Feeds:
Posts
Comments

“WOW JUST WOW” Face

Check out the WOWJUSTWOW face on this broad (at 4:02) after Gavin McInnes drops a steaming deuce on a Feminist First Principle.

He’s basically right. Most women (read: non-reptiles) are happier raising kids than they are raising profit margins. Most men are happier in the office than they are at home changing diapers. Men and women are different to their cores, and feminism is a project of lies with the goal of eradicating those core differences. And if they can’t succeed at erasing biological reality, they’ll take their consolation prize by mangling public policy and laws until all men and women are miserable.

We need more hardcore pushback against feminism, and more WOWJUSTWOW faces wrested from the wretched witches.

Related: Sheryl Sandberg’s “Lean In” book more likely to hurt women than to help them.

Ms. Sandberg goes clueless on science throughout her book…

Heh.

Disingenuous nation-wrecker Alex “Cheaper Chalupas” Tabarrok linked to a horribly flawed study which concluded that mass immigration doesn’t reduce the host nation’s economic freedom.

The Anti-Gnostic, as per usual, SPANKED him hard in the comments,

These people have no idea; they string together some macro statistics to get the conclusion they want. The net-immigrant countries are Anglo-European with a classical liberal tradition and strong, centralized states. The city-state of Singapore is actually quite authoritarian. Incidentally, Renaissance/Enlightenment city-states used to ban individuals.

Immigration is political and cultural suicide for libertarians. Alex is speaking from an affluent academic bubble, itself enabled by a huge government footprint in financial and education markets. For the schleps, immigration means lower wages, lower property values, and corroded social trust. The academics are just banking on being on the right side of the fence from the favelas.

Mass non-white immigration to white countries erodes social trust, which decreases the support for wealth redistribution to groups of swarthies who act and look very differently than your friends and family, hence increased “economic freedom”. I’m not sure what this Tabarrok-rimjobbing study is saying except that “economic freedom” means whatever an open borders nation-wrecker wants it to mean.

Related: A reader forwards this ROK piece by Roosh,

The Western elite, especially in Europe, got into power by pushing peace, harmony, equal opportunity, and multiculturalism, but beneath these feel-good concepts includes the blueprint for destruction of the very force that threatens their power: nationalism. Introducing massive numbers of Muslims, Mexicans, or destitute Somalian refugees into your nation reduces the likelihood that you will look to your neighbor and see someone like you, a brother-in-arms who can help you rise up against the cyclical inevitability of a corrupt government ruling over you.

Now that you see a dozen different colors surrounding you on the subway and in the Starbucks, some of whom are looking at you suspiciously, you feel distrustful of these outsiders because they have a different background and belief system than you do. You find yourself in a diluted world culture with standardized gadgets, entertainment, and government-friendly talking points conveniently disseminated by all media outlets. Now instead of looking to your neighbor to help fight against governmental oppression, you will seek comfort in your own amusements, Facebook feeds, internet memes, and legalized marijuana. You turn inwards to satisfy your hedonistic needs while allowing the government to run over your rights and push policies that you feel increasingly helpless to fight in your social isolation.

This is all done by design. The liberal governments of the West will allow the collateral damage of terrorist acts because they need those immigrants to defeat the greater threat to their power: national identity. Destroy the culture and you remove a citizen’s motivation to fight for a nation he would have given his life for not three generation ago. Immigration must not stop because the liberal elite must maintain their power, and the useful idiots in the media and academia will continue spinning the narrative required to ensure that happens. The death of twelve lives or 1,200 is inconsequential.

Leftoid elites think they have outwitted history. For a while, maybe. But their short-term gain will seem a gossamer dream once the long-term punishments come home to roost.

“Beta bait” — and insidious and often unwitting conversational detour taken by women as a means of smoking out beta males or the manifestation of creeping beta maleness in a formerly alpha male — comes in many forms. CH discussed the three most common types of beta bait a learned man of the field is likely to encounter:

1. Incongruent sex talk.

2. Fishing for flattery.

3. The ‘Bad Boyfriend’ Ploy.

These three are the big ones, but there are other common types of beta bait. Readers PA and mendozatorres described a couple of beta bait tactics that catch inexperienced, sexually undernourished men off guard.

An example of beta bait / cougar batting beta [male] mice around for her amusement, which I see on FB:

– Formerly hot cougar posts a non-sequitur
– Beta mouse posts “?” or worse yet, a request for clarification.
– Cougar ignores beta’s question.

Yes, this type of beta bait falls under the category “Non sequitur lure”. Beware the woman bearing gifts of random musings to the world of men; she wants to see how fast and how eagerly you’ll legitimize her empty brain farts. Don’t even tickle that stinky lure with a curt “?”. Let it float downstream, away from you to a stagnant pool of hungry omegas whose rabid nibbling will ultimately make the crafty cougar feel worse than she did before she whored for attention.

If you receive a non sequitur from a woman, the best reply is a. ignore it and introduce your preferred topic of discussion, or b. make fun of it. “Non sequitur lures” are dangerous to naive men but can be quite skillfully and productively turned against their owner by a man with knowledge of the crimson arts. Since NSLs are usually so open-ended, the possiblities for gaming them into a personal DHV are endless.

The classic one is the sad face and nothing else. Beta bait!

While technically this is also an NSL, it deserves its own classification: The Sad Face Sympathy Emoti-Con.

When a girl shoots a “:(” over the wires, apropos of nothing and solicited by no one, she expects four kinds of responses from men:

– Some will ignore her. (A small minority of sexually sated men if she’s attractive.)
– Some will ask what’s wrong. (A large majority of beta males if she’s attractive.)
– Some will buck her up. (More horrible beta male anti-game.)
– Some will fuck with her and send a “8===D~~” in return. (A small minority of alpha males who know the rules of the game.)

You want to leave this esteemed Chateau as that last kind of man, the one all the ladies love.

Birthday Cat Game

Ah, Birthday Cat, what distaff hearts can’t you warm? A reader (his chat in blue bubbles) sends a screenshot of his phone, demonstrating the power of the cutesy non sequitur to drive women wild with curiosity and arousal.

Women ask questions when they are intrigued by a man. A completely uninterested woman would simply not reply to the cat pictogram, or would blow it off with her own non sequitur.

That phrase “…I guess” is also telling. Translating from the womanese, “…I guess” means “…I guess I don’t know what you think about me, and it’s driving me nuts.”

Some more Birthday Cat Game in action, here.

A reader perspicaciously noted that not only does this GBFM-approved photo of a carousel feature a cock front and center, but there’s a white horse just to its side missing its white knight, and a hungry cougar right behind the cock ready to devour the soul of the girl riding it.

Sometimes eternal truths are revealed through sadistic serendipity.

Troll Of The Week

A good troll should leave the target of its trollery wondering about its sincerity. Given the ambiguous nature of advanced trolling operations, many victims get tripped up by them. CH has, nevertheless, gained expertise in spotting all forms of troll, in part from experience dealing with them and in part from innate aptitude at sniffing out fake phony frauds. Here’s an “anonymous” reader who pinged the CH trollometer.

CH question of the week:

Can a 50 something guy consistently and successfully game hot girls in their mid 20’s?

I can’t wait to see the answers.

I bet.

The use of the artlessly derogating term “guy” in this instance is sort of a giveaway that this questioner is a female troll, probably badly aged, but I’ll take its question at face value because my answer is useful for men reading here.

The answer is: Depends. What does he have going for him? How charismatic is he? What do you mean by consistently? Does he have a huge gut? Is he self-confident? Does he mingle with younger women from a position of high social status?

But really the most important truth for older men reading is this:

The typical 50-something man will have more success gaming hot girls in their mid-20s than the typical 50-something woman will have getting the romantic attention of men of ANY age.
HTH.

You can tell a lot about what people really value by… eureka!… listening to their conversations.

Women sometimes talk about sex — and they can be surprisingly raunchy recalling or imagining the details of intimate congress — but sex talk is hardly a major focus of their socializing amongst girl friends. Usually, one girl (the token slut) will crack a joke about the shape of the penis she inhaled and the others will collaterally cackle as part of an alliance preserving exercise. The smutcluck is dropped quickly for extended emphasis on subjects nearer and dearer to the female heart: Relationships and love.

(Slutwalk women who stick with the raunch talk for an awkwardly uncomfortable length of conversational air space tend to elicit disapproving glares and then social abandonment from their girl friends. Chicks have a limited capacity for enduring sex talk, even in their female friends.)

When women veer into R&L, as is the frequent wont of their meandering sex, their conversation assumes a VERY SERIOUS TONE.

***

INTERCHANGEABLE GIRL #1: “We’re back together.”

INTERCHANGEABLE GIRL #2: “Oh really! I didn’t know…”

INTERCHANGEABLE GIRL #!: “You didn’t know?”

[twenty  more minutes of delicate social maneuvering before getting to the meat of the topic]

INTERCHANGEABLE GIRL #2: “It’s just that he did this really nice thing and I really love that.”

INTERCHANGEABLE GIRL #1: “mmhmm, yeah that’s sweet.”

INTERCHANGEABLE GIRL #2: “And anyhow I think he tried to say he loves me.”

INTERCHANGEABLE GIRL #1: “He dropped the L word! Wow, that’s big.”

INTERCHANGEABLE GIRL #2: “Yeah, I know!”

[two more hours of hot debate about the precise wording of the boyfriend’s confession and whether it counts as a sincere exclamation of love. tack on another hour of girls #1, 3, and 4 alternately affirming girl #2’s decision to stay with her boyfriend and playing a gentle devil’s advocate for dumping the guy.]

***

Men, in the starkest of contrasts, rarely, if ever, have conversations about R&L. Instead, what do cool dudes talk about when the subject isn’t sports, work or hobbies?

***

ONE OF A KIND COOL DUDE #1: “So what happened last night? I saw you hitting on that hot blonde.”

ALSO ONE OF A KIND COOL DUDE #2: “Dude, I got her back to my place!”

VERILY, ONE OF A KIND COOL DUDE #3: “No shit! Did you tap it?”

ALSO ONE OF A KIND COOL DUDE #2: “Oh man, she was crazy. She was down on my knob, doing this thing…”

[twenty minutes of high fives and rapt attention as excruciatingly crude, detailed account is told of sex positions and composition of female squirt juice.]

NOT SO COOL DUDE #4: “Man, great stuff. Does this mean you’re gonna date her for a while?”

[sound of air being let out of balloon. full-body group cringing and disappointed looks exchanged.]

ONE OF A KIND COOL DUDE #1: “How ’bout those Dodgers?”

***

The examples I presented here are highly illustrative of real life among normal psychologically healthy human beings, but neither presupposes that men never concern themselves with relationships and love, nor that women are never interested in talking about sex. The key difference between the sexes is this:

Women are primarily interested in R&L, and secondarily interested in sex. Men are primarily interested in sex, and secondarily interested in R&L.

To punctuate the point, try to imagine a conversation between men that focused on R&L without any familiar, tension-alleviating digressions into sex talk.

***

BUTTPLAY ENTHUSIAST MANLET #1: “We’re back together. It’s been one month.”

BUTTPLAY ENTHUSIAST MANLET #2: “Aww! Tell me all about it!”

BUTTPLAY ENTHUSIAST MANLET #1: “Wellllll… she’s been really good to me lately.”

BUTTPLAY ENTHUSIAST MANLET #2: “That’s really great.”

BUTTPLAY ENTHUSIAST MANLET #1: “AAAAaaaand… I think she might’ve said she loves me.”

BUTTPLAY ENTHUSIAST MANLET #2: “Wow, that’s huge! How did that come up?”

BUTTPLAY ENTHUSIAST MANLET #1: “I’m not ENTIRELY sure she said the EXACT words ‘i love you’ but it sounded like she was trying to say them.”

BUTTPLAY ENTHUSIAST MANLET #2: “I knew there was something between you two!”

***

Preposterous on the face of it. No straight man has a conversation like this with his buddies, unless he’s auditioning for a part in a Broadway play called “My Colon For Old Fags” or “My Own Private Hide-A-Pole”.

Yes, yes, so many of you are shocked by this news. “Tell us something we don’t know, CH.” But we have entered a cultural dystopia when this common sense is rapidly being distorted and replaced by feminist and manlet poopytalk. Tragically, some of the SJW poopytalk is reaching the ears of impressionable naifs, and setting some of them on a course for self-destruction, especially those whose emotional stability is marginal.

There are CH readers with children. One of these naifs swallowing feminist slut cunt lies by the bucketful could one day be your daughter.

When bitterbitches ape the mannerisms and sociosexual predilections of men, their butthurt try-hardness is a transparent ruse all but the lappiest lapdogs can see through. A girl screeching about “opening her legs for every man BUT YOU” is assuming a twisted, false pride in a domain normally and healthfully reserved for men which she knows, deep inside where the armor of her lies yields to the rumbling growl of her id, is a phony front serving no purpose other than blind rage at the retreating world of a good man’s sincere love leaving her behind.

Case in point: The “dick is abundant and low value” girl I had to disembowel as a lesson for the others. With much pain and sorrow in my heart, I took the shiv to her exposed ego and performed a necessary duty. A duty that perhaps would, one day, somewhere, and in a fashion that social science studies would struggle to capture in their arid data sets, rescue an innocent young woman or young man from living by the lies of a loser in love.

For those still wondering what this is all about, a revelation. Above all, Le Chateau abides the Keats’ ode: “Beauty is truth, truth beauty.” Our glorious, gleaming civilization is getting uglier and further from the truth by the day. A mind full of lies contorts the body into misshapen ugliness. An ugly visage will infect the mind with ego-assuaging lies. Lies must be exposed at birth, or they will grow monstrous and consume everything beautiful in their path. In the wake of lies, ugliness follows like a toxic spindrift.

Therefore, the CH Excalibur… the Holy Heartistian Shiv… drives through the bullshit until the gore stains the hilt, so that beauty and truth may once again assert their rightful place as earthly host to humanity, and the loveless lampreys, despite their worst fears, find to their surprise a new hope for a better life…… or slink away to the icy outback where their limbic disease is quarantined to their own souls.

UPDATE

❤️SCIENCE❤️ presents her rump and accepts a meaty intrusion from yours truly before looking over her shoulder with love in her eyes.

Findings reveal that while communication patterns tend to be supportive and relationship-focused in women’s bathrooms, the graffiti in men’s bathroom walls are replete with sexual content and insults, in the course of the construction of hegemonic masculinity.

H/t commenter Strahlemann. The sex-based difference in predilection for R&L or sex talk is evident even in anonymous bathroom stalls. Chicks scrawl odes to LTRs. Men scratch sonnets to sexual slang.

If you play on Team CH, you bat 1.000. How can you not like those odds?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,246 other followers

%d bloggers like this: