The Two Paths

From what looks to be a late 19th Century pamphlet advising women to heed the approach of The Wall and to abstain from the life of a dissolute party girl, (h/t @KaliYugaSurf):

“bad literature” 😆 50 Shades of Gray-style female porn has been around for a long time.

Our ancestors were wise. There was no “40 is the new 20” back then. A single woman at 40 has lost all her feminine charms; a sexual market outcast, for sure, but also a social outcast. The two designations tend to go hand-in-hand for women who remain unmarried and childless. (To a much lesser extent, this is true for men as well, but men have the option of several compensating social and sexual status-boosting pursuits that mitigate any marginal ostracism from remaining unmarried and childless.)

It was also assumed by our wise elders that women would have children by age 26, committing them to a life of home of hearth and removing them utterly from the field of courtship. Today? Eh…. not so much.

Read Full Post »

The Trumpening Demonstrates Another Game Tactic

CH hasn’t had a Trumpening Game post in a while. Check out this video of O’Cuckly interviewing Trump yesterday about Trump’s wise decision to forego the FoxNews GOP debate moderated by the extremely biased and unprofessional shit stirrer Megyn Kelly, (skip to 14:25).

TRUMP: Don’t ask me that question because it’s an embarrassing question…… for you.

That quip was deadly. It’s what I call a micro-reframe. In a pickup situation, one would use this on a girl who asked a personal question (say, about how many girls you’ve been with) that you didn’t want to answer. The pause before unloading the “for you” coda builds a smug anticipation in the girl that her qualification attempt will soon be validated. But, like what Trump did to O’Cuckly, you unleash this explosive little reframe and she will be left speechless, wondering where you’ve been all her life.

It takes balls to pull off stuff like what Trump does on a regular basis, but if you want to date young, cute, thin girls who have lots of options, you’ll need to find your balls.

Don’t be Fox News, the betabitch who begs for love.

Read Full Post »

Charles Darwin’s Pros And Cons Of Marriage

Charles Darwin – yes, that guy – once drew up a pro and con list for getting married. His list is reprinted here, in readable format.

The standard Chateau view of marriage is that it is a raw deal for individual American men, as currently constituted, (it wasn’t always thus). However, there are good reasons for monogamous, heterosexual marriage to continue as a cultural norm and societal buttress. Ol’ Charlie hit on a number of the pros. It’s really not a good idea to have children outside of marriage, particularly over the long term (single mommyhood erodes civilizational capital). Over the short term, it’s still a bad idea unless you belong to one of the few human races in the world (think: Swedes) who can handle having children within an unmarried, cohabitational context. (The verdict is out on how sustainable the Swedish method is, considering how quickly their evolved suite of mental characteristics compels them to hand their country over to the kebab crush.)

fr tho, Darwin’s other marriage pros could nearly as easily be gotten with a live-in long-term girlfriend, but to give him credit that was most certainly not the case back in his day. Also, 😆 at “Better than a dog, anyhow”.

A lot of Darwin’s marriage cons are inarguable; men must betray their masculine urge to wander and explore once they are hitched to home and wife. Most men aren’t keen about keeping themselves in good graces with relatives; women have much more affinity for nurturing family ties. It is absolutely true that wives, and to a lesser extent husbands, get fat and lazy after marriage. A wife and family are a responsibility that will cut into a man’s free time, (many men are ok with trading in their free time for the comforts of domestication). Less money? Sure. (Don’t be fooled by the lure of a double income. Wives – and long-time cohabitating girlfriends – will just spend twice as fast and twice as much what they spent when they were single.)

Darwin was very concerned about an increase in his “anxiety” from marriage, as he wrote it twice. Potential marital money problems vexed him, too. The provider beta was a real catch in Darwin’s day that isn’t as true today. Women didn’t HATE HATE HATE betas back then with the same bubbling spite. But the ability of a provider beta in the Darwin era to leverage his provisioning skill for prime poon meant that he couldn’t slack off and give his date a bag of Skittles for her birthday, and recline smugly knowing a blowjob was coming his way regardless. Jerkboy Game in Darwin’s time probably had more limited appeal to women than it does today.

Read Full Post »

Study: Shitlibs Really Do Suffer From A Case Of “My Feels”

The stereotype of liberals as emotionally underdeveloped children who feel first and think later now has support from the very entity liberals have raised to divine status: SCIENCE!

Liberals and conservatives exhibit different cognitive styles and converging lines of evidence suggest that biology influences differences in their political attitudes and beliefs. In particular, a recent study of young adults suggests that liberals and conservatives have significantly different brain structure, with liberals showing increased gray matter volume in the anterior cingulate cortex, and conservatives showing increased gray matter volume in the amygdala. Here, we explore differences in brain function in liberals and conservatives by matching publicly-available voter records to 82 subjects who performed a risk-taking task during functional imaging. Although the risk-taking behavior of Democrats (liberals) and Republicans (conservatives) did not differ, their brain activity did. Democrats showed significantly greater activity in the left insula, while Republicans showed significantly greater activity in the right amygdala. In fact, a two parameter model of partisanship based on amygdala and insula activations yields a better fitting model of partisanship than a well-established model based on parental socialization of party identification long thought to be one of the core findings of political science. These results suggest that liberals and conservatives engage different cognitive processes when they think about risk, and they support recent evidence that conservatives show greater sensitivity to threatening stimuli. […]

These ideological differences between political partisans have been attributed to logical, psychological, and social constraints and past scholarship has focused primarily on institutional political processes or individual policy preferences, rather than biological differences in evaluative processes. But recent work has revealed physiological correlates of the differential responses to risk and conflict by liberals and conservatives. Consistent with the previously identified attitudinal divergence, conservatives have more intense physical reactions to threatening stimuli than liberals. Conversely, liberals had stronger physiological responses to situations of cognitive conflict than conservatives.

The insula (shitlib predominant) and the amygdala (shitlord predominant) serve different roles in the brain, affecting human response behavior.

The insula and amygdala often function together in processing situations of risk and uncertainty [30]. The amygdala plays a critical role in orienting of attention to external cues [31] and fear conditioning [32]; however, this structure is also important for other emotional information processing and behavior [33]. Functional neuroimaging studies have shown amygdala activation in reward related processing [34], encoding of emotionally salient information [35], risk-taking [36], processing positively-valenced stimuli [37], and appetitive/aversive olfactory learning [38]. In comparison, neuroimaging studies of insular cortex have observed critical involvement of this neural structure in pain [39], interoceptive [40], emotion-related [41], cognitive [42], and social processing [43]. In particular, the insular cortex is important for representation of internal bodily cues crucial for subjective feeling states and interoceptive awareness[40], [44]. That differences in the processing of risk and uncertainty differentiate liberals and conservatives suggests an alternative way of conceptualizing ideology.

In layman’s terms, liberal brains give preference to their own feelings before any externally-generated, real world hatefacts have a chance to make an impression on them. Shitlibs are literally slaves to their FEELS. They see the world through a gauze of their emotions, like a toddler might make sense of the alien adult world that swirls around him.

Shitlibs analyze the world, and all its threats, as if refracted through a prism of their subjective feelings. Hordes of invading, antagonistic third worlders eroding civilization in White homelands? After passing through the shitlib antiWhite Feels Filter, (they can’t help themselves), this clear as day observation gets mutated into a rationale for the shitlib’s yearning need to believe all people and all races are equal in worth and compatibility with White European societies. So the shitlib sees [unassimilable orc hordes], feels [I am an antiracist GoodWhite], then thinks [White privilege prevents orc hordes from assimilating].

If shitlibs suffer from a genetically imprinted brain structuring that renders them helpless to defend their nations from invading nonWhites, then the only solution, and only escape from this intraWhite quagmire, is expulsion of shitlibs from positions of power in times of crisis. When demographic survival is at stake, shitlibs who are cognitively unable to resist throwing their White nations under the bus must receive the HARD NEXT from shitlords, like one would do to a drunk chubby girl coming onto you during 2AM garbage hour.

***

Related study results: Testosterone level influences amygdala functioning.

The activity of the emotion centres in the brain – the amygdalae – is influenced by motivation rather than by the emotions themselves. This can be concluded from research carried out into the hormone testosterone. Testosterone increases amygdala activity in a person who is approaching a socially threatening situation and decreases the activity when such a situation is avoided. It was already known that the amygdala response to images of angry faces was stronger in a person who had received testosterone. This new study shows that this only happens when people approach angry faces and not when they avoid them.

Men with adequate T levels can more accurately perceive threats, while low T manlets are not much different from women, failing to perceive threats and, worse, inviting those threats into their lives oblivious to the consequences.

SCIENCE! continues to confirm the Chateau thesis that Western societies – particularly their men – are rapidly feminizing in both body and mind, and this effeminating process has grave implications for survival of the nation. A low T nation is a laid-low nation. In places like Cologne, we are watching it happen in real time.

Read Full Post »

Americans React To The Election Of President Donald J. Trump

Future vision image courtesy of CAPSLOCKHUSTLER (follow his Twatter feed, he’s funny).

Read Full Post »

Marriage Material Bush

A critically important topic scissored through a recent CH comment thread: What if we could view a woman’s bush as a window to her soul?

Someone posted a pic of a nude German woman in Cologne protesting against the Muslim #rapefugees. (Public nudity appears to be a favorite protest tactic of late stage Teutonic White women).

PA responded,

I’m being quite serious and not prurient when I say this: her protest would have more visual impact if she had a full bush rather than a shaved clam.

I can’t take a woman seriously as a woman [if] her crotch looks like an aged preteen girl’s.

Shaved vaginas have been a thing for at least a decade now, possibly longer, but no matter how many women jump on the naked mole rat bandwagon the image of a completely shorn mons veneris will always emit a perfume of puerility, a fragrance of frivolity, a scent of selfishness, an essence of egotism, an incense of immaturity, and a tang of treachery.

PA then posted a pic of a woman sporting what was in his consideration a well-formed bush, a bush that inspires men to poetic acts of devotion, and with equal emphasis exhibits by its sexy cilia both a charming, girlish vulnerability and a seductive, adult femininity.

Tying it all together, Carlos Danger remarks,

PA, I’m old enough to remember guys who really really liked a hairy hairy bush. What you showed is a very modest and feminine natural bush. I had to point that out because no one sees it anymore. That bush is marriage material bush as a matter of fact.

A small, well-contoured, and decorously delineated bush is also a leading indicator of youth and prime fertility. That, more than any other, is the reason it is maximally arousing to the maximum number of men. A shorn bush evokes prepubescence (not good for reproduction) and a big unkempt bush is the misty jungle canopy of the aging beauty whose hormone profile tipped over and capsized into androgen-dominant, estrogen-recessive territory (also not good for reproduction).

We all know the Marry, Fuck, Kill game, right? (If you read this blog, you should.) Well, this post subject is the bush league version of that pickup game. The trim, tight and White bush in the second photo above is marriage material bush. Perfect in every way, like Baby Bear’s porridge; not too porny, not too hairy. Turns you on with just a hint of the good stuff hiding underneath, and keeps you around with its fluffily faithful promise to eschew nose piercings, tramp stamps, race cucking, and mudsharking.

The naked mole rate in the first photo is a pump and dump candidate. The non-bush is the slut’s beacon to the world’s wave-tossed cocks. Safe harbor here… for the night.

What about the type of bush that screams out “Kill me!”?

The growly über-bush also goes by the name “antifa bush”. This is because the kudzu of beaver bush is a nightmare vision that one will often see, if one should be so unfortunate (or hard up), on antifa females (the approbation “woman” feels wrong to apply to them). (So I have been told and can easily surmise; no first-hand experience with it, thank you very much).

A hundred bucks says she’s got a woolly mammoth in her man panties. Yeeeuck. Kill. Kill. Kill the bush. Off the cliff, with a push.

Read Full Post »

Alpha Male Of The Month: Let’s Her And Her (And Her) Fight

Ever play “let’s you and him fight”? If you’re a woman, you probably have at least once in your life. Women love this manipulative gambit because it helps them scale the social ladder and enlist white knight goobers to their faire maiden aid, while allowing plausible deniability that they’re jostling for rank.

But as any upstanding womanizer knows, those same womanly manipulations when targeted against women produce an electric effect on our dear friend Bartholin.

In another fine example of flipping the courtship script, a sexual market shitlord has co-opted the “let’s you and him fight” female imperative and leveraged it to his everlovin’ advantage. Call it the “let’s her and her (and her) fight” strategy, which your gramps might know as the “watching a cat fight from the catbird seat” good time.

MERRY EX-MAS: Man infuriates ex-partners by putting them all into a group chat

ZFG.

That opening line is smooth, player. A wok of jerkboy whimsy seasoned with a dash of vulnerability game. Also, 😆 at that extra spicy ZFG “or a short time bella lol”.

Btw, as you’re reading along try to guess which of Tom’s exes is ready to swoon all over again for his magic man muff puffing. (Tom threw four girls together in this merry ex-mas chat room.)

It doesn’t take long for the cat claws to come out.

Chicks dig a lying, scheming, conniving, jerkboy chauvinist pig. Not exaggerating for effect.

The three remaining girls cat fight some more, and Tom, skillfully waiting for his moment as female tingles gather potential energy, unloads this corker of a neg/disqualification on bella:

Notice as well how perfectly Tom handles Steph’s schoolmarm upbraiding. “I’m fine just wanted to say merry ex-mas to yaz”. Dismissive, un-punctuated, cheeky, and delivered with the insouciance of an amused master of poon. Jumbotron test: PASSED.

Having read this far, any guesses which of the four girls – Lisa, Gemma, Bella, Steph – couldn’t resist Tom’s Harem Lord charms?

Take your time.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Tha finale, yass:

There is no number, only fuck close or do not fuck close. That “Xx” at the end is as good a guarantee from a girl that Tom’s got the F close wrapped up.

I submit that we enter Tom’s “just wanted to say merry ex-mas to yaz” to the pantheon of infamous alpha male sweet nothings, like “bring the movies”, “nah”, and “seriously tho ur pussy rocks!”

PS There’s a powerful subtext in this devious jerkboy ploy that acts like kryptonite on girls’ diffident coyness. The clue is in Tom’s self-amusing line “LISA DON’T GO LOL” as she’s walking out the virtual door. It’s obvious he doesn’t really give a shit if she goes, and more importantly it’s obvious to the OTHER GIRLS THERE not named Lisa. This is female preselection at its most intoxicating. Three hamsters spun their wheels at once, weaving golden fabric emblazoned with the invocation “Tom is a honey badger. Honey badger don’t give a shit if pussy stays or goes. Honey badger is a man with dating options. I must prove to honey badger I am worth giving a shit for.”

PPS What you’ve viewed is a window to what a post-West de facto alpha male harem looks like. Soft polygamy is not much more forgiving than hard polygamy in its systemic capacity to leave beta males in the incel cold.

PPPS Take the bad words out and change the context a bit and you may as well be reading a transcript of a GOP debate. Tom is Trump. Lisa is Ben Carson. Steph is Jeb. Bella is Megyn Kelly. And Gemma… she’s all of us. Xx

Read Full Post »