Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Vanity’ Category

Instead of waving Indo-European symbols harkening 1939 Germany to herald a brighter, Whiter American future, why not choose this (or its cousin) as a logo:

Or, if you prefer a logo that trolls the skype media (and let’s face it, their combination of tribal supremacism, neuroticism, and anti-gentile sociopathy makes them very trollable (obligatory NAJALT and Yes Some Gentile Whites Are Like That Too but let’s take this moment to remember that the media is disproportionately filled with skype artists and until it’s cleansed of skypistry, dissidents will have to choose symbols that don’t automatically play into the hands of the gevaltishment)), then why not wear the insignia of a great revolution in thought:

I mean, if you must latch onto institutions and symbols that are on their way out because of their emotional value, then you may as well pick a team that has a history of glory and victory.

(Personally, my preferred rally uniform would consist of sexyasfuck dark jeans, a pec-fitting black t-shirt, an unequal symbol tattoo, and an American flag bandanna.)

Slap an American flag alongside these symbols and you’re good to go! What is the Chaimstream Media gonna do, label a proud boy crew of Christian crusaders for Truth and Beauty the equivalent of Nazis? Normies would riot.

If you listen to CH, Alt-Right “leaders”, you can’t go wrong. I’ve spent years in shitlibopolises, fucking shitlib chicks, fucking with shitlib dudes, subverting the shitlib establishment. I know how they think, what makes them tick. I know how to get under their skins. Throwing their leftist skypistry back in their faces drives them nuts. Playing EXACTLY to their hoped-for caricature of their enemies only fills them with glee.

Don’t fill leftoids with glee. Fill them with impotent rage. Their tantrums will be their undoing.

PS Photos have emerged of the Dodge Challenger that rammed a crowd of anti-whites being hit by baseball bats wielded by antifa losers just prior to delivering a fat shaming of epic proportions. This is pretty solid evidence that the ramming was not a premeditated attack but rather a panicked or enraged reaction from an alt-driver who justifiably assumed the crowd was gonna pull a Reginald Denny on him.

Read Full Post »

Current Year ¡SCIENCE! is continually affirming CH maxims about the sexes, but even old timey trustworthy science, from before the SJW and femcunt infestation warped the scientific method, clairvoyantly strokes the Heartiste ego.

From a 1987 research paper, a finding that should crush the spirits of sex equalists and Game denialists (h/t Mr. Roboto):

Dominance and Heterosexual Attraction

Four experiments examined the relation between behavioral expressions of dominance and the heterosexual attractiveness of males and females. Predictions concerning the relation between dominance and heterosexual attraction were derived from a consideration of sex role norms and from the comparative biological literature. All four experiments indicated an interaction between dominance and sex of target. Dominance behavior increased the attractiveness of males, but had no effect on the attractiveness of females. The third study indicated that the effect did not depend on the sex of the rater or on the sex of those with whom the dominant target interacted. The fourth study showed that the effect was specific to dominance as an independent variable and did not occur for related constructs (aggressive or domineering). This study also found that manipulated dominance enhanced only a male’s sexual attractiveness and not his general Usability. The results were discussed in terms of potential biological and cultural causal mechanisms.

It wasn’t that long ago that scientists were ballsy and fearless exposers of ugly truths. These mid-20th Century studies are a gold mine for realtalk unpolluted by political cowardice and libshit sophistry. 1987 was probably near the last year these brutally shivtastic studies made it past the Narrative enforcers.

Descriptions of traditional female role expectations either omit dominance as a relevant dimension or suggest that low dominance is an aspect of the feminine role. For instance, Broverman, Broverman, Clarkson, Rosenkrantz, and Vogel (1970) found that clinical professionals viewed the healthy woman as submissive and not competitive. The empirical literature on normative behavior for males and females thus suggests that striving for dominance and success (ascending a social hierarchy) is typically demanded of males and is frequently proscribed for females.

Submissive wife, happy life.

Although females do compete for positions in status hierarchies, there is no available evidence to suggest that their achieved dominance or rank is positively related to their attractiveness to males.

This is borne out by personal observation. Mean Girls is orthogonal to female attractiveness to men. Women compete intrasexually primarily as a means of securing social favors from other women when they need them (for example, after childbirth). This is in stark contrast to men, who compete in dominance hierarchies to unlock a higher PUSSY POUNDER achievement level.

I read through the study to see if the authors properly defined what they meant by “dominance”. Luckily, they have: the term as they use it means PSYCHOSOCIAL DOMINANCE, aka GAME, and all that entails, including alpha and beta male body language and conversational nuances. Quote:

Dominance gestures in the performance were derived from criteria published by Mehrabian (1969). In the low-dominance condition, a constant male (CM) is shown seated at a desk in an office. An actor enters the room and chooses a chair near the door approximately 6 ft (2 m) from the desk of the CM. The actor, clutching a sheath of papers, aits in symmetrical posture, leans slightly forward with head partially bowed, and alternately looks down at the floor and up at the CM, During an ensuing discussion, the actor engages in repetitive head nodding and lets the CM engage in longer communications.

In the high-dominance condition, the actor enters, chooses a chair closer to the CM and sits in a relaxed, asymetrical posture. The actor’s hands and legs are relaxed and his body is leaning slightly backward in the chair. During the discussion, the actor produced higher rates of gesturing and lower rates of head nodding than in the low-dominance condition. Identical films were made with actresses playing all roles. Within each sex, the same actor or actress played both dominant and nondominant roles.

Does psychosocial dominance REDUCE female attractiveness to men? It would appear it does, a little at least (and it certainly doesn’t help women with men):

Female target persons in both Experiments 1 and 2 were in a context where dominance was displayed only toward other females. Perhaps a somewhat different picture might have emerged had subjects rated females who were dominant over males, indicating that it is in competition with males where females violate the normative expectations that they be submissive and noncompetitive (Broverman et al., 1970; Broverman, Vogel, Broverman, Clarkson, & Rosenkrantz, 1972), and it is only in this case that their attractiveness suffers. A third experiment was conducted to examine this possibility. […]

If the dominance manipulation had a differential effect on the female target’s attractiveness when she was in competition with men (as opposed to women), this would have shown up as a Sex of Target Person x Dominance x Sex of Opponent interaction. This interaction yielded F values of less than 1 for both variables. The higher order interaction, sex of target person by dominance by sex of opponent by sex of subject, likewise yielded an F of less than 1 for the sexual-attractiveness item and an f[l, 199)= 1.33 for the dating-desirability rating. [ed: see Table 3 at the link]

The fourth experiment in the research paper is the most interesting. It found that psychosocial dominance, but NOT aggressiveness or a domineering attitude (aka try-hard douchebaggery), was the key to increased male sexual attractiveness to women:

Manipulation of the level within the aggressive and domineering cells produced no differential effects on sexual attraction. These factors also did not differentially affect the sexual attractiveness of male and female targets (all F values for Sex x Aggression and Sex x Domineering simple interactions were less than 1).

A different pattern emerged for manipulations of dominance. The main effect of dominance on sexual attractiveness was significant, f{ 1,66) = 8.12, p< .01. This main effect was produced by differences in rated attractiveness of men in high- as opposed to low-dominance conditions. Consistent with the results of Experiments 1 through 3, there was a significant Sex x Dominance interaction, F(l, 66) = 9.79, p < .01, with men rated as more attractive in the high-dominance condition.

Ignoramuses and cunts arguing in bad faith love to assert that Game is about being a try-hard douchebag, but it’s nothing of the sort. Game is about amused mastery, subcommunicated through dominant body language and verbal confidence. Domineering men aren’t master seducers; they’re usually romantically insecure and their self-doubt impels them to try to ham-fistedly control women’s fluid flirtations and feral sexuality, instead of smoothly guide women to a heightened state of arousal.

This next finding should piss off another subset of Game denialists:

Results for the dimension of physical attractiveness were similar to the results for sexual attraction. Neither the aggression nor the domineering factor produced an effect on physical attraction. Level of dominance did, however, influence attributions of physical attraction, F( 1, 69) = 6.62, p< .01, and this main effect was again moderated by an interaction of sex and dominance level, F( 1,69) = 4.42, p< .01. Once again, a test of the simple main effects indicated an effect only for men, who were rated as more physically attractive in the high-dominance condition only, ^1,37)= 12.71,p<.01.

Resident Looks Piller wolfie wept.

So why aren’t all men dominant? Well, for one, status hierarchies only have so much room at the top. Two, there are trade-offs in the race for maximal reproductive fitness:

Manipulation of the level of dominance produced a constellation of personality attributions. In addition to its impact on variables related to sexual attraction, the level of dominance significantly influenced attributions concerning the target’s likability, stability, promiscuity, competence, and social class.

High dominance was found to lower the general likability of the target person, F(l, 64) = 38.7, p < .001. There was neither an effect of sex nor any interaction between dominance and sex on this variable. This result indicates that for men there is a potential trade-off between sexual attractiveness and likability, with high dominance increasing the former but reducing the latter. […]

High dominance led to perceptions of greater promiscuity in the target, /(I, 66) – 10.86, p < .002, with high dominance associated with increased promiscuity. A significant Sex X Level of Magnitude interaction, F{1,66) = 5,36,p < .02, indicated that men were perceived as more promiscuous in the high-dominance condition than were women. […]

To summarize, the following influence of dominance level was observed. High dominance increased the rated sexual attractiveness and physical attractiveness of male targets but had no discernable influence on the sexual or physical attractiveness of female targets. High dominance substantially decreased the likability of both sexes and was associated with increases in the rated stability, competence, promiscuity, and social class of both sexes.

Women are sexually attracted to psychosocially dominant men, even as these men are perceived to be less likable and more promiscuous. So no, femcunts and manginas, promiscuous men do not suffer a sexual market penalty. In fact, the perception of promiscuousness and unlikability may help them score additional notches.

It all goes to the old CH saying, “Don’t listen to what a woman says, watch what she does.” Which includes whom she fucks. Women will tell you they want a likable, chaste man, but their pussies are aching for a dominant, unlikable, promiscuous man.

Wynne-Edwards (1962) and Pfeiffer (1969) have suggested that among humans the ability to impress and win deference from others depends on the sum of many qualities, including strength, skill, determination to achieve superiority, and intelligence.

This sentence is a wet kiss planted right on the Heartiste lips, evoking as it does the seminal CH pinned posts “Dating Market Value Test for men and women” and “The 16 Commandments of Poon”.

The results of our fourth experiment suggest that some of the behaviors that may lead to a high rank do not themselves promote an individual’s attractiveness. Aggressive and domineering tendencies did not increase the sexual attractiveness of either males or females. The covariance analysis suggests that the highest levels of sexual attractiveness should occur when males express dominance without the use of such behaviors.

This research is a veritable PSA for the efficacy of Game (learned charisma).

Furthermore, dominance increases the sexual attractiveness of males but does not produce a general halo effect. Individuals simply described as dominant were assumed to be also aggressive and domineering; they were regarded as less likable and were not desired as spouses.

The first unearthing of the famed “alpha fux, beta bux” principle?

Executive Summary: If you want to bed more women, stop trying to make them like you. Instead, make them desire you.

Denying and obfuscating and suppressing these truths about the nature of the sexes inevitably leads to tragic cases like the women on the following magazine cover. Maybe someone should inform these aging beauties that men aren’t attracted to “sassy, sophisticated, solvent” women.

Where have all the good men gone? Back in their nubile 20s, where these sour grapes spinster cows left them. 54 and “looking for love”. jfc the delusion is unreal.

Psychological projection seems to be a feature of the female brain gone insane. What women desire — male dominance — is mistaken by women for what men desire in them. But men don’t love dominance, or sass, or careerism, or ambition in women. What men love is younger, hotter, tighter. Something which these has-beens lost as a bargaining chip a long time ago. And now they claim the chaps they can get just don’t measure up, which translated from the female hamsterese means the only men willing to fuck them are naggers and LSMV dregs with no standards and no other choice but internet porn. In fact, many dregs would choose the Fap Life before laying with one of these sassy harridans.

Sass is tolerable on a 21 year old vixen. It’s boner death on a 54 year old matron.

Likewise, chasteness and likability are tolerable on a dominant man. But they’re tingle killers on a submissive man.

Dominance is Game and Game is pussy.

And pussy is life everlasting. Amen.

Read Full Post »

Reader Jim gives a short field report testifying to the Power of Jerkboy.

Off-topic: A girl I’m seeing on the side just texted me “You have me so wet right now. How is that possible when you’re making fun of me?”

I keep waiting for CH to be proven wrong about something… but it hasn’t happened yet. Girls love jerks.

They sure do. Smartasses. Jerks. Even assholes. Girls love ’em, and the niceguys can only watch in despair from the sidelines (or until said girls reach post-nubility age and suddenly become available to them. heh).

In all the time this ‘umble abode has been running there hasn’t been a single field report come in over the wire that delivered news of Boring Beta Politeness lubing the limbic of a sassy lassie. I’m sure it happens…somewhere…sometime…but it’s a rare event, like an eclipse. You perk up and take notice when you hear of it.

Everything you need to know about women is revealed in their romantic fantasies. Ol’ Reliable and Ol’ Dependable are always MIA from women’s erotic steamscapes. When was the last time you heard of a girl fantasizing about a proper beta pulling a chair out for her? Or paying for her drinks? The absence is telling.

Read Full Post »

I’ve been receiving an increasing frequency of emails from gaystream media whores soliciting this blog’s lordship for a roll in the clickbait hay. All of them, to date, have requested absolute privacy (the irony), so I won’t divulge details on threat of (((legal))) recriminations, but I can offer a general impression of what they’re asking. For instance, one media whore speaking on behalf of a well-known whoresite is part of a team putting together a piece of agitprop art on the manosphere and wanted CH’s scintillating contribution to the effort.

I’ve wondered for a few months how best to respond to these inquiries. So far, the CH policy has been to ignore and plow. No j/k, it’s been to ignore. Period. I never respond, partly because, what’s the use? I won’t persuade a shriek of shitlibs to accept in their hearts the Rude Word of the Chateau, and I certainly can’t expect to be treated fairly by these toads. More practically, I am very careful to guard my shadowy dimensions, and there is a risk, however muted through multiple proxies and TOR nodes, that a reply by me would be scoured for identifying info by a black ops team at Fusion GPS (stands for Grabbing Pussy Systems).

But the inquiries are getting more insistent and coming from bigger and bigger names. So I’m reconsidering my standard policy of ignoring them; perhaps for an upgrade to a “lol suck a dik” response? I have toyed with the idea of a conditional reply. That is, I set the ground rules and they swear by them in writing before I offer any penetrating insights of my tumescent wisdom.

For instance, we all know leftoid gutter filth can’t help litter their reporting of deplorable subjects with smear terms and baseless slander. One can’t hold a gun to reporters’ heads (yet) to demand honest and accurate journalism, but one can bind them to abide at least a rudimentary schedule of fair play. I believe two of the Original Shitposters, weev and Anglin, have a lot to say about this tactic when dealing with the globohomogenized media and their skypistry.

For instance, I would demand any reporter refrain from using the term “White supremacy” in any article about Chateau Heartiste, and if needed for context to substitute the term “White competency”. Similarly, they would be required by the CH Vajeena Convention rule 69, subsection 14.88, to replace the word “racist” with “totally rad race realist”. And “misogynist” would become “man who doesn’t bow and scrape before delusional feminist cunts”.

Any violations of the terms of agreement would result in an immediate public shaming and an army of weaponized autistes leaving pig entrails on the reporter’s super zip front door.

And, to punctuate my seriousness of intent, neither would the reporter be permitted to insert a disclaimer that contained the words “white supremacy”, “white supremacist”, “racist”, “misogynist” or other favored term of othering the leftoid equalism cuntsortium employs to maintain their icy grip on their quack Narrative.

I throw my quandary to the studio audience. What do you think is the best way forward to deal with slithery solicitations from Snakes and Merchants of Fake?

PS Vox Day has written about this topic: Don’t talk to the media.

Read Full Post »

Flaky Flakeberg Text Game

The Chateau’s Flaky McFlakester text Game is acquiring a lot of devotees. A reader adds to the cacophonous encomium,

CH,

When am I going to give up the struggle in my heart and just accept that you are the source of all knowledge?

dein kampf.

I’ve been commenting on your posts for awhile – recently about my adventures on Tinder as a married man. I had a girl lined up this weekend, and she was ready to go… until her mom called from across the country and it fell apart. We texted a bit the next day, and it trailed off.

Sitting here today, and I go through the CH archives and come across your advice for reversing a flake. I figured, what do I have to lose? I edited a bit cause I know she’s Jewish, and texted her “what’s up, flaky flakeberg?” Got three texts back in under two minutes.

Honestly, my schedule is complicated since I have a wife to work around, so I doubt she and I will be able to connect again. But hey, I got a response, and a few more dirty pictures to add to my collection. And you can’t put a price on that, can you?

Thanks again,

[WHOO BOY YOU BET THE NAME IS REDACTED]

Folks, I am but a humble messenger of the True Nature of Woman. Sup from my banquet of knowledge at your own risk, and prepare to receive the shwings and furrows of indignant tradcons.

Read Full Post »

Via the Grauniad (so take with a flat of salt):

Scientists discover brain’s neural switch for becoming an alpha male

Timid mice turn bold after their ‘alpha’ circuit is stimulated as results show ‘winner effect’ lingers on and mechanism may be similar in humans

Brash, brawny and keen to impose their will on anyone who enters their sphere of existence: the alpha male in action is unmistakable.

Now scientists claim to have pinpointed the biological root of domineering behaviour. New research has located a brain circuit that, when activated in mice, transformed timid individuals into bold alpha mice that almost always prevailed in aggressive social encounters.

Determinism getting you down? AYO HOL UP FOR DAT SCIENCE SEQUEL

In some cases, the social ranking of the subordinate mice soared after the scientists’ intervention, hinting that it might be possible to acquire “alphaness” simply by adopting the appropriate mental attitude. Or as Donald Trump might put it: “My whole life is about winning. I almost never lose.”

#InnerGameIsReal

The brain region, called the dorsal medial prefrontal cortex (dmPFC), was already known to light up during social interactions involving decisions about whether to be assertive or submissive with others. But brain imaging alone could not determine whether the circuit was ultimately controlling how people behave.

The latest findings answer the question, showing that when the circuit was artificially switched on, low-ranking mice were immediately emboldened. “It’s not aggressiveness per se,” Hu said. “It increases their perseverance, motivational drive, grit.”

This is a rebuke to all those dummies who falsely equate “alphaness” with aggression. Studiously refusing the temptation to be a wilting betaboy flower watching the world of women go by is not the same as unloading ten clips of aggro douchebaggery on unsuspecting innocents.

With brain stimulation, low ranking mice won 90% of the time against animals they would normally have lost to.

Lesson for beta males: YOU HAVE IT IN YOU. Romantic failure is not a fate you must quietly await.

“When we took mice that used to lose in the tube test they could win within just several seconds of stimulation,” said Hu.

Someone will invent an Insta-Alpha pill that will give betas a temporary boost of sufficient fortitude to ask women out, and it will radically change the sexual market like nothing else has, not even porn.

Intriguingly, the experience of winning appeared to leave an imprint on the mice, making them more assertive, even when their brains’ were no longer being artificially controlled. They were found to be more combative in a second scenario in which they competed to occupy the warm corner in a cage with an ice-cold floor.

“We observed that not all the mice returned to their original rank,” said Hu. “Some mice [did], but some of them had this newly dominant position.”

The scientists described this as the “winner effect”, hinting that there may be a grain of truth in the self-help mantra “fake it ‘til you make it”.

Spare a moment for me preen? CH, 2008:

Fake it till you make it means faking that internal confidence as well as the external behavior. This is not as hard as it sounds. Every time you feel self-doubt and talk yourself into inaction, yell “Stop!” out loud, and your brain will reboot. You then consciously reframe your thought processes to put the burden of approval seeking on those around you. With good inner game you can say just about any ridiculous routine and the girl will be intrigued.

The most important change in thinking you can make:

You are not there to win over women, they are there to win over you.

Keep saying this over and over until you begin to believe it. You are re-wiring yourself. Don’t worry about the truth or falsity of it. That’s irrelevant.

Of mice and men.

Read Full Post »

I’m not given to retrospectives (mortality reminders are a buzzkill), but this reader’s email deftly describes the incredible cultural influence of the internet realtalk revolution collectively known as the manosphere, a loose affiliation of men who, cutting to the pith of it, were tired of pretty lies and wanted the ugly truths. The manosphere itself was a child of seduction forums, where men actively trying to crack the code of female attraction would share ideas, with all the SJW and PC window dressing stripped clean. They were the proto-shitlords of their day, uninterested in virtue signaling or status whoring for the benefit of admittance to polite company. The manosphere later expanded and fed a whole new vocabulary and theoretical framework to dissident factions like the alt-right, /pol/, Frog Twatter, and neoreaction. (Even MPC, no friend of the PUA life, has a thread titled “Examples of Beta Male Faggotry”. The lure of realtalk, no matter the source, is irresistible to iconoclasts and modern heretics).

What started as a get laid guild became the greatest unleashing of rhetorical and memetic testosterone in modern American history. Cucks, shitlibs, manlets, fatties, and feminists were swept aside by this tsunami of refocused and revitalized T, particularly of the White man’s T. The question remains whether the manosphere’s Frankenbeans monster — their testicular shiv of the bloated and sclerotic Lords of Lies — has achieved apotheosis in President Donald J Trump, or if there are bigger and ballsier reckonings to come.

Message I sent to someone that may be of interest:

One funny thing about the game guys. They are empiricists because they wanted to meet women and, as CH puts it, get love and sex. It is really wrong to say it is just about getting the rocks off. They really wanted girlfriends, too, but the girls of today are all too often damaged goods. But to do any of that they had to overcome a lot of lies and programming, and even learn new vocabulary, and be hardcore realists and empiricists. Only facing reality and facing the truth about men and women would get the girl back to the crib and get the panties off. No emotion-protecting lies will do it. And over the decade or so this conversation has been going on, the habit of being hardcore realists and empiricists has spread into all areas of thinking and acting. And also the guys involved in the conversation are maturing. Ten years is a long time in any human life, especially from the 20s into the 30s and beyond. So ingesting the red pill was like a magic potion that was supposed to make you into a mighty poon-slayer, and it worked! But the magic was far more powerful than anyone dreamed. And it kept working and all kinds of new powers kept emerging until the initial thing became secondary to the larger goal of living a life aligned with reality, which may even mean moderating the demand for female bodies, as nice as they can be, and as necessary as they sometimes seem to be.

Strange to have been watching this from the sidelines all these years.

No one would have predicted how it has played out so far.

“A life aligned with reality”. A government aligned with reality. A nation aligned with reality.

That is the manospherian Realtalk Revolution’s legacy, and it is as Beautiful as it is Truthful. Instructions for a life well lived inevitably became a warning and a remedy to a society rapidly draining its life force in the abattoir of anti-reality. The Virtue Snivelers can deny reality, but reality will always belie their denials.

And ironically, I don’t consider the Chateau a “manosphere” outpost. I don’t know what I’d label this place, but “manosphere” seems too constricting. I’ll call it what it has meant to its many guests and wanderers: A rejuvenating retreat from a mad world, and a beacon to those who feel like strangers in their own land and time. The best description may be in how you leave this place, rather than in how you came to it: as purposeful and impassioned men.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: