Archive for the ‘Vanity’ Category

How many times have I written that stereotypes don’t materialize out of thin air and that generalizations are useful for navigating the obstacles and uncertainties of life?

In a new book by Lee Jussim, a century’s worth of social psychological research was reviewed and the conclusion reached that stereotypes are robust and accurate. Furthermore, human bias and self-fulfilling prophecy generally exert weak or no effects on the accuracy of stereotypes.

The stereotypes we hold about the sexes are accurate.
The stereotypes we hold about the races are accurate.
The stereotypes we hold about our fellow-white-people are accurate.

@Atavator adds,

That’s beautiful. Oh, The Irony. So more or less, what we see is social scientists, because of political ideology, enacting the very bias they’ve been telling us for 100 years that regular people are guilty of.

Has there ever been a grander act of projection?

If psychological projection is the default cognitive and rhetorical template of shitlibs, then their loudest shrieks will reveal their rawest exposed nerves. Find those nerves, and press hard.

The yeasty feminized and rabbinical ideology of Equalism is built on a foundation of lies, and it won’t be long now before it crumbles to dust.

I’ll save you all the gauche preen that I so richly deserve to enjoy at this moment…

not gonna do it…

nope, i have way more respect for my readership than that….

ah fuck it

Read Full Post »

A big pet peeve of mine is the smugness of our current elites. They’re all hubris, no perspective. Giant walking talking egos which must constantly feed or deflate instantly with the tiniest puncture to the moral, lifestyle and credentialati bubbles they live in.

They haven’t just abandoned noblesse oblige, they’ve trashed it and replaced it with its evil twin noblesse malice. Whatever tenuous organic and emotional connection the American ruling class had to the nation which they deign to lead is now totally severed. They act more like usurpers than as sons and daughters of the land.

And our elite buttress their entitlement and vanity with the requisite empty rhetoric deployed with no other purpose than to shut down criticism of their rule. Take Paul Ryantifa. FOR ONCE, I’d like to hear a reporter ask CuckRyan what he means by “that’s not who we are”? Who are we, specifically, Mz. Ryan? Explain in clear English and with no recourse to tautologies that invoke killwords like racist and white supremacy. Push these fuckers against the wall with their own vapid rhetoric.

As a reader wrote, “you don’t get to tell us who we are…we tell you who we are.”

Our Globohomo rulers seem to think they are gods, dispensing wisdom and truths which are only accessible to them through divine sanction. “WE will tell you who you are, pleb!” It’s like thecunt hillary saying she wouldn’t give “absolution” to those voters who didn’t bother to vote for her, as if she is some earthbound deity before whom the rabble must bow, and from whom mercy, or divine judgment, flow unchallenged.

Gabber @AlCynic calls this mental invanity “autodeification”, and pins the causative factor in its infectious spread on postmodernism, or what I have termed Equalism.

Postmodernism has resulted in autodeification.
They think they are divine by their own hand.
It’s not an illusion, it’s not rhetoric.
It’s insanity, but true.

Pride cometh before the fall, and there’s no greater pride than thinking oneself arbiter of all that is holy and right and those who would oppose you as unholy and immoral deplorables. What happened, Hillary? What happened is you thought yourself a god among mere mortals, when you are nothing but a rancid psychopathic narcissistic cunt of the most foul self-entitlement pedigree. And now you have jumped the precipice, and to shield you from the abject humiliation you so karmally deserve and which you have spent a lifetime imposing on your enemies through cackles of sadistic glee, your morbidly obedient Bezosian lackeys assiduously scrub one star reviews from your book’s Amazon page.

But the tenor of the times have changed, thanks in part to outposts of TruthLove and HateUgly like this ‘umble web abode. See through you and your ilk, we do. The GodCunt has no pantsuit. We point and mock and soon, the people will see you and your priestess aristocrats for what you all are: nakedly self-serving spoiled rich brats hawking a Fake Morality for a Fake Religion called Globalism, aka the vanity project of greedy rootless deracinated wealth capturers.

Another reader writes, “Equalism should be attacked like the start-up religion that it is. All value is derived from inequality. If we are all totally equal we are all totally unnecessary.”

It really is a start-up religion. Equalism is the perfect un-truth for the globohomoists to proselytize, because it presupposes equal outcomes and that any difference in outcomes is the result of discrimination (by BadWhites). The GoodWhites who sit at the top of the human hierarchy cashing in on their inherited suite of cognitive traits that allows them to maximally exploit the currently operative environment governing human status wars bear the duty to enlighten the Noticers and, failing that, to ostracize and silence them. An amorphous and ill-defined enemy is identified (“fellow White people”), and the elite are inoculated from the threat of precision-targeted rage of the masses. Equalism allows the elite to have their cake and eat it.

Read Full Post »

An AI algorithm — or “GayI”, if you will (I will) — has proven that gayface is real.

We show that faces contain much more information about sexual orientation than can be perceived and interpreted by the human brain. We used deep neural networks to extract features from 35,326 facial images. These features were entered into a logistic regression aimed at classifying sexual orientation. Given a single facial image, a classifier could correctly distinguish between gay and heterosexual men in 81% of cases, and in 74% of cases for women. Human judges achieved much lower accuracy: 61% for men and 54% for women. The accuracy of the algorithm increased to 91% and 83%, respectively, given five facial images per person. Facial features employed by the classifier included both fixed (e.g., nose shape) and transient facial features (e.g., grooming style). Consistent with the prenatal hormone theory of sexual orientation, gay men and women tended to have gender-atypical facial morphology, expression, and grooming styles. Prediction models aimed at gender alone allowed for detecting gay males with 57% accuracy and gay females with 58% accuracy. Those findings advance our understanding of the origins of sexual orientation and the limits of human perception. Additionally, given that companies and governments are increasingly using computer vision algorithms to detect people’s intimate traits, our findings expose a threat to the privacy and safety of gay men and women.

What about the privacy and safety of young boys and dudes who just want to be left in peace in the gym locker room?

YET AGAIN a scientific study has validated a Heartiste real world observation. Megapreen incoming! CH has been saying gayface is real since inception date 1488. From a May 15, 2008 Chateau post:

There is such a thing as a “gay face”. Hard to describe, but you know it when you see it. Think big bright feminine eyes, full lips, and an all-around glow.

The gayface composite photo that accompanied the above study:

Swishiognomy is real.

Would gaypedoface be redundant?

You can almost draw diagonal lines representing femininity and masculinity levels, connecting the gay male face with straight female face, and the straight male face with the lesbo female face.

There is (for lack of a better science-y description) a feminine glow and openness in the faces of the straight woman and the gay man composites. Oppositely, there’s a masculine hardness and compactness in the faces of the straight man and the lesbo woman composites. (And honestly that’s not even a very representative composite of most dykes I’ve seen….my composite lesbian face would be a lot fatter, uglier and mannish.)

Gabber @lglookingglass adds,

Gay Face is the hollowing out of the checkbone structure.

This approach applies to almost all chronic health conditions as well. If you want a really deep cut, realize that doctors do about 1/2 their diagnosis from seeing your face. It’s why they’ll catch rare things: they’ve seen it.

According to the study, the GayI was better than humans at accurately identifying by facial features alone the gays from among the straights. But I bet a person who was exceptionally observant and had spent time around many gays would have a more honed gaydar than the average human test subject, so I wonder if the GayI hit rate can’t be matched by, say, an urban SWPL with a social circle that included a lot of homos.

Or maybe the urban SWPL’s gaydar would be blunted due to inurement to constant exposure, familiarization, and normalization.

Composite soyface:

Composite pedoface:

Fistiognomy is real.

Composite ashkepathface:

Composite xirface:

I detect a pattern.

Read Full Post »

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 »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: