with increased body mass indices and decreased smoking could have contributed to the declining testosterone levels in men.”

Answer: No one really knows.

May I humbly suggest some other possible causes for the scalzification of American men?

1. Aggro tankgrrls

When the land fills up with aggressively posturing, careerist feminist shrikes on the divorce court warpath, aided and abetted by Cathedral man-haters, the collective response by society’s testes is to ascend behind the sheltering bony plate of the pubis. You could call it the “Junk Tuck and Shuck” theory of increasing faggotry. How this works on a biochemical level is hard to pinpoint, but it makes some intuitive sense that as women gain more cultural power through their own means or a Big Daddy government check, men rationally respond by becoming either smooth talking cads or mewling beta suck-ups. Do women like this state of affairs? Probably not, but as long as men can get the pussy this way, that’s what they’ll give women. The sexual polarity will find its opposing balance, by whatever means necessary.

2. Estrogen in everything

Soy is in everything. So is the effluvium of the Pill. It seems we can’t go a week without some new study touching down with evidence of increased estrogen in our food and water supplies.

3. Lack of a cleansing war/too many men

A culture’s men get soft in the arms of materialist decadence. Never more so than today with so many hindbrain-targeted pleasure stimulators acquired for a relative pittance. Too many men accumulating from a lack of natural (or unnatural) culling means that, thanks to the cosmic directive of female hypergamy, a lot of dispensable, reproductively useless men are piling up. Combine the softness with the uselessness, and it’s a small leap to infer that the male sex would respond, at least at the margins, with a growing acceptance of testosterone-challenged and sexual marketplace-abstaining gayness, broniness, tranniness, and general supine self-flagellating leftoid-ness.

4. Dem friggin fat cows

Maybe male obesity can’t explain much of the trend toward lower T among men, but perhaps FEMALE obesity can explain it. What’s the point of manning up when all your women have womanned down? After all, you don’t have to be much of a man to jerk it to a digital dreamgirl. Fat chicks and porn everywhere have reduced the pressure to find a sexy babe to love, and testosterone levels have responded in kind. What doesn’t get used, atrophies.

There are three guaranteed means available to you, the big swinging CH reader, for battling this scourge of testosterone shrinkage.

– Lift weights
– Approach and hit on cute girls
– Avoid prostrating yourself at the feet of freaks and whiny grievance whores

That’s really all there is to it. And yet, America the Raisin-balled continues bursting with fruit cup flavor, an army of marching manboobs pegging themselves on the cock of feminism, taking orders from prissy, level 99 nancyboys ashamed of the impudence and pale hue of their own peek-a-boo micropeens.

I say screw that labially-wrapped lifestyle. Live loud, live proud, live turgidly aroused. Humiliate the buttercups. Slap your claymore against their tear-stained cheeks. And enjoy the howls of their crippled pain.

Read Full Post »

The Randomness Of Polar Bear Hunting

Something totally random happened in Oklahoma yesterday. A white man was randomly shot and killed by three random uruk-hais randomly pointing guns out of their random ghettomobile, and randomly choosing a target upon whom to unload their random fleeting emotions which some might randomly refer to less randomly as a pointed expulsion of hate.

Here are random photos of the random killers looking like any random person would look who randomly decided to shoot a man dead in the back:

In related news, I randomly chose wine instead of kerosene to drink last weekend. I randomly wore shoes to walk outside instead of going barefoot. And I randomly avoided a dilapidated neighborhood known to be full of restless orcs. It’s this randomness of life that makes all of us feel morally superior for avoiding the notice of any non-random occurrences. Three cheers for awful, tragic randomness!

“They pulled up behind him and shot him in the back then sped away,” said Capt. Jay Evans of Duncan Police Department. “It could have been anybody — it was such a random act.”

“It could have been anybody.” Translation: “The shit is going to hit the fan if white people start noticing that it wasn’t just anybody.”

Just how confidently can this police captain claim randomness as a crime motive? Were the three joy-shooters — two nightmare beasts and one miscegenated quasimodo — completely unaware of the race of their chosen victim?

Questions to ask the Captain:

How many people did the perps pass in their car before shooting Lane?
Was Lane the first “random” target they saw that day?
Did they pass up the chance to shoot any blacks before targeting Lane for the kill?
If the shooting was random, why were pedestrians coming toward them spared? The back shot seems especially cowardly and proof of forethought rather than pure chance.
Why, if the violence was totally random, is it two blacks and one mulatto with identity issues who stand accused of the crime in a city, Duncan, OK, that is only 3% black?

Of course, these questions will never be answered. Because the truth is a shiv to the post-modern, post-Western, anti-white posterity cleansing project. The truth is that there was nothing “random” about this morbidly banal killing; three gutter fiends spotted a white man — an iconic-looking white man jogging in that iconically white way — and gleefully took aim with all the roiling envy and hate their black hearts could muster, channeled into the spear of hot metal that would reward them with a few minutes of spastic joy.

Chris Lane was polar beared, just like Matty Yglesias was polar beared in his gentrifying DC enclave, except Lane took a lethal blow while Mattyboy was lucky to endure a flying fist as the weapon of choice of his insta-haters.

Look at that photo above, Mattyboy. Look at it real close. You know it. I know it. This is degeneracy. Human regression to a primitive prototype. Hate Machine in motion. Idiocracy ascendent. Brutish subterranean vessels of rank disgorged id spit forth from the perforating bowels of a diseased culture that has embraced lies and abandoned truth.

The Cathedral isn’t simply a metaphor for the mouthpieces of the mass media; its darkness — its evil — reaches deep into schools, government, entertainment industries, and apparently even local police departments. No mind is safe from its memetic synapse-blasting. Not even the minds of those who are up to their necks in daily reminders of reality and should know better than to spout blatant reality-warping lies intended as much to humiliate the listener as to redirect rage.

In this world, our Cathedral mind prison, media organs credulously accept the word of subhuman filth who claim boredom and random target acquisition for their actions, but will spin spin the universe on its axis to twist a news story about a Hispanic guy shooting a thug in defense who was bashing his head into the ground as a morality tale of white racism against angelic minorities.

Pre-human monsters from the abyss = wide-eyed Cathedral credulity.

Niceguy Hispanic looking out for his neighbors = Cathedral doubleplussmear campaign.

When you lie down with rotting filth, you get up with bad habits of the mind. Excise this stinking corpse of a nation from your mind, it is no longer a part of you and you are no longer a part of it. Time to rebuild something new, better, true and beautiful from the smoldering ashes. People are awakening. A cataclysm stirs.

Read Full Post »

The Shit Test Was Known To Men In 1910

Dovetailing from yesterday’s post, further enlightening excerpts from that most awesome 1910 game guide titled “Modern Woman and How to Manage Her“:

There are two universal theories concerning women: 1. That she is gentle and 2. That she is cruel. How have these conflicting views arisen? Why do men when in grief or difficulties so often seek the sympathy and the advice of women? Why on the other hand do men declare that women are capable of incredible cruelty? Let us attempt to explain this enigma. In those countries where marriage by capture still survives we shall find instructive evidence of that form of the antagonism of the sexes which is inseparable from the great business of love-making. In New Zealand not long ago a Maori wooer, with the consent of the girl’s parents, employed force in winning his bride. He seized the maiden and bore her away, struggling, biting, kicking. Maori girls are almost as physically strong as men and it was often a wrestling match of fairly equal combatants. We read that it was sometimes the work of hours before the captor could carry the resisting maiden a hundred yards. Thus love begins among the Maoris as among other and more advanced races with actual cruelty, strife and pain.

A Bedouin virgin makes a show of resistance to her lover by pelting him with stones which often wound the suitor. When he grapples with her she bites and uses her fists and nails even though she loves him and desires to be captured. The European woman does not as a rule display such forms of physical violence but the elements of anger, fear, and the desire to inflict pain enter more or less into most courtships. [ed: emphasis mine.]

In Spain, until the middle of the nineteenth century, women took pleasure in watching a lover flog himself until the blood flowed, and the elaborate system of courtship still observed in that country which insists that the suitor should wait for hours, day after day, beneath the maiden’s window till she deigns to smile upon him is a survival of the ancient custom of self torture as a means of winning a woman’s favour.

There are cases recorded of women who find exquisite satisfaction in the infliction of both mental and physical pain upon their lovers. Such manifestations are related to the passion of love and have a very important biological significance.

From this source springs the female instinct of teasing which is noticeable even among little girls in their play with boys. Every man can recall boyish experiences of this kind. From fourteen up to sweet seventeen and sometimes after that age girls frequently tease, snub and vex the youths of their acquaintance with much zest. The shyest boys [ed: betas] are most exposed to these lacerating snubs. No man dare be as rude as a woman. Her sex protects her from the retaliation of a retort discourteous. This love of tormenting the opposite sex reaches its height in many young girls when a young man is deeply in love with them, and the romantic and ardent types of youths are the chief sufferers from this form of feminine bullying.

I have heard a beautiful woman of this order describe with gusto the manner in which she first encouraged her lovers and then having brought them to her feet rejected them with polite disdain. The spectacle of a man grovelling for her consent caused acute pleasure.

The emotion that underlies this impulse to tease men and to excite their anger is a phase of sex antagonism, but it is very intimately associated with sexual feeling. The contempt, the coldness, and the cruelty are unconsciously directed by the woman towards an end, and they are frequently the expression of an amative nature. In its milder forms, unkindness to a lover is a very common trait among women. It is often employed to stimulate ardour and to test a man’s devotion. Women who in love first blow hot and then cold by turn are obeying a primitive instinct which has played an important part in the relationship of the sexes.

What the author, Gallichan, is describing here is known to modern seducers as the shit test.  Plus, what is also being described is possibly the first layman’s observations on what would come to be known as the Borderline Personality Disorder woman, (cf., Penelope Trunk), and the Attention Whore.

What Gallichan understands is what PUAs understand — when a woman shit tests you, i.e. when she teases and taunts you, she is in fact romantically aroused by you and her cruelty is a test of your mettle as a man. Will you remain “devoted” — aka unflustered by her theatrics — or will you wilt like a shy beta boy shrunk to hunched shame by her sharp barbs?

Read the last quoted line again. Push-pull PUA game is, like most game techniques, an arrogation by men of traditional female game. When you use a woman’s natural seductions against her, such as her instinct to “first blow hot and then cold”, you inflame her to passions the equal degree to which her beauty inflames men. Few men know to do this; fewer still execute the game skillfully. So if you can do it, you set yourself above every other man she knows, and above herself. Which is where she likes her man.

Read Full Post »

Tight Game From 1910

Full-Fledged Fiasco passed along this link to an example of the kind of game that men had access to way back in 1910:

~ Modern Woman and How to Manage Her, by Walter M. Gallichan, 1910

Beautifully put. The Gilded Age stands in stark contrast to the Gelded Age in which we are currently mired. And mirin.

Game has always been with us. Contrary to the flimsy strawmen of game denialists who delude themselves into thinking game is some sort of modern nerd fest with no analogue in esteemed cultural history, the facts bear out just how romantically savvy and game-aware were men of the past, should those men have chosen to enlighten themselves beyond their mothers’ saccharine teachings. One hundred years ago, people knew what women were about; only recently it seems we have had to relearn the age-old lessons. Blame it on the Flim-flam Effect.

Of course, this knowledge of the crimson arts was likely not known by the term “game” in 1910. Perhaps it went by some other name, like “reality”, or “charisma”, or “the Gods of the Copybook Headings”. The term that is used to describe ancient human rhythms is irrelevant; what matters are the insights. And in 1910, at least some had amazing insight into the feminine soul. Look at the ways this passage closely aligns with modern game teachings.

“the impulse to nag must be regarded as common and normal in women”

Modern game theorists accept as a foundational premise that sex differences in behavior are real, and immutable, and that ignoring these differences will have profound consequences for one’s success in the sexual market.

“it is only when the nagging is incessant and excessive that it degenerates into a morbid vice”

Relationship game. Women get progressively nastier to the men in their lives if those men allow them to run roughshod. This is known as the creeping betatization of domestication. (Nice ring to it.) A woman’s happiness and contentment in a relationship are directly proportional to the willing refusal of her man to put up with her shit.

“the best way to manage a nagging woman is to agree with her that you are a perfect brute and wretch”

Agree and amplify. Core game technique.

“and then to laugh at her”

Amused mastery. Core game concept.

“if that fails, fly from her presence”

NEXT.

What in that antediluvian, 90% white America paragraph is substantially different from anything taught today by avowed pick-up artists? Answer: Nothing. The only major difference between the “game” of yesteryear and the game of today is the scientific strength and experimental feedback that modern seduction proponents draw from relatively recent developments like evolutionary psychology and instantly transmitted field reports.. If you were to talk to a savvy man from 1910 about evolutionary psychology, he would look at you like you were from Mars. But if you were to ask him how he handles his woman, a wealth of knowledge would be yours for the taking.

It’s time for American men to return to their roots. Their deep roots. Only from the roots will the tree of knowledge of good and evil regrow its lost might.

Read Full Post »