Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Game’ Category

Reader cobrantula accepted the CH MAGA Game Challenge. He writes about his experience.

A few posts ago you bad asses suggested a man go out wearing a MAGA hat and tell ya’ll what happened. So here ya go.

I live in Baltimore and usually hang out in the artsy, SJW area known as [REDACTED]. I will tell you where I went, but ask that you don’t make that public knowledge beyond saying an artsy neighborhood in Baltimore.

First I went to the [REDACTED] which is on the first floor of the [REDACTED]. I sat at the bar next to two SJW chicks. It didn’t take long for them to open me. They were challenging. “How can you wear that hat in Baltimore?” I went with an answer I stole from Wild at Heart.

“‘Cause it’s a symbol of my individuality and it represents my belief in personal freedom.”

They started trying to argue and that’s when I remembered the teachings of the Chateau. I just grinned and tried to have amused mastery. I don’t remember any of what I said, but I just remember my attitude and soon enough they were laughing with me and calmed down.

Unfortunately I ran out of steam. After a lull in conversation I asked for the number of the one closest to me and she refused. I stole a line from Sam Kinison. I said, “Good luck with your compromise,” and I left.

Next bar was the [REDACTED], another SJW haven. I got many looks of hate/ disgust, but no one really fucked with me. One Indian girl started chatting me up enthusiastically, but all of a sudden about three minutes in she just up and left.

The last bar I went to was the [REDACTED]. This bar I would consider the SJW belly of the beast. I sat and waited and sure enough the two girls next to me opened me with disgust and curiosity. But just as it was about to get good the Bouncer rushed over and shouted, “Do not talk to them!”

I tried to argue that they were talking to me, not realizing that I wasn’t gonna be able to logic my way out of this. At the time I thought the smartest option was just to open some other girls rather than get thrown out of the bar. So I moved.

It’s a good strategy to make friendos with bouncerbros at establishments you frequent, for exactly this reason.

Ordering a drink the cute bartender asked me about the hat. For the second time the Bouncer rushed over and this time said, “This guy’s a troll don’t feed the trolls.”

Then again, some bouncers are dicksucking phaggot white knights who voted for thecunt.

I left soon after and went to [REDACTED] where reactions were much warmer. In the end I got drunk and my game fell apart, but it was a fun experiment all in all.

Next day I walked around Georgetown wearing it. So many girls did double takes. A lot of them gave me looks of disgust.

Remember, in women disgust is one emo-oscillation away from a full blown vagina tingle. It’s true, SCIENCE! says so in this study which used plethysmograph measurements to discover that women are involuntarily turned on by a lot of weird and disgusting stuff:

***

The genitals of the volunteers were connected to plethysmographs — for the men, an apparatus that fits over the penis and gauges its swelling; for the women, a little plastic probe that sits in the vagina and, by bouncing light off the vaginal walls, measures genital blood flow. An engorgement of blood spurs a lubricating process called vaginal transudation: the seeping of moisture through the walls. The participants were also given a keypad so that they could rate how aroused they felt.

The men, on average, responded genitally in what Chivers terms “category specific” ways. Males who identified themselves as straight swelled while gazing at heterosexual or lesbian sex and while watching the masturbating and exercising women. They were mostly unmoved when the screen displayed only men. Gay males were aroused in the opposite categorical pattern. Any expectation that the animal sex would speak to something primitive within the men seemed to be mistaken; neither straights nor gays were stirred by the bonobos. And for the male participants, the subjective ratings on the keypad matched the readings of the plethysmograph. The men’s minds and genitals were in agreement.

All was different with the women. No matter what their self-proclaimed sexual orientation, they showed, on the whole, strong and swift genital arousal when the screen offered men with men, women with women and women with men. They responded objectively much more to the exercising woman than to the strolling man, and their blood flow rose quickly — and markedly, though to a lesser degree than during all the human scenes except the footage of the ambling, strapping man — as they watched the apes. And with the women, especially the straight women, mind and genitals seemed scarcely to belong to the same person. The readings from the plethysmograph and the keypad weren’t in much accord. During shots of lesbian coupling, heterosexual women reported less excitement than their vaginas indicated; watching gay men, they reported a great deal less; and viewing heterosexual intercourse, they reported much more. Among the lesbian volunteers, the two readings converged when women appeared on the screen. But when the films featured only men, the lesbians reported less engagement than the plethysmograph recorded. Whether straight or gay, the women claimed almost no arousal whatsoever while staring at the bonobos.

***

The CH ür-Maxim: Watch what women do, don’t listen to what women say.

I yadstopped one girl and she was all butthurt about the hat, but she stayed in set. Turns out she’s engaged so it didn’t go anywhere.

“Engaged” but “stayed in set”. Just when you think you’ve got marriage material on your hands.

Best part of the day:

A homeless veteran stopped me and said, “America was already great. He just made it greater.”

He showed me a picture of him and his infant son. He was wearing a MAGA hat in the pic.

God Bless Trump, America, and the Chateau.

Cobrantula

Good stuff. I would say the reactions were what I’d expect in a deepest blue shitcity like Baltimore, but despite that there were women willing to indulge their curiosity with MAGA MAN. The bigger obstacle appears to be pissed off Trump-hating males like the bouncer in this sociological experiment. If you can neutralize the bitterbitch males, the women’s objections should be easier to surMOUNT. (White knights are like mobile border walls “protecting” women from sexy interloper womanizers.)

Any others willing to accept the MAGA Game Challenge?

Read Full Post »

Nick brings up an important topic:

It’s Krauser’s business, of course he’s going to say that. Most guys would never cold approach a girl on the street to even know if she was a “yes”. Cold approaching is game, knowing how to escalate a “yes” is game, “converting maybes to yeses” is game, but it’s not where it starts, it’s moving the goalposts for PUAs to distinguish themselves in an increasingly saturated market. Nothing against Krauser, just ran into him last week, but approach anxiety is hands down the biggest issue all guys face. Getting over AA and flipping stones to find a “yes” girl is game, even if PUAs consider it insufficiently difficult to merit their notice.

In my opinion, approach anxiety is one of the top three hurdles beta males face on the journey to romantic fulfillment. The other two are the urge to appease women and the avoidance of escalating sexual tension.

Basically, the three SELF-COCKBLOCKING ISSUES bedeviling beta men are all downstream of one character trait they share: fear of failure. Cowardice, if you want to be mean-spirited about it. Reflectiveness, if you want to be nice.

The Chateau has covered these issues, in detail.

How to overcome approach anxiety. (among other suggestions in similar archived posts)

How to overcome the urge to appease women. (among similar posts)

How to escalate. (see also)

If women can be sorted into three categories

-yeses

-nos

-maybes

then game is about

-securing the yeses

-screening or cold converting the nos

-leading the maybes

Contra Krauser (or whatever his detractors claim he’s said), Game is part of nailing down the “yeses”. A lot of men blow it with “yes” women — how many dates have you been on that didn’t end with sex? — and could use the aid of game to stop doing those things that cause “yes” women to turn into “no” women.

I’ve written this before, but it bears repeating: Game is as much the discarding of unsexy beta habits as it is the accumulating of sexy alpha habits.

Related: The three beta male mortal sins.

Also related: You can calm your nerves before hitting on women. This is known as Inner Game.

***

None of the ugly truths discussed at CH are really off-topic. New research uses brain scans to estimate IQ. Mark your calendars. May 15, 2017 is the day Leftoid Equalism died.

Also not really off-topic: The Audacity of Yuge hypothesizes that the sexbot revolution could be a boon for America’s native stock fertility, rather than the civilization destroying sexual market shake-up I have foreseen.

Read Full Post »

Not an AFC has a Game question,

Off Topic:

Hey Heartiste, could you tell me if my answer is good, or how to deal with this kind of banter?

I have a female coworker which is somewhat attractive, but I don’t want anything with her (I am married). That said, I enjoy some playful banter, but I dont want to come across as hitting on her, while also not looking like an AFC.

Chat through work chat system:

Me: oops
Her: what?
Me: accidently called you; guess it didnt go through
Her: missing me? 😉
Me: phat fingers

I feel my answer was subpar. What do you say? Thanks!

The dreary cube farms of Gynecorp, Inc are a minefield for men these days. Never mind office affairs; if you so much as cross paths with a cunt having a bad day, you can be frog-marched to HR for accusations of looking at her funny. Ironically, this reality calls for MORE Game, not less, because a man who has mastered the Art of Charm can sidestep a lot of Daisy Ballcutters.

Not an AFC is perfectly justified in wanting to keep his Game sharp, even in the caustic anti-human office environment. Men get a thrill from pleasing women, and likewise women get a thrill from being pleasing to men. Harmless flirting is loathed by the Feminist Shrike Demasculinization Post-Industrial Complex precisely because it reaffirms the sexual polarity of men and women and their unequal, unidentical humanity.

Rambling out. To his specific Game question, I don’t see anything resembling AFC (Average Frustrated Chump aka your mass produced beta male) behavior in his replies. “phat fingers” isn’t beta i.e., needy, desperate, lame, awkward, or overly aggressive…but neither is it the pinnacle of pussy parting wordplay. If Not an AFC had wanted to juice this chat beyond the bounds of predictability, and torque the girl’s obviously flirty prior come-on, a better reply would have been something like this:

Her: missing me? 😉
Not an AFC: you’d like that

When a girl offers up a blatantly flirty jab, that is no time to go *ahem* soft. She’s wanting you to rev the engine a little. Not too much…you’ll scare her off. Just a little rumble from under the hood to split shine the seat her bum nestles in.

Readers familiar with Game concepts from the CH archives will recognize a few principles put to use in the “you’d like that” reply. One, it’s a subtle DQ (disqualification) tactically removing the man from active pursuit of the woman. (DQs lower bitch shields aka female self-entitlement defenses.) Two, it flips the script and alters the perception of the interaction to one in which the girl is chasing the man. Three, it assumes the sale.

If more White men were bold this way in the office, our numbers would be insurmountable and the Gynecracy would collapse from internal contradiction.

By the way, with female tingles comes female deference, and with female deference comes big proud clanging balls in men returning to the spot where the corporate world scooped them out and fed them to the cats of spinster misfits.

Read Full Post »

Emailer M has a Game question concerning girls who needle men about their pasts.

Any quick tips for being in a relationship where a female frets about your past? I’m a frequent recipient of shit tests regarding my ‘fuckboy’ past. Example: ‘you’re so good at ____, you must have done this a lot of other girls’.

I’ll start with one I used in the past with wondrous success: “I was thinking about you every time” (for use after an extended break).

Hopefully these can help other readers in similar situations.

Agree&Amplify is your best friend in these situations.

FLARING FURROW: “you’re so good at _____, you must have done this with a lot of other girls.”

TRUMP’S IDOL: “practice makes perfect.”

If she persists (like thecunt didn’t), and Agree&Amplify isn’t leading her out of rummaging through your past, then you move on to DEFCUNT 2: LAY DOWN THE LAW.

PUCKERING PUSSY: “how many girls have you been with, seriously?”

HE WHOM TRUMP CONSULTS: “a normal amount. keep pestering me with this crap and you can join them.”

Generally, girls who are truly worried about your past and what it might mean for the present with you, won’t directly verbalize those worries, especially not in the glib manner that M relays here. So if a girl you’re with is sneaking in coy, quasi-flirtatious jabs about your past relationships with girls, she’s just winding herself up for a big drama fix. Many such cases. A numerically imposing number of women love manufacturing drama, because modern society with all its technocomforts, office cubicle desouling, and forcible betatization sucks the drama, and the essential sexual polarity, out of relationships.

To retrieve a semblance of that missing drama, girls will sometimes dig for juicy nuggets in your romantic past. This serves two purposes: One, it can alleviate her concern that she may have hitched her womb wagon to a beta mule with a thin romantic history, and two, it helps invigorate her flagging libido when she suspects she has to compete with the vagina power of girls cum before her.

A guide for interpreting girls’ fretting about your past:

  • If you receive no questions from a girl about your romantic history, she’s not fully invested in you. She still has too much relationship hand.
  • If you receive an occasional half-serious question from a girl about your romantic history, she’s worried just the right amount that you might be too good for her. Expect sheet-twisting sex soon.
  • If you receive a constant, irritating barrage of leaden questions from a girl about your romantic history, she’s either stalker material or rationalizing her utter lack of interest in you. Deploy A&A and DEFCUNT 2, and if those fail, beat her to the dumping.

Read Full Post »

Some words should never be spoken aloud….unless speaking them aloud is personally advantageous.

Once upon a tingle, I had gotten into a shouting match with a girl I was dating. As is the wont of her sex, she quickly wound herself up to a height of melodrama and hysteria on the flimsiest and stupidest of pretexts, emptying a deluge of emotion that was really about an old resentment having nothing to do with the reason given for her anger in the moment.

But the shrieking and carrying on had cracked my coolasfuckness. Even an Amused Master has a breaking point. My hand slashing the air between us, I growled,

“You don’t get it! I need you less than you need me.”

Boom, drop the shrike.

Now, my statement happened to be true, but it didn’t need to be true for it to hit her id dead center. A silence swept over her, lips trembling, eyes rattling in her sockets, and her face reddened, like a baby caught in a body-quaking anticipatory soundlessness just before unleashing a wicked wail.

But instead of corking off with a femme finale of righteous rage, she physically crumpled and loosed a bitter mewl…if that’s the way you feel about me….is that the way you feel?….cause that’s just an asshole thing to say….

Reading between the lines, I knew she was saying, “I’m not ready to let go of you, so I’ll step off this ledge I walked out on.” When a girl exhales a vulnerability like “cause that’s just an asshole thing to say”, you can be guaranteed two things: she hasn’t stopped loving you, and she needed to hear that from you.

The Game lesson is to remember “I need you less than you need me” by heart, because it’ll be useful if you spend any significant time with the furor sex. It’s a condensed and concentrated form of Dread Game, which when deployed will demoralize even the most combative girlfling. Your reward will be a renewed flowering of her adoring femininity…..for a while. Generally, though, the long term prognosis for relationships that have shared a vitriol to match in vitality any love that might be present isn’t promising. Rut and roam, gentlemen. You’ve only so much life to blow on poison giney.

Read Full Post »

Diversity + Proximity = War.

I got to thinking about this ugliest of Ugly Truths while reading a Sailer post about a review of a book written by a French “real estate theoretician” (now there’s a legitimate new job created by open borders) taking on political correctness. An excerpt from the Frenchman’s book jumped out at me.

A public-housing development is a community, yes, and one can wish that it be more diverse. But it is also an economic resource that, more and more, is getting fought over tribally. An ethnic Frenchman moving into a heavily North African housing project finds himself threatening a piece of property that members of “the community” think of as theirs. Guilluy speaks of a “battle of the eyes” fought in the lobbies of apartment buildings across France every day, in which one person or the other—the ethnic Frenchman or the immigrant’s son—will drop his gaze to the floor first.

Regular guests of Le Chateau will be familiar with the “battle of the eyes”, because it also features in dominance displays between men vying for women’s attention, and in seduction cues between men and women. (I personally love this archived CH post that advises striking a balance between unwavering eye contact and tactical distractedness when picking up a woman.)

Eye contact is a crucial indicator of a man’s self-perceived social and therefore sexual status. If he is given to promptly lowering his eyes when meeting the gaze of strangers, or of women, or of invader saracens, then he is communicating his low status. He is a beta male, and in the case of France, he is a beta male on his own turf.

Interestingly, there’s a confluence of biomechanical streams than join and flow into a delta where Game, Dominance, and Diversity mix in a toxic effluvium. Male dominance — telegraphed through various means, including body language signals — is inherently attractive to women. The ladies love men who show dominance over other men, and over women. The happy nature of woman is to submit to a powerful man; this goes doubly for careerist feminist shrikes. A woman never feels more fulfilled in the embrace of her feminine essence than when she is captivated by a man above her in all the ways that matter.

Men will always strive for dominance in one form or another over other men, because they understand beyond their conscious ken that this is the avenue to flared furrows. There will be no extinguishing of this male urge without reconfiguring humanity into something other than a sexually reproducing species. Men with kinship or national ties (but I repeat myself) can cooperate, but the dominance domino is always in the back of man’s mind, waiting to topple.

Diversity™ accelerates the internal drivers of male dominance; when a genetically and culturally distant tribe invades (courtesy of invites sent out by the globalist elites) the land of another tribe, male dominance displays are amplified and aggravated to the precipice, and beyond, of violence.

Smiling, too, is a cue of social status. Among men, toothy smiles are a signal of submission, of low status, and of low testosterone level. Smiling is context dependent; when a fighter is outmatched by his opponent, (and he knows it), he will smile more, indicating an unwillingness to proceed with hostilities (naturally, this display of submission only emboldens the stronger man).

Smiling relates to degree of Diversity™ as well. It’s no coincidence that America is both a diverse country and a nation filled with goofy smilers. Though this article‘s author doesn’t connect the dots, the real reason Americans feel compelled to smile so much is because Diversity™ imposes miseries on them and increases the contexts and opportunities for intertribal dominance displays. Sad to say that White Americans are losing this battle of the smiles; your typical SWPL isn’t smiling in the company of vibrancy because he’s friendly…he’s smiling because he’s signaling his submission to the invaders. As the emailer welcomerain wrote,

Apparently, Americans smile a lot cuz diversity.

This has many disturbing implications that the article does not explore. If we smile more to signal amiability in a diverse population, this necessarily implies that diverse populations have a lot of internal tension. In other words, Science has once again conceded that Diversity + Proximity = War.

The article does not make note of the fact that most of this smiling goes one way. Dindus maintain their thug scowls and angry pouts. Only the goodwhites supplicate with grins as immobile as car grilles.

It is by this means and toward this end that goodwhites are being forcibly betaized. This process feeds itself.

The Forcible Betatization of Western Whites is a perfect catch-all term to describe the evils of the Globohomo Inc agenda to de-White the White West: Step One: Neuter the White men.

Diversity™ will increase the need for dominance or submission displays such as “battle of the eyes” and smiling like a goof. As social trust craters, people must fall back on primal modes of interpersonal assessment, which means a return to primitive dominance and submissiveness postures to keep the social peace and prevent all-out tribal warfare. If this strikes you as a regression from European norms of social interaction to a more African-style norm, you’d be right. As a rule, when a more primitive people invade the homelands of a more civilized people, the primitiveness will push out the civilized norms, absent a show of cleansing power and the willingness to use it.

Game is partly an organic response to increased Diversity™, and in this definition I include a diversity of sexual market options. (The old meet-marry-mate rule has been tossed for a freewheeling mate-meet-manage expectations anti-rule.) The nexus of Game, Dominance, and Diversity™ becomes clearer: dominance displays must increase in a Diversitopia of both race and sexuality, and Game is perfectly situated to help men capitalize on that intensified need for communicating dominance, to acquire pussy as well as to flex power over invader tribes.

Women, for their part, are fated to submit to the strongest men, no matter what they tell themselves or write about in Salon, and a stew of competing tribes under one national flag means that White women will now be assessing the dominance scores of their White men against nonWhite men. The field of male dominance has expanded in scope, and resulting stress fractures are bound to split apart further an already frayed social fabric.

This is why the Globohomoists are intent on executing to the end their Forcible Betatization of White men; the less White men feel they are the owners of their homeland, with a government that has their backs, the more inclined they will be to submit to the globalist locust scourge. A creeping powerlessness means more stupid smiling and lowered gazes to appease the Diversity Rötherhämmerung.

Game can be White men’s salvation, giving them once again a “home of their own”, as it instills a powerful sense of self, of entitlement, of prerogative, and of mastery over their women and their public spaces. The times demand solutions that may offend the moral sensibilities of the smiling defeated.

Read Full Post »

Sexual Redirection Game

A reader passed along a Game tactic he uses on Tinder which in my opinion would work equally well offline. (FYI Trump is causing Tinder to lose users.) The reader calls it Plausible Deniability Game, but I think a better term would be Sexual Redirection Game.

There’s a trick I’ve developed when talking to girls on tinder that is way more effective than I even thought it would be. After the initial couple of messages, I’ll ask something like “what do you do for fun?”.

Women love to talk about how interesting they think they are, so this gives her a chance to run her mouth and get engaged in the conversation. So once she’s done saying shit like “oh you know, walking my fur babies, volunteering, drinking organic responsibly sourced whiskey, bla bla”, 80% of the time they’ll ask “What do YOU like to do for fun?”

I’m not a huge fan of open-ended questions during a pickup, because as often as not they tongue-tie the less excitable women who can’t think of any response. It’s like asking “What’s your favorite movie?”; there are too many options to think of one on the spot, and this sort of question can cause awkward stutters in the conversational flow during a date or first meeting. But the open-ended question “What do you do for fun?” may skirt the issue. The Modren Woman loves to talk about fun, having fun, doing fun, being fun, being around fun…it will be easy for her to think of a hundred ways she participates in fun fun fun. And like the reader says, most of the time she’ll return the question, which opens new avenues of seduction potential.

This is where you get her mind on sex without activating the anti-slut defense shield. I usually respond with something like

“Canoeing, hiking, shooting my gun, having sex, going to the gym, splitting atoms, reading the news, slaying dragons, you know, just the usual stuff”.

Now, there’s a lot of moving parts here but every girl I’ve used it on has loved it.

1. I’ve blended “having sex” in the middle of strenuous, physically invigorating activities so the gears in her head are turning about what it must be like.

2. I’ve put it in the middle of the list to remove any hint or desperation. This comes with an air of aloofness and hints at preselexxxion.

3. I’ve also attached hilarious and absurd activities like “splitting atoms” and “slaying dragons” to make it an obviously playful statement, and it inspires playfulness in return.

EVERY SINGLE TIME, I get something back like “wow I see a lot of my favorite activities in there 😏”

PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY. She wants to hint at her desire to get cervix hammered without flat out saying so. The conversations always COME ALIVE after this exchange.

I like the cut of this reader’s psy ops. Misdirection and subliminal associations? We don’t see that often enough. The most effective facet of the ruse is contained in #2, where the reader defangs the sexual redirection by burying it in a list of less erotic activities. #3 is important too; most of my successes were when I was in a playful, devil-may-care mood.

It’s a tenet of proactive seduction (game) that a man should introduce sexual themes and sexual tension sooner rather than later, which means in practice the first date. A man who makes it through the first date without some kind of sexualized banter is not having a second date. (If he is, it won’t be any second date worth having.)

The sooner sexual language is introduced, the more your rhetoric should provide plausibly deniable cover for the change in tone from friendly to sexual. I WANT YOUR HOT BOD works when she’s one foot over the bedroom threshold; it doesn’t work so well as a reply when she asks your name (well, it can, but you’d better have rock solid frame in the delivery and follow-up). So if you want to steer that convo to salacious innuendo before she’s downed her drink, you need playfulness, cockiness, and a bit of the ol’ rhetorical legerdemain to soften her up to The Hardening.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: