Feed on
Posts
Comments

spottheyuge

Three “power brokers” with their hands in pockets, and one doing the fig leaf over his crotch. Classic beta male body language tells. Trump, meanwhile, is the only man in the room with his hands out, gesticulating a commanding presence. Keep in mind that Trump is the man in this meeting who hasn’t yet been elected to any high office. Alpha is Attitude.

Nearly every photo of Trump is a master class in alpha male body language. For we teachers of the crimson arts, the Trumpening is gift from Eros, a walking Powerpoint on the successful traits, mannerisms, and habits of the alpha male who is beloved by feminine women and admired by masculine men.

Female suffrage was a big mistake, part infinity in a series.

Austria had an election recently, pitting a nationalist, immigration restrictionist patriot (Hofer) against a globalist, open borders nutjob (Van der Bellen). The vote results confirm a pattern seen all over the Western world: White women are voting in the shitlib traitors who will drown White nations in a polluted sea of third world misery.

hofermen

Men invade, women invite. Right now, White women — especially over-educated White women — have the West’s power structures by the balls, gleefully cutting them off and handing them to migrants, invaders, refugees and general admission Diversity for display in their conquerors’ trophy cases. White men have responded by… well, until the Trumpening struck fear in the hearts of the West’s enemies, throwing up their hands and retreating to pr0n, opioids, and video games.

Trump is the West’s last, best, chance to turn this thing around. If TheCunt wins, it’s GAME OVER for America as we have known her.

A reader worthy of wielding the obsidian Chateau shiv sends a screen cap of his Tinder response to a single mom-by-choice. The lols are strong (and frequent) in this one. (Reader’s Twatter handle is @FUSigma.)

How to teach cause-and-effect to Millennial Tinderellas & impose sanctions on single mommery:

(It’s especially effective if it’s done immediately, so that the reason is obvious.)

singlemomsand

consequences

A few thoughts:

First, this reader’s Game, however little of it he revealed here, is tight. He promptly starts off with a qualifying question, to which the single-mom-by-choice eagerly feels the urge to defend her skankly honor. The quickest seductions occur when the woman is thrown back in the defensive crouch. In fact, the line “So how normal are you?” could legitimately serve as an effective, all-purpose opener. Don’t even bother with the “hi”, just stroll up and drop that hamster nuke at ground zero. It’ll get laughs from the cool, self-confident (read: thin and cute) women, and that’s practically the same as foreplay.

Second, I commend the sly follow-up leading question; not “are you divorced?” (which can trigger an offended rebuttal), but “how long have you been divorced?” This is assume-the-slut Game, and she couldn’t resist correcting his assumption.

Third, this woman is weaponized American Whore, marinated in decades of feminist cunt indoctrination. Her answer — “I’ve never been married lol” — indicates a confidence with, or an obliviousness to, how she’ll be received by men for admitting she shat out a bastard with a fly-by-night jerkboy. She thinks men will praise her. And why does she think men will praise her shitty life choices? Because she probably has experience on Tinder stringing along thirsty beta and omega pre-op Millennial males to treat her nicely and boost her ego major, in return for a fraction of the sex she lavished in one night on her sperm donor.

Fourth, notice all the “lol”s Alayna scatters throughout her banter. This is a tell-tale verbal tic that hints at the desperation and self-doubt lurking underneath her tough skank facade. Insincere LOLs are an attempt to coax intimacy, and a conversational bonding, that doesn’t yet exist. Beta males do it all the time (which is why  they fail). The scattershot LOL is also a ploy to distract someone from keying in on the LOLyer’s personal flaws (which in this case is the single mommery and Samsonite sprog).

Finally, my opinion is that the best message shiv to deliver single moms-by-choice is the pump-and-dump. Leading her on to get what you want out of her — a quick and dirty no muss no fuss lay while avoiding tripping over her kid’s toys on the way to the bedroom, and then ghosting — will leave bloodier stigmata on her soul than the curt “Unmatch”. The problem is that very few men can pull off this cold-hearted maneuver without getting physiologically attached to the pussy and returning repeatedly to that over-used well, because very few men are alpha males accustomed to living with the knowledge of endless sexual market options. Therefore, an alternative special lesson to teach the feminist-brainwashed squadrons of stupidly proud single moms is what FUSigma did here: the rhetorical pump-and-dump.

I’ve since lost the link to the original Voxday post, but this comment by Cail Coreshev is a valid criticism of dual-income marriages that one doesn’t often read from more mainstream sociological pundits:

Good comment, but it’s too bad he threw in that sop to getting an “education” before marriage. The “she needs it for a financial backup just in case” attitude is a big part of the feminist narrative. It leads to women entering marriage with one foot out the door, trying it out for a while before deciding whether to go with the backup. By the time she gets that college degree “just in case,” she’s already burned through several of her most attractive, fertile years; and unless she’s unusually virtuous, has been on the carousel learning bad habits.

It makes logical sense to reduce your risks as much as possible, but taking risks together is one thing that bonds a couple. When people like my parents and grandparents started a life together, owning very little and highly dependent on each other to make ends meet, it bonded them in such a way that they couldn’t imagine having done anything else. If a man died and widowed a young mother with no skills outside the home, that sucked, but it was very rare, and that’s what family and community are for. But when a married couple are both financially stable and don’t particularly need each other, you don’t get that interdependence. Instead you get a lot of people wondering if they could be doing better elsewhere.

I’ve made similar points that working wives are 1) tempted to infidelity (physical or emotional) by close proximity to high status male bosses not their husbands in corporate environments, 2) men are less inclined to emotionally invest in, and therefore materially provide for, careerist women who are financially self-sufficient, and 3) marital egalitarianism kills sex lives dead.

There are many good reasons why the feminist idea of a successful marriage is a warped one. Humans are not (yet) an androgynous blob of asexually-reproducing drones. Women love men who come closest to the masculine ideal, and men love women who come closest to the feminine ideal. This means, in real life, women love powerful confident men who serve as the oak tree under which they can find shelter against the storms, and men love to shelter pretty, vulnerable, feminine women whose first instinct is to nurture rather than swim with the corporate sharks.

Cail’s theory that shared risk — and shared vulnerability —  helps bond couples is also worth pondering. It’s not hyperbole to say that women who depend on “having a backup in the event of a broken marriage” unwittingly encourage the breaking up of their marriages. Not a sermon, just a shiv.

I experienced two unfolding events in one day recently that imo are microcosms of the American sexual market.

Scene 1:

A car was pulling out of a parking garage and for a second the driver didn’t notice a woman pedestrian walking in front of his car until his bumper was almost at her knees. He braked about a foot short of grazing her. She whirled around and, flush-faced, yelled at him to watch what he was doing. He gave the universal non-verbal cue of culpability for a driver misstep — shoulder shrug, head dip, and hands up palms facing outward — but this wasn’t enough penitence for her, and she slapped the hood of his car while yelling ‘fuck you’.

This was an outburst too far. The driver, a pudgeball-faced White dude, rolled his window down a little to yell back ‘hey don’t hit my car you crazy bitch’. The woman, a White, manjawed 30-something who if looks are anything to go by was not ((())), had stomped ten feet away from the car, cursing like a drunk sailor the whole time as families with little kids strolled near. The driver’s impudence reignited her rage, and she whisked around once more to launch into him, a fusillade of “fucking dick”s flying from her piehole.

Then, amazingly, she PUT UP HER DUKES and challenged the man to fight her. AN ADULT MAN. “Why don’t you get out of that car and say that to my face, fucking ASSHOLE”, or words to that effect. Her bony cheeks had deepened to a burgundy hue and she was rocking back and forth on her post-workout sneakers, ready to Amazon Prime drone those hands. She looked every bit the crazy bitch the driver called her. Much screaming and breast-thumping later, coupled with the growing risk she would try to kick out his car’s headlamps, the driver rolled up his window, flipped her the bird, and zoomed off, a final victorious BITCH carrying on his exhaust fumes.

She seethed and as I walked farther away from the scene of the gine I could hear her F bombs reverberating down the street. I remember thinking, ‘that bitch has more testosterone than half the men I know’.

Scene #2:

Not more than a few blocks from aggrocunthighTgirl, I had an opportunity to uncrinkle the lingering disgust etched on my face from bearing witness to a manjawed psychoplath chimping out like a ghetto thug. Turning a corner, I found myself walking behind a vision in a powder blue felt sundress that stopped just below the cutaneous crease demarcating ass from leg, the kind of dress that clings softly to the skin, dipping into valleys where erogenous splits in womanly flesh funnel to downy furrows. The bottom of the dress imitated a lily-lipped bell, which amplified its impact on my horny level, and my thoughts drifted to a stiff breeze catching the parabolic fabric in an upward draft, revealing the snapper clapper inside.

From her tiny, thin waist bobbled a magnificently round ass, and her tits must have been spectacular because I caught a corona of side boob from the back. I tried not to look directly at it, using a mirror instead. She was tall and shapely, a hot rod of pure hourglass humdingery, wavy flaxen hair running riot over her entire back, framed by bare arms of the most delectable peaches and cream hue. I walked closer, thinking this was a va va vooman I had to impose my will upon, or at least had to see if her face was as inspiring as her body.

I wouldn’t have to bother. She heard a voice calling her name and turned toward the direction of its origination, which came from behind me, thus giving me a full view of her otherworldly visage…..

which, by my calculation, was the face of a 14 year old girl.

loleen

The discovery did nothing to thwart my emerging boner, but it did give me a bit of a queasy feeling somewhere nestled in the higher cognition modules of my brain.

The voice belonged to her cow mother, who shambled to her daughter’s side and took her arm, French-style, and they walked quickly away in another direction. I saw no father with them.

Two vagnettes, in my mind, so emblematic of our liberated sexual market. A pugilist city spinster with a man-hating chip on her Crossfit-carved shoulder, and a sexpot teenager whose mother had probably paid for the sexy clothes that would make her daughter look like a much older sophisticated slut.

Woman living vicariously through man, mother living vicariously through daughter. I living vicariously through myself. Pepe strokes his green chin knowingly.

Subverting Sassy Sluts

What to say to a girl who has, unbeknownst or not, co-opted a favorite PUA line for her own amusement? A reader explains:

To CH & readers,

quick tactics question —

what if a girl pulls the Heartistian “don’t flatter yourself” riposte on you? How do you reply?

That happened to me, and not being swift of tongue I said nothing but walked away.

Thoughts?

Thanks.

Before you can know the right words, you have to be in the right frame of mind. That frame is: “My dance card is always bursting with poon flavor, so whatever any one girl says to me hardly jogs me from my glowing self-conception.”

Once this inner game is established, the “right” reply to a sassy girl will come more naturally and punctually.

VESSEL OF MALE MATE VALUE DETERMINATION: “Don’t flatter yourself.”

FILLER OF VESSELS OF MALE MATE VALUE DETERMINATION: “It’s hard not to.”

The words WILL come easier if you believe, really believe, you are Beelzebub’s gift to bush. I’ve no issue with those who advocate learning outer game before tackling inner game in order to get a taste of the in-field possibilities, but ultimately the coolest outer game must originate from the source pool of unshakeable inner game. Game neophytes often complain about being tongue-tied in the moment of truth, but that is less a reflection of their paucity of wit that it is of their weakness of mind. A strong mental self-appraisal will open the floodgates to a river of sexy ripostes.

It’s generally advisable to avoid ever apologizing for any infraction of social or courtship etiquette — particularly if the rules of the etiquette which would constrain you were established by your enemies — if it’s women’s hearts you want to hoard (and men’s loyalty you want to mobilize). However, even alphas with unimpeachable state control occasionally must pay tribute to the strategic, if half-assed, mea culpa. Along the serpentine path to incredible power, extreme circumstances will present which vociferously demand at least a feint in the direction of quasi-apology.

Which is why I give a pass to Trump for his “apology” to Megyn Kelly. (The sneer quotes are very apt, you’ll soon see.)

A reader forwarded this video clip from the interview between Megyn “blood coming out of her wherever” Kelly and Donald God Emperor Trump. She has cornered him into explaining his multiple “retweets” of various tweets that contained references to her, Megyn, as a bimbo. Watch and learn from a Master Charismatic how to say “my bad” like a badboy rogue.

GREAT example of Trump’s charisma in the exchange from 6:12 – 6:25 from interview w/ crazy Megyn.

When a woman wants an apology, don’t give it to her. If she craves it and NEEDS it, give her a simulacrum of an apology, and deliver it with a cheeky grin. Which is what Trump did here. And, unsurprisingly, Megyn’s mile-wide smile right after that charming BROADside testified to the effectiveness of Trump’s coy concession.

By way of making a stark alpha male-beta male comparison, try to imagine ¡Jeb! Bush in the same situation. (Suspend your disbelief for this flight of fancy.) Megyn has put the pressure on Jeb to account for his retweets of Jeb fans referring to her as a bimbo. How do you think Jeb would have replied?

Megyn: “You retweet…bimbo.”

Yeb: “Did I say that?”

Megyn: “Many times.”

Yeb: “I am really sorry. That’s not who I am. It was the heat of the moment, and I got carried away. Geez, my wife — and let me remind everyone how much I respect and love my wife, she’s my hero — my wife would never tolerate such abusive misogynistic language, and she’d never let me hear the end of it if I did anything that looked like I might be approving of it, even if someone else said it……..”

Megyno: *no smile, vagina snapped shut tighter than a clam at low tide, resentment welling* “You sicken me, chauvinist pig.”

***

Update: A readers points out another fine example of Trump’s tight Game in his interview with Megyn.

At 6.35 Trump says, “You’ve had a life that’s not been that easy”

How perfect is this? If you told a woman she had an easy life she’d take it as patronizing; if you told a woman she had a hard life she’d think you were saying she was from the ghetto.

you’ve had a life that’s not been that easy

Look at her face after that! The alpha knows when to misdirect and make it about her again so she can do what women do best at: talk about themselves.

Ambiguity, backhanded compliments (negs), frame control…. these are the tactics of the successful seducer.

Options = Instability. A Chateau maxim as universal and relevant to life satisfaction as the famed CH aphorism Diversity + Proximity = War. The O=I theory was introduced in this original press post:

Where you have options, you have trouble sticking by one person. A man dating a girl (or girls) will feel on top of the world and suddenly all those single women traipsing around the city look like much easier targets to approach. His loins will quiver with excitement. A woman transplanted from a less populated region of the country to the big city will become enthralled with all the extra attention from men who are probably much better at playing the game than the men she left back home. Her ego will quiver with expectation.

…and fleshed out here, with accompanying scientific confirmation:

[T]here is an inherent sex difference in the destabilizing force of increased options. A man with more options than his partner is a less destabilizing force to his relationship than is a woman with equally more options than her partner. This phenomenon results from the greater hypergamous drive of women, who are less satisfied than are men with sub-par lovers, and from the biological reality that risk of female infidelity is a graver threat to relationship harmony than is risk of male infidelity for which there is no chance of “reverse cuckolding”.

Think of the relationship permutations this way:

Man with options + woman with fewer options = man with peace of mind and wandering eye + happy but anxious woman + lovingly prepared home-cooked meals.

Woman with options + man with fewer options = unhappy woman with wandering eye + happy but anxious man + microwaved dinners.

Man with options + woman with options = stable relationship. Both are happy and infidelity or rupture risks are minimized.

Man with few options + woman with few options = stable relationship. Both are unhappy yet infidelity or rupture risks are still minimized.

I don’t need my knob slobbed by ¡SCIENCE!, but I won’t turn down a freebie blowie if 💋SCIENCE💋 just can’t get enough of my Renaissance Meat. So once again, to the lab-coats (via VIP commentator chris):

Scientific proof that options creates instability.

In the interests of weeding out the mathematical complexity, there were three values calculated. Assuming you were taking the survey, they would correspond to (1) how well your actual partner matched your ideal (2) what percent of possible real mates out in the world are better overall fits, and (3) how much more or less desirable you are to others, relative to your partner. These values were then plugged into a regression predicting relationship satisfaction. As it turned out, in the first study (N = 260), the first value – how well one’s partner matched their ideal – barely predicted relationship satisfaction at all (ß = .06); by contrast, the number of other potential people who might make better fits was a much stronger predictor (ß = -.53), as was the difference in relative mate value between the participant and their partner (ß = .11). There was also an interaction between these latter two values (ß = .21). As the authors summarized these results:

“Participants lower in mate value than their partners were generally satisfied regardless of the pool of potential mates; participants higher in mate value than their partners became increasingly dissatisfied with their relationships as better alternative partners became available”

Implied in the CH Options = Instability formula is the premise that the available options are desirable; options don’t mean much if what you have now is decidedly better than the alternatives. Few people will trade up from a filet mignon to a burger, so the existence of millions of attainable burgers doesn’t register as a menu of options to our subconscious minds if we’re currently dining on filet mignon. (If you’ve dated a really pretty girl, you’ll know that, at least for a while, the world of women outside her presence seems to recede into invisibility. Some call that love.)

Instability follows from options when the options are instinctively perceived as worthwhile substitutes. From this truism, we can deduce the effectiveness of a powerful Game principle: Dread. If you are a man who is, or is subjectively perceived to be, lower in sexual market value than your girlfriend/wife, then you can help stabilize your relationship and increase the happiness of you and your partner if you ACT LIKE you are a man with many desirable and attainable options you’d trade up to if circumstances allowed.

That is, it’s sexy to act more like an untrustworthy man than a trustworthy man. Why? Because women LOVE LOVE LOVE men who are loved by other desirable women. And an untrustworthy man signals his desirability to many beautiful women. This principle is why it’s so common to see physically unattractive men dating hot babes “out of their league” strut like a cuntquistador who could drop his current lover on a dime if she ever gave him trouble. Platitudists may not appreciate this facet of human sexual behavior, but it’s real and it works.

CH Maxim #77: If a man acts as if his life is full of willing women, then women will be more willing company.

A reader who is the owner of Page For Men writes,

In my executive life, I can answer [the implied question in this CH post] – They don’t have a fuckin clue. I work for several fortune 500 clients (I am a consultant now) that want better online results.

They hire fresh out of college, female college grads to handle social, online and media. These 22 year olds say this is what the demographics that purchase the products say, so they agree.

As an ex CEO of these types of companies I get it. They look at “reports” and agree (as I did not too many years ago)… usually in less than 15 minutes.

We all think the CEO is the Alpha, and they are in the world they live in, but the are not trying to re-engineer the world. Just increase revenue. And these adds sell. Whites overlook it cause it would be (add any SJW term here) not to.

Brother, most of them don’t have a clue. And I’m not much better, in a contract position I do my magic online and don’t school anyone on the other BS they are doing. I have tried a few times, and it always burns me. I am also building my 100 acre ranch and I can hit a target at 600 yards repeatedly. I am a capitalist, not stupid.

The real answer is most of these large companies are run by older (like me) people that just don’t see the truth of the issue.

Still love your writing, keep going. You inspire us.

So the problem comes back to, as it often does, the malign influence of single ladies living the slut and the city lifestyle, and the eager gullibility of older male executives believing everything these cute young things implore them to believe. And, apparently, Millennial consumers are fully on-board the anti-White express train to genetic and cultural obsolescence, so this mongrelization agit-prop sells. Which means we will see more of it… until one day, hopefully not too long from now, a MASS WOKING will rupture the grotesque system, floorboard to ceiling rafter.

Certain combinations of speech are optimally attractive to women. Wit, conversational fluidity, and terseness are common elements in the kind of wordplay that women most adore in men. On that subject, reader Sorcerygod explores the confluence of body language with, well, actual language.

The body language IS worth taking a closer look at, but it would be even more interesting to hear the tone of his voice and the contents of his words.

Considering that Stratham is a grunting jock figure, he probably doesn’t match his voice with his stance.

Now *I* have a good voice. Low, deep, slow, amused, intelligent, full of witty remarks . . . And I’ve been told more than once I’m a “good talker.” Supposedly words don’t matter, it’s just the auditory qualities of the voice, and the body stance, but I believe that offering skilled talk, and interesting dialogue, is CRUCIAL to seduction, and a man who can speak well and fluidly on many different topics can compensate for his poor looks . . . now when you combine looks and talk like me, you’ve got a veritable divine figure —

If I can offer a few tips.

One, start off using small words. The brain, especially the female brain, latches onto these first. These are your foundation.

Two, to show your intelligence sprinkle higher words like “epitome of something,” “nascent value,” “reductionism” . . . as long as you have a base of low level words, it doesn’t matter if she doesn’t understand all of them, you will convey that you are erudite and sharp-minded. And she *WILL* subconsciously get the meaning of at least some from context. And she will drip drip drip.

So a sample monologue of Sorcerygod talk would go something like this:

“I love the new spring weather, it’s so refreshing and rejuvenating. The wind, the air, the flowers, the strangers on the street with smiles on their faces. But are any of them sad to the point of suicide? Sometimes I catch a glimpse on their faces . . .”

Mostly simple, basic words, jacked up with point-forward braininess.

That’s the way you want to go. Practice. Oh, and being able to write well translates directly into being able to speak well. So if you’re alone, you can still practice communicating by writing, and then transfer this later to spoken dialogue with others.

Absolutely. Many SMRT men make the mistake of ladling their verbal IQ all over women, imagining that women are aroused by their linguistic prestidigitation. NO. Women are aroused by dominant men, ZFG men, clever men, impudent men…. of whom advanced verbal fluency is as much a distraction from, as an amplification of, their attractiveness to women.

The ideal verbal approach is to coax an accelerated camaraderie with the use of “power words” — which are usually mono- or bisyllabic — that girls promptly jack into via emotional pathways that electrify fastest when lubed by simpler, stronger words than by nuanced Oxfordian words stuffed with exquisite connotations. This will be your conversational base, over which you will furnish the occasional five-dollar words and ambiguous subtext, because no pickup attempt went to the bedroom without first rubbing her rationalization hamster against the grain.

In succinctness, the best verbal DHVs are those which pleasantly surprise. If you showcase your linguistic prowess like a flesh-bound thesaurus, girls will think you’re a try-hard, or too nerdy to suffer gladly. But toss out a morsel of brain-waking blingo atop an entree of jerkboy-banter, and just when a girl thinks she’s got a handle on you her assumptions are destroyed and her vagina begins flowering anew.

It’s a similar concept to insulting SJWs. If you assault an SJW with a barrage of insults right out of the gate, no matter how creative or on-the-mark, xir will turtle and shut off to any more input from you. To really excavate the SJW soul and maneuver your shiv close to xir’s id for the killing twist, you’ve got to soften your initial salvos and pretend to polite discussion. Then, when complacence has lowered the SJW’s blubber-bunkered guard, and xim thinks you may be a reasonable sort, you place one hand on the end of your shiv and drive it to the hilt into xie’s now-exposed heartmatter.

This does require some amount of time investment, though, for a nonetheless delectable payoff, so there’s nothing wrong with taking the easy route and nuking the SJW from orbit. You won’t change xit’s mind but you will trigger xox’s amygdala.

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Also reachable over Tor: roissyrwpgxawb3etwznvay4eelbws4lkdtr4tt2r7wxb6adq6pajtqd.onion