Feed on
Posts
Comments

Add another hatefact to the Diversity + Proximity = War reference list (liberally forward to your libshit friends for cogdis hilarity!). US News editors compiled a “best state to live” ranking, but unlike previous rankings they gave more weight this go-round to scores in categories that mattered most to people, according to survey answers. (h/t Beeschelhoff)

Consequently, “Quality of Life” scores had more prominence in evaluating state livability. Quality of Life is defined as

…largely a result of their interactions with those around them,” U.S. News writes. “Studies show that when people feel socially supported, they experience greater happiness, as well as physical and mental health.”

Careful, veering close to crimethink there. (Someone page Pleasurecel so that he can update his SCALE archives with this latest confirmatory evidence.)

On this basis, the top five states with the highest quality of life were

North Dakota
Minnesota
Wisconsin
New Hampshire
South Dakota

The state with the lowest quality of life was California.

Related, the percentage share of Whites in each of those states, as of 2015:

North Dakota: 88.7%
Minnesota: 84.8%
Wisconsin: 86.5%
New Hampshire: 93.7%
South Dakota: 85.0%

California: 61.8%

It’s well-known by now to those who aren’t self-deluding that Diversity™ reduces social trust. The more racially disparate groups crammed together in geographically close quarters, the more miserable, alienated, and socially atomized everyone feels. So it’s predictable that vibrantly diverse Mexifornia would have a shitty quality of life convincing its unhappy (White) residents to flee to other states for relief, while mostly homogeneous states like New Hampshire have a good quality of life and happy residents who feel like they belong to something bigger than their buttplug collection and anime porn.

[crypto-donation-box]

HateStat Of The Day

wew if true.

Single momhood and broken families are the spearhead of the Fuggernaut.

We fight the Fuggernaut by reminding them of their Ugliness and Lies, not by retreating from our Beauty and Truth to help the Fugs feel welcome in our Elysium (which they will destroy in due time).

Large scale, widespread, obtrusive, encompassing, relentless and merciless social shaming of the degenerate freak mafia will make America great again.

[crypto-donation-box]

Why I Love President Trump

This video of an extemporaneous Trump telling it like it is about hot female teachers boffing their male students explains better than a thousand-word essay could why I, along with tens of millions of Americans, hold a deep and profound nohomo love for the man.

pic.twitter.com/2YN66LpmsJ

— Mel Gibson fan 3 (@MelGibsonFan3) February 28, 2018

I didn’t think it possible I could love this man more than I already do.

Everything about this video clip is high T goodness. Trump’s facial expressions, his cool under the pressure of a left-field question, the way he looks at the camera and only briefly visually acknowledges the sexy reporter, and of course his answers.

“male students haven’t been hurt by [sex with their teachers]” Politihack rating: 100% TRUE

“they’re going around bragging about it” Politihack rating: 100% TRUE

“i don’t see a lot of damage done” Politihack rating for both the stated and implied assertions: 100% TRUE. Teen boys are psychosexually different than teen girls. A right good fuck with a hot teacher isn’t gonna leave lasting emotional scars on a horny young man.

“i would say her husband cannot be happy” Politihack rating: 100% TRUMP

The great irony of our Fake News Agitprop Age is that Trump speaks more raw honest truth in a day than the Left and their cucktrolled opposition have spoken in the last sixty years.

And that’s the TRUTH that burns Trump’s enemies, and why they are sinking in a morass of their own psychological projection.

***

PS Here’s an insight worth reading about Trump’s WINNING strategy:

Black Pillers, chill out. Trump knows what he’s doing. He’s a master at out-maneuvering and mindfucking the media (and by the associative property, the Democrat Party).

It’s why I don’t take everything Trump says at face value. I take him seriously, but not literally. He says — in front of cackling hand-rubbing Feinstein — that he wants to ban guns? That’s the deception. He lies to his enemies — to America’s enemies — and that’s a good thing, because the Left plays for keeps. And Trump is the warrior we need to crush the Left.

[crypto-donation-box]

Ted Colt asks for some Game advice to give his son,

other than fleeing, what advice would you give my son?

He’s referring to this scenario:

If a chick sincerely and weirdly said that to your son, and she was cute enough to consider angling for the bangling? He should ask if that pickup line has ever worked for her.

A fledgling womanizer up for the challenge of seducing femcunts-in-training will never go wrong macking these girls using the one-two combo of “assume the sale” and “flip the script” game techniques. Assume she’s trying to pick you up, and flip the female chasee-male chaser script. All delivered with a tacitly, pregnantly jerkboy je ne sais cock.

These kinds of girls — the screechy parroters of feminist drivel — were never very common, but their numbers have been increasing since The Insanity took over America, so there’s a chance your son may come across a girl saying something like this to him, in which case my line above should help him pass her shit test with flying colors and wipe the early onset schoolmarm sneer off her face.

[crypto-donation-box]

High T-ku

muscles credible
deadlift no rounding error
oops extra syllable

throw iron like thor
testosterone-infused brain
now MAGA for good

soybois sneer limply
laugh in their faces, i do
“lol you watch the view!”

sophistic shitlibs
run marathons vote thecunt
chad shits better men

[crypto-donation-box]

NewYorkerParody stumbles on a good reason to judge a woman by the job she keeps: it could be a warning of future infidelity:

I think the best possible wife material is a preschool teacher: Cute, employed (but inevitably makes less than you), in a motherly/nurturing career, not surrounded by alpha males, has to get up early, has summers off so she can watch the kids (I.e. no expensive summer camps; you can take family vacations). Contrast this w/ a wife who travels/works in sales.

If this sounds familiar to old-time Chateau readers, it should. From a 2007 CH post “What a girl’s job tells you“:

Elementary School Teacher

Pure gold.  Put this girl on your short list for long term commitment.  What’s not to love about the elementary school teacher?  Cute, thin (it’s a workout chasing kids all day), ultra feminine, nurturing, selfless, caring, and most importantly blessedly low maintenance due to the nature of her workplace environment sequestering her from the attentions of men.  The best ones teach 1st through 5th grades.  Women who supervise daycare are too toddler-focused and will love the kids more than you.  You will soon tire of her coo-ing at every baby you both pass by.  High school teachers are too stressed out from their job to properly service your manly needs at home.  Don’t bother with college professors unless you think foreplay is listening to an earful of pomo feminist shrillness.
Bonus:  teachers don’t make much money so your financial status will always be higher, guaranteeing a long and healthy relationship.
Sexual Satisfaction Rating:  3/4th erection
Long Term Potential Rating:  hope diamond (she’s not gonna have much opportunity to cheat at work)

The world is converging on a conventional wisdom that is indistinguishable from Chateau teachings. In a few years, anchors on the locals at 8 will be saying diversity + proximity = war and citing the relevant studies linked at this blog.

It wasn’t mentioned in the original CH post on this topic, but a yuge cuckoldry risk red flag is a woman with any kind of job that requires extensive business travel. Any men looking to wife up a faithful companion should steer clear of women with enough frequent flyer miles to EatPraySlut the four corners of the world with swarthers from afar.

You may as well call it United Cucklines.

***

What about men who travel a lot for their jobs? Aren’t they risking a cuckolding when they leave their lovers behind to keep home an hearth in wait for their return?

Yes and no. The risk of cuckoldry is higher with traveling women, because they interact with more alpha males on the road than the homebound woman does in her time alone while her man is away on business. Naturally, women can get lonely, and a man who’s traveling all the time opens himself to getting cucked by a sneaky fucker loitering back home and whispering emotional lube juice in the romantically starved hausfrau’s ear. But in general women’s hearts grow fonder for ambitious men who must be on the road a lot….to a point, beyond which the local butcher’s eyeplay starts to catch her attention.

Another thing to keep in mind: women in jobs that require a lot of travel are typically low E, high T manjaws gunning for the brass ring. That is, the type of woman who might not think twice about fucking a co-worker in a flyover Marriott to scratch an itch (or jingle a tingle).

[crypto-donation-box]

That’s a two-for-one assume the sale payload!

Why work for a woman’s love when you can assume she already loves you and sit back in the banging position waiting for her to catch up?

[crypto-donation-box]

Hypothetically, if you were cucked by a man with a micropeen, would you:

This post inspired by:

[crypto-donation-box]

Two common cognitive biases, negative transference and psychological projection, are evident in most people but especially common in those of the leftoid persuasion. There are also racial differences in vulnerability to each of these ego-assuaging biases, manifesting typically in lower performing and worse-behaving groups who use these coping mechanisms to alleviate or accommodate their feelings of resentment and envy.

Negative transference is a subset of psychological projection. A quick definition:

Transference is having feelings that seem to be about one person when they’re really about someone else. For example, I sometimes think my therapist doesn’t want to listen to me. Really it was my mother who didn’t listen, and I’ve transferred those feelings onto my therapist.

Projection is where you think someone else is feeling or behaving in a particular way when actually they’re your feelings or behaviour. I find it hard to feel sad or angry about things I tell my therapist, but I imagine him feeling sad or angry – I project my feelings onto him. And sometimes people accuse others of doing things they are in fact doing themselves.

So transference is about the cause of the feelings, and projection is about who you think is feeling them. Does that help? So your therapist would tell by looking at a) the cause of the feelings and b) where you think they’re coming from.

If you experience your therapist as being distant when really a parent was distant, that’s transference.

If you experience your therapist as being distant when really you’re being distant, that’s projection.

Negative transference is similar to scapegoating and blame shifting. Basically, person [A] transfers negative feelings he has for person or group [A2] to an innocent third party [B] when person [A] has an affinity for or emotional connection to person or group [A2] and balks at blaming [A2] for his bad feelings.

Psychological projection is when person [A] accuses innocent person or group [B] of poor behavior that person [A] is doing himself, or which person [A]’s associated group [A2] is doing. Projection is also a form of blame shifting.

These two powerful cognitive biases are ego emollients because they shift blame away from a person, or away from a group with whom the person positively identifies, to a resented third party person or group.

Which brings me to this observation:

Just like “White racism” is negative transference by blacks who can’t admit it’s black dysfunction and criminal violence that bedevils them, “the patriarchy” is negative transference by women who can’t admit it’s female cattiness, gossip, innuendo, emotional manipulation, and envy of other women’s beauty that bedevils them.

In both cases, blacks and women (particularly feminists) also psychologically project their own bad behavior onto resented outgroups (Whites and men, respectively). So they are covering for themselves as well as for the groups to which they belong.

Negative transference and psychological projection explain A LOT of the current hysterics we see from the BLM crowd, the pussyhat bluehairs, and the…..well, you know who.

[crypto-donation-box]

Mate guarding tactics, in descending order of alphaness:

  • She mate guards you
  • You flash a frown and she promptly self-corrects
  • You mindfuck her (see: Dread Game)
  • You let most insults slide, but explode once in a while to keep her on edge and in line
  • You kick the other guy’s ass
  • You lavish excessive PDA on her whenever another man is talking to her (or just in the general vicinity of her)
  • You buy her stuff
  • You beg her to love you
  • You marry her*
  • You accept her terms of polyamory
  • You mate guard yourself (the undescended testicles soyboy option)

*”Marriage is beta?”, sneers the tradcon. No. Marriage is beta when it’s relied on by a man as a solution to prevent a woman from straying (it never works). If you think the legalistic imprimatur of marriage will finally convince that thot to take her mind off other men and love you unto the end of time, you’ll be disappointed. You’re an even bigger tool if you believe a huge rock and expensive wedding guarantees a woman’s fidelity. (Just the opposite — if you have to spend a lot to convince a woman to accept your monogamous submission, she’s more likely to divorce you.)

As I’ve argued in these pages, and as ¡SCIENCE! has confirmed, frequent mate guarding, as it is typically practiced by Western men, is beta.

Established alpha males don’t typically mate guard — at least not obviously — because they don’t fear their women cheating on them or falling under the spell of other men, and, less benignly, they redirect some of their relationship energy that would normally be spent on mate guarding toward hooking up with side lovers.

Beta males, whether consciously or not, sense more keenly the sexual interloper threat posed by other men and the wandering eyes of their own women. This heightened threat detection system is likely an evolved instinct that serves the useful purpose of keeping the lover of a beta male faithful, (or constrained in her ability to cheat).

Here’s where it gets interesting for philosophers and warriors of Game alike: While mate guarding may offer some temporary or discrete relationship security, multiple acts of mate guarding will paradoxically increase longer term relationship fragility. The mechanism by which this LTR instability is generated is a status feedback loop; if a man mate guards, his woman will subconsciously evaluate his romantic worth downward because (her sensitive idware will reason) only a beta male would feel the need to mate guard. An alpha male would not; his aloofness would be perceived as proof of his impenetrable high status.

Research has even found a positive association between a man’s jizz quality and his indifference to mate guarding.

In another blow against mate guarding as a viable minx management tool, research has shown that “aloof and indifferent” men who create feelings of uncertainty in women are more attractive than clingy men:

When women think of assholes they don’t want to date, they’re thinking of caring assholes. The kind of men who are clingy, mate guarding buffoons. The assholes who are loved by women are the men whose jerkitude is implied through emotional distance, cocksureness, outcome independence, and inscrutability.

The Alpha Apex for a man is reached when a woman is so smitten with him that the thought of cheating never even crosses her mind and in fact she spends most of her idle cognition devising ploys to keep other women away from him (and his attention focused solely on her *daily bjs wink wink*).

The Nancyboy Nadir for a male-thing is hit when his woman is given free rein to indulge her slutty cheating heart while he puts limits on his own behavior, fearful of her wrath and rejection should he hold her to the same faithfulness standards he holds himself.

Mate guarding is a behavior associated with men who fall in-between those two extreme states of manhood. It isn’t always self-defeating, but it quickly can be if it becomes the primary means to manage a wanton woman. As a general rule:

Alpha men never or rarely mate guard (they don’t have to because their women love them too much to risk losing them, but when they do mate guard, obedience is immediate and unquestioned).

Beta males sometimes or frequently mate guard (and when they do, their women are often driven further away by the weak display of desperate possessiveness, but can sometimes be convinced to stay in the relationship with promises of trinkets and marriage).

Omega dregs never or rarely mate guard (it’s futile for them as they are in no position to make demands, and the rare times they do mate guard it usually emerges in a clumsy spectacle of inchoate rage that further lowers their already low SMV).

Soyboys (psychologically lower than omegas) actually reverse mate guard — they mate liberate, preferring to avoid any conflict that might threaten their relationships (or beta orbiter status) via the warped solution of permitting total sexual freedom for their women while restraining their own sexuality.

Mate guarding is largely the province of sub-alpha men, because men lower on the sexual market hierarchy have to deal with 1. more threats from male competitors and 2. an urge to unfaithfulness from their women. As a preventative against gf or wife cheating or abandonment, these men show signs of loyalty (generously defined) or possessiveness (more realistically defined) as enticement to their women to stick with them. Since women love dem beta bux, these displays of commitment can be persuasive on those women peering at the Wall cresting over the horizon and eager to settle down in post-cock carousel expedience.

Mate guarding can take numerous forms, one of which is the elaborate proposal. If you notice an increase in certain mate guarding behaviors, you are seeing an increase in beta males (as perceived by women) who feel the need to hammer home the message that they’ll give everything plus their dignity to assure a woman’s fidelity.

The corollary to the mate guarding = alpha LARPing observation is that men can raise their perceived SMV by avoiding conspicuous displays of mate guarding when a woman is likely to expect them. Undermining her expectation of a jealous reaction will create cogdis that encourages subtle but powerful micro-reassessments of her beta boyfriend/hubby, that over the long run raise his value relative to her value.

***

This topic re-arrested me because a study just released seems, at least on the surface, to contradict CH teachings and previous studies examining the relation between mate guarding and men’s attractiveness to women.

Men with higher testosterone levels report being more protective of their romantic relationships

Whoa, hold the phone. Alpha males tend to be higher T, and higher T is associated with more mate guarding. What gives? Delving into the study’s details reveals that there is no contradiction.

“…very little research has examined whether testosterone relates to other forms of mating-relevant competition, such as effort aimed at retaining a mating partner. This includes benefit provisioning (e.g., doing nice things for your partner to highlight your commitment to her such as buying gifts, proposing marriage) and cost inflicting (e.g., threatening other men to stay away) acts meant to hold on to exclusive access to one’s mate.” […]

The researchers collected saliva samples from 108 male undergraduates to measure their testosterone levels and had them complete surveys on mate retention and intrasexual competition. They found there was an indirect relationship between testosterone and mate retention behaviors.

“Our results suggested that there is a modest relationship between testosterone and mate-retention, but that this relationship is not direct in nature. Rather, testosterone predicts holding a more competitive attitude toward members of the same sex (intrasexual competition), and it is this characteristic of intrasexual competitiveness that in turn predicts mate retention,” Arnocky told PsyPost.

“Moreover, this relationship seems to be strongest for cost inflicting, rather than benefit provisioning, acts of mate retention.”

Examples of cost-inflicting mate retention behavior include things such as limiting a partner’s social life by monopolizing her time and insulting her to make her feel undeserving of the current relationship.

Teasing and negs are a valuable component of a healthy, committed, and uncucked relationship!

I was right in my suspicions about what this study was really saying. Higher testosterone was associated with “cost-inflicting” mate retention behaviors, i.e., threats against interloper men or psy ops against girlfriends. Psy ops on girls and maneuvering for dominance over other men are alpha male pastimes. Showering women with reassuring PDA, being a shoulder to cry on, expressing devotion, and “benefit provisioning” as mate retention strategies are the lower T beta male options, and in the Darwinian calculus these beta strategies aren’t nearly as effective as the “cost-inflicting” alpha strategies for keeping women in love and reproductively loyal.

“Our study was correlational in its design, and so one cannot make any causal assumptions about whether testosterone influences levels of intrasexual competitiveness or mate retention,” Arnocky noted.

Correlation does not equal penetration.

Ted Colt adds,

if you want to prevent a woman from straying, impregnate her, limit her employment prospects, & surround her with family

it worked for thousands of years

Realtalk. But suffrage happened, and now we live in Vagina World. For modren times (ie the age of careerist shrikes and mass contraception), the best prophylactic against a woman cheating on you is

  1. choose wisely and
  2. have her fall in love with you

A love of sufficient infatuation is indistinguishable from worship. And no woman will cheat on her god.

***

Women mate guard too. They use sex as their preferred means of mate control.

Chapter 5, “Green-Eyed Desire: From Guarding a Mate to Trading Up,” deals with other economic constraints relating to the human mating market. Women appear to use sex to help guard male mates by keeping them satisfied, reminding men what they stand to lose should they defect—or as many women in the study put it, “keep[ing] his mind off other women.”

More sex from women? Sounds great! To gain access to that parallel pooniverse, you have to keep women in a steady state of uncertainty and anxiety.

[crypto-donation-box]

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »