Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Vanity’ Category

Your gracious CH host for the day left a number of meaty comments in the discussion to this post about another education system maiden offering her womb chute to cackling dementors. Enjoy the documented decline.

PA also chipped in with some zingers. You can’t say Le Chateau doesn’t provide good entertainment value for the money.

Read Full Post »

Is confidence an outcome of validating external factors, or is it an internal mindset that creates its own validation?

The feedback loops of male confidence are copious and fluid, so the question is the wrong one. External validation and internal beliefs synchronize to lift or deflate a man’s perception of self-worth. But it’s the nature of constitutional pessimists and unimaginative nerds to overrate objectively measurable variables that contribute to a man’s mate value and undervalue the invisible psychology that imbues a man with serious muff-massacring mojo. If you’re looking for proof of concept, I have a simple real life test.

How many naturals (with women) do you know, and have known for years, who physically or economically deteriorated with age? Most of us know one or two guys like that… high school romeos who packed a gut and a dead-end job by their late 20s. The guys I know like that continued doing well with women, despite losing their high school glam. They never stopped smashing grade A ass even as their more transparently conspicuous player traits abandoned them.

And you know why? Because they had the attitude. Their confidence that they could get women when they wanted never left them. True to their charming selves, their pudginess or crap jobs or studio apartments presented no obstacle to their mesmerizing game. Confidence — which is really a synonym for an abundance mentality — is like this; once you have it drilled into your subconscious, it’s hard to get rid of it.

Inner game matters. Confidence is transmissible over years and through different life stations. It can be cultivated with many fertilizers, and harvest time always means, “There’s enough clam to feast like a king. I will never go hungry.” How crucial is confidence? If you have no belief in yourself, a six pack or a year-end bonus aren’t going to transform you into a lady slayer. But if you think yourself god’s gift to women, and truly believe that should the need arise you can easily find fresh pussy, then a submerging six pack or a missed promotion at work won’t put a dent in your game.

Of course, the quickest way to achieve Voltaire level confidence is by amassing years of experience bedding women. But what to do if you’re new to the only game that matters? You strive for that elusive abundance mentality. Make approaches. You won’t convert every approach into a lay (not even close) but you will get some smiles and other positive reactions. These reactions will accumulate and reinforce your growing belief that women are plentiful and it wouldn’t take much effort to push at least a few of them into lascivious contemplation.

Another trick to crush limiting beliefs is a daily reminder that, whatever sexual market advantage women have got, you have a sexual marketplace window of viability that triples that of most women’s. When you’re feeling self-doubt, there’s nothing quite like the brisk pick-me-up of waking up a man with decades of romantic opportunity ahead of him.

Read Full Post »

CH’s power grows, but it hasn’t grown enough to prevent thieves from plagiarizing classic Chateau tomes. See for yourself.

Here’s an excerpt from a Yahoo article titled “How to Get Your Ex-Girlfriend Back” that dates to September 19, 2007.

Rule number one: Let her leave. Don’t beg and plead for her to stay or text and call her incessantly after she does. This only adds to the image of you being needy and nothing without her and as we all know, women love power. Take at least 3 days before you even consider contacting her. If she doesn’t get a hold of you in those 3 days, consider waiting longer, to each his own. When you finally do talk to her be in control of your emotions. It is vital at this point that you do not let her get under your skin. VITAL! Keep the conversation general and don’t pester her or talk too heavily about getting back together.

And here’s the related CH article titled “How to Win Back an Ex-Girlfriend” published on April 10, 2007.

The less experienced man caught offguard will need to learn the art of turning it around after her decision to leave is made but before she has reached the no-looking-back stage.  Chances of re-notch success are much lower once she has verbalized her need for space, but with proper post-relationship game you can improve your odds dramatically.  The key is in the timing.  A mathematician has shown that the dumper’s loneliness and nostalgia for the broken relationship peak at about 3 weeks after the breakup, unless she has found another man in the interim.  Therefore, your job is to let her go and not speak to her for 3 weeks.  This will amplify her feelings of loss.  Then, at her most vulnerable 3 weeks later, call to say hi.  Keep the convo short and friendly.  Chances are best right at this moment that she will offer to meet you for drinks.

Once more, from the Yahoo article,

Women want what they can’t have any while they love the chase, keep your distance and keep them wondering. If she calls, don’t immediately answer or don’t answer at all. If she leaves messages call back at your convenience. Have some back bone and discipline, don’t be a lap dog! If you try to make plans with her and she either denies or agrees and then blows you off, don’t offer again, let her make the next move.

And the (earlier) CH version,

You must be the one to leave first.  Minimize face time.  Don’t call her.  Be friendly but ambiguous.  Don’t inquire into her life.  Laugh off her crappy attitude.  Most importantly, act as if nothing is wrong.  If she senses you are acting aloof out of spite the spell will be broken.  Eventually, she will wander back to you, bewildered and intrigued, filled with doubt about her hasty judgment.  You will resume a pattern of dating and sex that eerily resembles the first few weeks together.

Even the writing style is similar.

It’s a net benefit to society that the Rude Word of CH is disseminating to the masses, but blatant plagiarism is a theft too far. Unfortunately, there’s nothing to be done about it. Libertardians bemoan a trend to excessive copyright litigation, and they perhaps have a point (if only they could see how diversity and copyright mania intersect), but on the ground, in the ascii alleys of ideas, stuff is stolen all the time and there’s little recourse to those unwilling to pay the fee in time and energy to right the wrong. If you value the freedom that anonymity gives to speak truthfully and boldly, you have to put up with a fair amount of idea pilfering.

 

Read Full Post »

Perspicacious and numerate commenter “St” writes in response to this post about Shakespeare having his male characters utter fewer words than their romantic female counterparts,

CH,

I hope you realize that 101/155 = 65.1%

Which is disturbingly close (1.6%) to the 2/3 male-to-female text communication ratio you advise.

If that’s not another exogenous vindication of Chateau principles, I don’t know what is.

“St” is referring to CH’s Poon Commandment V:

V. Adhere to the golden ratio

Give your woman 2/3 of everything she gives you. For every three calls or texts, give her two back. Three declarations of love earn two in return. Three gifts; two nights out. Give her two displays of affection and stop until she has answered with three more. When she speaks, you reply with fewer words. When she emotes, you emote less. The idea behind the golden ratio is twofold — it establishes your greater value by making her chase you, and it demonstrates that you have the self-restraint to avoid getting swept up in her personal dramas. Refraining from reciprocating everything she does for you in equal measure instills in her the proper attitude of belief in your higher status. In her deepest loins it is what she truly wants.

It appears that CH, knowingly or unwittingly ;), stumbled upon a deep and abiding truth about sex, love and the erotic nature of women that was known to the literary greats of the distant past.

Heartiste and Shakespeare… truly, madly, deeply in ❤️!

Read Full Post »

Have you ever wondered what drives some women to the cult of feminism, when every real world observation refutes nearly all the foundational premises of feminism? Why do so many women cleave to such a wrong-headed, insipid ideology?

Chateau Heartiste explained the phenomenon of feminism as shivvily as possible:

The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.

Feminists, in other words, nurture a fantasy that by sheer force of blather they can remake the sexual market to suit their every whim and desire while curtailing to the maximum extent possible any romantic choice enjoyed by men.

This theory neatly clarifies the motives of all sorts of poopytalk that dribbles from the cheetos-stained lips of feminists. To wit:

Indignation over fat/slut shaming = Demands to be simultaneously as physically repulsive and depraved as one wishes while remaining attractive to any man one desires, regardless of men’s wishes to the contrary.

Social conditioning of sexual preference = Religious belief that men’s sexual preferences can be changed to find fat, ugly or old women attractive, while at the same time any preference women enjoy is empowering and immediately satisfiable.

Patriarchal oppression/privilege = Unfalsifiable rationale for the depressing consequences that unattractive women endure in the sexual market. Promotes idea that low SMV women can be happy once “male oppression” is defeated.

Rape culture = Limitless choice to women to redefine their sexual experiences however they please, (and to benefit from the labeling as they see fit). Men, in contrast, are burdened with automatically impugned guilt for any sexual transaction they may enjoy.

By the Beard of Amanda Marcotte, alongs comes ♥♥♥science♥♥♥ to slurp the CH knob to completion.

Value-added commenter (yes, value-added… hint hint to you dopier commenters) chris writes,

My God. I think he just described feminism here:

Second, high status and very attractive women need less help and protection from other women and are less motivated to invest in other women (who represent potential competition). Thus, a woman who tries to distinguish or promote herself threatens other women and will encounter hostility. According to Benenson, a common way women deal with the threat represented by a remarkably powerful or beautiful woman is by insisting on standards of equality, uniformity, and sharing for all the women in the group and making these attributes the normative requirements of proper femininity.

He is talking about this study here:

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1631/20130079

Abstract:
Throughout their lives, women provide for their own and their children’s and grandchildren’s needs and thus must minimize their risk of incurring physical harm. Alliances with individuals who will assist them in attaining these goals increase their probability of survival and reproductive success. High status in the community enhances access to physical resources and valuable allies. Kin, a mate, and affines share a mother’s genetic interests, whereas unrelated women constitute primary competitors. From early childhood onwards, girls compete using strategies that minimize the risk of retaliation and reduce the strength of other girls. Girls’ competitive strategies include avoiding direct interference with another girl’s goals, disguising competition, competing overtly only from a position of high status in the community, enforcing equality within the female community and socially excluding other girls.

So feminists’ promotion of anti slut-shaming and anti fat-shaming and anti ugly-shaming and anti single-mother-shaming etc, is really just an execution of women’s intra-sexual competitive strategies. It’s the bottom third of women versus the top two thirds. Or perhaps it’s the bottom quarter, as if I remember correctly only 20-25% of women identify as feminist.

With knowledge such as this, you can easily reframe any leftist/feminist argument about a war on women as instead a war by the bottom loser women against the top successful women.

It’s the SU’s (Sluts & Uglies) versus the HB’s.

The benefit of such tactical reframing is; what woman wants to be seen as a loser (ugly and slutty) and not as a winner (beautiful and lovely)? What woman wants to belong to the bottom quarter and not the top three quarters? To admit this would be to destroy their feminine egos. With such reframing, you could get the hamster working for you.

Great stuff. It’s a nifty addendum to the CH Theory of Feminism above. Low SMV women embrace feminism as a social mechanism to alternately decrease competition from more beautiful women and increase the sexual choice of, and the access to societal (read: male) resources for, uglier women.

Elevating the status and the perceived value of the ugly and the monstrous, and simultaneously disparaging the normal and the healthy, is the true motivation of feminists. Their nefarious goal is the renormalization of society and the sexual market to a lower aesthetic; one that is more congenial to the fates of the unloved women.

Feminism is not about a war on women; feminism is a war OF women. Womano-a-womano. All that bleating about equality and judgmentalism and slut shaming and the patriarchy is just the squid ink ugly broads expectorate to give them a fighting chance in the all-against-all, zero-sum competition for mates.

Feminists will lose, of course. The sexual market cares nothing for sophistry. In the final analysis, only the boner and the tingle matter.

Interestingly, a case can be made — hell, a case WILL be made — that the American obesity epidemic and quack-wave feminism have risen in lockstep out of necessity. As the population of reproductive-age women has increasingly become fatter and uglier, the number of women needing the equalist semantics of feminism to assure their place at the sexual market table has grown (heh) accordingly. More fatsos = more equalizing cant.

So you see how obesity, feminism, and equalism intersect, interweave, reinforce, and gluttonously feed each other. CH makes no glib assertion when we compare the obesity plague to the ugliness and lies of feminism and equalism. They are all born of the same toxic mentality, issuing from the breast of the Lord of Lies himself, and their waste and foulness and repugnance and stink and deception flows outward like hellshit, suffocating truth and beauty under an ash cloud of offal.

To the casual observer, a random fat chick may seem to have no relation to, say, anti-white animus. But they are connected in ways deep and true, even if the players themselves remain unaware of their invisible binds. This is why, when you fight one, you fight the other. Strike a shaming blow against obesity, and you draw blood from a degenerate open borders scumbag and a screaming banshee pushing for women at the front lines.

As a count or countess of CH, your enemy is, and should always be, the enemies of truth and beauty.

Read Full Post »

A grateful reader writes to say thanks to the demidongle of CH for changing his love life for the better,

I have to start out by saying thank you for this site. It has certainly opened my eyes and cured me of my societal conforming. Like most men I have had a couple good relationships, a couple bad, and some flings, ons’s in between. Your typical guy if you will. To preface this e-mail I had a 7y relationship as a young man and a couple year and a half ones up until this point. The first one taught me a lot about life, love etc. the ones that followed them were shit. In July of this year I met my current gf. After assessing this relationship time and time again I realize she is one of those girls that needs a guy in control, but if you’re not, she fucking hates you and the resentment infects her body like the plague. Ive seen both sides of it. Her undying affection and love; and her seething resentment. Her dad was absent in her life therefore she tends to overcompensate with the “control” of her life. She’s never trusted anyone to take care of her but herself. A wall to break through for sure.

Im one of those guys who learned to not care too much about the women I didn’t care about (naturally), and care a lot for the ones I do care for. So an aloof alpha when it didn’t matter, and a beta when it does. [ed: a common male malady] So I got into this relationship and things went fantastically for a few months and then she started in on me about things. From how we were before in the honeymoon phase I just figured well I’ll do what she wants and Ill be fine. Wrong. I couldn’t figure out why she was still requiring more from me after doing what she wanted. She was still unhappy. “you aren’t doing this”, “you aren’t doing that” “I cant live like this”… So I supplicated more, and more, until my brain was going to explode from the confusion. We had a few blow out fights that was basically my frustration for her unhappiness exploding, and her continuing to complain. I told her “you ask me to leap and I fucking leap, what the hell else do you want me to do?”.  But she would still tell me that she loved me even though at the same time she was telling me she was unhappy and treating me like a doormat. She never stopped telling me she loved me. Which probably confused me more. My fight or flight response was on FLIGHT but something kept me there..

So I was fed up, had no solution to the problem, I do love her and with my mr fix it attitude in full effect along with my commitment and resiliency.. I needed a solution. So I found your site… read the commandments. Read the beta/ alpha posts. Keeping attraction in a relationship. The story about the experiment with the husband and wife was especially eye opening. So from reading a lot of the posts that pertained to myself I decided to do what seemed counter intuitive. I chilled the fuck out, mentally strengthened myself and decided to love her fully even through her storm of emotions. One of the commandments states:

“Her emotions are a hurricane, her soul a saboteur. Think of yourself as a bulwark against her tempest. When she grasps for a pillar to steady herself against the whipping winds or yearns for an authority figure to foil her worst instincts, it is you who has to be there… strong, solid, unshakeable and immovable.”

So I stopped supplicating to everything. I started defending myself. She’d ask me what I wanted and then shit test me with “well why would you do it like that, that makes no sense, that’s stupid” So I said “you asked me what I wanted, I told you, and you aren’t happy with that. Don’t want my opinion, don’t ask for it” she just about fell over. I stood my ground. She left for work pissed but I didn’t go after her. I ignored it. She called me about 2 hours later to make sure everything was ok and was overjoyed to talk about what we were going to do that night for dinner. It was peculiar but I just went along with it. She came home and was like an excited girl again. A small victory. And a promising insight into her psyche. There have been many times since then (about 3 weeks ago) that she’s done the same and I’ve stood my ground. In that time she’s gone from seething resentment to joyful love again, which I enjoy along with the increase in fucking that has come because of it.

The last thing I’d like to say is that the guy I’ve been for the last month since finding your site is the guy I have always been.  I just thought that since I cared so much that I needed to conform to her wishes to make her happy. But she just wanted a man who was a fucking man and was going to put her back into her place. In turn that made her love even more, and come after me. She was testing my ability to lead the relationship and I was failing. She knows exactly what shes doing, and so do I, I just didn’t understand it. She was shit testing me every fucking day. So I stopped coming after her about what is wrong, why she’s quiet, just let her fucking be. The other day sitting on the couch she looks at me and says “I need you” I said “ok”, “no like I need you, I don’t know what I would do without you”…

Shes crazy. But my ultimate success is taming her, it’s a fucking game. It always is. I get off on it as sadistic as that seems.

Thanks Chateau Heartiste. You rock. You can use my story but please no personal information. And just because I know you get a lot of trolls I can tell you I most certainly am not. Hopefully some shit made sense in my rambling. Thanks again.

When strangers seeking answers amble across Chateau grounds and peer into its dusty libraries, two kinds of reactions follow:

1. Screeching and shrieking about the horror of this place, or

2. Solemn thanks of appreciation for saving a life.

Some people you just can’t reach. But some… they’re ready to be happy. The door is always open for them.

Read Full Post »

This was the advice of an Italian female author of a bestseller book titled Cásate y sé sumisa – “Get Married and Be Submissive”. The book is now a hit in Spain, where the fertility rate of the native Spaniards is very low as one prime fertility generation of women after another squeezes into the crowded and expensive cities to pursue the accumulation of alphas and gadgets instead of betas and cherubs.

Naturally, Spain’s feminists (is there no Western nation safe from the shrieking of the clams?) are outraged, OUTRAGED I tells ya, by the book’s premise, and are, as is the wont of this subspecies of open-minded and tolerant leftoids, calling for it to be banned.

The book, which was a bestseller in Italy, preaches a message of “loyal obedience, generosity and submission” on the part of the new wife and offers nuggets of advice for the newly-wed on how to please one’s husband.

The book currently appears at number 15 on the Amazon bestseller list in Spain but has raised the hackles of modern-minded Senoras who even staged a public demonstration against the tome, where they tore up copies.

Women’s groups are considering legal action to get it banned arguing that it promotes gender violence.

Here is a photo of the Italian authoress, Costanza Miriano, advocating a wife’s submission to her husband:

Here is a photo of a group of Spanish feminists tearing apart copies of the book:

I could drop the mic right here and walk off stage, confident that the argument against the feminist position, such as it is, remains incontestable. But tragically there are still people in the world who believe raw ugliness exerts no influence upon one’s warped beliefs or bizarro worldview, so the shivvings will continue until morale improves.

One passage suggests: “We [women] like humiliation because it is for a greater good.”

The Story of Oaths. Women in traditional marriages are happier than women participating under more “egalitarian” marital auspices. Lovely Costanza is correct; the nature of women… unchangeable, sculpted in the crucible of a millions-year old mating environment that has bred in them an instinctual adoration for the powerful man who by force of will extracts from his lovers a damegeld, i.e., submission to his prerogatives… is a wild beast that needs a dose of loving humiliation to remind it for whom it ploughs and pleases.

Miriano has touched on something important here, something very dark and naturally suited for examination by the learned scribes of Chateau Heartiste. A woman seeks her submission to a better man, belying her own socially greased words to the contrary, and will take the measure of a man in part by his willingness to indulge in humiliations, usually small, sometimes great, as proof of his worthiness.

What does Miriano mean by “for the greater good”? I believe she alludes to an idea articulated at CH in the past: the idea that women’s unbridled sexual nature is wilder and more dangerous than man’s sexual nature, and that leaving women’s ravenous desire to its own devices — that is, giving women the freedom as demanded by feminists to hunt in an endless chase for perfect romantic fulfillment, no matter the consequences — will in the end breed deep discontentment, and the restless queefly quest that can never be quenched will transform the ancient courtship rituals into an acid bath disintegrating the last fibers of social connectedness.

Women, slave to limbic compulsions far beyond the mere abilities of prefrontal willpower to contain, need a man who will stop them embarking on this quest, whether embarking in reality or fantasy (both are caustic to social and familial bonds in their own ways), and the only assurance that a woman will be satisfied leaving the quest behind is if a man wrests her from pursuing it.

The author claims the book is based on the teachings of St Paul and that a perfect wife should be submissive.

Paging Matt King…

“It’s true, you’re not yet an experienced cook or a perfect housewife,” she writes. “What’s the problem if he tells you so? Tell him that he is right, that it’s true, that you will learn. On seeing your sweetness and your humility, your effort to change, this will also change him.

Smart women understand that men won’t move heaven and earth for unfeminine shrikes. Even an ur-leftoid like Maureen Dowd, by way of a fortuitous brush with brotherly reality that would have made her a wiser woman had she heeded the unmissable lesson instead of lied to herself her whole life for status whoring points at her New York Beta Times cocktail circuit, comprehends that feminine niceness, and nothing but feminine niceness, is a balm of which men will never tire.

The sassy, snarky, arch bitch inspires the competitive instinct in men, and weakens their protective instinct. Men won’t feel motivated to change for a woman who isn’t capable of evoking vulnerability and, yes, submission. Men will fuck the invincible modern woman, and then leave her unloved, untroubled that such a woman softly weeps herself to sleep at night.

Granada’s Archbishop Francisco Javier Martinez, who chose to publish the book has defended its content and insists that the furore surrounding it is “ridiculous and hypocritical” in a society that allows abortion, which he argues is a much clearer example of violence against women.

The Fifth Wave Feminist: Keep hacking at those fetal limbs but zero tolerance for awkward nerds committing microaggressions by telling dongle jokes.

The present condition of Western elite thought is unsustainable. Something will give, soon. And then those who always felt the Western world was amiss but were too cowardly to say so without twelve layers of sniveling PC ass-covering will embrace the wrought iron door to the Chateau and enter, imbibing its teachings without apology, without reluctance, and with only regret at having not arrived sooner.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,172 other followers

%d bloggers like this: