I’ve been receiving an increasing frequency of emails from gaystream media whores soliciting this blog’s lordship for a roll in the clickbait hay. All of them, to date, have requested absolute privacy (the irony), so I won’t divulge details on threat of (((legal))) recriminations, but I can offer a general impression of what they’re asking. For instance, one media whore speaking on behalf of a well-known whoresite is part of a team putting together a piece of agitprop art on the manosphere and wanted CH’s scintillating contribution to the effort.
I’ve wondered for a few months how best to respond to these inquiries. So far, the CH policy has been to ignore and plow. No j/k, it’s been to ignore. Period. I never respond, partly because, what’s the use? I won’t persuade a shriek of shitlibs to accept in their hearts the Rude Word of the Chateau, and I certainly can’t expect to be treated fairly by these toads. More practically, I am very careful to guard my shadowy dimensions, and there is a risk, however muted through multiple proxies and TOR nodes, that a reply by me would be scoured for identifying info by a black ops team at Fusion GPS (stands for Grabbing Pussy Systems).
But the inquiries are getting more insistent and coming from bigger and bigger names. So I’m reconsidering my standard policy of ignoring them; perhaps for an upgrade to a “lol suck a dik” response? I have toyed with the idea of a conditional reply. That is, I set the ground rules and they swear by them in writing before I offer any penetrating insights of my tumescent wisdom.
For instance, we all know leftoid gutter filth can’t help litter their reporting of deplorable subjects with smear terms and baseless slander. One can’t hold a gun to reporters’ heads (yet) to demand honest and accurate journalism, but one can bind them to abide at least a rudimentary schedule of fair play. I believe two of the Original Shitposters, weev and Anglin, have a lot to say about this tactic when dealing with the globohomogenized media and their skypistry.
For instance, I would demand any reporter refrain from using the term “White supremacy” in any article about Chateau Heartiste, and if needed for context to substitute the term “White competency”. Similarly, they would be required by the CH Vajeena Convention rule 69, subsection 14.88, to replace the word “racist” with “totally rad race realist”. And “misogynist” would become “man who doesn’t bow and scrape before delusional feminist cunts”.
Any violations of the terms of agreement would result in an immediate public shaming and an army of weaponized autistes leaving pig entrails on the reporter’s super zip front door.
And, to punctuate my seriousness of intent, neither would the reporter be permitted to insert a disclaimer that contained the words “white supremacy”, “white supremacist”, “racist”, “misogynist” or other favored term of othering the leftoid equalism cuntsortium employs to maintain their icy grip on their quack Narrative.
I throw my quandary to the studio audience. What do you think is the best way forward to deal with slithery solicitations from Snakes and Merchants of Fake?
PS Vox Day has written about this topic: Don’t talk to the media.
[crypto-donation-box]
