A Ghastly Public Friendzoning

If you come at the Queen, you best not miss.

Rockets Kiss Cam just buried this dude LOL 😭 pic.twitter.com/8xlk9oUjGj

— Rob Perez (@World_Wide_Wob) May 12, 2017

Details.

A private friendzoning is a punch to the nuts, but a public friendzoning….well that’s just a drawing and quartering of a man’s soul. Unnecessary cruelty.

A day-spa visit to the Chateau imbibing the lessons herein could’ve saved this man such a public humiliation. Not to mention spared him the time and energy he’s obviously wasted chasing a phantom pussy.

Remember the patented CH Jumbotron Test?

Every text or email or recordable instance of conversation [or attempted lip-kiss] you have with a girl must follow this simple rule:

If it were given a public airing, let’s say on a blog or a sports stadium jumbotron, you should feel comfortable with what you have written [or executed] for the world to see.  You should not feel an urge to wince, because it will be clear to everyone reading [or watching] it how alpha you are.  If the thought of someone other than you and your girl reading [or watching] your permanently archived romantic exchanges makes you cringe with embarrassment, then you are doing something wrong that will eventually lead to your girl dumping you [or publicly thwarting your romantic yearning].

This fledgling womanizer at the Rockets game failed the Jumbotron Test in the most cringeworthy way imaginable.

A word of advice to the men assembled: When the kiss cam swings your way, jerk your ice cream cone away from the girl you’re with. That’s far more likely to win over a woman’s lust than taking advantage of the moment like a weaselly beta male to steal a kiss that you can’t be sure will be reciprocated (many such cases).

Don’t try to kiss a girl in the public eye, unless you know she’ll return the ardor. The alpha male first kisses a woman’s id before aiming for her lips. The beta male gets it backwards: estranged from a woman’s id, he tries to access it by sneaking in an opportunistic kiss on her lips. Naturally, she turns the cheek to him for assuming her heart would follow his kiss, and secretly relishes the cruelty she inflicted on her hapless blue balled orbiter.

Spot The Signature Alpha Male Move

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

😉

Hoverhanding is such a beta male (verging on omega male) tell, that it’s more alpha to commingle with another man in an act of sharing the firmly-gripped flesh of one woman.

Word of the Day: Ownership

Harmless Flirting To Keep Your Game Tight And The Women Tingly

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.

Invade/Invite Is Male/Female Personified

I’ve made this point before, but I think Tes tos Tyrone puts it more elegantly,

Even more fundamental Cap… it’s hidden in the two words “Invade/Invite”.

Invading is to enter, conquer, overwhelm, force to submit… to invite is to invite in, to attract, lure, entice or tempt.

At its most basic, this is in fact the precise role males and females engage in leading up to and during sexual congress.

The whole process of picking up girls, charming them, and seducing them into bed is one of action. It requires a wellspring of impudence and entitlement that feminists would balk at, but which is necessary if the human species is to continue existing.

Male seduction is, essentially, invasion. Men seduce as men invade: with purpose, triumphantly.

The process of being seduced is more complicated. There are elements of action — filtering, screening, testing — but predominantly it involves a strategic retreat and relinquishment to a greater, and more alluring, power. Women don’t wait supine for their conquerors, but neither do they push into new territory to find their conquerors. Men must invade women’s space and attention to have a shot at success. Women for their part entice this manly incursion by sending out invitations in the form of flirting, beauty, and other female lures that their “territory” is open to occupation.

Female seduction is, essentially, invitation. Women seduce as women invite: with pleasure, satisfyingly.

The dance of courtship between men and women is mirrored geopolitically in the active resistance of men to invasion and the passive submission of sexually available women to invasion.

***

Given the premise of this post, we may have a way forward to solving our shared single White woman problem and saving America from the open borders locust swarm. The issue, as I see it, is that White men have been playing defense for too long. Always appeasing, always conceding, always cucking. The rise of the Maul-Right has shown there’s a better path. If the essence of maleness is Invasion, then our sexually primed single White women can be wooed by their men going on offense; in practice this would mean adopting rhetoric that is much more potent, passionate, and prodding than what White men have succumbed to the past few generations. It means reframing the third world invasion and open borders as a temporary battlefield defeat that will only spur America’s White men to rally the troops, gather arms, and storm the shitlands of their invaders. This doesn’t have to signify literal invasion; what it should evoke in single White women (and their dirt world pets) is a virile, masculine purge of the invaders from the homelands of White men. We will purge the squatters, and we will purge the traitors, and we will purge the media accessories to the invasion. This is action. This is strength. And in the end, this is aroused White women brought back under the tutelage and direction of their White men.

Single White Women Want To Spread Their Legs For The World

What other conclusion are we to draw when the voting behavior and opinions of single White women corroborates exactly what this post’s title asserts? From Bigly E, another id-buster post that reveals a leetle too much about the vagoconductive currents that emanate from single White women’s hindbrains.

Single white women are more opposed to a big, beautiful wall than Asians, blacks, or even Hispanics are.

*twatpalm*

Single White women are, presumably for those of them who still have a bit of bloom on the rose, actively trawling the sexual market for cad and cavalier. Thus, they are in their stage of life when all faculties, mental, emotional, libidinal, are focused to a pinpoint of estrogenic vitality, with the familiar shit-testing behavioral profile that vitality presupposes.

This means, single White women are limbically primed to be aroused by dominance and a ZFG attitude in men, and those men who fall short in these traits are dumped into the beta orbiter/friendzone with a quickness, when they aren’t rejected outright. The dumping can be literal, or metaphorical, as in a political friendzoning that weakens the electoral power of White men.

As a social phenomenon, a large chunk of America’s White men have spectacularly failed the dominance/ZFG test. America the Shitlib Feminist Shrike has effectively neutered White men, and unmasked them for romantically unappealing doormats to single White women. As women are wont by the essence of their sex to spread their legs for the dominant tribe’s men, they will wish to see tribal battles play out so that they may enjoy the luxury of choosing winners and their winning seed. The single White woman desire for open borders is nothing less than a desire for alpha male interlopers to test the mettle of their betatized male loafers. A massive civilizational shit test, if you will.

For this reason, it was always a mistake to entrust the nation’s future to its native daughters, especially while in their pulchritudinous primes. Women are more xenophilic than men and this difference goes deep, all the way to the Darwinian pulses in the primal part of the brain that regulate reproductive algorithms. No logic, reason, accountability, or basic common sense can defeat such a primitive force.

There aren’t many solutions to this intractable cognitive block in women’s hindbrains that don’t require serious divestment from the recently operative political and social calculus. Off the top of my head, here are solutions that would work (but just try hurdling the independent variables on your way to a solvable equation):

1. rescind suffrage and disenfranchise single White women
2. get more White women married off and pregnant at younger ages
3. break America into regional entities, diluting the single White woman vote
4. convince married White women to socially ostracize single White women by any means necessary
5. make divorce harder for women
6. economically and socially incentivize early marriage (e.g., conduct a massive draw-down of women from the workforce and cease glorifying single momhood and tankgrrl careerism)
7. ban abortion and contraceptives (good luck with that)
8. execute a vast, mass propaganda psy ops involving reframing of contentious national question issues and other rhetorical gambits that constitute the heart of Game to reorient the acceptable opinion avenues by which single White women gain social status rewards so that they find value in claiming the opposite of the self-defeating open borders beliefs they comfortingly regurgitate for now. (whether he knows it or not, this is the Trump Option.)

I welcome further suggestions from the commentariat.

An “overfeed the beast” strategy that I sometimes see entertained by crueler elements in the Exasperated-Right won’t work; if you dump millions of Dirt World trashkin into single White women playgrounds, all that will accomplish is an increase in the murder, rape… and miscegenation rates. The bleeding heart politics of these dumb bunnies won’t move an iota. No, the way forward is for White men to retake control of their homeland and scoff at the precious political boilerplate their women solipsistically indulge.

I can tell you that if we refuse to tackle our shared single White women problem, the nonWhite invaders will tackle the problem for us. And the way they solve it won’t abide feminist SWPL rules of conduct.

PS Cough up your black pills, because Trump’s firing of Comey may have opened the way to renew the investigation of thecunt’s email case while at State. I told you guys Comey was a lackey for thecunt. Get rid of him, and thecunt will start thinking about getaway plans to safe havens.

***

PA suggests motives for the single White woman signaling for open borders.

— The single White woman desire for open borders is nothing less than a desire for alpha male interlopers to test the mettle of their betatized male loafers.

Yes, I agree. Other reasons why normal young single White females (as opposed to gutter-grade trigglypuffs) think they want open borders, along with my estimate of the likelihood of that being one of their motives:

To enjoy brown d_ck: 5%

To have a mixed baby: 0%

To be on the top of an even taller female SMV pyramid: 90%

To increase the likelihood of *other* White women getting r_ped, k_lled, or kn_cked up by browns: a sobering 75%

To virtue-signal (read: follow a fashion) that they don’t yet know is about to go out of style: 100%

Female Suffrage. A mistake that will not be made again.

I meant to bring up this point in the body of the post, but PA’s #3 reason — to enjoy the instant social status ladder climb from importing a vast bottomfeeder population of lower SMV women and men — is probably the most subconsciously pertinent (and least remarked upon) motivation to single White women.

The Great Men On Diversity

None other than Plato had this to say about Diversity™:

From Plato’s dialogue, The Republic.

Plato, run through the CH translator: “Inharmonious irregularity” + Proximity = War.

Our modren virtue signaling SWPLs do very well on the SAT verbals, but they’re no match for the smarts and wisdom of the ancients. They are like little baby brain in comparison. And their little baby brains are sending the West right over a cliff, wah wah wah all the way down.

British Diversity

Just saw someone speak of Britain's great history of diversity: "Normans, Saxons, Danes, Celts".

So basically inside this circle. pic.twitter.com/0d1BrvQl8X

— Derek Hopper (@derekmhopper) May 11, 2017

That’s a lethal slip of the shiv, right there. Congratulations, Derek Hopper, you’ve won the coveted CH Shiv of the Week award. Accolades from people that matter, and lots of bitter butthurt from people that don’t, are coming your way!

Once more, for the nosebleeds:

Race matters.

Genes matter.

Social engineering doesn’t much matter.

HTHurts.

***

Related: Porter on concentric loyalty circles [aka genetic distance] and White nationalism. A necessary corrective to the fretting of the gestalt-right culturalists.

Variances between Western peoples, while certainly no trifle to our eyes, are that precisely in light of the external force being applied to all of them. Scots and Englishmen may nurse a mutual acrimony as old as their island; but they are indistinguishable oppressors to the aliens busily taking it from them. Some natives will even say they don’t mind the encroaching muslims at all. But that’s the voice of solipsism speaking. The question more relevant to their continued health is “do the muslims mind them?” This being a question most whites are little inclined to pursue.