Archive for the ‘Biomechanics is God’ Category

The Winner Effect is the cognitive key to unleashing the Latent Alpha in every beta male. The term was entered into the Chateau lexicon via this post about the existence of an “alpha male switch” in mice:

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

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

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

Imprinting is a synonym for social priming. Both terms describe how extrinsic alterations in one’s behavior can leave a lasting effect on one’s intrinsic mentality. In laybro language: Fake it till you create it. If you assume the trappings of alpha male posture and body language and attitude and verbal terseness, you will neurally metamorphose into the alpha you mimic. Game is the elevation of a man from beta status to alpha status, and it provides a long-term boost almost the equal of the temporary boost it gives to a man’s SMV.

This is the Winner Effect benefit of Game: the more alpha maleness you project, the more positive attention you’ll get from women, and the more this feeling of winning will embed itself as a semi-permanent feature of your limbic landscape.

Experiences have consequences. If your experiences are a B(eta) side compendium of rejection, you’ll grow bitter about women and skeptical of your ability to attract women. But once you’ve tasted the power surge of testosterone-y glory that accompanies social mastery and the glow of being the locus of female desire, your brain will be reconfigured to a higher alpha plane of functioning, supercharging a positive feedback loop of continued alphatude, winning, and womanizing.

Whether you are besting men or bedding women, the Winner Effect lingers. Don’t misunderstand; The Winner Effect requires steady inputs to achieve an acceptable consistency in output. Persuading one plain jane to sleep with you will produce a Little Winner Effect that may last a whole week, or until a real hottie brushes aside your advance. To really exploit the Winner Effect, you need to build up a reserve of psychological capital, and the surest route to that state of mind is through the hearts of multiple women of increasing beauty.

A lesson for the excitable betas: One girlfriend or wife does not a Rico Suave make. One kiss close does not a loverboy make. One same night lay does not a ladykiller make.

One girlfriend is certainly better than no girlfriend, but to scale the heights of the sexual market and banish the depressive beta male within always threatening to end the party, you’ll need a C.V. of snapper hauling history. Success breeds success, winning begets winning.

Think of it this way: Each new bang secures a slightly elevated SMV rank for a man. If you’re incel, one bang with a mousy nerd girl will fill your jewels with juice and your shuffle with swagger, but it won’t turn you into a Casanova. Bang another, better lo0king girl within a reasonable time frame of the first girl, and your balls will grow two more sizes. Now you’re less beta than you were after banging the first girl, and the Winner Effect lingers a little longer. Bang yet another girl, even hotter, and your Inner Beta is shrunk again while your Nascent Alpha has hit its pubertal stride.

After every bang and new girl, you will “reset” to a less beta/submissive and a more alpha/dominant psychological position once the penumbra of Winner Effect has worn off your post-coitally frazzled ganglia. And the time it takes for the Winner Effect to wear off will increase with each cuntquest. Nirvaja is reached when the Winner Effect is a permanent fixture of your everyday emotional state, and picking up women becomes as eventful as grocery shopping. You expect food to be on the shelves, and enough money in your pocket to purchase what you need.

From a personal standpoint, I can vouch for the Winner Effect. Bedding women lends an air of inevitably and invincibility to a man’s desirability, which translates as an unstoppable confidence in the field. But these romantic adventures tend to come in bunches. It’s the nature of the mating arena. One six month stretch I had tore my way through fifteen women; then the well tapped out and the two months that followed were high and dry. The Inner Beta creeped up on me, and I could’ve succumbed to a longer bout of tingle-killing self-doubt if I hadn’t already had a vajfap sheet a mile long upon which to calm my emotional chaos.

The danger that lurks for all men who rely heavily on interpersonal qualities (rather than, say, a billion dollars) for projecting alluring masculinity is that there is an equal and opposite reaction for every action. The Winner Effect can easily yield to the Loser Rut if you are a weak-willed sort. If you are accustomed to a regular stream of prime pussy gracing your gonads and suddenly suffer a dip in fortunes, then a natural and brief interregnum can seem like a lasting catastrophe. A negative reinforcement can set up that quickly exacerbates what would normally be a tiny disturbance in your force into a cataclysmic referendum on your seductive prowess.

Put your faith in the Winner Effect, but temper your zeal with a commonsensical appreciation of the likely ruts you’ll endure along your journeys in the world of women. If you have a level head and aren’t given to hysterical self-appraisals every time you experience a setback, then Game will serve you as a lifelong friend. For this reason, the womanizers I have admired the most were those men whose quality of conquest was nearly matched by their consistency of conquest. That’s how I knew they had achieved the equivalent of Chateau lordship. Every man experiences ruts, but only a few men gaze up from within their ruts and see an opportunity to climb to a new zenith.

Read Full Post »

Recently, the Audacious Epigone highlighted a poll which found that, among women age 18-29 (the single White woman years), the most common preferred term of self-identification is “feminist”.

I was reminded of that poll and the data showing single White women voted overwhelmingly for thecunt (and for Gay Mulatto), single women are more xenophilic than are men,  and single White women are for open borders trash world globohomoism, when I watched this Jordan Peterson video and read the following excellent commentary from a CH reader. Note that I have already commented on the same Peterson speech, but the reader who forwarded the video, including his commentary, fleshed out my thoughts more exhaustively.


This series is amazingly good. Very long lectures, but saturated with good ideas.

This third lecture is the most recent one I have listened, and they just keep getting better.

You must listen carefully to 2:33:00 to the end, last question at the end of the lecture, about 8 minutes.

Peterson says that the SJW “equality-above-all-else philosophy” is predicated on personality factors associated with women, “agreeableness and high negative emotion” but even controlling for those, SJWs are more likely to be female. He then tries to explain this.

The relative evolutionary roles of women versus men, is men produce and women distribute, and insist on fairness. This was shaped the evolutionary background of human beings.

He talks about the role of women political power, which has never happened before, He notes correctly how their demand for equality runs up against the reality of differential productivity.

The SJW phenomenon is associated with the rise of women to political power. “We don’t know what a truly female political philosophy would be like.” He then correctly notes simply saying everyone gets the same thing, which is not a sophisticated philosophy. He evades saying this is all the “philosophy” they ever will generates. But there is no reason to think it will ever be anything else.

Peterson then quotes someone — he can’t remember who — and a Google search does not turn it up: “Men test ideas and women test men.”

“We don’t know to what extent women test men sheerly by provocation. It’s a lot.” “I’m going to go after you and see where your weak spots are.” Bingo. He recognizes the that women shit test men. He then says that in this movement, and using shame, “there is a tremendous amount of provocation.” He is recognizing that PC, SJW behavior is a shit test.

As I have noted before, feminism, from the beginning was civilizational-scale shit test that women, at some level, wanted men to overcome. They wanted a firm hand, and instead they got: “Whatever will make you happy, honey” The men of our civilization failed this colossal shit test. And that was when our civilization started to fall apart.

This is amazing enough. But it gets better.

Back to Peterson.

He next says “I shouldn’t say this.” Then he says: “I don’t believe this but I am trying to figure it out.” Ha, right! As a Freudian psychoanalyst, Peterson himself would know this is a major tell. He knows it is risky to say it, he decides to say it, but then he tries to introduce some not-very-plausible deniability. He talks about 50 Shades of Gray and says it is “comical” that at the very moment of strident demands for equality this bestseller shows that the subconscious female mind desires for dominance.

Calling this “comical” is a way of downplaying its significance. It is not comical. Another Freudian tell. It is rudimentary that people claim to be joking when they are saying what they really think but are afraid to admit it. The gigantic fact of the bestsellerdom of 50 Shades is not funny. It is evidence. It is damning, irrefutable evidence of what women really want versus what they say they want. Peterson does not use the phrase “revealed versus disclosed preferences.” But that is exactly what it is.

He then says that something else he is trying to puzzle out, and he agains says “it’s not like I believe this” — again implausibly. He refers to the “crazy alliance” between the Feminists and the Radical Islamists “that I just do not get.” But he does get it. He pretends to take Feminism at face value, that it is about the rights of women, the safety of women, the wellbeing of women, which it has never been. He says “Why they aren’t protesting non-stop about Saudi Arabia is completely beyond me.” But, it is not beyond him, as his next comments prove. He then says, agains distancing himself “this may be the Freudian in me.” He then tells the truth couched as a question: “Is there an attraction that is there attraction that is emerging among the female radicals for that totalitarian male dominance that they’ve chased out of the West.” Again the distancing: “I mean, that’s a Hell of a thing to think.” It is even more of a Hell of a thing to live with as your country and your civilization is committing suicide because your females are so desperate for an unapologetic dicking that they are desperate to import the Muslim bitch-hand. Peterson then says he can see “no rational reason” for the alliance between radical females and Islam. Correct. There is an irrational reason. Or is it actually rational for a woman to want what evolution drives her to want. He

He raises and rejects the simple notion that the female radicals are attracted by radical Islam primarily because it is the enemy of the west.

Peterson then restates his main point more strongly. “I’m not going to shake my suspicion about this unconscious balancing. Because the demand for egalitarianism and the eradication of masculinity accelerates there is going to be a longing in the unconscious for the opposite of that, the more you scream for equality the more your unconscious is going to admire dominance.” Pause, as if he realizes he has gone very far. Then in an aw-shucks tone: “Well, that’s how you think if you are psycho-analytically minded.” Which has already repeatedly said he is. So in the end he admits, by logical indirection, but nonetheless clearly, that this is what he thinks.

This is an amazing performance. You can see struggling to puke out the truth, against his will and better judgment. But he does manage at last to puke it out. Dr. Peterson is courageous man. But even he does not want to say some things out loud, and at least initially hedges when he does so. But he is a realist and a truth-teller first. But getting there is not easy. We can see him clawing his way toward the truth, and speaking the truth. We can see that struggle in real time in this video.

Peterson is a mighty slayer of pretty lies. He is nothing less than a hero for what he is doing, and saying out loud.


Single White women don’t want to be appeased.

They don’t want to be indulged.

They don’t want to be catered to, coddled, or placated.

They don’t want their tears dried or their complaints addressed.

They don’t want men to listen to their words.

They want men to watch what they do and respond with the requisite dignified and dominant masculinity.

They want to submit to a man, and to a society, worthy of their submission.

Now of course single White women will never tell you this, or admit these 100% truefact desires to even themselves…but they feel these urges, and their hindbrains demand this from them and from the men they shit test.

Single White women individually shit test men and collectively shit test men through the male achievement of civilized society. Our shared single White woman problem is a civilization-scale shit test, and as the reader wrote, the men of the West have been, and continue, spectacularly failing this single White women shit test.

Modren Western man fails this shit test so badly that he is fairly likened to the incel beta orbiter who is always on call to provide a shoulder to cry on while his oneitis fucks dirt world ingrates who beat her silly and crap in his yard.

That is how badly, how powerfully, single White women yearn for the pimp hand. Their yearning for the ministrations of dominant men beckons them to sacrifice their homelands for the thrill of the tingle. A tingle which has been lost to them as their men have grown soft and weak under the yoke of decadence and decades of weaponized anti-White male propaganda.

It’s time the White men of the West learned Game and brought their women to heel. The alternative is civilizational death.

Game can save nations.

Read Full Post »

Ted Cruz has found his Inner Shitlord, and here he is picking the target (CNN), freezing it, isolating it, and polarizing it.

Since when did Cruz find his jewels and learn to love the heft and dazzle of them? I’ll tell you when: since Cruz found himself living in Trumperica, instead of GAYASSERICA. That’s the Trump Effect.

A reminder that Trump read Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, took it to heart, and turned the amoral Left’s rhetorical weapons back on them. This has, naturally, infuriated the Left, but equally maddened are the cucks trod under Trump’s memekrieg. Why? Because Trump committed the cardinal sin. He revealed the cucks for what they are and have always been: cowardly poseurs.

Ted Cruz isn’t alone.

Steve King and Rand Paul have experienced the Trump Effect.

Mike Huckabee has experienced the Trump Effect.

TX Rep Matt Rinaldi has experienced the Trump Effect.

And now we can add a very big name to the list of those men who have become transformed by the Trump Effect:

Jeff Bezos.


Trumperica Bezos:

Cinco Jotas theorizes based on this and other details of his personal life that Jeff Bezos is about to take a turn to the hard right. Physiognomy doesn’t lie, and it’s a proven fact that masculinity via the testosterone pathway predisposes a man to see the world through swole-colored glasses. Maybe we’ll read the cheesy nümale header at the Washington Post Op change from “democracy dies in darkness” to “from russia, with love, losers!”.

(IMO, I think Bezos is warming up to Trump, or warming himself up to out-alpha Trump, because he fears a bigly anti-trust Trump-led crackdown on his empire of SCALE.)

We can definitively conclude from the actions of the above men steamrolled by the Trumpernaut that the primary symptom of the Trump Effect is an increase in testosterone. The Testosterone Effect. Trump is making America high T again. #MAHTA gandhi!


Trump Effect? Maybe it should be called The Chateau Effect.

Read Full Post »

Feminists unable to tolerate evolved psychological and biological differences between the sexes, along with free love freakazoids on the supposed side of realtalk, cleave to the neoDarwinian meme that bonobo society proves polyamory is a natural instinct that humans share with them. Sexual jealously is just so gauche, don’t you see, pleb? Welcome to the polyamorous side of history!

The problem is that it’s just a feelgood meme for LSMV rejects; the actual research has discovered that bonobos aren’t polyamorous at all, they just happen to be less violent than other apes in apportioning bonobo pussy to the top male.

Bonobos have a reputation for being the peaceful, free-loving hippies of the primate world. But, researchers reporting in Current Biology on July 10 have discovered that despite friendly relations between the sexes, particular males have a surprisingly strong advantage over others when it comes to fathering offspring. For example, researchers found in one group that the most reproductively successful bonobo male fathered more than 60 percent of the next generation.

Another blast of ¡SCIENCE! leaves equalist losers rubbing their wounded egos.

The top male bonobos father most of the next generation, which means female bonobos are acutely hypergamous.

What’s interesting about bonobos is that they are less violent than chimps, but MORE polygynous, (that is, a few males get all the females). This is a puzzle for researchers because they thought female hypergamy was a downstream consequence of male dominance, i.e., “let’s you and him fight”. Men fight for women, and the women mate with whoever is left standing in the arena of genetic oblivion or survival. Bonobos show that female hypergamy itself is a decisive factor. The females don’t have to wait around for the males to duke it out; they glom onto the most charming of the bonobo PUAs.

So what do all those unloved beta male bonobos do with their extended fap-time as they watch a few alphas hoard the females? Apparently, male and female bonobos are very friendly with each other, so maybe the blue-balled beta orbiter phenomenon seen in humans evolved from bonobo females LJBBFing (let’s just be bonobo friends) their mangina males?


The alpha male bonobos father 60% of the next generation. Imagine that degree of female hypergamy in human society. Did it exist once? Evidence is scarce, but tantalizing gene research says it did exist in the human past, to the extent that for every one man who reproduced, two women reproduced.

So, if you think beta male thirst is bad now, try envisioning a society in which half the men were lifelong incel and most of the other half had to share their women with a few harem leaders drowning in pussy. Somehow, the spark of civilization emerged from that stew of toxic hypergamy.

Read Full Post »

The revolution will be animatronic.

News from the Emerald Guile: A sexbot brothel opened one month ago in Dublin, and customers are lining up for Dolly the Dirty Bot’s very special services.

GONE are the days of blow-up women with perpetually open mouths – sex dolls are rapidly evolving and becoming more lifelike than ever.

And now a brothel in Dublin is renting out a silicone robot sex doll for £80 an hour.

A bit like a buxom Barbie doll, the blonde android has massive boobs, an hourglass figure and eerily lifelike facial features fixed into a sexy pout.

Described as “Ireland’s most realistic sex doll”, Passion Dolly arrived at the Dublin brothel less than a month ago and dozens of punters have already had their way with her.

Weighing eight stone with 32 E boobs the doll imported from America has a metal skeleton covered in silicone and responds to vibrations moving like a human.

tbh, would bang, if I had no other satisfying realflesh options. A hot sexbot is a huge upgrade for loser men stuck with fat broads or for old men facing a sandpaper snapper desert of nursing home grannies.

When customers arrive they will find Dolly – who you can rent for £80 an hour or £40 per half hour – lying on a bed in a dimly lit room.

Condoms and tissues are also provided.

You couldn’t pay Dolly’s clean-up crew enough money.

Her owners explained: “We have had her about a month and have had dozens of visitors, mostly Irish men and ranging in all ages.

“Some of them are a bit lonely, a few have social problems interacting with women, while others have a fascination with dolls.”

Omega and beta males in a rut will be the primary users of sexbots. This will unleash tremendous shock waves on the sexual market, placing enormous pressure on the sub-HB7 Western woman who will experience an accelerating decline in the number of thirsty men willing to entertain her feminism, anti-femininity, and even garden variety coyness.

Sexbot brothels will be the predominant service until prices drop low enough that private sexbot ownership is feasible for the masses. We are far from end game in the sterile jizz pens of the sexbot brothel.

I found this news via a Christian website. The author predicts consequences from the sexbot revolution that sound very similar to what CH wrote on the topic years earlier.

For instance, here is the author Andrew Bieszad, 2017, on the implications of AI sexbots for human relationships:

What you are watching is literally the process of divorcing human beings from attachment to each other and, as a result the complete destruction of the family.

There are some people who are looking forward to the changes that sex robots will bring, because given the current developments and trajectory for the future, which will take some time to realize in a more complete fashion (and this is with everything- after all, a computer from 1995 is very different from a 2015 model), but when it is reached it will redefine the nature of sexual relations in ways that have never been reached before. […]

This is an incredibly dangerous road. If fertility rates are low right now, the sex robot will cause, worldwide, and absolute fertility collapse in all peoples, since sex affects all men regardles of race or place. Women will find themselves competing with a fantasy found in a machine to realize the unattainable, which is the perfect form. Men will to the same, pursuing the perfect vision of their pleasure, and for every woman that there may be, a better robot can be made to replace her.

Remember how in the West corporations outsource work to third world nations and destroy their local economy while benefiting a few? This is the outsourcing of sexuality to robots, thereby collapsing male-female relationships and creating a dystopic world in which pleasure is the rule and families are the rarity since people would rather pursue their fantasy through sex rather than use sex for its created purpose.Families will exist by choice, not by natural events. It will further isolate and again, make marriage something done by choice, not natural action. It will destroy the conception men and women have of each other by offering them a pleasure they cannot naturally have easily and everywhere, thus making human sex boring. Machine sex will pervert the very institution of sex itself and immerse mankind in an ocean of sterile hedonism.

CH, 2007:

But, outside of self-pleasure and procreation, would sexbots replace real women?

For some men, yes.  The replacement would be total, at least until the dating market adjusted to the new reality.  For other men, sexbots would be a part-time replacement.  The result will be a shift in the mating landscape that will put selection pressures on humanity equivalent to a massive plague or a catastrophic famine.

Sexbots are a very real threat to the established order because men’s sexuality is so visually driven.  Compared to women, it is a rather simple affair to create an alternative sexual outlet for men. […]

Either marriage will take a bodyblow from which it will never recover, or paradoxically divorce will decrease as husbands inclined to stray fulfill their cravings for variety with non-human mistresses.  With the sequestering of betas to their sexbotatoriums, the price of alphas on the market will skyrocket.  They will call the shots in matters of marriage — I see a regression to sanctioned polygamy and overt adultery.  This will herald the end of Western civilization. […]

Conclusion – The entire market structure of dating will shift seismically in the direction of men becoming choosier and less willing to please and women becoming looser and more willing to please.

Do you think I prophesy the future for shits and giggles? I’m here to save the world, dammit! With amused mastery, of course.

Read Full Post »

I’m convinced Jordan Peterson, perhaps Canada’s only shitlord worthy of the appellation, is a long-time reader of the Chateau. Watch this video of him discussing the reality of female hypergamy (a topic covered extensively at this blog) and its influence on the dating market and you’ll see why I think that he’s been a guest at the Chateau under a pseudonym.

1:26 — “human females engage in hypergamy…women mate across and up dominance hierarchies, men mate across and down”

1:49 — “the socioeconomic status of a woman determines almost zero of her attractiveness [to] a man, whereas the socioeconomic status of a man is a major determinant of his attractiveness to a woman”

“and it isn’t his wealth [that’s attractive to women]… it’s his capacity to generate and be productive and to share”

Welcome to the Chateau, Jordan. I’m sure you’ve enjoyed your stay here.

Game is learned charisma. Another way to look at it: Game is male hypergamy, allowing men to date “across and up” in the instinctual manner that women date. The art of charisma and social dominance is essentially a flip of the evolutionary script, in which the savvy man pulls the same biomechanical levers that the average woman pulls to satisfy her urge to date up or at minimum to date across.

A good metric for determining whether your Game is Tight is to keep a mental tally of the quality of women you bed compared to your pre-Game dating life. If the number of times you dumpster dive is decreasing and the number of times you successfully grab the HBrass ring is increasing from what you used to pull in your beta days, then Game has been your friend in fitness maximization.

PS Here’s Jordan on “the shackles of marriage”:

I laughed at this because it’s a backhanded and cynical defense of marriage. JP is saying that the benefit of the marriage shackle is that you’re forced to surrender the illusion of romantic idealism for the low expectations of a humdrum honesty. Hence, the popularity of Fifty Shades of Bullwhip with married women.

Read Full Post »

An observation, from me own eyes and time spent nestled deep in the booby-trapped dating trenches:

Girls drop out of the nightclub scene around age 25.

Some sooner, some later, but the curtain call age for girls seeking men in da club is on average about 25yo.

Clubbing is a young woman’s game. It takes spunk, junk, (maybe crunk), and….most importantly….the youthfully hottie good looks to inspire a same night spelunk.

I feel I was born with a talent for getting inside women’s heads and knowing how they tick, so this is what I’d guess goes on in the concentric mini-brain of the girly rationalization hamster that spins the wheel fueling the superfluous careercunt maxi-brain which envelops it:

The girl who hits 25 — and recall the CH axiom that peak female beauty and therefore fuckability and muse-ability is between the ages 15 and 25, give or take a few outliers — subconsciously knows her salad days are behind her. She may still be a looker, but the competition is wicked and slicked, and if the coolestasfuckness men are the point of her losing her hearing and sleep shouting in nightclubs until 2AM, then she’ll be passed over for the ripest peaches.

So there’s that subconscious signal flare warning her of rocky outcroppings ahead, but more pertinently there’s that instant feedback she gets when the male gaze doesn’t alight as firmly forcefully obsessively and a little psychopathically on her fruit stand like it did when she was younger. She’ll get stares from men, but they won’t be from the best men, and their stares will break off earlier than they used to, and get distracted easily by passing nancies.

Footnote: The curtain call age has been steadily rising, because of a number of sexual market disruptions and trendlines converging in post-America. I predict we may see an average nightclubbing female age of 30 in the near future as an increasing horde of single, childless mimosaettes desperate to avoid the detritus swamping online dating return to the classic meat market haunts.

It’s useful to contrast curtain call ages for club grilles and club monsters. Twenty-five is practically the START of a man’s clubbing career. It’s not uncommon to see men well into their 30s working the club floors and whores, as long as those men haven’t let themselves go to pot and know how to dress with a masculine sexy flair. The club curtain call ages mirror the bioreality of male and female reproductive fitness windows: women hit a higher max speed but crash early, men a lower max speed but ride longer.

A 35 year old woman in the club is pitiable. A 35 year old man in the club is pardonable.

The curtain call age for bars is a bit older, if for no other reason than that the absence of loud techno music, bathroom bumps, and frantic dancing are a relief to aging bodies and angsty minds. Fully grown oldsters will shamble around bars and no one will bat an eye. Still, women don’t like to throw their mate choice prerogative in with bars, either, but will feel less uncomfortable in bars than they do in clubs dogging it out until their early 30s if they are single and (god forbid!) swallowing patriarchal Pink Pills by the barrel.

Last call in bars is usually late 20s for most women who have need of a bar’s services. For men, it’s late 30s, even up to mid-40s. It occasionally needs repeating, because platitudes that stroke the gynarchy’s ego are tasty and mollifying: the average man enjoys a surplus fifteen years of romantic possibility over the average woman’s dating lifespan. This is why a 30 year old woman “settles” while a 30 year old man “relents”. It’s the difference between catastrophe insurance and early retirement.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: