The Wall Meets Beta Bux

😆 “sweet and steady” is a shiv in the heart of niceguys.

You gotta marvel at how often the extremely anti-feminist sexual market theories of The Wall and Beta Bux are confirmed by blithely unaware liberal news organs.

Explanation for new CH readers:

The Wall is the point in a woman’s life when she is sexually worthless to the vast majority of men with options. As The Wall approaches, a woman’s sexual market value (SMV, i.e., her youth and beauty), exponentially decays to zero. Most women will have hit The Wall by age 50.

Beta Bux is one part of a woman’s dual mating strategy (the other part being “Alpha Fux”) to acquire, if possible, both the genetic contributions of sexy alpha males and the resource contributions of boring but dependable beta males. The fact that most women will not be able to fulfill their mating duality directives does not mean that these competing desires don’t exist within them, or that given the right contexts and sufficient deniability they won’t make a go at it.

Now that you know this about women, the above Twat makes sense. An urban, socially disconnected, cock carousel riding city slutter woke up to the reality of her disappearing looks on her 32nd birthday, and like magic she suddenly noticed that dull niceguy in her office who would make a fine steady paycheck to foot the bills for her future dreams of a family consisting of two SUVs, three cats, five iPads, and 1.2 kids.

I wonder if the yeoman efforts of humble outposts like CH to catalog and publicize the dark but necessary nature of women to an audience of dumbfounded beta males will ever have an impact on the willingness of these men to accept the aging slut’s terms of engagement? Will we have a WAKE UP BETA MALE moment equally as vital and timely as the coming WAKE UP WHITE MAN cultural cataclysm now reverberating its way through the West?

Read Full Post »

Eurocuck

Western Europe is fast on its way to cucking itself to hordes of Muslim “””refugees”””. The median age of the populations of the top four countries sending invading saracens across Europe’s borders is 18-23. The median age of the populations of the top four receiving European countries is 40-46.

Older, White Europeans are literally importing the rebellious, antagonistic, dumb children and young, spiteful, hotheaded men of backward shit countries to fill in for the White European children they aren’t having and for the native manlets who are unwilling to defend their homelands.

On a national scale,  it doesn’t get much cuckier than that. European Equalists have decided that their weak native sons and fickle daughters should accommodate millions of AMOGs (Alpha Muslim Other Guys) streaming into their cities and towns, and they should do so with a welcoming smile as their wise leaders morally preen and posture about “European generosity” and “humanistic values”.

If you have any remaining doubt that this is in part a reverse colonization by Islamic fiefdoms taking advantage of a peculiarly evolved NW European disposition for pathological altruism on a global stage to foment a caliphate in the heartland of White Europe, note that Saudi Arabia has generously offered to build 200 mosques in Germany to welcome muhammed’s pilgrims the refugees.

The Arab sheiks must be laughing their fat, oil-fed asses off at what saps Europeans have become.

Bottom line: The refugees are not Europe’s moral crisis. They are the responsibility of those countries from which the migrants hail. The blame for every drowned Syrian child rests with their families who pushed them onto colonizing dinghies and with the abattoirs that multiply in the Muslim lands. It is Europe’s job to protect her own people against preventable miseries, such as, oh, the invasion of millions of home wreckers whose genetic and cultural heritage will always be at odds with the traditions and customs of native Europeans… until that time when the invaders have achieved numerical superiority and the natives have descended to complete dissolute abjection.

In related news, more evidence that the cuckservatives at National Review are just equalist leftoids who want lower taxes on billionaire oligarchs. Fuck them and their race creationism.

PS A good post about the central character trait of liberals: their (targeted) nonjudgmentalism. Liberalism is semantic Armageddon, inevitably driving discourse over a cliff into absurdism and justifications for self-annihilation.

A man of not far past vintage could reasonably have wanted blacks treated with dignity while simultaneously wishing for America to retain its European culture and demographics. He would have certainly considered himself open-minded and liberal for his altruism. Today he would be considered a neo-nazi. That is because liberalism denudes the mind of its necessary capacity for making judgements along a gradient. If we say 1, we are not required to say 100. If we swim a pool, there is no compulsion to swim the ocean. If we shake hands, we are not obliged to anal sex. Adults understand this implicitly. Liberals and children do not.

I like what Porter calls the reigning leftoid orthodoxy: Rainman world.

Do European Whites, and their diaspora, believe in themselves, or not? Do they believe they have as much right to homelands as any other people? Do they have the WILL TO SURVIVE, or don’t they? Because if the answer to those questions is negative, then it’s just a matter of time until their suicidal ideation is stone cold reality.

Update

Via reader Simon Corso. The people are getting mad. There is hope yet for White Europeans. (And the cucked ruling elite ought to start thinking about escape routes).

***

A Polish MEP tells it like it is. For superbly entertaining lulz, don’t miss the shitlib woman’s O face starting at 0:58.

This video is also a needed reminder of a universal law of the sexes:

MEN LEAD, WOMEN FOLLOW.

Thanku.

Read Full Post »

Two Minds

Friend, you ask, “What do women want?” You are confused, and this hobbles your field effectiveness.

Listen closely.

Chick logic is unfathomable when you are in your teens, but now as a man in your twenties you have no excuse!

Challenge.

Chicks dig a challenge. Like men dig a bikini bridge.

It’s a mark of personal growth to occasionally reexamine your beliefs to affirm their validity. Why do chicks dig a challenge? Sociobiology gives us our answer.

Girls want men with power because such men have their pickings in women. These alpha males can have sex with many women and thus have opportunities to have many more children. Consequently, any sons they conceive will be blessed with their fathers’ genetic gifts, and these sons will grow up and, like their charming mofo dads, also have their pickings in girls.

The sexually successful son, in a state of nature, is the reproductively successful son, and his children will spread his mother’s genes as well. The more procreatively prolific the son, the more widely his mother’s genes are distributed across the next generation. Her genes are spread much more widely than if, in her youth, she had instead bedded down with a herbalicious partner who gave her herbalicious sons who played video games while the alphas were banging babes in the school stairwells.

Here’s where the challenge part comes in. A man with power (and this can take many forms. e.g.: money, fame, status, charm, humor, musical talent, looks, physique, jerkboy charisma) knows he has options and never feels desperate to “lock in” any one woman. He calmly moves from babe to babe. It is his assured, unperturbed demeanor which acts as a sexiness signal to girls, and unsurprisingly girls quickly recognize this signal. Their subconscious lizard brain tells them “Hmm, this man is unusually composed around beautiful women. Look at how they try to impress him! He must enjoy the intimate pleasure of their company regularly.” Their conscious brain is saying “OMG, he’s sexy! I want to mount his meat pony!”

Returning to your confusion, the lesson is this: by throwing yourself at girls and bending over backwards to do things for them, you are unconsciously sending the signal that you don’t get many romantic chances with them and you must try-extra-hard  to impress the ones you do manage to get because you are afraid to lose them. You are the opposite of a challenge: you are a concession.

Now we come face to face with paradoxical chick logic.
Why, you may ask, do the movies show women catered to by chivalrous men while the female audience laps it up?
Why do women earnestly profess to like it when men open doors for them?
Why? why? why?, when I just got through telling you these actions will get you tossed in the buddy bin?

It’s easy to see how so many men get confused by the mixed signals between the cultural messages and their own dating reality.

Here, my friend, your answer is found. The clouds part! The fog lifts!
It is in a woman’s genetic interest to confuse men.
Unbeknownst to themselves, the inherent contradiction between women’s primal feelings and their publicly declared desires is actually a SCREEN to separate the wheat from the chafe. Think about it. If it were easy for men to spoof alpha male characteristics, many many more girls would be easy lays. But evolution has designed these female screens, or TESTS, to ensure that the men they fall hard for are AUTHENTIC alpha males.

An authentic alpha male — natural born or self-made — is never confused by the split personality of a woman. He knows the score (from inborn intuition or learned through experience), and when women know that he knows the score, they get WET AND BOTHERED. Like The Trumpening, the authentic alpha male PLOWS THROUGH these screens and tests and OWNS THE FRAME.

The beta male, poor sap, listens to women and gives them what they claim to want. He opens doors, compliments their beauty, keeps his hands to himself, sympathizes with their problems, and “takes it slow”. And that is why he fails.

This is why chick logic is so whack. Women really are of TWO MINDS.
And they can’t help it. It’s hardwired. They are completely unaware of their own internal contradictions.
Friend, now that you have this knowledge, use it.
Fulfill your destiny.
Go forth and…
spread the seed.

Read Full Post »

Deserve’s Got Nothin’ To Do With It

This hamsterbation on Jizzebel is a couple years old now but it may have broken an all-time record for number of CH readers who forwarded it requesting a satisfying takedown. All you have to do is read the title to know you are about to enter… The Hamster Zone. (At this point you visualize a hamster wheel spinning through outer space.)

What kind of guy does a girl who looks like Lena Dunham ‘deserve’?

What kind of apex predator can turn down sinking his teeth into that juicy bait?

The “””article””” is about that insipid show Girls (has it fallen off the air yet?) and specifically about the episode when lumpy moocow Lena Dunham’s character gets into a relationship with an older, handsome doctor.

Yeah, try to contain your credulity.

Apparently, feminists are offended (what else is new?) that some viewers have expressed the doubleplusungood opinion that Dump-ham didn’t deserve the blind good doctor.

As Will Munny said to Little Bill before shooting him dead: “Deserve’s got nothin’ to do with it.”

No woman, or man, “deserves” a certain class of lover. Anyone who says that (and it’s mostly women who say stuff like this) is intoning a palliative for her bruised ego. Everyone has a value on the sexual market, and if you want better choices of partners you have to work to make yourself more valuable.

asdf comments:

The key takeaway from this Girls episode is no matter how much of a loser a woman is she can sleep with top quality men simply by lowering the price enough.

Not really. Girls is unrealistic. A fantasy itch for Lena. IRL, a 4 like Dunham doesn’t get sex from handsome doctors, let alone commitment. There is this meme floating around the omegasphere that all kinds of ugly and fat and old and thunderously-thighed women can get sex from alpha males at the drop of a hat, but that is a fevered concoction badly extrapolating from a loose interpretation of the functioning of the dating market. Men, especially White men, and particularly popular White men, do discriminate when choosing which women they will bang, and their discrimination will become more intense, violating all sorts of EEOC laws, when considering a woman as a long-term girlfriend or wife prospect.

Lena Dunham is repulsive to most men with options, and she will be passed over by those men for sex with prettier women, even if it means the men pay a higher price in energy and time devoted to the pursuit of prettier girls. The only way the Lenas of the world can compete with better women is by slashing their prices so low that they are practically giving away their LSMV pussies. And a bargain bin price drop is no guarantee of sex for the bottom 10-20% of women who are so gross to look at that most of them won’t get any man’s attention, let alone an alpha male’s, with their legs wide open and a neon red vacancy sign pointing at their crotches.

This is a sexual market reality that trips up a lot of bitter men who have a weird need to imagine women have it incredibly easy and men must do all the lovelorn suffering. The dregs of womanhood will suffer incel spells, and longer insol spells, although the frequency of dry spells and the duration of each dry spell will be generally less frequent and shorter for women than they will be for men of equal low mate value.

Another sex-based distinction is that women will better tolerate periods of sexlessness than will men, while men will better tolerate periods of lovelessness than will women (as long as the lovelessness is substituted with casual sex).

Now this is not to say that women, ON AVERAGE, don’t have an easier time than do men getting sex when they need it. While both men and women are discriminating in their mate and marital choices, women can afford to be more discriminating pre-sex, because the average woman’s sex is worth more than the average man’s sex. But that’s where a lot of men and women have their perspectives skewed — a man’s worth to women is not his sex so much as it is his *commitment* and *survival utility*. The woman who can extract commitment from an alpha male is a winner. The woman who can only get pumped and dumped by desperate goons is a loser. And she knows it.

So, no, the Lean Dunhams of the world are not getting banged out by high status docs, and they certainly aren’t getting proposals from them. Instead, the Lena Dunhams are dumpster diving with dirty, socially maladroit, dull, whiny milquetoasts.

And deserve’s got nothin’ to do with it.

Read Full Post »

Open Letter To A Loser In Love

This is an open letter to a loser in love, a beta male who has become bitter about women through repeated romantic failure. You find yourself here, at the Chateau, seeking answers. I am your Prophet and because you are in the Flock I will share with you my field-tested wisdom.

I say this with no malice but you will not like it. But I am going to say it anyway because it is the truth and that’s what you’re looking for. You are projecting all of the characteristic traits of a LOSER. You want to associate with LOSERS for succor, because they don’t threaten the comforting bubble of your whiny persecution complex. You complain about your health, money, job, height, weight, datelessness. You complain that you’re being forced to dance like a monkey for girls. You look in the mirror and complain that you aren’t a Hollywood hunk, and you use this as an excuse for your failure to act with the women you desire. You complain about everything!

This is the key to understanding your problems with women.

Men don’t complain, they ACT. A woman wants to give herself to a man who emanates power and decisiveness and brass balls. A man who says “It’s my way or the highway, baby!” A man with no money, who is fat, who is stupid, who is clueless in every way EXCEPT that he radiates those zero fucks given alpha attitude vibes will get laid all the time.

You bitch about this jerkboy antagonist so you know that this happens. You’ve seen it happen. And the jerk doesn’t just bang out club skanks either. Cute, confident SWPL chicks get horny in the presence of such power. Even a feminist ideologue will beg such a man to fuck her up the ass just to have him pay attention to her for a minute.

Loser in love, your attitude sucks. If you want to start fucking hot girls with sexy bodies, be a MAN. The key to power is not cash or looks or cars or any of that conventional crap you read about in Maxim. Those things are incidental and are only important insofar as they alter your state of mind. The mind is the ultimate weapon. The power is within you. All you have to do is decide to tap it.

Read Full Post »

Shiv Of The Week: A Pretender Gets Real

Chrissie Hynde, the lead singer of The Pretenders (their heyday was in the 1980s), sounds like she’s partaken of the nourishing well of Chateau Heartiste wisdom.

The former chart topper claimed in a Sunday newspaper interview that scantily clad women were likely to “entice a rapist” and that it is their “fault” if they are attacked.

It’s not entirely the skank’s fault, but she bears some personal responsibility for her safety. It’s like if you decide to take a pale stroll through the blackest ghetto at 2AM and get mugged, no sane person will excuse your attacker, but everyone will think you’re quite daft for doing what you did.

She also claimed that pop stars who call themselves feminists but use their sex appeal to sell records were effectively just “prostitutes”.

Hi, Miley!

“If I’m walking around and I’m very modestly dressed and I’m keeping to myself and someone attacks me, then I’d say that’s his fault.

“But if I’m being very lairy and putting it about and being provocative, then you are enticing someone who’s already unhinged — don’t do that.”

She added: “You know, if you don’t want to entice a rapist, don’t wear high heels so you can’t run from him. If you’re wearing something that says ‘Come and —- me’, you’d better be good on your feet… I don’t think I’m saying anything controversial am I?”

No, you’re not Chrissie. This woman is great. She’s speaking truth, girls, listen to her.

“A pop star who’s walking around, parading themselves as a porn star and saying they’re feminists.

“They’re prostitutes.

“I’m not making a value judgment on prostitutes, but just say what you are.”

“Just say what you are.” No, the degenerate freak mafia can’t do that, or they’ll have to face exactly what they are, and they can’t have that. Instead, lovable vivisectors like your truly will do it for them, gleefully.

Read Full Post »

May As Well Call It Aaron Mendelssohn

We’ve all heard the story by now: Ashley Madison, the website that claimed to help cheating spouses hook up with each other in complete discretion, was hacked. The hackers released a huge user data dump and it was revealed that 90-95% of AM’s actual users were male, and the remaining were mostly fake female profiles.

Ashley Madison was a scam. But anyone who has the least understanding of sex differences would not be so gullible to think that there are just as many married women interested in anonymous internet sexual liaisons as there are married men interested in the same. Apparently, there are so few married women willing to go online specifically to find an extramarital lover that Ashley Madison could barely crack the 1,000 men:1 real woman ratio.

This is not to say that married women aren’t infidelity risks. But when women, legally taken or otherwise, want to have an illicit affair, their preferred method of target acquisition is a logged-off, face-to-face whirlwind romance, not a lifeless keyboard hunt for a collaborator who will make her feel like the whore she’d rather forget about herself.

A reader writes,

Can hypergamy explain [Ashley Madison’s fake female profiles]? One way to interpret that is, “women have no qualms about leaving their husbands”.

That’s one reason. The dearth of live wives seeking extramarital affairs on Ashley Madison is a consequence of:

1. the nature of women to prefer their seduction be veiled behind flirtatious feints and parries (as opposed to arid, conspicuous match-ups with equally debased men)
2. the disposition of wives to simply leave their husbands when they want to start new romances (husbands — and single men in relationships — can better tolerate balancing illicit lovers with a wife or steady girlfriend, even over long periods of time).
3. the fact that women are not as promiscuous as men.

These are the big three explanations for AM’s 95% man/4.9% fake woman ratio. A fourth explanation — that going online for the explicit purpose of finding a sex partner in crime — is too much for most women’s anti-slut defenses. I suspect the Ashley Madison creators knew this, and figured that the male urge for poosy variety is so strong they could get away with scamming millions of men with impunity. They were right.

Read Full Post »