Economic Wisdom Of The Day

Debt and changing demographics are intricately entwined.

Any economist who doesn’t include in his analysis of the causes of exhorbitant debt, stagnation, unemployment and declining happiness the unrelenting force of demographic change is doing his profession, and his readers, a disservice.

Judging by the vanishingly small number of economists who take an honest look at demographics, there appears to be a general tacit consensus among them that their field of discipline is not worth servicing well.

Here’s a related post to help clarify.

Read Full Post »

Tokens Of Appreciation

Imagine this blog is a church, and the priest is passing out the hustle hat. It arrives at your pew, and your pewmates are tossing bennies into the basket. You pause when it gets to you. But then you remember all the HOLY RIGHTEOUS WOMAN KNOWLEDGE the God of the Gaming Guide Maxims has dropped in your skull lap, the real world benefits you have accrued from reading at this outpost of dangerous thought… and lo and behold your alligator arms grow THREE SIZES today, and you reach out to offer a generous token of appreciation.

You feel better. You feel good. And why wouldn’t you? You did something that will help the world more than a thousand New York Beta Times editorials.

More soberly, the blog is about to incur some expenses. Plans are afoot to move to an offshore host and begin major upgrades. A storefront is in the blueprint stage. Equipment for field reports costs dough. Donations aren’t needed, but they help, and, if candor is appropriate, they are welcome feedback. Not to mention motivation to build the Chateau into a truly magnificent bastion of irrepressible truth and testicle-girding fortification.

Donate here.

If the link above isn’t working, use the donation button located at the upper right corner, under the banner heading.

Anonymity is assured.

Enough of that. It is a new year. What would you like to see more of at Le Chateau Heartiste in 2012? Operators are standing by.

Read Full Post »

Period And Ovulation Tracker As Seduction Tool

A while back, Chateau proprietors urged male readers to start tracking their lovers’ menstrual cycles. The reasoning was solid: women are more prone to cheat during their ovulation with an alpha male, and, if they are on the pill, their disrupted cycles will cause them to favor the company of emotionally stunted sensitive beta providers.

Gentlemen, this is powerful stuff that science is giving us. Knowing your lover’s monthly cycle will help you identify if and when she’s likely to cheat, when she is horniest and most likely to put out with no concern for protection, and when she might grant a sexually deprived beta male with a shoulder soaked from the thousand tears of aggrieved asshole-chasing hot girls a shot at her furrow.

The problem with tracking a lover’s monthly cycle — aka fertility awareness — has always been the inconvenience. You need diligence and pluck to uncover when she is on the rag. Are you prepared to search for incriminating evidence? Can you wheedle that information out of her without creeping her out?

And once you have the coordinates for her march of the red army, are you conscientious enough to commit it to memory, and recall it when needed, month in and month out? It’s a difficult task when fertility awareness competes with other information typically stored in a man’s head, like baseball stats and experience points needed to reach the next level.

Luckily, the good nerds who write Apple apps read this blog and have taken the message to heart, devising a clever tool for easy and worry-free tracking of a lover’s cycle, cryptically named ‘I Am a Man.” You just set it, and forget it!

The app allows you to mark the calendar days when your fling, girlfriend or wife is menstruating, PMSing or ovulating. Here is a screen capture:

Think about the ramifications of using this tool. Now, every man can know:

1. when he should go to the pool hall and avoid his lover’s raging PMS

2. when he should contact his FB because his main is in full menses

3. when he should ramp up the asshole alpha treatment because his lover is ovulating and staring harder at strange men

4. when he should bring romcoms home and cook a meal or two because his lover is in the needy, weepy part of her cycle

5. when he should send a private eye to watch where she goes after work because the odds of a cuckolding are higher.

Let’s say you get back from a dinner with your girl. You go to the bathroom and quickly scan your ‘I Am a Man’ app. You see a blue diamond on today’s date. Eureka! You rush out to the bedroom naked, erect member ticking like an upside-down metronome, and she strips off excitedly, anticipating your penetration. You don’t bother with the condom, because you know she won’t put up a fuss about it. Her body wants your seed, now, and reason has jumped out the window.

But wait, you surprise her by pulling out at the last second. Foiled!

Thank you, ‘I Am a Man’ app, for the opportunity to raw dog free of consequence!

You can even use the ‘I Am a Man’ app retroactively to determine if your child is legit or the underworld bastard spawn of an alpha interloper. Was the brat conceived on a day she was ovulating and you weren’t around? Swab the cheek!

Of course, the app loses its predictive power if she’s on the pill. But you should still keep it up-to-date in case she ever goes off again. Women go off the pill for many reasons, not least of which is an empty bank account. If she goes off the pill in the middle of a relationship or marriage… watch out! Her body will scream for alpha seed as soon as that initial rush of ovulatory hormones careens through her veins. But with this app in hand, you’ll be better positioned (heh) to alphafuck the disloyalty right outta her vagina. Then you can breathe easy once the ovulation threat has passed, and go back to tenderly caressing her hair as she watches you iron her panties.

Now all the world’s men need is an app that can analyze women in the field for signals of ovulation. Perhaps a heat-signature device, or something along those lines. PUAs with a bit of muscle can hone in on ovulating targets for same night lays, while PUAs who are stronger in the comfort stage can zero in on women who are at the tail end of their menses and pining for romantic gestures.

Read Full Post »

Pre-Sex Offers That Sound Too Good To Be True

A reader who wishes to remain anonymous asked:

I met a 8.5 girl online (physically I’m a 6.5).  She’s extremely aloof, ignores half my texts.  Likely never LTR material. We’ve made out, nothing more.  Her interest waxes and wanes.  She planned a trip to Central America without me, leaving very soon, casually invited me.  I’ve never really traveled abroad.  I’m fast-tracking my passport and scuba certification.  I offered a nice hotel, she insisted on hostels to “meet people.”  I don’t want to feel like a novice or tag-along.  How do I prepare fast so that I can lead, demonstrate value, enjoy the trip, and build heat between us?

Short Answer: Don’t go.

This reminds me of a similar story I once heard from a friend. He, too, had sorta, kinda hooked up with a hot chick, except he did it in person while on vacation. They shared a make-out, but nothing more. After returning home to their respective countries, she invited him to visit her in her hometown. He opened his wallet, boarded a plane, took a cab from the airport to her place, crashed on her couch, and came back home two weeks later angry, bitter and pissed about ever having gone. She hadn’t put out at all. He wasted money and vacation time on illusory pussy.

He thought by taking her up on her offer of a two week vacation in her backyard she was basically offering sexy funtime. A sensible conclusion for any man to draw, but unfortunately girls are anything but sensible creatures. Unless you are the Don Juan of game, any “innocent” meeting (in her mind) that hints at a contrived pretext for sex will put a woman on guard. Not to mention, a man totally betas himself by going out of his way to spend money and fly to meet a woman on her turf in the tacit expectation of sex.

For these reasons I suggest you don’t bother going if banging her is your primary goal. She will smell that and make the path to her pussy arduous and labyrinthine indeed. Your trip will be miserable, as a result. If, on the other hand, you can honestly tell yourself that banging her would just be a welcome complement to a trip in which your primary focus is scuba diving and hitting on chicks in hostels, then by all means take her up on her offer as a TRAVEL COMPANION. But beware the danger in assuming she will be anything more than a platonic tour buddy.

Now if you had already had sex with her multiple times, I’d advise the opposite: clearly she was smitten by your bedroom prowess and offered the trip to monopolize more of your lovin’.

As for the travel preparedness details, don’t worry so much about that. Attitude is key. Go with a devil-may-care air of whimsy and enjoy your time in a foreign land with someone who will buy you tropical drinks. If you’re worried about seeming like a tag-along, make sure you have reservations to do some things on your own. Read up on the place, so you aren’t stuck in a situation where she’s telling you about all the good restaurants, clubs and beaches. If you have to leave her behind once in a while to do something you like but she doesn’t, do it. You have to act like this is as much your vacation as it is hers.

Read Full Post »

The IQ War Smears

Via GLPiggy, there’s a big dust-up over IQ and ethnicity again (these things seem to come in cycles, about once every two years), with Andrew “really, it’s not a stereotype that I own a beagle” Sullivan on the side of common sense and hard facts this time, and the denialist tools over at Gawker and, well, just about every other mainstream internet outlet smearing him and guys like Charles Murray as white supremacists.

You can’t make this shit up. Oh wait, yes, you can, because this debate is a fucking broken record at this point. The Left has their creationism, and even if they live their lives as if they don’t believe in it, you will never get them to admit they worship a false idol. Best just to mock and taunt them.

I give this topic little attention because, one, it doesn’t interest me as much as pussy does and, two, the bad faith arguments of the denialists are so egregious and their smear tactics so transparent it’s like trying to reason with a psychopath. You’re wasting your breath and giving him more chances to stick a knife in your back when you’re not looking. The way to handle psychopaths is to isolate and ostracize them, not try to engage them.

Some of them are reachable through triangulation, but why bother? For every one denialist who comes around to a distilled and palatable version of the truth, twenty more verbal prestidigitators pop up like crazed prairie dogs to fill the emoting vacuum left behind by the convert’s exit.

Lest we forget, there’s a reason why emotions run so hot on this issue. Not only does it cut straight to the beating heart of equalist ideology — the predominant ideology, arguably, of the last 150 years in the West — but the ramifications of the subject under debate are huge. The tepid bleatings of putatively diplomatic commentators like this one on Ta-Nehisi’s forum serve as a prime example of what I’m talking about:

Andrew never said that blacks are “inferior” to whites or that whites are “inferior” to Asians. He simply pointed out the fact that Asians, on average, perform better than whites on a certain kind of test, and whites perform better, on average, than blacks on a certain kind of test.

This dismissive hand-waving about “a certain kind of test” reveals more than it conceals. It is meant to assuage egos and smooth the airwaves for sensible, rational discussion on the topic. But egalitarians and the SWPL industrial complex know that these softening words cannot contain the horrible, unrelenting, monstrous truth that stalks every cooing syllable. IQ is FUCKING HUGELY IMPORTANT to your chance to live a happy, successful life filled with wonder and glee and gadgets and crime-free neighborhoods in a modern, technofantastical, information-highwayed, cognitively stratifying first world Western nation.

The enemies of truth know this, and that is why they tirelessly work to shut down any talk about it, and to smear and slander and shun those who would deign to lift the veil of lies for a peek underneath.

Their reasons are obvious, and understandable. But they are still lords of lies. And their time is almost up.

Read Full Post »

Why Alimony Must End

A girl pal was telling me about the uncle of one of her friends. His wife had left him, moved way out of state, and met some new guy who became her live-in boyfriend. Get this: the ex-wife refused to marry the live-in bf because she wanted to keep the alimony spigot open. Years later, she’s still unmarried, still boffing the bf, and still collecting alimony from the ex-hubby beta uncle, who, by all accounts, is a stand-up guy that everyone (except, apparently, his ex-wife) really likes and admires. He doesn’t know where the money goes because the kids are with him most of the time. He thinks most of it funds his ex’s vacations with her lover.

The problem with America’s anti-male marriage and divorce industrial complex is that it allows women’s normally inhibited cuntery — when just and fair, and some might say patriarchal, rules constrain their choices — to effloresce beyond the bounds necessary to maintain a healthy, functioning society. A good rule of thumb: if a woman thinks she can get away with sticking the shiv in a beta to redound to her personal advantage, she will.

There is no feminist in the world who can twist her hamster logic enough to convince anyone worth convincing that legally forcing a man to pay alimony to an ex-wife who refuses to remarry so that the alimony gravy train keeps riding is even remotely within the universe of fairness. A fucking two year old can tell you that this is bullshit on stilts.

Since feminists are so irrational, it’s best to ignore them and focus on persuading people who matter of the rights or wrongs of certain laws and policies. Unfortunately, the number of persuadable people who matter is next to zero in the funhouse amusement theme park formerly known as America.

Assuming for a moment that the elites currently womanning the legal, political, academic and media institutions haven’t gone completely insane or malevolent (a big assumption nowadays), a sensible correction to this blatantly man-hating legal policy (greased by the oily secretions of the world’s number one parasites — divorce lawyers) is a new policy which states in unequivocal terms that any alimony to an ex-wife ends as soon as the tip of another man’s cock pierces her outer labia.

And that’s just a minor concession to fairness. In a truly sensible world which took account of the changed modern mating landscape, there would be no alimony at all. The whole thing’s a fucking sham — like just about everything else that oozes out of courtrooms, boardrooms, ad rooms and legislative committees these days — designed to steal redistribute wealth and prestige from rules-playing beta suckers to bloodsucking grievance groups. You wonder if someday the dutiful and honor-bound betas will wake up to their dispossession, but then you have to remember that impotently bending over and taking it up the poop chute again and again is probably encoded in their DNA, so they really can’t help themselves.

Read Full Post »

Proof Found For Rationalization Hamster?

A new study shows that people will rationalize their shitty situations if they think that they’re stuck with them. (See also: sour grapes.)

People who feel like they’re stuck with a rule or restriction are more likely to be content with it than people who think that the rule isn’t definite. The authors of a new study, which will be published in an upcoming issue of Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, say this conclusion may help explain everything from unrequited love to the uprisings of the Arab Spring.

Psychological studies have found two contradictory results about how people respond to rules. Some research has found that, when there are new restrictions, you rationalize them; your brain comes up with a way to believe the restriction is a good idea. But other research has found that people react negatively against new restrictions, wanting the restricted thing more than ever.

Kristin Laurin of the University of Waterloo thought the difference might be absoluteness — how much the restriction is set in stone. “If it’s a restriction that I can’t really do anything about, then there’s really no point in hitting my head against the wall and trying to fight against it,” she says. “I’m better off if I just give up. But if there’s a chance I can beat it, then it makes sense for my brain to make me want the restricted thing even more, to motivate me to fight” Laurin wrote the new paper with Aaron Kay and Gavan Fitzsimons of Duke University.

So does this prove the existence of the infamous female rationalization hamster? Well, almost. The study was gender-inspecific, so what it tells us is that people in general will rationalize their powerlessness so as to assuage their tender egos in the face of unchangeable circumstances. We will have to continue to rely on experimental reports from the field and incisive observations into the womanly condition from Chateau proprietors for evidence of a particularly mighty breed of female-specific hamster. There is strong anecdotal data that such a female-particular breed exists; it is now up to scientists with the balls to snicker at feminist shrieking to bravely test the hypothesis.

When a rule, a restriction, or a circumstance is fixed and inalterable, our tendency is to act like we are perfectly OK with our lack of choice or station in life. In contrast, when we feel like we have a real shot to change our circumstances, we are less likely to resign ourselves to fate, and less likely to pretend as if we wanted our crappy lot in life all along. So if you want to see the hamster spin wildly, make sure the little bugger has no hope of escape from his wheeled hellmatrix. He’ll spin, spin until he loses all touch with reality.

I think we’ve seen plenty of examples of self-gratifying spinning in the comments on this blog, not to mention just about anywhere in the informational universe where feminists congregate to kvetch. And the spinning is not just limited to feminists. Most losers in the mating game have experienced the crush of 5 Gs in their hamster wheels. I find these kinds of people fall into two camps: the pity whores (woe is me, i’m a loser, there’s nothing i can do about it, so stop trying to help people like me, you’re only leading us astray with your advice), and the delusion zombies (i’m not a loser, i have everything i need in life, single cougarhood, five cats and a niceguy beta orbiter are exactly what i’ve always wanted).

To bring this study closer to the mission statement of this blog, what does it imply about love?

And how does this relate to unrequited love? It confirms people’s intuitive sense that leading someone can just make them fall for you more deeply, Laurin says. “If this person is telling me no, but I perceive that as not totally absolute, if I still think I have a shot, that’s just going to strengthen my desire and my feeling, that’s going to make me think I need to fight to win the person over,” she says. “If instead I believe no, I definitely don’t have a shot with this person, then I might rationalize it and decide that I don’t like them that much anyway.”

Bulls-eye. An elegant confirmation of push-pull game theory. Drawing a woman in, then pushing her away by, for example, disqualifying yourself or her, will switch the courtship dynamic around so that she is in the role of the chaser, instead of the typical female role of the chased. A woman who isn’t sure you really like her because your actions are calculated to deliver an ambiguous message, is more likely to press the seduction forward than she would with either a fulsomely unambiguous man or a completely uninterested man.

If you flirt with a woman, raise her buying temperature, but then show no interest at all in her for the remainder of the night, she will rationalize her rejection by telling herself she never really wanted you.

There are many real-world examples of women rationalizing their rejection or low sexual market value. Below, I list some of the more common ones.

“I’m not interested in guys who like anorexic women.” 
“Men my age won’t date me? I prefer younger men anyway.” 
“Men are intimidated by my intelligence/career/education.” 
“Men don’t like opinionated women.” 
“Women reach their sexual peak at 35!” 
“I get all the love I need from my child.” 
“I was looking for a one night stand, too.” 
“No man is good enough for me and my child.” 
“Men are afraid of commitment.” 
“Now that I’m older I choose my men more carefully.” 
“Men refuse to grow up and settle down.” 
“Men who date younger girls can’t handle women their age.” 
“I’ve grown into my beauty.” 
“Real men appreciate my curves.” 
“A confident man loves a woman with experience.” 
“I’m not dating because I need me-time.” 
“He stopped calling because he got scared.” 

And, of course, the all-time favorite rationalization of the castaway driftwood of womankind:

“There are no good men left.” 

Some may ask why I so confidently assert that the female rationalization hamster is stronger and speedier than the male rationalization hamster. The answer is simple. Since women are the more biologically valuable sex, they have a lot more ego to lose — and hence to spin into hamsterrific delusion — by being rejected or downgraded to the invisible fringes of the mating market.

Read Full Post »