Feed on
Posts
Comments

Coffee Shop Game: Venti Vaguccino

Nov 5th, 2015 by

¡Sentient! has been posting some really good field reports lately.

an interesting vignette from today… always fascinating how quickly attraction can develop…

In the local coffee place this morning, I usually run into half a dozen people I know here in the neighborhood, so I keep game on a low simmer. Long line today, backed up to one of the entrances. I get on line. a few minutes later a real cute 7 comes in, short super fit body, pale blue eyes, strawberry blonde short hair, pale white skin. Was wearing a really nice short dress and a scarf and heals. Love when women make an effort, she was stylish.

so she comes in, right behind me and looks at the line and her phone to check the time. I turn to her, square up and say “don’t worry it will be worth it” with full eye contact. She says “Oh yeah I know I have a client to meet though”. we are about 16 inches apart and I give her full laser eye treatment and slow down speech. I sensed she was in some psych profession, she just seemed really tightly wrapped but I don’t cold read her with this, I go with “You say you had a client, you look like a hairdresser” she is like no no I am a mental health counselor. So we banter a bit I say “well you look very stylish that’s why I thought maybe you worked in a salon”. She says she buys vintage clothes and we chat about that a bit, gives me a chance to graze her stomach and feel the fabric, “what’s this made out of”. Her eyes are getting bigger and I can see that start of the smile they do when they don’t realize it.

“what do you do?” she asks. I tell her to guess. Now I’m squared up to her, arms crossed across my chest, in workout out gear and a hat. She says “cop”. I laugh and ask if I’m intimidating her (emotional anchoring) she’s like “why?” and I say because cops are getting a lot of bad press lately. I can see her licking her lips more and swallowing, keeping direct eye contact with me. we chat about her job as a counselor and she checks the time again. Then another guy comes in, young dude with a man bun. They know each other so she says hello to him. Now instead of just abandoning the convo or turning away i engage the guy directly. Turns out he is a barrista but works nights so I’ve never seen him. I keep him engaged in conversation about the place at night, crowd etc. and this keeps the girl quiet just watching. a good way to neutralize the guy, not even amoging, just keeping him focused on me. This also keeps the attention off of her, so she is pent up.

The line moves we shuffle forward. She blurts out “The DSM just made a new entry today on caffeine”… so I engage her on this, now her attention is back to me. The guy, though right behind her, now vaporizes… he no longer exists. I ask her what it’s about and she says it’s an addiction entry. So I say why an entry for caffeine, addiction is a behavior seeking a response, it could be anything”. We are close again, lasering. She say “yeah like sex addiction” BINGO… there it is sexualized convo in the coffee line. LOL! Huge window.

We are lasering each other now, and the vibe is forming, focus closing on just the two of us. I say really really slowly “tell me… how would you… treat something like that… …. I mean… for me… I think like full immersion therapy or something would be required… you know… to get it out of your system…” while nodding my head and lasering her and she is smiling and nodding and saying “hmmm hmmm yeah”. I continue ” i mean… it would need… like… really really aggressive treatment… right? (nodding)” and she is really grinning now and nodding back. She says ”well it doesn’t always have to be sooooo aggressive”. I say, smirking, “sure, I mean it can be gentle too… start aggressive and then get gentle… mix it up” And she is like “yeaaaahhhh (nodding and grinning) right… gentle…”.

The line moves and we shuffle forward again. Now I am up to order. I turn away from her (roll off), order my coffee and do NOT turn back to her at all. Go way down the long empty counter 25 feet and take the last seat. Farthest from the door we came in. Did this as a compliance test, she was in a hurry so let’s see if she comes down there and waits by me for her order instead of right next to the counter. And she does… she comes down and sits by me and we continue some more banter, not much now, ask her if she could do anything for work what she would do, some comfort stuff. We get talking. She mentions crime increasing in the area as a result of “people” from the wrong side of the tracks coming over, and quickly says “I’m not a racist”. I get to go into “you are a realist” and we talk a bit about this. Interesting that SWPL psych girl feeling fear from the environment, second one I’ve come across recently… I think there is a change in the air… bodes well for TRUMP.

She tells me her name and I shake her hand, hold it too long and she asks my name… her coffee is up she gets it and comes back. We chat a bit more.

Now she is looking at her phone and the time has come to part, she has a client to see across town. she is waiting, waiting, waiting for me to ask her number… I smile at her “you better get going then. I’ll see you around” she says “take care” and heads out the door behind me then walks back the other direction outside to her car.

Some times game just bubbles up even when you aren’t trying to do anything…

This vagnette deserves a post-game analysis, as a teaching moment for the greenhorns.

– Sentient’s opener — “don’t worry it will be worth it” — isn’t the usual lame banter. He engages the girl with a conversational gambit that encourages a fuller response than just “hi”. It’s SITUATIONALLY AWARE. Those are the best kinds of openers.

– “You say you had a client, you look like a hairdresser”. Brilliant concatenation of a cold read and a neg. Newbs, take note: The neg here works well because Sentient grounded it to something the girl actually said, rather than to some disembodied thought with no relation to anything the girl is saying. Repeating a girl’s words back to her in the context of your reply is a powerful verbal bonding tactic.

– gives me a chance to graze her stomach and feel the fabric. Physical escalation is the scariest aspect of pickup for most men, but also its most necessary. Obliquely, you must leave a woman with the impression that you’re comfortable in close proximity to their bodies.

– “what do you do?” she asks. I tell her to guess. A good rule of thumb is to avoid giving girls direct answers to their questions. Flirting is the art of evasion.

– Now instead of just abandoning the convo or turning away i engage the guy directly. A lot of men make the mistake of trying to shut out male competition for the attention of a single girl, but that is the opposite of what you want to do. By including the man in your conversation, you take away the opportunity for him to appropriate the conversational lead, AND you can redirect the energy away from the girl, as Sentient noted, which makes her want to work harder to regain your sole attention.

– She say “yeah like sex addiction” BINGO… there it is sexualized convo in the coffee line. LOL! Huge window. A girl’s indicator of interest doesn’t get much more indicative than this.

– “I think like full immersion therapy or something would be required… you know… to get it out of your system…” For those unfamiliar, this is a verbal technique known as NeuroLinguistic Programming (NLP), which involves embedding ideas and thoughts in your listener’s mind through subliminal semantic ambiguity. It’s been discussed at CH a few times, but I don’t stress it because 1. its benefits are covered by other, more accessible, game techniques and 2. it’s really easy to fuck up. However, if done skillfully, it can nuke a girl’s hamster right out of its cosmic exercise wheel.

– Go way down the long empty counter 25 feet and take the last seat. Farthest from the door we came in. Did this as a compliance test, she was in a hurry so let’s see if she comes down there and waits by me for her order instead of right next to the counter. Good move. The typical beta male starved for female interest would have lingered by the cashier as she pays for her order in hopes his dire proximity would coax super duper rays of love out of the girl.

– Interesting that SWPL psych girl feeling fear from the environment, second one I’ve come across recently… I think there is a change in the air… bodes well for TRUMP. I’ve been noticing this change in attitude, too.

– Some times game just bubbles up even when you aren’t trying to do anything…

No surprise. The essence of Game is the ZFG Alpha Attitude — no matter what happens, your toes are still tappin’.

Game Grade: A.

Sentient would’ve gotten an A+ but he pulled up at the last second when the goods were there for the taking. I’ll assume the reason for not closing the deal is that he’s in a committed relationship which he values.

Posted in Game | 201 Comments »

Stereotype Accuracy Is One Of The Most Robust Social Science Findings

Nov 5th, 2015 by

CH is fond of asserting that stereotypes don’t materialize out of thin air. They usually have a kernel of truth. The intent of stating this bleedingly obvious fact is to drive equalist, race creationist leftoids insane in the membrane. But, perhaps the truth embodied in common man stereotypes is more than a kernel.

There are many different ways to test for the accuracy of stereotypes, because there are many different types or aspects of accuracy.  However, one type is quite simple — the correspondence of stereotype beliefs with criteria.  If I believe 60% of adult women are over 5′ 4″ tall, and 56% voted for the Democrat in the last Presidential election, and that 35% of all adult women have college degrees, how well do my beliefs correspond to the actual probabilities?  One can do this sort of thing for many different types of groups.

And lots of scientists have.  And you know what they found?  That stereotype accuracy — the correspondence of stereotype beliefs with criteria — is one of the largest relationships in all of social psychology.  The correlations of stereotypes with criteria range from .4 to over .9, and average almost .8 for cultural stereotypes (the correlation of beliefs that are widely shared with criteria) and.5 for personal stereotypes (the correlation of one individual’s stereotypes with criteria, averaged over lots of individuals).  The average effect in social psychology is about .20.  Stereotypes are more valid than most social psychological hypotheses.

Generalizations about groups of people are useful because they are short cuts to evaluating another group’s values and predicting their behaviors in a variety of social contexts. Generalizations, aka stereotypes aka your lying eyes, work because they are more often right than wrong. There are big social (and reproductive) advantages to the person who is comfortable stereotyping ethnies, races, and sexes, not least of which is the ability to tailor one’s trust response according to the likelihood that a member of a different group shares one’s values, or will behave similar to oneself given the operative environmental cues.

As for the relevance of stereotyping to Game, if you enter the dating market believing that every woman is a unique snowflake (as opposed to feigning this belief with the purpose of moving a seduction forward), you will encounter a lot of failure from your inability to accurately gauge how women will respond to your romantic efforts. Learning from your mistakes becomes impossible if you refuse to notice patterns. There’s no faster route to incel than to go on believing that any one woman’s bad reaction to your beta supplication predicts nothing about how other women will react.

Which raises a question:  Why do so many psychologists emphasize stereotype inaccuracy when the evidence so clearly provides evidence of such high accuracy?  Why is there this Extraordinary Scientific Delusion?

There may be many explanations, but one that fits well is the leftward lean of most psychologists.

Color me shocked. Soft science field filled to the rafters with delusional shitlibs churns out slanted studies and deceptive interpretations of findings that validate their fragile cuckbaya egos.

And when something happens where they can’t avoid looking at [unpalatable findings], they have denigrated its importance.  Which is, in some ways, very amusing — if, after 100 years of proclaiming the inaccuracy of stereotypes to the world, can we really just say “Never mind, it’s not that important” after the evidence comes in showing that stereotype accuracy is one of the largest relationships in all of social psychology?

Can zero-integrity shitlibs really just utterly contradict themselves without a second thought? Does a fat feminist simultaneously claim fat is beautiful and beauty is in the eye of the beholder?

***

Via Canadian Friend,

This year, a team of scholars from six universities studying ideological diversity in the behavioral sciences published a paper in the journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences that details a shocking level of political groupthink in academia. The authors show that for every politically conservative social psychologist in academia there are about 14 liberal social psychologists.

Arthur C. Brooks, New York Times, October 30, 2015

How ironically banal that the group which preaches the endless benefits of Diversity™ is the group with the least amount of thought diversity in their academia bathhouses.

Posted in Psy Ops, Ugly Truths | 153 Comments »

Poor White Americans Down, Diversity™ Up, Wage Gutting Up, Obesity Up, Anti-White Elite Up

Nov 4th, 2015 by

Poor, middle-aged White Americans are dropping like flies. Their death rate “increased by 134 deaths per 100,000 people from 1999 to 2014.” The primary causes of the mortality increase for this group of maligned Americans are suicide, alcohol poisoning, and drug overdoses from painkillers. Environmental shocks.

Think about the ingredients of a happy life:

Family — destroyed by welfare, feminism, gogrrl careerism, obesity, and sinking earnings for working class men.
Community — destroyed by population density and Diversity™.
Work — destroyed by open borders, automation, and oligarchic greed.
Faith — destroyed by SCALE-induced materialism and noblesse malice.

The working poor and less-educated need these four pillars, perhaps more than effete SWPLs do, to feel like their lives have purpose. Instead, malignant elements in our ruling class have done everything in their power to knock those pillars over and smash them to dust.

I’d like to suggest other reasons for the suicidal ideation of underprivileged White Americans:

– Middle-aged Whites were born during a time when America was still predominantly White and native. Over their lifetimes they have witnessed the country turned over to brown world hordes. They are the only generation to have spent their formative years enjoying Peak White America and their productive adult years suffering the insults and antagonisms of Post-White America. They therefore have a dispiriting perspective other generations lack (or, in the case of the elderly, lack the ready memories from which to draw comparisons).

– White Americans have lost the protection and loyalty of their government. When your government stops “having your back” and treats you simultaneously like a sponge to be soaked for gibsmedats and an evil blight hindering social justice, you tend to feel like a stranger in your homeland.

– Obesity is driving men to suicide and drugs. Not directly; through their fat wives. Men’s romantic desires are visually centered. It is cruel to mock men for this biological reality and to expect them to “man up” when their wives get fat and unattractive. Obesity is rampant among the lower classes and White men stuck in these larded-up marriages have to feel desperately alone with their repudiated desires.

I would only warn the Lords of Lies that if White men drop out, figuratively or literally, there won’t be anyone left to squeeze for the Danegeld.

Posted in Current Events, Goodbye America, Ugly Truths | 492 Comments »

Deprogramming Note: A Word About CH Patron Shiv Michel Houellebecq

Nov 3rd, 2015 by

S.S. wrote a review of Michel Houellebecq’s latest novel, Submission. Le Chateau was kindly linked in the review. I’d like to issue a small correction. Michel Houellebecq wasn’t so much a “major influence” on this ‘umble reatalk retreat as he was a kindred spirit. The Houellebecqian and Heartistian worldviews happened to align and that is why he was granted shivhood by this blog, but in point of fact CH wasn’t aware of Houellebecq’s oeuvre until late in the game, long after similar themes (and coy conclusions) were explored here.

CH themes and observations were culled primarily from the field; if those T&Os resemble Houellebecq’s sharp scrawls, then that is evidence Houellebecq knows of what he writes.

A quibbling quibble. Houellebecq, along with Tom Wolfe, are the greatest novelists of our age and, not coincidentally, they are also alt-right, neodark, reactoshivvian crimethinkers and sexual market surveyors of unparalleled keen perception.

The Left’s causes are exhausted, and their art reflects that. The Right’s causes have only just gathered strength, and their art is ascendant. Rebellion has always been a friend to expression.

Posted in Vanity | 142 Comments »

A Knock-On Benefit Of Ending The Friendzone Industrial Complex

Nov 3rd, 2015 by

We share a hearty chuckle over the avoidable miseries of friendzoned beta males, but there are dead serious implications should the practice ever fall out of favor or get deprived of its seemingly endless source stream of dupes, chodes, and tools.

The fewer beta orbiters willing or available to provide sexless emotional and financial support to dual-mate strategizing (“alpha fux, beta bux”) girls, the more pressure is applied to the alpha male lovers of those girls to assume the “beta bux” relationship responsibilities abjured by the former friendzoned betas.

In theory, this gutting of the friendzone industrial complex should result in three dating market adjustments:

– Girls choosing less conspicuously caddish jerks as lovers. Men who can’t or won’t offer any relationship dependability will have a harder time “locking in” girlfriends for the long haul.

– Girls becoming less disposed to take beta male attention for granted. This will mean that when betas do show romantic interest, they won’t immediately get stuffed into the LJBF hugbox.

– Girls experiencing more difficulty advertising-by-beta orbiter proxy their “no muss no fuss” sexual accessibility to roving alphas. As shartiste explains,

I’m growing more fond of my theory that girls use friend-zoned guys as signals to draw in low-investment alphas. Call it the Conspicuous Cuck Strategy. Look at her, framing him as a prop while she eye-fucks the camera and displays cleavage for any alpha onlooker. Come and get it, I know you’ll fuck and run but the cucks all ready!

I no longer hookup with attached girls, but I did a few times in less discriminating days. The girls ALWAYS talked about their bf/husband in the most beta terms possible, even though reality was probably a bit more shade of grey. They’d talk him down so hard and pitifully, not for any illusion that she’d dump him or I’d whisk her away, but it seemed more to signal just how bad she needed an alpha fuck, and simultaneously assure there’d be no reprisal. This is “flirting” to them. Its kinda disgusting, honestly.

It takes two to tango, and the female exploiting the asexual provisioning of the cuck is just as complicit as the cuck accepting his role and enabling the girl’s dual mate strategy. In this analysis, the girl is more malevolent, but the cuck is more contemptible.

Nevertheless, I don’t think girls are using beta orbiters as dinner bells for fly by night alphas. Not consciously, at least. It’s more reasonable to interpret a woman’s motivation to establish and sustain friendzoned eunuchs as exactly what it is: a status display to other women, and a practical consideration to “cover all her bases”. One can easily imagine a reproductive advantage in the EEA to women who gathered the resources of both sexual and asexual admirers.

Ideally, women want the cad and the dad in the same über alpha male; and women with very high SMV can pull off this coup. But for the majority of women who can’t, acquiring an entourage of harmless castrati isn’t without its twisted appeal. Think about how much the friendzoned beta orbiter offers women:

therapy.
extreme listening skills.
cashmoney.
endless ego-boosting flattery (without demanding reciprocation).
and, perhaps most crucially, a white knight perimeter defense against hopeful betas (and conversely a character-testing gauntlet for aggressive alphas).

So in theory reducing the frequency of friendzoning in the dating market should redound to the benefit of beta males and the detriment of alpha males.

But theory often gets abused trying to make sense of female sexuality. In practice, as the supply of beta male emotional tampons shrinks, what I think likelier to happen is that the alpha cads remain objects of female desire, but girls will have to find alternate outlets to absorb their bitching and moaning about their jerky boyfriends, which could mean girl friends and family. Hearteningly, or maddeningly depending on your degree of cynicism, it could also mean girls “amp up” their sexual coquettishness around beta males to secure the same amount of harmless male attention they used to get for less effort (and for less risk of misconstrual).

On balance, it’s a good thing to reduce the incidence of friendzoning, even if it means more lesser betas wind up alone with their dignity, instead of alone with a cute girl tormenting them with her unattainable nearness. If betas are unwilling to prostrate themselves to self-aggrandizing girls who will never put out for them, there might follow a morale boost and an impetus to learn and acquire the whole panoply of masculine traits that coaxes from girls the kind of hugs that really matter: post-orgasmic leg hugs.

And, not to put too fine a point on it, girls deprived of pushover eunuchs might start to view those betas in a more sex-positive light.

Posted in Beta, Dating, Girls, Relationships, Self-aggrandizement, The Id Monster, Ugly Truths | 139 Comments »

Thousand-Cuck Stare

Nov 2nd, 2015 by

We’re all familiar with the thousand-cock stare — the glazed, unfocused, hollow eyes of a broken slut in the grips of a delirium from having taken a few too many rides on the cock carousel.

There’s a male analogue to the thousand-cock stare:

This is the thousand-cuck stare, the tormented look of a man in the friendzone trying desperately to hide his pain from the world. His suffering is exquisite; always within sniffing distance of prime poosy but who may as well be twelve parsecs from ever reaching vaghalla. He is cucked by: a jerk boyfriend, a mandingo lover, his own futility, the cosmic overlord. Another man has what he wants, but the poor bastard doesn’t even have the dignity or good sense to stop being a party to his humiliation. Instead of admitting failure, he’ll pretend as if his blue balls are a badge of honor and his sexless circumstance is his free choice.

But his eyes will belie the massive backlog of sperm in his aching testes. If you see a man with the thousand-cuck stare, be on guard. There’s no telling when he might snap, like John Boehner remembering his mudsharking daughter and what his grandkids will look like.

Posted in Beta, Funny/Lolblogs, The Id Monster | 257 Comments »

“Your daughter will marry a bearded man”

Nov 2nd, 2015 by

The Muslim invader smells weakness and fear in the enemy. He is aroused in his confidence, and reveals his id monster in all its primal glory.

Germans, and GoodWhite equalist leftoids in general, have no one to blame but themselves for their autogenocide. The occupiers they have let in are just doing what occupiers do when no native sons will put them under the boot. Will the White man find his heart again? Or has the rot reached the bone? The answer to this question will determine the shape of the 21st Century.

Posted in Current Events, The Id Monster, Videos | 289 Comments »

The Reason Women Initiate 70% Of Divorces

Oct 30th, 2015 by

Executive Summary: There’s a tight link between female fertility and divorce.

Do women initiate the majority of divorces because men are innately “badder” than wives? Or, is it more likely something else which motivates wives — something intrinsic to the demands of their female desires — to push for marital dissolution at greater rates than husbands push for it?

CH has tackled the subject of female-initiated frivorce. It’s good to revisit the topic for clarification, because there are a lot of people who still labor under delusions about the malign effects on society of the divorce industrial complex, and what exactly incentivizes wives to file for the majority of divorces.

Feminists like to point to statistics that supposedly show that divorced women experience a fall in their standard of living as proof that wives are reluctantly initiating divorces to get out of marriages to ill-behaving husbands. There are two problems with this highly misleading statistic (assuming the stat is true in the sense it is being used):

1. The presumption that women are thinking through the long-term and less tangible financial consequences of divorce when the short-term and more tangible incentives are all in the woman’s favor.

A woman who knows she will get half, the house, and custody with child support thinks she will hit the jackpot in the event of divorce, because those rewards are immediate and tangible. She won’t be as likely to think through the prospect of diminished career potential or sexual market value. Incentives matter in human behavior, and front-loaded incentives matter more than downstream disincentives.

2. The drop in a divorced woman’s standard of living, if true, is likely based on a faulty comparison with her standard of living while she was married. The better and more relevant comparison is between the standard of living of a divorced woman and her life as a single woman before she got married. Do divorced women live better than they did as single women BEFORE they got married? That is the useful metric which will shed light on whether divorce really is a bad economic decision for women.

Regarding the supposed post-divorce drop in women’s standard of living, WPrice added:

I tend to reject the statistic, because it usually refers to a feminist study from the 1980s (when academic feminism had carte blanche to make things up). However, it’s true that a woman’s income often looks low on paper following divorce. This is because child support, child tax credits, EIC, property transferred to woman from ex-husband and other benefits are not counted as income. In the meanwhile, it looks like a man’s expenses have gone down, because he no longer gets to claim these expenses on his tax returns. The truth, however, is that she gets all of the supposed increase in his living standard and then some directly in her pocket. The statistic is so deliberately dishonest that it ought to be called what it is: a lie.

Divorce is deliberately set up to ensure that women lose as little as possible when leaving their marriage for whatever reason. Men, of course, are punished no matter what the reason.

The reason our laws, and in particular divorce laws, are biased in favor of women, has to do with the human psychological underpinnings that emerge from the Fundamental Premise.

The divorce rate skyrocketed right after no-fault divorce was passed in CA in 1969, followed by most other states. It has since declined from its mid-1970s high and leveled off (but still nowhere its historical lows in the US pre-1969), so whatever shock to the marital system no-fault divorce instigated seemed to have worked itself out by the 1980s.

CH is fond of the Diversity + Proximity = War equation, but there’s another one we love just as much for its pithy descriptive power:

Options = Instability.

A young woman in her nubile prime has more romantic options than a same-age young man. This makes commitment at that age inherently unstable (especially for naive beta males). The formula reverses for men, who experience a rise in romantic options as they get older and gain social and financial status, (and given that men of all ages are attracted to female youth and beauty, there would be incentives for an older husband to trade his status for a younger second wife).

Theoretically, then, we should find that female-initiated divorce is mostly by YOUNG wives, and male-initiated divorce by OLDER husbands. And that is pretty much the case… but for the former only.

From Dalrock:

As I’ve shared previously the data shows divorce rates are highest when the wife is young and has the incentive to commit divorce theft, and lowest when the wife is older and the husband has the incentive to commit divorce theft.  Divorce is actually least likely when conventional wisdom suggests it occurs most, when the wife is older and the husband has the opportunity to dump her for  a younger woman.

On the surface, this result is strange. But thinking about it, I can tell you why the divorce rate doesn’t follow a symmetrical “U-curve” that reflects older husbands “trading up” for younger second wives: men, unlike women, are simply more comfortable keeping two lovers simultaneously. Husbands don’t have a problem screwing a mistress and coming home to a doting wife. Wives DO have a problem screwing around and maintaining a happy facade with their cucked beta hubbies.

In short, men have a harem mentality. Women don’t.

One glaring correlation that emerges when examining divorce trends is that the divorce rate mirrors women’s likelihood of getting pregnant (aka how fertile she is, aka how hot she is).

The divorce rate and the female fertility rate, if superimposed, are practically IDENTICAL. Divorce is, to a great degree, a function of a woman’s sexual desirability and her options in the sexual market. The more romantic attention from desirable men a young wife can command, the more unstable her marriage.

If stable marriages are a noble societal goal, then encouraging later marriages would work to lower the divorce rate. But, this strategy also works to lower the marital fertility rate, as older mothers have fewer children than younger mothers. Plus, beta males with rising SMV (sexual market value) don’t much like marrying road worn and put away hard women in their 30s, and they won’t if they don’t have to.

A better social strategy would be to instruct young men in the ways of seducing women — both premaritally and maritally — so that they can better tame and redirect their young wives’ hypergamous compulsions to themselves and away from alpha male interlopers. Still another possibility is pairing off younger wives with older husbands, for a balanced SMV match. Or, removing the disincentives to stay married that have become part of divorce and family laws.

(FYI, women will always receive the bulk of child support, and child custody, because women are naturally disposed to the task of child-rearing in a way that men aren’t. Most men don’t much like the drudgery of child-raising, but for that minority of ex-husbands and fathers who crave the joys of being a full-time dad, the family court system should be reformed to better sympathize with their needs.)

Bottom line: If divorce laws are grossly unfair to either sex, they need to be changed. Lamely indulging in “life is unfair” white knightism posturing is no excuse for accepting the continuance of bad laws. (Perspective: “racial quotas are wrong.” “life is unfair.” See how that doesn’t work?)

Posted in Biomechanics is God, Marriage Is For Chumps, The Id Monster, Ugly Truths | 358 Comments »

Halloween Costume Ideas

Oct 30th, 2015 by

MattW had a great Halloween costume idea.

Best halloween costume idea:

Put on a black beard and a turban, and some bomb-like electronics around your middle under a vest or zip-up hoody, then show people and tell them you invented a clock.

😆 Nice. It’d be really funny if you wrote the word “CLOCK” in black Sharpie on a bundle of dynamite.

I was set to write that Trump costumes would be all the rage this year (the more daring readers can sport a spiffy “Make America White Again” hat to keep that blond bouffant under control), but Matt’s costume suggestion is better. Wear it, and see how many SWPLs and SJWs smile wanly, then look confused, then slowly turn apoplectic with sputtering indignation as they realize you are making fun of one of their icons.

PS For the scalzied dads with daughters who can bench more than they can, a website that sells grrlpower Halloween costumes. Yes, you can dress your little tyke up like Ruth “Baby” Ginsburg, or Lena Dunham (sexual molestation not included).

Posted in Funny/Lolblogs | 72 Comments »

White Autogenocide Is A Massive Loss Of Frame

Oct 29th, 2015 by

Framing and reframing are core Game concepts that every Chateau guest should by now understand and have internalized. The topic has been discussed frequently here at CH, and deserves that level of scrutiny because framing has broader applications beyond seducing women.

A frame is a system of interpretation that an individual or group uses to understand a certain event/situation.

Frame is important in pickup, because it communicates the PUA’s mindset as well as the underlying psychology behind his words and actions. For example, Swinggcat advocates a “prizing” frame, whereby the PUA always assumes the girl is interested in him as the prize. In this frame, a chick can say, “I really like the tie”. The PUA can respond, “Thank you, slow down a little bit. At least buy me a drink before you hit on me like that.” […]

“Framing”, [or frame control], in the context of media studies, sociology and psychology, refers to the social construction of a social phenomenon by mass media sources or specific political or social movements or organizations. It is an inevitable process of selective influence over the individual’s perception.

In pickup, as with mass media, there are always certain levels of interpretation of a specific event that can be reframed based on frame control, and your emotions and conviction in your beliefs.

Pay attention to that word conviction. It’s critical to knowing why cuckservatives are so cucked, and why they can’t ever seem to go on the offense against anti-White leftoids.

For now, a helpful (and amended) reminder of a relevant CH maxim:

Maxim #45: Any conversation with a woman/leftoid/Hivemind jackboot that is not explicitly framed by you to maximize your perceived status will lead to her/the leftoid/the Hivemind forming a negative perception of your value over time.

Which brings us to a comment left by reader Moses,

I’ve said it before and I’m gonna keep saying it:

White self-immolation is nothing more than a loss of frame on a massive scale.

When whites began elevating other groups’ interests of White interests it was a loss of frame on a societal level.

Other ethnic groups saw an opportunity to exploit White guilt and did so — and continue to do so — brilliantly.

Non-Whites have only the power that Whites give to them. It’s true that Whites deserve whatever they get. And they will get it good and hard.

Moses is right. A massive loss of frame will not just send you home alone a (self-)beaten incel; it will also send your civilization and your race to an incel defeat.

Relevant to this discussion, I was listening to a news show about the GOP nomination race and the guest cuckservative cucked his way into a perfectly cucky explanation for Uncle Ben Carson’s popularity among middle America Whites. He said, paraphrasing, “I’m not racist! Some of my best friends are black!”

Well, yeah, that’s pretty much what he said. More precisely, he said, “Republican support for Carson proves that they would love to vote for a black or hispanic or woman president.” Left unmentioned was the stool chafing he gave himself while watching his wife get banged out by her black lover.

This is what is meant by a massive loss of frame enabling White autogenocide. The cuck actually aids his enemy’s purposes when he loses frame and ADOPTS THE FRAME of his tormentors. He is essentially conceding that White Republicans are secret racists who are trying hard to overcome their terrible affliction and prove they are making progress toward the one true faith of antiracism, and voting for a shell entity black guy is how they impress their reeducation camp officers.

What if cucks — or even BadWhites in general — stopped losing frame? What would that world look like?

I can think of two powerful ways to reframe the anti-White leftoid narrative, and by so doing recapture the moral and practical high ground.

1. Attack the anti-White leftoid hypocrisy.

Cuck: “Republicans need to do more outreach to black/hispanic/tranny voters and prove they are not the party of exclusion.”

The Un-Cucked: “Blacks vote 90% for Dems. Hispanics vote 70% for Dems. Billionaires vote 80% Dem. The Democrats need to do more outreach to Whites and non-billionaires.”

2. Attack the anti-White leftoid premise.

Cuck: “Republicans have to show they aren’t going to be the party of White people.”

The Un-Cucked: “It’s good that there is a public voice for White interests. No one else but Whites will look out for Whites.”

That is how you establish the frame and Uncuck the Discourse. Nothing good gets accomplished until the cuck is cast off his royal corner stool.

Posted in Culture, Current Events, Game, Goodbye America, Hope and Change, Psy Ops, Rules of Manhood, Ugly Truths | 102 Comments »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Also reachable over Tor: roissyrwpgxawb3etwznvay4eelbws4lkdtr4tt2r7wxb6adq6pajtqd.onion