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.

Options = Instability: Another Heartiste Maxim Externally Validated By SCIENCE!

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.

Why Are Ad Agencies Pushing Miscegenation Propaganda?

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.

Your Daily Game: The Seductive Potential Of Little Words

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.

Shitlord Of The Month

You can know a man by the company he keeps, and the shitlordian essence of Trump’s butler, Anthony Senecal, suggests Trump is a man of sterling character. On his Faceborg page, The Butler done did it!

“Looks like that sleezey bastard zero (O) is trying to out maneuver Congress again, if the truth be known this prick needs to be hung for treason!!!” Senecal declared on his Facebook page on April 21, 2015. […]

When he read news that a Belgian newspaper was in hot water for portraying Barack and Michelle Obama as apes, he asked “with who are they in trouble with,” and said “I think the newspaper deserves a Pulitzer Prize !!!!!!” for the racist imagery.

Yes, who are they in trouble with? The question answer itself, mm?

“This shows killery clinton to be a LYING DECEIVING C**T !!!!!!! I would NEVER cast my ballot for this BITCH in any election !!!!!!” he commented on Sept. 14.

“killery started life as a conniving bitch and I’m happy to report she is still a bit of a slut at it !!!!!!!!” he wrote on June 27.

Did this man speak untruthfully?

In August 2015, when a state of emergency was declared in Ferguson, Missouri, Senecal said it was finally “time to remove Ferguson from Missouri—move the sane people out during the day and carpet bomb the city from the face of the Earth at night—if you blow up the protestors, oh well !!!! Case closed !!!!!”

At least half of America (the good half) was thinking the same thing.

It’s one thing to vent one’s deepest, truest thoughts on a public forum. It’s quite another to refuse to back down from them when questioned by the pinkshirt mob.

Senecal confirmed to Mother Jones that he wrote that post: “I wrote that. I believe that.”

No apology from this man. He has earned his Shitlord of the Month title.

TRUMP2016
MAGA
THE SHE-MALE WITHIN IS WITH HER

Alpha, Beta, Or Black?

A reader forwarded this photo, and I’m still laughing.

The Miscegenation Indoctrination Machine Is Fully Functional

This ad from T-Mobile is just one example of the avalanche of miscegenation propaganda that’s been spilling out of the marketing departments of nearly every major American corporation and media organ for the past ten years, and which have been increasing in frequency tremendously since about two years ago.

Mudshark monocles sold separately.

Why this sudden explosion of commercial, media, and government mongrelization indoctrination?

I can think of four possible reasons why Globo-Homo oligarchies and their paid-for government shills would actively promote miscegenation as selling points for their products/programs.

1. Corporations have been overrun by SJW board members, executives, and managers. There are “true believers” now running major consumer and media industries, and they push miscegenation because they genuinely believe in its intrinsic value or they genuinely believe in its value as a mindfuck to ostracize and dispirit those (goyim) who aren’t autonomic cheerleaders for the muddy waters narrative.
2. Corporations are being heavily pressured by SJWs and Numinous Negro shock troops to be more “inclusive” and “fight White privilege”, and the corps are responding by appeasing these freaks, figuring that the small cost in a presumed tiny number of lost irate customers outweighs the larger cost of bad publicity or settling frivolous lawsuits.
3. Corporate boards have data which shows that miscegenation sells (to their identified market demos)! They push it cynically, to increase their bottom line, feeling no particular emotional attachment to it. If this rationale is true, then that means a growing wedge of American consumers, particularly those with discretionary cash, eat this MiscProp up. Sad!
4. The ol’ smoke-n-mirrors. Corporations have created a large and avaricious Miscegenation Indoctrination Machine to distract from their 1%er takeover of the American economy. Keep their natural enemies — anti-fat cat shitlibs and low disgust threshold normies — occupied with technicolor hot button agitprop so that their attention is never drawn to the Globo-Homo elites’ championing of open borders, one-way trade agreements, and outsourcing that funnels money into the hands of fewer and fewer mega-wealthy value transferers while gutting the wages of ever more native sons of America.

I don’t know which reason is the most loathsome. All four probably have some salience (I think #2 and #4 are the biggest gears in the Miscegenation Indoctrination Machine). What I do know is that it is Good and Right to call out these Masturbators of the Cuckuverse for their reptilian scheming and attempted brainwashing. The more people that see this anti-White circus for what it is — the gravest show on earth — the more likely that the malevolent purveyors of mongrelization are beaten back to the loony bins where they belong and America can be great again.

PS I object less to authentically in-love mixed couples than I do to the active propaganda by our overlords to shove it down our throats like some twisted creeper’s idea of love.