Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Love’ Category

A man of some repute addressed an audience of women in 1933, warning against sexual amorphism and the close correlation of feminine men and masculine women with national decline.

Looking back over the past years of Germany’s decline, we come to the frightening, nearly terrifying, conclusion that the less German men were willing to act as men in purpose, the more women succumbed to the temptation to fill the role of the man. The feminization of men always leads to the masculinization of women. An age in which all great idea of virtue, of steadfastness, of hardness, and determination have been forgotten should not be surprised that the man gradually loses his leading role in life and politics and government to the woman.

…and that man was Joseph Goebbels. A bad bad man, but…….what he said was true, and downright prophetic as we scan the androgynous slop oozing over America’s fruity plains and as we heave under the onslaught of alien races welcomed into White homelands in no small measure by the contributions of our own women.

A thought: If you don’t want your nation to convulse with a bloody backlash of hypermasculinity, don’t allow your nation’s fate to be guided by the saccharine machinations of its women.

Read Full Post »

Options = Instability. A Chateau maxim as universal and relevant to life satisfaction as the famed CH aphorism Diversity + Proximity = War. The O=I theory was introduced in this original press post:

Where you have options, you have trouble sticking by one person. A man dating a girl (or girls) will feel on top of the world and suddenly all those single women traipsing around the city look like much easier targets to approach. His loins will quiver with excitement. A woman transplanted from a less populated region of the country to the big city will become enthralled with all the extra attention from men who are probably much better at playing the game than the men she left back home. Her ego will quiver with expectation.

…and fleshed out here, with accompanying scientific confirmation:

[T]here is an inherent sex difference in the destabilizing force of increased options. A man with more options than his partner is a less destabilizing force to his relationship than is a woman with equally more options than her partner. This phenomenon results from the greater hypergamous drive of women, who are less satisfied than are men with sub-par lovers, and from the biological reality that risk of female infidelity is a graver threat to relationship harmony than is risk of male infidelity for which there is no chance of “reverse cuckolding”.

Think of the relationship permutations this way:

Man with options + woman with fewer options = man with peace of mind and wandering eye + happy but anxious woman + lovingly prepared home-cooked meals.

Woman with options + man with fewer options = unhappy woman with wandering eye + happy but anxious man + microwaved dinners.

Man with options + woman with options = stable relationship. Both are happy and infidelity or rupture risks are minimized.

Man with few options + woman with few options = stable relationship. Both are unhappy yet infidelity or rupture risks are still minimized.

I don’t need my knob slobbed by ¡SCIENCE!, but I won’t turn down a freebie blowie if 💋SCIENCE💋 just can’t get enough of my Renaissance Meat. So once again, to the lab-coats (via VIP commentator chris):

Scientific proof that options creates instability.

In the interests of weeding out the mathematical complexity, there were three values calculated. Assuming you were taking the survey, they would correspond to (1) how well your actual partner matched your ideal (2) what percent of possible real mates out in the world are better overall fits, and (3) how much more or less desirable you are to others, relative to your partner. These values were then plugged into a regression predicting relationship satisfaction. As it turned out, in the first study (N = 260), the first value – how well one’s partner matched their ideal – barely predicted relationship satisfaction at all (ß = .06); by contrast, the number of other potential people who might make better fits was a much stronger predictor (ß = -.53), as was the difference in relative mate value between the participant and their partner (ß = .11). There was also an interaction between these latter two values (ß = .21). As the authors summarized these results:

“Participants lower in mate value than their partners were generally satisfied regardless of the pool of potential mates; participants higher in mate value than their partners became increasingly dissatisfied with their relationships as better alternative partners became available”

Implied in the CH Options = Instability formula is the premise that the available options are desirable; options don’t mean much if what you have now is decidedly better than the alternatives. Few people will trade up from a filet mignon to a burger, so the existence of millions of attainable burgers doesn’t register as a menu of options to our subconscious minds if we’re currently dining on filet mignon. (If you’ve dated a really pretty girl, you’ll know that, at least for a while, the world of women outside her presence seems to recede into invisibility. Some call that love.)

Instability follows from options when the options are instinctively perceived as worthwhile substitutes. From this truism, we can deduce the effectiveness of a powerful Game principle: Dread. If you are a man who is, or is subjectively perceived to be, lower in sexual market value than your girlfriend/wife, then you can help stabilize your relationship and increase the happiness of you and your partner if you ACT LIKE you are a man with many desirable and attainable options you’d trade up to if circumstances allowed.

That is, it’s sexy to act more like an untrustworthy man than a trustworthy man. Why? Because women LOVE LOVE LOVE men who are loved by other desirable women. And an untrustworthy man signals his desirability to many beautiful women. This principle is why it’s so common to see physically unattractive men dating hot babes “out of their league” strut like a cuntquistador who could drop his current lover on a dime if she ever gave him trouble. Platitudists may not appreciate this facet of human sexual behavior, but it’s real and it works.

CH Maxim #77: If a man acts as if his life is full of willing women, then women will be more willing company.

Read Full Post »

A cursory examination of the evidence, pro and con, has convinced me that global warming is happening, and that humans are partly responsible. But not nearly as responsible as shitlib alarmists like AlGore would have us believe. I don’t mean to get into the thickets of global warming science in this post (accommodation probably would be the more sensible response to GW than wholesale abandonment of fossil fuels), but the topic does pivot my thoughts to The Trumpening, and his heart&mind capture of the White working class.

I have a fondness for the hillbillies of Appalachia. Yeah, they’re poor and fat and wary of outsiders and have their vices and dysfunctions, but they’re generally good-hearted folk, and in the battle for my limited sympathies a run-down White ethnic enclave will have far more of my support than ghetto dindus or Punjab in Bombay. I’m secure enough in my masculinity to keep my loyalties close to home instead of leap-frogging all over the world.

Many “blood and soil” West Virginians work in the coal business. Their livelihoods are threatened by environmental activism. That is a fact no bloviating advocate of wind and solar power can wave away. WV voters have responded to Trump as if he was a savior come to help them in a country that is rapidly disavowing them. The reality, such as it is, of global warming, and of Trump’s popularity with the White working class means he has a rhetorical tightrope to navigate.

If AGW is real and potentially catastrophic, what message should Trump give to West Virginian coal miners? I see four possible angles Trump could take:

  • Promise to return their coal mining jobs.

This would work to Trump’s benefit (as well as the benefit of WVians), and it probably won’t hurt Trump much in the general election except among the most zealous anti-AGWers. But it would mean choosing the welfare of coal miners over concerns for the long-term consequences of global warming.

  • Tell them coal is a dying industry and they had better find other lines of work.

This is essentially the “screw off” option, and it’s exactly what TheCunt told them to do. It may be “true”, but only because shitlibs have arranged the political landscape to make it true. I don’t recommend this message.

  • Offer government largesse to ease their transition away from employment in the coal industry.

Not very “””conservative”””, and won’t play well with the “muh Constitution” cuckwads, but it would be the sympathetic solution that avoids callously throwing the White working class under the bus. And of course there’s the risk that the government aid will be misused, as poor people are wont to do with social welfare. Plus, welfare, however well-intentioned, tends to dispirit Whites receiving it.

  • Promise big infrastructure projects in alternative energy sources that will employ WVians.

Nuclear power plants come to mind, as do wind turbine farms and electric car manufacturing plants. Throw in highway construction and you’ve made a lot of former coal miners employable. Yes, this will cost taxpayer money, but the argument here is that a shared commitment to the welfare of Americans and the ease of their suffering takes precedence over “principled” tax cuts. And we might even enjoy the knock-on effects of a reduction in opioid deaths and obesity among our less privileged White brethren.

Read Full Post »

Commenter Yup wants us to notice something very telling about Trump’s wives.

Trump’s had 3 wives.

1st wife: 14 years

2nd wife: 4 years

3rd wife: 11 years and counting.

Guess which wife was American.

😂 I’ll take “4 years” for $5.5 billion, Alex.

Read Full Post »

I don’t know if 16th Century poet Michael Drayton can be considered a great man, but he was esteemed by literary critics at the time. Here’s an excerpt from his long-form poem “The Moon-Calf”, (a moon-calf is an abortive fetus of a cow, sometimes applied to human fetuses). Colloquially, it had come to mean during its time in common usage any grotesque thing. Drayton hasn’t a kind word for androgynes, which he thinks “pollute the earth”.

Quoth one, ” ‘Tis monstrous, and for nothing fit;
And, for a monster, quick, let’s bury it.”
“Nay,” quoth another, “rather make provision,
If possibly, to part it by incision,
For were it parted, for aught I can see,
Both man and woman it may seem to be.”
“Nay,” quoth a third. “that must be done with
And, were it done, our labor is but lost: [cost;
For when w’ have wrought the utmost that we can,
He’s too much woman, and she’s too much man:
Therefore, as ’tis a most prodigious birth,
Let it not live here to pollute the earth.”

The great men knew that masculine women and feminine men are abominations against nature. They would weep to see their descendants glorifying what once they thought a blight upon the earth.

Read Full Post »

Piers Morgan (he’s had a “come to shitlord” moment) writes about Trump’s sway over the ladies. Read this, and you’ll wonder yourself if Trump was a founding proprietor of Le Chateau.

‘They say every powerful man is good in bed,’ I once asked Donald Trump. ‘That true?’

He smirked. ‘I think there is a certain truth to that, yes. Put it this way, I’ve never had any complaints. A lot of it is down to The Look. It doesn’t mean you have to look like Cary Grant, it means you have to have a certain way about you, a stature. I see successful guys who just don’t have The Look and they are never going to go out with great women.

‘The Look is very important. I don’t really like to talk about it because it sounds very conceited… but it matters.’

Count the number of statements Trump made which affirm core CH principles governing male-female relations.

  • Powerful men are generally good in bed. Why is male power and sexpertise correlated? Power imbues a man with self-confidence that opens bedroom possibilities to him, enticing him to be more demanding of the women he sweetly fucks, which in turn makes those women perceive him as more sexually skilled. Similarly, women will have stronger orgasms with a powerful man, regardless of the man’s objective sexual prowess, which alters their perception of the man’s skill.
  • “A lot of it is down to The Look.” Trump understands that facial expression and body language can communicate charismatic winner… or dull loser. Handsomeness is beneficial, but not required. A man who projects confidence with his posture, his piercing gaze, his unflappable ZFG demeanor, and his snapper-sundering smirk is more alluring to women than the prettyboy with the vacant stare.
  • “I see successful guys who just don’t have The Look and they are never going to go out with great women.” Trump, like CH, knows that money and business success are no guarantee of pussy abundance. Wealthy Silicon Valley nerdos lacking in any notable charm, like fat waifu-settling Mark Cuckersperg, are proof that wealth cannot compensate for a shit personality. Women are turned off by dull betas, even if a billion dollar portfolio is added to the equation. Sure, not a few golddiggers will fake their love to mooch the betabux moolah, but that is paid-for allure. Transaction “love” is no substitute for sincere validation love.

There is no doubt in my mind that Trump enjoys, and has enjoyed, the validation love of many beautiful women in his life. Strong evidence for my assertion comes from Trump’s ex-wives, who speak better of him than most men’s current wives speak of them.

ps article via minor Twatter celeb @DJTWMAR.

Read Full Post »

Bertrand Russell is a patron sadist of Chateau Heartiste for good reason; when he’s on, he’s quite good at cataloguing the ills that befall those cultures which turn their backs to the gods of the copybook headings. Here he is on the welfare state and its corruption of the sexual market:

bertierussellquote

If you got a chill reading this, that’s normal. You see how prophetic Russell was — the rise of single momhood, the destruction wrought by the divorce industrial complex, the encroachment of leftoid authoritarianism, the disavowal of kin and country — and you fear what is to come next.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,541 other followers

%d bloggers like this: