Archive for the ‘Status Is King’ Category

Jews in America struggled for decades to become white. Now we must give up whiteness to fight racism.

Let’s teach our children that we are, in fact, not white, but simply Jewish.

Giving up the burden of white privilege to “fight racism”, aka to “freely shit in the faces of flyover White goyim in perpetuity and pull the Eskimo card whenever there’s a faint whiff of wholly justified blowback against our machinations”. How magnanimous!

(If you wonder why I used the “our” possessive pronoun above, do note that the chosen-not-frozen author staked his dialectical ground using the royal “we”.)

Of course, this “white privilege” he wants to give up is actually the albatross of “white defenselessness” he doesn’t want hanging around his neck now that it’s open season on Whites in America. It’s easier to subvert the once-dominant-but-now-a-fag69 White culture when you can simultaneously evade collateral damage and also receive protection from return fire by claiming anti-White fringe coalition membership.

PS I’m gonna head off a stream of runny commenter shit and just remind everyone that genetic analysis has proven that Eskimos are predominantly half northern Italian-half Middle Eastern by ancestry, and are thus best described as being a distinct White ethnicity. (Also, later waves and generations likely absorbed a fair amount of Slav genes.)

Read Full Post »

The Dissidenti™™ and their frazzled hall monitors buzzsaw with talk about “cuckservatives.” It’s the shiv du jour, you see. As shivs go, it is in this ‘umble narrator’s opinion one of the more lethal of the semantic shanks employed by dark realists.

Lovers and haters of the Cuck Shiv gird for battle (well, the haters girdle for battle). The wielders love the twist of their shiny new toy. The haters brace defensively, shielding vitals. As well they should. CH commenters wonder, not without historical wonderment precedent for questions of Realtalk™ provenance aligned with Chateau themes, was it Heartiste who coined the “cuckservative” scarlet C? Answer: I don’t know. The first mention of it here is dated 24 Jun 2015. I suspect Poasting Whytes were first in the field with their version. Perhaps the term was independently formulated by multiple parties, inspired to simultaneous Phoenixian birth by the polluted cascade of daily poz.

I can tell you this for certain: The term “cuckold”, and its related emotional resonance, was thrust rudely into the public consciousness and popularized right here, at Chateau Heartiste, long before the current fascination with the pregnant (heh) weight of the slur. Kneejerk anti-truthers and perplexed alt-rightists scoffed at first contact with Le Chateau’s musings on the metadeath genetic threat cuckoldry poses to men, but in time even they began to see the value of the concept as a right and proper fitting metaphor for supplicants and sycophants and self-sodomizers of various stripes, which of course means they understood on a sub-discourse level the biomechanic sexual market truth implied by the insult.

To the gristle: What is a cuckservative?

Occam’s Razor ably decodes.

Very basically, the cuckservative is a white gentile conservative (or libertarian) who thinks he’s promoting his own interests but really isn’t.  In fact, the cuckservative is an extreme universalist and seems often to suffer from ethnomasochism & pathological altruism. In short, a cuckservative is a white (non-Jewish) conservative who isn’t racially aware.

That’s a serviceable academic description. I prefer something a leetle more… pungent.

CH definition: A cuckservative is a cowardly pussy who sucks up to leftoid equalists for mercy and pisses himself when he gets accused of racism, sexism, or anti-semitism.

Corollary to the above CH definition: The cuckservative will throw his brother and his nation under the bus if it means he keeps his token status as cog in the Hivemind machine. Those cocktail parties aren’t going to attend themselves!

So what’s the difference between a cuckservative and a garden variety shitlib? Delayed reaction. The cuckservative may or may not be a true believer in reality-denying feminism or anti-white antiracism, but he sure as hell knows to stick his crabbed finger in the air to see which cheek he should spread for his equalist overlord’s strap-on.

Some common traits of the species homo homo cuckservative:

– is quick to jump down the throat of any Realtalker.
– distances himself immediately from any ostensible ally who lets slip a jarring sin against the Narrative.
– will never once, not once, do or say something brave in his life.
– is at heart the rear-end of a lemming herd. won’t take a stand (or a plunge) until the numbers safely allow him to do so.
– is ignorant of or afraid to confront racial, ethnic, tribal truths.
– would rather bear witness to national decline and dissolution and preside over gross injustice than be on record that there are consequential race and sex differences beyond skin color and genitalia.
– thinks the only difference between the sexes that is acceptable to utter in public is the male penchant for gags and buttplugs. (he also projects wildly)
– dreadfully fears social ostracism, rendering him politically impotent.
– will force himself to clap loudly for pre-op Bruce Jenner, to coo falsely over mystery meat infants, to nod soberly in agreement when the pay gap lie is mentioned yet again as gospel truth, to pretend that Michelle Obama is attractive, and to insist women’s soccer is just as thrilling to watch as men’s soccer (which is not much thrilling to begin with).
– Will give every shrieking leftoid the benefit of the doubt while reflexively questioning the motives of every ballsy Realtalker.
– will preface every feeble tiptoe into his own Realtalk wading pool with an ass-covering “To be sure…” or a spastic impromptu paean to Martin Luther King, Jr.
– backs down with a quickness at roundtable debates with aggressive liberals.
– the only topics on which he won’t back down are taxes on the oligarchs and fighting terrorists over there so we don’t have to fight them here (while insisting open borders are American as apple pie and that muslim dude who shot dead a platoon of Christian soldiers was really a victim of discrimination and now, now, let’s not get crazy and question our shared enthusiasm for increasing Diversity™ in the military).
– will intone “diversity is our strength” while commuting home to an upscale gated community that is 98% White and 2% East Asian.
– exclaims “content of our character”, “fighting for freedom”, “blacks kill other blacks more than any other race”, and “hispanics are natural conservatives” without a hint of ironic detachment.
– has probably sexually molested a young boy sometime before his political career took off.

Cuckservatives are even more loathsome than true blue leftoid believers in the antiwhite progrom, because at least you can say the latter are loyal to a personal, if mortally twisted, ethos. The cuckservative is loyal to nothing but personal aggrandizement. The cuckservative so easily betrays his stated principles because, in fact, he has no principles. He is a globocorporate transnational post-american striver SWPL just as much as any of his ultraliberal co-evals, minus the overt eagerness for estate taxes and nationalized healthcare, and he’ll be damned if he’ll let some flyover smart-ass with an eye for both the big picture and the demonic detail to destabilize his easy-livin’ sinecure.

Given this list of characteristics, the “cuckold” root of the cuckservative metaphor is exceedingly apt. The cuckservative is, in habit of mind and sometimes in practice, that pathetic white man with noodle arms and crusted tear tracks sitting hunched on a stool in the corner of his bedroom watching, with willing fervor, his ecstatic white wife get pounded into post-white release by a buck nigra who eats his food and kicks his ass when the fridge needs refilling.

Yes, he’ll sit there nicely and putter with his pud while his wife (nation) gets banged out by another man (nonwhites, third world immigrants), as long as no one mistakes him for a small town prole who can’t tell the nose difference between a merlot and a pinot noir.

The cuckservative is cucked by antagonistic races, by antagonistic ideologies, by antagonistic corporate masters, by antagonistic talk show hosts, by antagonistic fat losers editorializing on the internet equivalent of teen beat gossip rags.

All he wants is their approval. A pat on the head from his sworn and intractable enemies. He swears he’ll keep his hands to himself and won’t cum until instructed to do so!

He is a low self-esteem, approval-seeking, whimpering cumlapper.

He is dog shit.

But there is hope.

Amazingly, some cuckservatives are LITERAL CUCKSERVATIVES. Commenter james1 peruses a few famous biographies,

It’s interesting that even though the Boehner family and the Bush family are Republicans, they are bigger race mixers than the Kennedy family and the Clinton family are Democrats. Jeb Bush married a Mestiza who looks like the maid at your local Motel 6 or Days Inn and John Boehner’a daughter married a Jamaican pothead who is a wannabe Bob Marley.

Also the Republican John McCain adopted a very dark skin girl from Sri Lanka while JFK/Jackie O and Bill/Hillary who are Democrats never adopted any Nonwhite children.

Literal cuckservatives take their prostrate mewling before the antiwhite mob a little too seriously. But with a familial C.V. like, for example, Boehner’s or ¡Jabe!’s, is it a surprise that these self-abnegating genetic dead ends can’t think clearly on the subject of race, borders, nation?

As Occam’s Razor puts it,

On the other hand, the idea of whites acting as a group to secure their own interests terrifies the cuckservative. If you ever want to troll a cuckservative, just repeatedly use the word “white,”  such as “this isn’t beneficial for the white community.”  The cuckservative will be triggered immediately.

Nobody gets triggered like a nancygoy cuckservative gets triggered. Truly pathetic specimens of manhood. Wasn’t Boehner the puffboy who blubbered like a baby on stage recollecting his time in the bathhouses of the Castro District? With “leaders” and “representatives” like him, who needs an opposition party? If Boehner wants a real reason to cry, he should reflect on his daughter’s coal burning, doing her part to destroy an aesthetic, cultural, and genetic heritage 20,000 years in the making.

The Cuckservative: Re-raising equalist leftoids, because, hey, he’s got something to disprove.

Read Full Post »

Steve Sailer contemplates the riddle of women and their whoring for handbag status. It’s a worthy topic, because handbags appear to confer no sexual market advantage to women, and yet women spend inordinate time and money acquiring the latest trendy makeup container. “Hey, sexy mama, I noticed your Birkin handbag, and it is turning me on!”… said no straight man ever.

“But, CH…” you ask, “if, as you claim, the sexual market is the one market to rule them all, how do you explain women and handbags?”

Easy there, brosephus. I think the best explanation is the one Steve gave: Women use handbags as a signal they can carry with them everywhere to advertise the alpha male-ness of their husbands/lovers, and the women’s ability to secure commitment from their alpha men. Since most people will presume the burn money for the handbag came from a soulmate wealthy male donor, the pricey handbag serves as a relatively inoffensive proxy for a woman’s own SMV.

Why the connection between alpha males and HSMV women? Because we subconsciously know in our ape-shaped brains that the more attractive a woman, the better able she will be to land herself a high status man who, himself, will have the options open to him to capture the interest of beautiful women.

Why doesn’t the kept woman just flaunt her pretty face and sexy body to send the same signal more directly? Because in the world of alpha males with sexual market options and the women who circle them like hawks, that is a little too threatening to other HSMV women in her social milieu. She risks total social ostracism from other women if she sluts it up beyond the acceptable norm for her group.

I have another theory about women and handbags that parsimoniously bridges their behavior to the primary demands of the sexual market: Handbags are a sort of runaway sexual selection module gone haywire, similar to brawn on men, a secondary sexual display in men that is still attractive to Western women despite the environmental conditions having radically changed so that male muscularity is no longer needed for survival. But some men take it too far, bulking up in the gym well beyond the point of usefulness, and most women don’t have any special preference for men with bloated roid muscles.

The handbag, under the female inverse of this theory, is just an extension of a sexy, hip-hugging cocktail dress and beautifying makeup. The former do increase a woman’s sexual appeal to men, and women, knowing this on a deep limbic level, have evolved to maximize their efforts at improving their appearance. This evolution for female self-beautification has “spun out of orbit”, resulting in the modern predilection for collecting and showcasing feminine accessories like handbags, despite male indifference to them.


Philomathean adds some heft to the sexual market primacy theory of female handbag collection,

Handbagism is a signal of aggression females employ to communicate the accumulation of tangible and intangible resources.

This is a good point. Women can be aggressive with one another, but their particular brand of aggression doesn’t make headlines or rouse moral umbrage because it isn’t delivered through fists and projectile weapons. “Handbagism” is aggressive signaling to other women who could be potential poachers of husbands and boyfriends. An expensive handbag is one way a woman intimidates her competition from entering the arena. It says, “Hey, my man is fully committed to me, and deeply in love with me, as you can see by all the stuff he lavishes me with, so you’d be wasting your time trying to seduce him away from me.”

Remember, sexual infidelity is a man’s worst fear, while love and resource infidelity are a woman’s worst fear.

Read Full Post »

Ah, dat jerkboy charisma. Chicks dig it. If you’ve been a regular guest of the Chateau, you’ll know why chicks dig jerks, and you’ll know why cultivating your inner jerkboy is a pillar of Game teachings.

For a long time, CH was out there, a retreat in the deep wood willing to preach the Rude Word to any lost and yearning soul stumbling along the stony path leading to the ancient oak doors. Few knew of our secretive hideaway, fewer still could grasp the revolutionary nature of our message.

But our mischievous proselytizing has finally breached the sound barrier of the mainstream information gatekeepers (and from the reaction to their first line of defense crumbling, they don’t like it). As one reader who forwarded the following article wrote,

The substance of this article will present no surprises.  The tone of the author, apologetic and disturbed by the findings, will also present no surprises.

Not at all. The Atlantic is the latest Hivemind organ to hate itself for falling in love with Le Chateau.

Why It Pays to Be a Jerk

New research confirms what they say about nice guys.

The suspense is killing me! I hope it lasts.

At the University of Amsterdam, researchers have found that semi-obnoxious behavior not only can make a person seem more powerful, but can make them more powerful, period. The same goes for overconfidence. Act like you’re the smartest person [ed: or sexiest man] in the room, a series of striking studies demonstrates, and you’ll up your chances of running the show.

The Atlantic agrees with CH that overconfidence is the heart of game.

People will even pay to be treated shabbily: snobbish, condescending salespeople at luxury retailers extract more money from shoppers than their more agreeable counterparts do.

Seduction is the art of selling yourself to women. And just as it is in the realm of business sales, snobbish, entitled jerkboys are the most successful at selling their promise of pleasures to women.

“We believe we want people who are modest, authentic, and all the things we rate positively” to be our leaders, says Jeffrey Pfeffer, a business professor at Stanford. “But we find it’s all the things we rate negatively”—like immodesty—“that are the best predictors of higher salaries or getting chosen for a leadership position.”

Humans aren’t a rational species; they’re a rationalizing species.

“What happens if you put a python and a chicken in a cage together?,” Pfeffer asked him. The former student looked lost. “Does the python ask what kind of chicken it is? No. The python eats the chicken.”

“You’re like a big bear with claws and with fangs…and she’s just like this little bunny, who’s just kinda cowering in the corner.”

But, careful… all jerk and no softie makes Jack a d-bag.

In Grant’s framework, the mentor in this story would be classified as a “taker,” which brings us to a major complexity in his findings. Givers dominate not only the top of the success ladder but the bottom, too, precisely because they risk exploitation by takers.

All well and good. You can’t expect to lord it over all the people all the time without attention given to your reception. However… if you HAD to choose between being a niceguy and a 24/7 asshole…


Consider the following two scenes. In the first, a man takes a seat at an outdoor café in Amsterdam, carefully examines the menu before returning it to its holder, and lights a cigarette. When the waiter arrives to take his order, he looks up and nods hello. “May I have a vegetarian sandwich and a sweet coffee, please?” he asks. “Thank you.”

In the second, the same man takes the same seat at the same outdoor café in Amsterdam. He puts his feet up on an adjoining seat, taps his cigarette ashes onto the ground, and doesn’t bother putting the menu back into its holder. “Uh, bring me a vegetarian sandwich and a sweet coffee,” he grunts, staring past the waiter into space. He crushes the cigarette under his shoe.

Dutch researchers staged and filmed each scene as part of a 2011 study designed to examine “norm violations.” Research stretching back to at least 1972 had shown that power corrupts, or at least disinhibits. High-powered people are more likely to take an extra cookie from a common plate, chew with their mouths open, spread crumbs, stereotype, patronize, interrupt, ignore the feelings of others, invade their personal space, and claim credit for their contributions. “But we also thought it could be the other way around,” Gerben van Kleef, the study’s lead author, told me. He wanted to know whether breaking rules could help people ascend to power in the first place.

Yes, he found. The norm-violating version of the man in the video was, in the eyes of viewers, more likely to wield power than his politer self. And in a series of follow-up studies involving different pairs of videos, participants, responding to prompts, made statements such as “I would like this person as my boss” and “I would give this person a promotion.”

“I would open my legs for this jerk.”

Ok, if being a jerkboy is so personally rewarding, the inevitable question follows,

Instead of asking why some people bully or violate norms, researchers are asking: Why doesn’t everyone? […]

“That’s a complexity of humans,” Faris says: it was not until after the human-chimpanzee split that Homo sapiens developed a newer, uniquely human path to power. Scholars call it “prestige.”

There are different kinds of ways to project power (and consequently arouse women). “Prestige” is better-known to students of Game as Demonstrating Higher Value.

The Atlantic even goes so far to wonder if the Game axiom “Fake it till you create it” is a real thing:

I did wonder, though: Could the apprentice actors [tasked with acting irrationally confident], given enough time, come to inhabit their roles more fully? Anderson noted that self-delusion among his study’s participants could have been the product of earlier behaviors. “Maybe they faked it until they made it and that became them.” We are what we repeatedly do, as Aristotle observed.

Ripped from the Chateau headlines.

In fact, it’s easy to see how an initial advantage derived from a lack of self-awareness, or from a deliberate attempt to fake competence, or from a variety of other, similar heelish behaviors could become permanent. Once a hierarchy emerges, the literature shows, people tend to construct after-the-fact rationalizations about why those in charge should be in charge.

“Once a woman falls hard for a charming jerkboy, she tends to construct after-the-fact rationalizations about why the jerk she loves should be her soulmate.”

Likewise, the experience of power leads people to exhibit yet more power-signaling behaviors (displaying aggressive body language, taking extra cookies from the common plate).

Success with women breeds more success with women.

It is possible, of course, to reframe Anderson’s conclusions so that, for instance, initiative is itself a competence, in which case groups would be selecting their leaders more rationally than he supposes. But is a loudmouth the same thing as a leader?

aka the “bustamove” theory of Game.

So what is that special sauce that jerkboys have which flavors a woman’s life? Or anyone’s life?

When I thought about whether I had friends or associates who fit Aaron James’s definition of an asshole, I could come up with two. I couldn’t pinpoint why I spent time with them, other than the fact that life seemed larger, grander—like the world was a little more at your feet—when they were around.

“I want more LIFE, fucker!”

Then I thought of the water skis.

Some friends had rented a powerboat. We had already taken it out on the water when someone remarked, above the engine noise, that it was too bad we didn’t have any water skis. That would have been fun.

Within a few minutes, an acquaintance I will call Jordan had the boat pulled up to a dock where a boy of maybe 8 or 9 was alone. Do you have any water skis?

The boy seemed unprepared for the question. Not really, he said. There might be some in storage, but only his parents would know. Well, would you be a champ and run back to the house and ask them? The boy did not look like he wanted to. But he did.

The rest of us in the boat shared the boy’s astonishment (Who asks that sort of question?), his reluctance to turn a nominally polite encounter into a disagreeable one, and perhaps the same paralysis: no one said anything to stop the exchange. But that’s the thing. Spend time with the Jordans of the world and you’re apt to get things you are not entitled to—the choice table at the overbooked restaurant, the courtside tickets you’d never ask for yourself—without ever having to be the bad guy. The transgression was Jordan’s. The spoils were the group’s.

The transgression is the jerkboy’s. The romantic spoils are the women’s.

Isolating the effects of taker behavior on group welfare is exactly what van Kleef, the Dutch social psychologist, and fellow researchers set out to do in their coffee-pot study of 2012.

At first blush, the study seems simple. Two people are told a cover story about a task they’re going to perform. One of them—a male confederate used in each pair throughout the study—steals coffee from a pot on a researcher’s desk. What effect does his stealing have on the other person’s willingness to put him in charge?

The answer: It depends. If he simply steals one cup of coffee for himself, his power affordance shrinks slightly. If, on the other hand, he steals the pot and pours cups for himself and the other person, his power affordance spikes sharply. People want this man as their leader.

Women want to join a jerk’s world because they want to be taken on a mutually satisfying adventure.

I related this to Adam Grant. “What about the person who gets resources for the group without stealing coffee?” he asked. “That’s a comparison I would like to see.”

It was a comparison, actually, that van Kleef had run. When the man did just that—poured coffee for the other person without stealing it—his ratings collapsed. Massively. He became less suited for leadership, in the eyes of others, than any other version of himself.

If you’re nothing but a niceguy, people will come to despise you because you will be giving away your generosity as if it was worthless.

[C]ould rudeness cause other people to open their wallets too?

The answer was a qualified yes. When it came to “aspirational” brands like Gucci, Burberry, and Louis Vuitton, participants were willing to pay more in a scenario in which they felt rejected. But the qualifications were major. A customer had to feel a longing for the brand, and if the salesperson did not look the image the brand was trying to project, condescension backfired. For mass-market retailers like the Gap, American Eagle, and H&M, rejection backfired regardless.

This qualification exists in the field of pickup too. Acting like an egotistic jerk while hitting on fatties projects an incongruence. Hotties will scorn you, and the fatties will feel even more “devalidated” than they did before you leveled your very special attention on them. Interestingly, this aspect of jerkitude verifies the game technique of peacocking. If you stand out in a little way from the crowd of betas, your jerky charisma will be better received because you’ll be projecting a “brand image” of a man who breaks norms.

Luxury retail is a very specific realm. But the study also points toward a bigger and more general qualification of the advantage to being a jerk: should something go wrong, jerks don’t have a reserve of goodwill to fall back on.

This is why you’ve gotta mix up your jerkballs with some slow pitches, especially if you want a long-term relationship with a girl. A jerkboy can keep a woman spinning in a dizzying drama orbit for a long time, but eventually, should a major fault line erupt, she’ll come back down to earth, and if you haven’t provided at least a little padding for her landing the crash could be spectacular.

([Being a jerk] is also marginally more likely to fail you, several studies suggest, if you’re a woman.)

Contrary popular but embittered feminist belief, men don’t dig bitches (unless they’re smoking hot).

Yet in at least three situations, a touch of jerkiness can be helpful. […] The third—not fully explored here, but worth mentioning—is when the group’s survival is in question, speed is essential, and a paralyzing existential doubt is in the air.

Jerkitude is really helpful to your game right at that precarious decision-making point of your first meeting with a girl. When she’s wondering if you’re an interesting man she’d like to get to know is when being a jerk will nudge her in the direction of wanting more of you.

But can you become the jerk women love? There’s an anecdote in the article about an entrepreneur whose life changed after he joined the Marine Corp. His time in the Marines made him more aggressive. He learned how “to go from 15 to 95 real quick”. He did this so often that his personality permanently changed to a new, jerky valence, and it carried over later into business success.

Learning to become a jerk is just like learning Game,

Without that kind of modulation—without getting a little outside our comfort zone, at least some of the time—we’re all probably less likely to reach our goals, whether we’re prickly or pleasant by disposition.

You have to get outside your comfort zone. Not a lot. Just a little push against your comfy boundaries is enough to mold you into a better man.

He believes that the most effective people are “disagreeable givers”—that is, people willing to use thorny behavior to further the well-being and success of others.

No man is a jerk store unto himself. Speaking of “disagreeable givers”, that appellation fits a lot of natural players I’ve known. They are rude and shocking and arrogant, but are also sometimes surprisingly generous, and the recipients of the jerks’ generosity value it so much more than they would from a niceguy because they are preconditioned to assume the jerk had to sacrifice a lot more “character capital” to be generous with them. It’s like getting a pat on the back from the CEO versus getting slavish praise from the mailroom grunt.

Smile at the customer. Take the initiative. Tweak a few rules. Steal cookies for your colleagues. Don’t puncture the impression that you know what you’re doing. Let the other person fill the silence. Get comfortable with discomfort. Don’t privilege your own feelings. Ask who you’re really protecting. Be tough and humane. Challenge ideas, not the people who hold them. Don’t be a slave to type.

Game 101.

And above all, don’t affix nasty, scatological labels to people.

I dunno about this one. I’ve found that girls love my occasional streaks of sadistic cruelty. Ever play the “marry fuck kill” game with a girl you’ve just met?

It’s a jerk move.


wait for it…

chicks dig it!

(this post was very meta-jerk.)

Read Full Post »

Male sexual entitlement – in its broader application, overconfidence – is attractive to women.

Here is an example of it in action (messages from girl on left):

Reader Blick Mang writes,

Please rewind to 2005, slap me in the face, and say “I fucking told you so.”

No further commentary required.

Thank you for it all.

You’re welcome.

Why do women love male sexual entitlement? It signals male status. What kind of man can afford to posture like a Lothario? What kind of man expects pussy to fall in his lap? That’s right, a high status man. A man, in other words, that other women want. Entitlement <-> status <-> female preselection. This is the wondrous feedback loop that traps vaginas in amplifying oscillations of raw tinglage.

As an exercise for newer readers, here’s the breakdown of Mang’s message game:

GIRL: …that is all I deserve?

MANG: We’ll have to see. 8===D

Instead of offering tributes to her achievement of being born with a vagina, Mang challenges her to make him a more generous man. The universal Dick Signal is, shall we say, none too subtle innuendo.

GIRL: sorry, that kinda puts me off blah blah i’m not that kind of girl.

Now, if Mang were a beta, he would’ve tried to appease this indignant girl right around here. Most betas, sensing that a monster is growing within the girl they love, promptly revert to Supplication&Appeasement mode. “I don’t expect that. I meant to call you earlier. I don’t think of you that way” etc. Mang wisely avoids this manipulative female beta bait.

MANG: Eating my jelly beans puts me off. :)

Tingles are born in the defensive crouch. Nice reframe. (Prolly could’ve dropped the winkie.) This one liner contains some powerful subcommunication that affects girls’ behavior. Its subtext says to a girl, “I’m not going to apologize for being a man, and if you go I won’t lose a wink of sleep.”

The girl sticks to her guns, but you can sense she’s weakening under the alpha onslaught.

GIRL: i deserve respect from you, even though i slept with you

Mang holds his frame.

MANG: See you tomorrow

Nice lack of punctuation.

GIRL: ok

Translation: Her pussy just exploded.

She’s defeated. Her euphoric defeat was so complete she mewled to see him a day earlier. Game recognized.

Read Full Post »

In a word: Credentialism.

Credentialism, as defined by CH, is a system where the signaling value of a credential exceeds the content value of the acquired knowledge implied by the credential.

Keep this definition in mind, because it will explain a lot about the shortcomings of assortative mating data.

Assortative mating is the theory that people pair up according to social class, which in modern America is nearly synonymous with educational class. Proponents of assortative mating theory speculate that a cognitive elite — and perhaps soon a racial elite — is evolving from the observed mate choices of the upper classes to marry solely among themselves. Sort of like an “educated class inbreeding”. The mechanism by which educated class inbreeding happens is through meeting one’s mate on college campus, or later at the office or within social circles, both of which tend to be segregated by smarts and its proxy, college degree.

The more generations that pass through the filter of selective breeding for credentials, the likelier that a distinct race of übermensch becomes a permanent piece of the American social scene. A Bindi-style caste system is not far behind.

The flaw in assortative mating theory lies in its major premise: That credentials are as accurate a gauge of smarts and knowledge and social class now as they were in the past.

There’s no doubt women have flooded academia, and now outnumber men on campus by a nontrivial margin.

The fact that the female representation in college has risen so dramatically in such a short time period tells us that genetics are not the driving factor. Women did not suddenly become smarter, nor did they become smarter than men, during their rise to higher ed prominence. No, what happened instead is one-parent families became unaffordable in The Disunited States of Diversity, and, more pertinently, the average college degree lost a lot of its value.

Crudely, women have flooded into college to earn shit degrees like Communications, English, Education, and Women’s Studies.

Liberal arts degrees are useless degrees, because everything you’d wind up doing in a cubicle job with such a degree can be learned in two weeks if you have half a brain. In fact, these degrees are worse than useless, because they saddle women with a mountain of debt that they must pay off by marrying in their dried-up 30s a no-game-having, scarcity-mentality, provider beta male.

The uselessness of humanities degrees to real world value creation is exacerbated by the diversity industrial memeplex, which has further eroded the college cachet by the necessity of dumbing down and grade inflating the degree programs that vibrant students swarm into on the largesse of creator class endowment money.

What you are staring at is the twisted face of credentialism, the college debt racket and status whore end game that proves nothing except that women can be gifted conformist suck-ups in the stampede to earn a parchment declaring them competent at arranging client meetings, thinking inside the box, and mingling with white collar men who satisfy their hypergamous desire.

Empty, status striving credentialism is the reason assortative mating theory is flawed. Men and women aren’t matching up by IQ or class; they’re matching up by credential. Except that, on average, the men’s degrees are actually worth the paper they’re printed on.

Assortative credentialism is the more precise term for the marriage trend that we observe took off after women stormed the campus citadel. Conflating runaway credentialism with IQ misses the fact that today’s paper pushing woman with a communications degree was yesterday’s equally competent secretary with a high school degree, and perhaps even yesteryear’s farmhand mother with sharp instincts for survival.

So there will be no genetic überwench class. This isn’t to say an evolved cognitive elite is impossible; rather, what appears to be happening is less IQ stratification than a perverse reiteration of the patented CH BOSSS (Boss-Secretary Sexual Strategy) sexual market mechanism to reduce wealth and class inequality. The high school grad secretary of yore has been replaced by the college grad secretary of today. And as long as she stays thin and pretty, she’ll catch the eye of that high status man, and GSS data will erroneously pick this up as mate sorting primarily based on college experience or IQ.

There’s another flawed premise bedeviling assortative mating theory: It’s not really assortative MATING as much as it is assortative MARRYING. Whatever marriage trends we see between degreed SWPL women marrying degreed SWPL men are happening later and later in life, late 20s to early 30s. But before then, during those prime female nubility late teens and 20s, marriage rates are low among the “inbred educated class”. However, women aren’t waiting fifteen years in stark celibacy before assortatively marrying. There’s plenty of Pill and rubberized reproduction-thwarted mating going on between ages 15 and 30. The mating is what really animates men, moreso than the marrying. And women *are* assortatively mating, if by assortative we mean women are choosing to fuck sexy alpha cads who aren’t interested in footing the living expenses bills for women with feminist studies expertise who delight at the prospect of earning a paycheck to throw back mimosa-fueled single lady brunches.

Like I’ve said, it’s no coincidence that charismatic jerkboy game rose to prominence at the same time female college attendance and credentialism skyrocketed.


Audacious Epigone adds his pence to the assortative marrying topic.

Read Full Post »

The CH mailbag received a while back results from an unpublished study that added confirmation to the weight of evidence that househusbands (aka kitchen bitches, sexual egalitarians, plush manlets) have worse sex lives and unhappier wives. Quote from the original CH post:

When men are men and women are women, the sex is more frequent. And probably hotter, too. When men are scalzied manboobs and women are manjawed feminists, the bedroom is an arid wasteland of dashed passion.

Sexual polarity — the primal force that adheres the cosmic cock to the celestial snatch — is the truth of truths that belies every feminist assertion ever made in the history of that insipid, leprotic ideology.

We have to be careful, as we were left with explicit instructions to not reveal the source of the study or the precise study results. But this was too juicy to pass up, so an attempt will be made to paraphrase the important findings without risking confidentiality.

1. A woman’s sexual attraction and general satisfaction increases when her man does “masculine” chores like DIY projects or car repair. Her sexual attraction doesn’t budge when he does “feminine” household chores.

2. Households where men do most of the chores were those most likely to argue frequently about sex.

3. Female breadwinners argue more about finances, household chores *and* sex life. The less money the woman made relative to the man, the fewer arguments and the better her general relationship satisfaction.

4. Equal division of major financial decisions decreased attraction, feelings of love, and general satisfaction in the women, and this decrease was even stronger than the decrease seen when household chores were shared. The more responsibility the men had for financial decision-making, the more sexually and romantically satisfied their spouses/partners.

5. Men were more attracted to women the more the women cooked. So ladies, you can make your man happier by donning the apron and sizzling the bacon he brings home. (Sexist? Yes. Reality? Yes. You’ll just have to resolve your dissonance on your own time.)

6. Across the board, women who are breadwinners are less satisfied with everything.

7. Arguments about chores, money, sex life, and romance were highest in couples where the woman made all or most of the decisions. Female decision-making status was an even stronger determinant of relationship dissatisfaction than female breadwinner status. Women can handle making more money in a relationship, but they despise being the leader in a relationship.

8. Argument frequency decreased among female breadwinners if they were not the primary decision-makers. Lesson for men: You can have a happy relationship with a woman who makes more than you as long as you remain the dominant force in her non-work life. Or: GAME SAVES MARRIAGES.

9. Most dishearteningly for the equalist pissboys, men who do most of the chores in households where the woman is the breadwinner have the highest likelihood of frequent disagreements about chores, sex, and romance. Let that sink in: The more household work you do to compensate for your girlfriend or wife making more money than you, the bitchier she gets!

The source explains why this study has yet to be published:

But now that the findings are there [ed: N is large], they are reluctant to release this to the media. They fear that releasing such findings might create negative press for us instead of positive media attention. Their reluctance annoys me for many reasons, and I really want to get my study published. I have till XXXXXX to come up with a good reason for why they should publish this study. If they do, then my investment bank, a reputable objective third party would be behind this finding. Normally, they have the ability to circulate our studies through dozens of major media outlets (WSJ, NYT, NPR etc). Thus, it would be really helpful to getting this kind of idea into the public consciousness to have the study released through my investment bank.

But right now there are barriers to getting my study released. The marketing head isn’t very comfortable with the findings I gave her. She thinks it isn’t a story at all and doesn’t know how to market it. I want to somehow convince her to go forward with it. Can you help me come up with ideas? Right now, she says I have to “soften” it and come up with an explanation of what investment management people could do about these findings. Those recommended actions would have to be things HR would not frown on.

Another great example of how female-dominated HR retards progress and the pursuit of knowledge. But hey, everybody is kumbaya, so the sacrifice is worth it, right ladies?

Anyhow, a “softening” lede attuned to your particular clients’ sensibilities would be something like, “Financially responsible husbands make happier marriages.” Or, “A division of labor means an addition of love.”


Read Full Post »

Older Posts »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,351 other followers

%d bloggers like this: