Archive for the ‘Psy Ops’ Category

A recent survey of 100 social science studies discovered that 60 of them failed to replicate. (I’d like to reproducibility with that girl on the left.) In scientific terminology, that’s called a “poor showing”.

The new analysis, called the Reproducibility Project, found no evidence of fraud or that any original study was definitively false. Rather, it concluded that the evidence for most published findings was not nearly as strong as originally claimed.

The reasons given for the… oh what shall we call it… INCOMPETENCE of social scientists are:

  1. Pressure to publish novel research and “make a splash”.
  2. The misuse of replication studies by (often younger) scientists who want to attack the original author.
  3. Small sample sizes.
  4. Small methodology differences between the original and reproduced studies. (This would sometimes redound in favor of the original study’s findings.)

I’d like to offer another two possibilities for the wretched state of social science, that I believe more parsimoniously explain the weak and sometimes utterly useless “discoveries” that the field generates on a near-daily basis:

Diversity™ and Equalist Bias.

Diversity is the King of All Moral Crusades in 2015 America, which in practice means that too many non-Whites and women of dubious talent are replacing White men with obvious talent. Corruption, incompetence, and ethnic nepotism are fast becoming the rule rather than the exception in the West as the fields most susceptible to the Diversity™ siren call fill with diversity-quota hires and empty of skilled White men.

Equalist Bias corrupts a field that is dominated by Leftoid Equalists. Social Science has some good eggs (David Buss) but most social scientists are flaming liberal cranks and feminists who simply entered the field eager to co-opt a creeeeeedentialist imprimatur for their preexisting blank slate race and sex creationism religion. This is why CH has said that one’s working assumption should be that 99% of any social science research which comes out of a university with a large and well-funded women’s studies department is worthless drivel. The source matters. Shitlib emotional bias isn’t something the modern social scientist tries to overcome; it’s something she tries to back-rationalize with her work.

The cure for social science is clear: Less Diversity™, More Realtalkers. Hope this hurts.

Read Full Post »

Dr. Giggles draws an astute analogy between the snarky “gotcha questions” that are the empty-headed, but rhetorically potent, semantic weapons of shitlib journalists advocates and the game concept of Beta Bait, which is a form of courtship test that women subconsciously use to smoke out supplicating, sexually thirsty beta males.

It’s amazing how Game is an integral part of a politician’s repertoire. The shitlib’s comments on David Duke wasn’t the only one Trump had to sidestep during the interview. They tried to get him on everything from his personal religious beliefs to his opinions on old controversial topics like Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill. DT didn’t take the bait….Which made me realize these gotcha questions are the same thing as Beta Bait!

Precisely. This is why it’s fair to say male shitlibs are wonanly: they attack using the verbal tactics preferred by women. Low T does that to a man.

The shitlib reporter hit Trump with the dating trap equivalent of a girl asking a man if he’s dating anyone else. “Donald, are you seeing David Duke, or any other proudly White supporters? Because if you are we can’t keep dating.”

Trump handled the David Duke question with his usual ZFG alpha male aplomb. “If it makes you feel better, sure I’ll do that for you…” is a huge neg. He basically called the reporter a wussy who needed a better man to stroke his delicate schoolgirl ego.

Neutralzing shitlib journalist beta bait is the same as neutralizing beta bait from women: Ignore it and plow into your favored topic, or reframe it as evidence of a character deficiency of your interlocutor. Either way, remember rule #1: NEVER APOLOGIZE. This includes never acting defensively, or butthurt with the accusation, or offended that your honor has been besmirched. Own the room, own conversation, own your antagonist.

Shitlib: “Do you agree that this latest tragedy of two white reporters shot dead means that we need stricter gun control?”

A Soldier Of Trump: “That’s interesting. Do you think a gun wrote the killer’s anti-White racist manifesto?”

If you can game women, you can game the leftoid media. If you can game the leftoid media, you win.

Read Full Post »

The Reactionary Tree (Twatter handle @ReactionaryTree) created a trolling campaign that combines White nationalism with Game. Tinder is the medium of choice for the beta testing stage of White Nationalist Game (WNG).

The line used to pick up girls on Tinder is simple, and unambiguous (and goes by the 14/88-evocative name “The 14 Words”).

“We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White Children.”

(The proper noun capitalization of “White Children” elevates this line from mere troll to art form.)

The responses — gathered at 8chan /pol/ — from attractive girls are, perhaps unsurprisingly, very positive. Or at the least very intrigued. (And in the arena of seduction, making a girl curious about you is as good as a win.)

You’ll notice in the above that the man’s reply is much shorter than the woman’s. Laconic Jerkboy Game rape!

Chicks dig a man who makes demands.

Never trust a woman who hates kids. That goes double for white women who only profess love for kids of other races.

“To show importance. With intrigue.” :lol:

Is anyone surprised that an antiracism liberal chick doesn’t want kids? I’m heartened every time I hear one of these conformist dolts swear her everlasting childlessness. Clean out the gene pool of their kind.

This girl qualifies herself HARD. It’s but a short hop to the bedroom when a girl qualifies herself so vehemently to your White standards.

I predict this convo above will excite a few readers to 100+ comment marathons.

My sides… they’re splitting!

Agree and amplify: Game 101.

But this last one might be my favorite:

This post is like some syncretic intersectionality of major, if superficially disparate, Chateau themes.

White Nationalist Game may have been intended as a trolling operation with high comedic value, but in fact many of the responses to it from lovely White women have shown that there’s real Game applicability to mine. WNG demonstrates the value of:

  1. short and sweet replies to girls
  2. never apologizing for your bold anti-sjw pronouncements
  3. qualifying girls
  4. agree&amplify
  5. having a ZERO FUCKS GIVEN alpha male attitude.

How about that. Game can save a future for White Children!

Read Full Post »

Scott Adams wrote a couple of short essays on The Trumpening that are basically recitations of core game concepts (some of which are retrofitted from ideas first introduced by Robert Cialdini in his book Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion). You will find many of Scott’s points, and Trump’s tactics, explained in depth in the CH archives.

Would Trump use his negotiation and persuasion skills in the campaign? Of course he would. And we expect him to do just that. […]

As I said in my How to Fail book, if you are not familiar with the dozens of methods of persuasion that are science-tested, there’s a good chance someone is using those techniques against you.

For example, when Trump says he is worth $10 billion, which causes his critics to say he is worth far less (but still billions) he is making all of us “think past the sale.” The sale he wants to make is “Remember that Donald Trump is a successful business person managing a vast empire mostly of his own making.” The exact amount of his wealth is irrelevant.

When a car salesperson trained in persuasion asks if you prefer the red Honda Civic or the Blue one, that is a trick called making you “think past the sale” and the idea is to make you engage on the question of color as if you have already decided to buy the car. That is Persuasion 101 and I have seen no one in the media point it out when Trump does it.

“Think past the sale” is the same as the game technique known as “assume the sale“. The results of this form of persuasion/seduction are just as predictable: the customer/woman is groomed to believe he/she has already chosen your product/you.

The $10 billion estimate Trump uses for his own net worth is also an “anchor” in your mind. That’s another classic negotiation/persuasion method. I remember the $10 billion estimate because it is big and round and a bit outrageous. And he keeps repeating it because repetition is persuasion too.

I don’t remember the smaller estimates of Trump’s wealth that critics provided. But I certainly remember the $10 billion estimate from Trump himself. Thanks to this disparity in my memory, my mind automatically floats toward Trump’s anchor of $10 billion being my reality. That is classic persuasion. And I would be amazed if any of this is an accident. Remember, Trump literally wrote the book on this stuff.

Anchoring is another insidiously effective game technique. In seduction, anchoring is most effective when a good feeling or evoked emotion is purposefully coupled with a physical touch, so that the woman associates her positive state with her seducer’s presence.

You might be concerned that exaggerating ones net worth is like lying, and the public will not like a liar. But keep in mind that Trump’s value proposition is that he will “Make America Great.” In other words, he wants to bring the same sort of persuasion to the question of America’s reputation in the world. That concept sounds appealing to me. The nation needs good brand management, whether you think Trump is the right person or not.

In game parlance, “branding” is called “creating an identity”, which means adopting some sexy persona that appeals to women.

Trump also said he thinks Mexico should pay for the fence, which made most people scoff. But if your neighbor’s pit bull keeps escaping and eating your rosebushes, you tell the neighbor to pay for his own fence or you will shoot his dog next time you see it.

Scott Adams definitely reads Chateau Heartiste.

On a recent TV interview, the host (I forget who) tried to label Trump a “whiner.” But instead of denying the label, Trump embraced it and said was the best whiner of all time, and the country needs just that. That’s a psychological trick I call “taking the high ground” and I wrote about it in a recent blog post. The low ground in this case is the unimportant question of whether “whiner” is a fair label for Trump. But Trump cleverly took the high ground, embraced the label, and used it to set an anchor in your mind that he is the loudest voice for change. That’s some clown genius for you.

In game parlance, “taking the high ground” means “Agree&Amplify“. Donald F’ing Trump is a skilled Game practitioner. No wonder the women in his life are so beautiful and adore him so deeply.

When Trump raised his hand at the debate as the only person who would not pledge to back the eventual Republican candidate, he sent a message to the party that the only way they can win is by nominating him. And people like to win. It is in their nature.

Trump is a winner. This is why he bugs cuckservatives so much.

And what about Trump’s habit of bluster and self-complimenting? Every time he opens his mouth he is saying something about the Trump brand being fabulous or amazing or great. The rational part of your brain thinks this guy is an obnoxious, exaggerating braggart. But the subconscious parts of your brain (the parts that make most of your decisions) only remember that something about that guy was fabulous, amazing and great.

Game concept: DHVing (demonstrating higher value).

Now that Trump owns FOX, and I see how well his anchor trick works with the public, I’m going to predict he will be our next president.

I don’t know if we’ll have a President Trumpening (in’shallah), but if we do it’ll be because Trump has TIGHT GAME. And balls.

Now, if you can become president using game, imagine how much game could help you clean up with women!

Here’s Scott’s second essay on Trump’s power of persuasion.

My main point is that intellectual arguments lose to visual arguments and to powerful associations such as “America” and “great.” You think Trump is spouting calorie-free non-policies because he’s an idiot who hasn’t done his homework. The reality (as far as I can tell) is that he’s playing three-dimensional chess with two-dimensional opponents.

Beta spergs take note: you will never logically or intellectually stimulate a woman into bed. You have to learn to speak the language of hotnsexynsteamynsensual romance, which is, in fact, as learnable as any rule of logic inquiry.


Scott Walker is a niceguy who for the most part has his head on straight, compared to the rest of the cuckservative field. But he is weak. Listen to him feebly try to reason with some mud invader who wants the US to do nothing less than bend over and take his burrito up the keister.

Commenter “Original” writes,

Trump reframes children of illegal immigrants as: “It’s an issue of our countries policies encouraging this behavior.”

Here’s a more powerful reframe: “Anyone who breaks this country’s immigration laws for their own benefit is a delinquent. Shame on all illegals for breaking the law, but especially shame on all illegals who drag their children into their criminal activity.”

The anointed GOP contenders are weak. This is why they fail. And this is why Trump wins.

Read Full Post »

There is a relatively new class of troll who bears a striking resemblance to the well-known “concern troll”, but who is in some respects far more insidious in his methodology and ability to derail comment threads on blogs devoted to the teachings of the charisma arts. I call this new breed the “game contradictions troll”.

A classic example of the game contradictions troll is this comment by “The Shrike” (who may not necessarily be an insincere troll, but whose complaint nonetheless serves as an ideal representative of the sort of comment a game contradictions troll would leave).

A lot of sound advice in this post. It looks like the author is slowly shifting away from the unabashed, detached Lothario pose to a more conservative outlook on life. Conservative values are not my own, but it seems that this is a more consistent approach when it comes to the opinions often professed by the author and most of the commenters here. A recurrent theme is the impending collapse of the Western civilization, largely caused by female hypergamy. The majority seems to abhor the fact modern women ride the proverbial “cock-carousel”, seemingly forgetting that no amount of game would be effective against uptight prudes who only ever do it after marriage, and only to procreate.

Game contradictions trolls thrive on a studied ignorance or disavowal of the true fact of life that there are different standards for the sexes, and that these standards are not set by men, but by nature, and men merely conform to these sexual market standards and rationalize their fairness (or unfairness) when it suits them, (we are not a rational species, we are a rationalizing species).

No one on this board has claimed that female hypergamy is the prime cause of Western decline. Female hypergamy is one of those differing sexual market standards that apply to women and not to men, and that can’t be wished away. The assertion often made at CH is that female hypergamy is a real phenomenon, and it is best to accept the reality of it and MAKE IT WORK FOR YOU rather than shake your fist ineffectually at it in hopes women magically cure themselves of their evolved desire to mate with, and extract the commitment of, the highest status men that their looks can realistically afford.

Riding the cock carousel is NOT necessarily a manifestation of female hypergamy. The cock carousel is the consequence of socially atomized anonymous urban environments coupled with contraceptives and economic self-sufficiency providing cover and incentive for women to indulge the part of their sexuality that yearns for dominant, charming, jerkboy cads who are hard to pin down into committed relationships. This is not female hypergamy fulfilled, but female hypergamy THWARTED, as it is the Darwinian directive of every woman to land the most desirable alpha man and to KEEP HIM AROUND.

There is an interesting clash of contradicting attitudes here. Not arguments between different posters, but internally inconsistent opinions voiced by the same people. Game is still a hallowed topic, not to be touched with a mortal hand, but it runs counter to the otherwise conservative leanings of the commenters. A stable family-unit, also much cherished around here, is mutually exclusive to widespread promiscuity exemplified by men who “game” women, and women who are willing to play along.

Another category error made often and reliably by trolls and anti-game haters. “Game” is not synonymous with promiscuity, although game certainly aids the pursuit of promiscuity if that is what is desired. A man could just as easily use game — aka learned charisma — to meet, seduce, date, and when the time is right, marry the most beautiful oneitis he has ever laid eyes on. I wouldn’t recommend it, but there you go.

Ultimately, there is a choice to be made if a man is to be congruent at the most basic level. Either champion a virtuous society where loyalty matters a lot, and people pair up with the intention of forming serious relationships. Or support the cad lifestyle where jumping from one woman to the next without any consideration is the norm.

Men have a longer SMV window than women and bear a smaller cost for each act of copulation than do women, which means in practice each man can, and should, get some romantic experience under his belt (heh) and then marry, if he wishes to marry, a younger woman. The fact of biologically grounded sex differences which aren’t going anywhere means that cadding about is always going to be less psychologically, reproductively and emotionally expensive for men than slutting around will be for women.

If it’s the latter, then it’s difficult to blame women for trying to do the same.

First, most women aren’t interested in doing the same, despite transparently try-hard protestations to the contrary by fat, bitter feminists. Second, it’s not difficult to blame the women trying to emulate the lifestyle of the alpha male cad for their short-sightedness. Different sex-based standards in the sexual market, and different sex-based psychosexual temperaments, are an emergent fact of life, not a directive handed down by the invisible pimp hand of the patriarchy.

If it’s the former, then much of the game concept goes out the window, though some aspects of getting a chosen female interested presumably are still useful.

How about, “game gives men the tools to successfully attract and keep women in sexual and emotional relationships.” There. That’s not so hard now, is it?

Read Full Post »

His motormouth. (Which is a stand-in for his narcissism, not necessarily a bad thing in a man gunning for the grandest of thrones.)

I’ve know quite a few socially savvy, silver-tongued men who, like Trump, were skilled in the art of the deal pickup persuasion. These men knew they had a rare talent, and exploited their advantages ruthlessly. But that talent was also, sometimes, their undoing. A man in love with his voice and the effect it has on people will find it hard to resist the temptation to use it to excess.

If CH were Trump’s campaign adviser, this is what I would tell him. “Don’t second-guess yourself, but equally don’t become too publicly enamored of yourself. You’ll get sloppy. Keep it tight and quietly, to yourself, check your pride on occasion. And cut back on the late night Tweets.”

Giving Trump the benefit of the doubt (and why not? he’s earned it), he may be rightly calculating that it’s crucial to make a big splash in the early rounds, pick up momentum, and later, when his frontrunner status is secure, dispense his fighting words more sparingly, and delegate more of his broadsides to subordinates he can trust not to fold like weepy vaginas, because a King — or a King-in-waiting — doesn’t get into the mud with his yapping toy dog antagonists.

Read Full Post »

You’re going to hear a lot of mewling by cuckservatives this election cycle — as you have heard from them for the last, oh, eight election cycles — about the GOP needing to be more “optimistic”, because “Americans want to hear a message of hope, (not nasty dispiriting truths).”

Ignore it. Do you know what an optimist buried to his neck in a rising tide of shit is called? A fool.

“Optimism” is cuck-code for “sweeping reality under the rug and continuing the sell-out of white Americans”.

PS Here are some ❤️heart-warming photos❤️ of international border walls from around the world.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,352 other followers

%d bloggers like this: