Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Is Trump In It To Win It?

This is hearsay, so take it for what it’s worth.

“Anonymous for this post” passes along insider info on Trump’s motivations.

******

CH,

Trump is now “in it to win it.”

This is from a good source who doesn’t want to be identified, but wants this information out there…along with the pointed observation that Trump has already hired political “ground game” pros in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina —

——–

This may be old news but I’m not seeing anything about it.

If you post about this, do it ‘anonymous’ please.

I just got told by a friend that Trump hired the former lawfirm of the RNC.

Why does this matter?

Word on the street in Chattanooga (where Trump has and retains many high end connections) is that Trump went into the campaign with two intentions.

One was to ‘shake things up’.

The second was to raise his profile with Chinese investors for fund raising for a new casino.

He really didn’t intend to get big numbers in the US and didn’t intend to actually ‘go for the goal.’ Which was why he came in with no primary ground game. He didn’t intend to even get 5%.

With the recent success the question was ‘what now?’ Go for closing the deal or back out? Some of his more inflammatory comments were tests to see if he could flame out. And his poll numbers just rise.

If he has retained a political lawfirm it can only be to create a ground game. Repeated commentators have said he can’t win the primaries because ‘he doesn’t have the people’. Trump doesn’t come from that political structure. He’s coming from a business structure. He doesn’t NEED to have the people beforehand. That is what MONEY is for. To Trump you don’t hire the engineers to build the skyscraper until you need them. You hire them when you need them and fire them when they’re done.

His game plan will be wait until he has to build a ground game, hire a bunch of people with experience, build the ground game, do the primary then move on. You won’t actually see evidence of it until a few months or even weeks (depending) before the first time markers. (Filing dates mostly.)

He’s got money. He doesn’t need ‘people’.

The firm is Jones Day lawfirm in DC. The senior partner, Donald F. McGahn, is a former FEC commissioner.

If he has retained a major political lawfirm he’s going for the goal. He’s serious. And most of the analysis is missing it.

There’s a secondary aspect to this which is interesting.

The normal way that political appointees are chosen are from those ‘people’ that candidates use in ground game. While Trump is famous for rewarding loyalty, if his plan involves ‘hire lawyers who know the laws in state x’ he’s hiring legal/political expertise, not loyalty.

Which means a Trump administration would be less beholden to primary support individuals. Which means, in turn, that he would potentially tend to appoint people who might ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT to positions that frequently just get political supporter x who has some knowledge/background in field y.

A Trump presidency would tend to have less ‘this is a good buddy of mine’ appointed to, say, head FEMA. (Bush/Katrina)

Which, again, is something analysts (most of whom are former ‘people’) are missing.

‘He can’t win a primary because he doesn’t have people like ME!’

Yeah. Bout that…

Oh, and the Irish bookies have gone from 300:1 to 9:2 for him winning the nomination.

I’m not a supporter by any imagination, but… Damn.
—————

I’m looking for Trump to start talking about an Article V Constitutional Convention next.

******

I don’t doubt Trump entered this race thinking he couldn’t win, and that his initial motivation was partly narcissistic (in fact all politicians are narcissists to a degree), partly self-aggrandizement. But then he saw that he could win, and that he had tapped a deep well of dissatisfaction among people by simply speaking his mind the way he likes to speak (i.e., not like a weeping pussy).

And, I agree with this take: Trump has come to loathe the cosmopolitan elite from his sheer familiarity dealing with them. Another part of his motivation is sticking it to these effete globalist Davosians who are completely severed from blood-and-soil America.

The odds of Trump winning it all are much improved from just a few weeks ago, but even if he falls short he will have done a world of good for this rapidly dissolving nation. The Trumpentiger is out of its cage. There’s no hiding it from public view now; it must be met on its own terms, dangerous, agile, and hungry for fresh meat.

Nothing.

Or, more precisely, less than nothing. She became unhappier.

The husband bent over backwards to fulfill his wife’s every demand, and the result is tragicomically predictable: gina tingles extinguished.

For the past year or so, my husband has ceased to be able to turn me on, to the point where I am almost repulsed by our lovemaking. Recently, I broke down and told him everything. Since then, he has done everything in his power to get us back on track. The problem is now me! Even though this is all I’ve wanted, I can’t bear to be touched in certain areas.

Never mind the couples therapist answer. As per usual for the quality of output typical of this field of inquiry, it’s garbage. A commenter’s sarcastic jab gets it more right: “I love you, but I’m not in love with you.”

Ok, just to torture the CH reading audience, here’s a sample of the couples therapist’s answer (a woman, natch):

This “hot potato” syndrome is not uncommon: one partner has an issue, but once he throws it off, the other catches something too hot to handle. In many ways, it is a good thing that your husband is responding so energetically to your plea for change, and you did an excellent job of moving beyond what had become a long-term impasse.

Yes, clearly what the husband needs to do is more of what didn’t work at all.

For example, you say you don’t like to be touched in certain places, so the exact details of this must be gently communicated to him, and he needs to be shown exactly what you would prefer.

As the feminist sages tell us, women are really turned on by having to read an instruction manual to their men on the proper use of their bodies during lovemaking.

You have done very well so far – be brave enough to address the next steps, which are largely about better communication.

“Better communication” to solve all your relationship problems! Empty platitude, the stock in trade of marriage counselors everywhere. The unhappy wife wrote to the worse-than-useless psychotherapist shell entity informing her STRAIGHT UP that she told her husband everything, and he did everything he could to meet her demands. What part of that suggests this relationship needs to be addressed with “better communication”? Sounds like they were communicating their marriage to an early bed death!

I shouldn’t be surprised anymore, but the alacrity with which marriage and couples counselors and creeeeeeedentialed “psychotherapists” resort to droning bromides devoid of any explicit advice that might prove useful to saving relationships but carries the baggage of gently disturbing the gentle egos of gentle wives with gently feminist views about the moral supremacy of the female prerogative and the assumption of the male’s automatic fault in any scenario stuns even experienced observers of the junk therapist scene such as yours truly.

This couple deserve better advice than what a one Pamela Stephenson Connolly can offer them. CH to the rescue…

To the wife: First, make sure it isn’t some serious physiological issue, like CVD or something that could affect your sexual response. For that, see a medical doctor, i.e. a real doctor. But, odds are it isn’t a medical problem.

The way to bet is that your husband is a beta male — that is, dependable, reliable, generous, deferential… and utterly unsexy — and that his beta maleness got worse the longer your marriage went on. It’s not uncommon for men to get soft in body and attitude once they’ve settled into the marital comfort zone.

If this is the cause of your turtling sexuality, I’m afraid anything you do could only make matters worse. This is because there is a natural disconnect in your female brain between what actually turns you on and what you think SHOULD turn you on. You will, therefore, be unable to give your husband any advice that would work.

To the husband: STOP doing what you’re doing, and do the opposite. Instead of appeasing your wife, ask her to do things for you. No, DEMAND of her those things. Stop supplicating, and instead assume that you are God’s gift to womankind and can do no wrong. Apologize for nothing, make no excuses for her. Be unpredictable. Leave her for a spell, preferably unannounced. Tease her, poke fun at her, squeeze her hip fat with a disapproving glare, flirt with other women as she watches. In sum, initialize the first sequences of Dread Game.

After a few weeks of this wifely romantic reprogramming, grab her when the mood hits you, and start tearing off her clothes, oblivious to her mewls of protest. If your psychological preparations have been successful, she will relent and shake off an orgasm like a dog shitting a peach pit.

If not, consider cutting her loose and saving your newfound self-confidence for another woman who will submit to your love in the way every man secretly desires a woman to do. Even the effete hipster manlets.

Know a man by his enemies. If the GOP cuckservatives… and they appear to be legion, a limitless supply of them tepidly squirting off the ball-gag assembly line… devoted half as much energy and righteousness against their putative foes, the Democrats, as they do trying to stump the Trump, they might actually win a national election again.

But they won’t, because the truth is that the establishment right is just as liberal, in outlook and acquired lifestyle, as the equalist left, the only difference between them resolving somewhere in the former’s eagerness to bomb globocorporate democracy into the heart of middle eastern shitholes.

Trump is a populist, tapping a deep vein of white middle class unease that has been dangerously repressed by sixty years of Hivemind thought policing. This is why he is WINNING and this is why the Legacy Right is now, in the full clarity of legitimate opposition, showing their true colors: vagina pink.

Which brings us to this edition of White Male Pussy of the Month. Behold, The Ultimate Cuck, Ken Gardner:

The best response to nauseating Cuck Dolls like Ken is that old Game stand-by, Agree&Amplify:

***

A commenter sees that Trump is locking down the female vote.

Have you seen this list of the top 5 questions Google users search for relating to each candidate?

https://www.google.com/trends/story/c5c95ce9-6b74-4939-b112-57e405ef0109

Trump’s are hilarious. They read like list of questions women would ask him on a first date:

1) How old is Donald Trump?
2) How tall is Donald Trump?
3) What is Donald Trump’s net worth?
4) Is Donald Trump married?
5) Who is Donald Trump?

Game, recognized?

How I imagine The Trumpening would answer each of those questions, were they posed to him directly.

1. “Younger than Hillary.”
2. “Tall. Very tall. You guys believe in the gene thing?”
3. “10 billion.”
4. “Yes. Marriage is great. I love marriage so much I did it three times. Couldn’t get enough.”
5. “The Gom Jabbar. Crisis and observation.”

***

A whiny Narrative gatekeeper who learned his craft throwing open the gates to his anus tut-tuts Trump for his use of the term “anchor baby”. Trump responds with Trumpian alphatude.

And some people still wonder why Trump is leading in the polls. Hey, here’s a thought… maybe Americans are sick and tired of mincing faggots?

“To Be Fair” Game

I have a buddy who says his pickup game boils down to “fatten them up before the kill”. He means by this that he lowers girls’ defenses with stray, off-hand compliments and then, when they’re smiling and acting gracious and conciliatory toward him, he pulls a 180 utilizing a coy “except for” non sequitur and mildly rebukes something about the girl that she prides herself on. The key, he says, is the delivery; he makes it seem like his insults are never intentional. His whole game is essentially an extended-play version of the neg.

I was reminded of this by reader Chad Durbsley, who explains his “to be fair” game which sounds tactically similar to “fatten them up” game.

Update on “gay game”.

Although I’ve been using Internet dating less and less, it’s still worth putting a minute or 2 a day into it depending on where you live, and your skill in spotting undercover fatties.

“Gay profile” gets amazing results. Especially with younger sjw girls with a rainbow profile pic.

Also having great success with “to be fair” game.
I.e. : “to be fair- if your profile was any gayer it would be a power-bottom named Steve”.

The trick here is to use the “to be fair…” and then say something that’s patently *unfair* and also insulting. This short circuits the hamster direct to the pussy.

This is a semantic trick that works surprisingly well. “To be fair” Game is a sneaky false premise verbal sleight, the false premise being that what you are about to say is anything resembling fair. (A cousin of “to be fair,…” is “that said,…”.)

This persuasion technique could be lumped into a school of salesmanship called “relationship building”. It works by presuming, or fast-tracking, a closer, more intimate relationship than actually exists, which in pickup jargon is known as time compression. When you use leading clauses like “to be fair”, you are insinuating yourself into the girl’s circle of trust; you are assuming in effect that you are a fair man, that she knows this, and that anything you say must therefore be weighed more seriously than what any other rando would say.

“Relationship building” goes a lot deeper that that, but don’t underestimate the force that a few well-timed quips can have on a woman’s perception of your mate value. “To be fair” Game would work even better if you “fatten her up” first with a sincere compliment. This is the psychological foundation for the efficacy of the neg. Like Chad said, the blatant contradiction between the declaration of fairness and the unfairness of your comment is just the kind of verbal theatric that drives women crazy with curiosity.

“Love your purple hair!….. To be fair, it does make you look like a gay tranny.”

Spot The Alpha And The Beta

Somebody, probably a girl buddy, asked this group to look over their shoulders and put their hands on their hips for a snap. It’s hard to make this pose work without looking gay.

One man obeys.

βETA

One man is busy checking another girl out and can’t be bothered to remove his hand from his girl’s ass.

ΑLPHA

Any questions?

Yes, you sir.

You still don’t get it?

Ok, try this. It’s a general guide to the good life. A very simple rule that if you follow it religiously will reward you 99 out of 100 times.

Doing what you’re told: BETA.

Doing whatever the fuck you want: .

Stop appeasing girls. They don’t want it, they don’t like it, and they invariably give their sexual favors to men who understand this about them.

There’s a theory floating around alt-blogs that human IQ in the developed world has been steadily decreasing since about the dawn of agriculture. The working hypothesis is that agriculture enabled dense urban life to develop, and cities are known population sinks (lack of space/high cost/disease vectors all contribute to lower fertility rates in cities).

The thinking goes that cities attract smarter people, who upon settling into urban mimosavilles promptly forget the Darwinian Prime Directive and fail to reproduce themselves in sufficient numbers. 1.5 sprog per hipster village yenta is a recipe for extinction. (Which is not necessarily a bad thing.)

I don’t know if I buy this theory of decreasing IQ in total, but if true, I can suggest another plausible mechanism that is far more pertinent today, now that disease threat and high child mortality have largely been eliminated. This mechanism is far darker than disease or child mortality, once you get to peering at it closely in your skull ham.

You could call this the CH-ian “The Pill, The Rubber, and Abortion, Oh My!” theory of dysgenia.

The speculative specs: Evolution has slowly, and sometimes quickly, produced human populations with great intelligence (on average). As these population groups gained smarts, they reconfigured their environment so powerfully that their cultures began to exert more influence than the natural world did on how their progeny would evolve.

Gene-culture co-evolution became the order of the day. Civilization sprouted and flourished. And it was good. Until…

These groups of humans became so smart that they outwitted — for a time — the second evolutionary guiding principle of reproduction. They invented Pills and Rubbers and safe and cheap Abortions, thus allowing themselves the joy of sex without the joylessness of changing diapers.

Smarter people, having by their inherent mental dispositions a lower threshold for the tedious and boring tasks of infant care, stopped having so many babies. But smarter people USED to have more babies than dumber people! What happened since then? Well, when pre-20th Century smart people had sex — which they never found boring — they were often stuck with the consequences. Most of them simply accepted the boredom of child-rearing as a necessary component of life.

Once the Era of The Pill, Rubber, and Abortion began in earnest, smart people saw the wisdom, from their own personal hedonistic perspectives, of using these smarthuman-created tools to separate the consequences of boring child-rearing from the titillation of sex. End result: Fewer smarties having kids, more dummies taking up the slack, dysgenia in full black lotus bloom.

For the first time, perhaps, on a large scale, humans had made an end run around a Darwinian First Principle. Humans — some humans, anyway — had become TOO SMART and invented pregnancy-thwarting tech that also thwarted the cosmic, and divine, imperatives. The Pill, The Rubber, and Abortion may be making us dumber!

Hard double-blind, metabolically-controlled ¡SCIENCE! evidence for this “PRA” theory is sparse and mostly circumstantial, but it is out there. For instance, in a study of German parents, having a child lowered their happiness more than any other life change, including death of a spouse!

And of course there are the oft-cited stats of later age of first marriage and lowered fertility plaguing almost the entire Pan Western developed world.

There are countercurrents pushing against the PRA theory of dumbing down humanity. The Pill seems to alter women’s sexual preferences so strongly that they choose less masculine beta males as partners if they were on the Pill during the time of choosing. This would imply that these women would have more kids, Pill-disposed as they are to settling into family life with a beta provider. However, it could conceivably run the other way: Once married and thinking about having kids, women who get off the Pill might suddenly become repulsed by their babyfatted betahubbies as their ovulatory machine revs up again after a hiatus of many years. This could lead to an increase in divorce (which in fact has been happening throughout the West since the 1960s) and consequently a decrease in children (or a decrease in children born in wedlock).

Is the evolution of human intelligence self-limiting? If it is, will societies respond by banning the Pill, the Rubber, and the Abortion? Or will we just have to ride this one out for a few millennia, until the fitness maximizer pendulum swings back to the smart set? Either way, going on the way the West is going now, something’s gonna give.

Vox points out that Donald Fucking Trump used a classic game tactic — the neg — on (former) supermodel (and mudshark) Heidi Klum, when he said “she’s great, but no longer a 10”.

You know a man is a mega alpha when a single casual neg directed in an offhand manner at a former supermodel results in two videos and multiple public statements as the woman desperately tries to qualify herself to him.

The tingle-stricken lady doth protest too much.

The sheer incoherence of Klum’s remarks underline the degree to which Trump’s dismissive remark rattled her. That, gentlemen, is how it is done. Identify the insecurity and casually press. You know you’ve hit the nerve when their reaction spans days.

The alpha does not qualify himself to women, ever. He expects women to qualify themselves to him.

ABQ: Always Be Qualifying.

Oh, and ladies, a helpful reminder: If you are a White woman of incomparable beauty, don’t throw your genetic heritage away on a coalburning “F YOU DAD” mission. When you get older and less attractive (as you assuredly will), people will feel less urgency to extend you kindness and deference because your family looks weird and they’ll have doubts about your character. Can I get a two-for-one ‘heh’? Heh.

(Trump’s remark actually straddles the line between a neg and an insult, although a man with as much preselected alpha goodness as Trump has more margin for error in this matter. Nonetheless, I’d still call it a neg, because he did butter her up first before delivering the backhanded compliment.)

***

Also from Vox, another demonstration of the power of Fame Game over women’s attraction triggers.

The best part about Game is watching a girl become “noticeably more interested” in you as you weave your biomechanic magic. It’s very satisfying, even apart from the normal anticipatory excitement that accompanies courtship.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,325 other followers

%d bloggers like this: