Game In Advertising

There are a lot of great examples of Game in advertising, especially ads produced during the egalitarian, compression era of America. For instance there’s this ad, which reads like Don Draper wrote the copy:

Can you identify the Game techniques and concepts used in this ad?

“We pass up around 19 girls, before we get one that qualifies”: (literally) QUALIFICATION

“If looks were everything, it wouldn’t be so tough”: ACTIVE DISINTEREST

“Sure, we want her to be pretty”: IMPLICIT NEG

“But we don’t stop there. We talk. And we listen”: COMFORT, ATTAINABILITY

“We judge her personality,…”: FLIP THE SCRIPT

“So we try to eliminate these problems by taking a lot more time and passing up a lot more girls”: MALE ENTITLEMENT, CHOOSINESS

What are adds today? A weak mewling White beta who is the butt of jokes, a manjawed careerist White woman with mystery meatballs in tow, a wise confident dindu anointing the unwashed.

How far we have fallen as a culture.

***

I bet very VERY few women of the day bitched about this ad when it was released. I bet the ad’s “misogyny” (by current year standards) barely if at all registered in women’s consciousnesses. American women have had to be propagandized by a relentless assault of feminist nonsense to learn that what was once normal relations between the sexes is actually patriarchal oppression. And now we have American women begging for the love of third world rapefugees and retweeting campus rape hoaxes published to universal fanfare and used as the basis for man-hating government policy.

The Recovery

On the fly reframing, that’s how it’s done. If you can see the flame-out coming, may as well go out with your dignity intact, the flamethrower scorching everything within the perimeter of engagement.

And who knows? This deport-a-slore might’ve been intrigued by his assholery, enough to take up his offer. Girls are known to succumb to the jerk’s charms.

***

FastEddie flashes his MAGA Game.

Can confirm. I have -Trump supporter. Gun and business owner. If you have “swipe left if you voted for Trump” on your profile, swipe left- all on my profile.

Had one recently message me saying she’s not sure we’d click because I’m obviously an ardent Trump supporter. I said- no problem. Appreciate the honesty. I just feel bad relegating you to all those male feminists and soy boys.

GREAT reframe. Shit test passed with pyrotechnic flair.

She laughed and said I just described her friends. I told her of course they’re her friends.

“I figured you’d say that.”

Deep down, beanie wearing soys make her sick.

Now we’re off to the races. She flat out says, “If you want to fuck me, buy me a drink.” I said, “I know the best place in town,” then gave her my address.

Banged out. She’s 26. I’m 38.

PS
Would share screenshots, but she unmatched me afterward (not interested in a relationship with someone that brainwashed.)

She sent me a screed with verbosity to shame Balzac after a couple days screaming, “YOU know why I date soy boys?!!!(she used the actual term) Because THEY won’t pretend to be interested in me, fuck me and throw me away!!!”

This is when you know you’ve banged out not only the girl, but her hamster as well. A double banging.

The whole thing was several paragraphs long. I responded- lol.

lol. Also, this is how everyone from the “intellectual dark web” should respond to chaimstream media requests.

Then she unmatched me, right when I was trying to go back in and screenshot.

There’s always next time.
Glad you’re all my brothers.
FE

There’s a lot of good Game advice in FE’s story, but that profile line — If you have “swipe left if you voted for Trump” on your profile, swipe left — is killer. The best thing about it is that it can be ported easily to almost any profile or pickup scenario because it’s basically a nuclear disqualification that immediately puts the girl in the chaser/appeaser/approval seeker role. For instance,

“If you ask me to buy you a drink, swipe left” (this is really funny if you do it IRL and make a theatrical swiping motion with your hand as you’re telling her)

“If you ask me to put on a condom, swipe left”

“If you have a pussy hat, swipe all the way left”

The Myth Of The Maladjusted Bumpkin

A field report from an anonymous realtalker:

De-urbanization has to be a long-term goal of the Trump administration, or whichever “more Trump than Trump” Presidency follows Trump. A handful of megalopolis shitlib hideouts accelerates civil breakdown and regional alienation. I’m not saying do away with cities; I’m saying de-scale them, make them smaller, spread them out, and redistribute their talent and hothouse ideological insanity so that the damage the urban hives can do to America is muted. (Questions about if or how to redistribute the urban Diversity™ I leave as an exercise for the reader.)

Reintroduce connections between city, town and countryside that today are utterly severed, and you’ll reinvigorate the sense of shared values and mutual concern for countrymen that naturally evolves in healthy connected societies. As part of this project, de-diversification must accompany de-urbanization, which can be achieve by deportations, an immigration moratorium, and a later immigration policy that exemplifies the spirit of the 1924 Immigration and Naturalization Act.

As is the wont of their crabbed mental condition, shitlibs project their maladjusted social insularity and general cold-heartedness onto rural Americans, and with a vengeance, because the shitlib hates nothing more than his own self-deceiving smallness.

The FBI’s Mole In The Trump Campaign

CH, Feb 5, 2018:

It almost looks as if the FBI used one of their agents (Carter Page) to entrap Trump by assigning him to worm his way into his campaign.

Kimberley Strassel, WSJ, May 10, 2018:

The Department of Justice lost its latest battle with Congress Thursday when it allowed House Intelligence Committee members to view classified documents about a top-secret intelligence source that was part of the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign. Even without official confirmation of that source’s name, the news so far holds some stunning implications.

Among them is that the Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation outright hid critical information from a congressional investigation. In a Thursday press conference, Speaker Paul Ryan bluntly noted that Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes’s request for details on this secret source was “wholly appropriate,” “completely within the scope” of the committee’s long-running FBI investigation, and “something that probably should have been answered a while ago.” Translation: The department knew full well it should have turned this material over to congressional investigators last year, but instead deliberately concealed it. […]

Justice asked the White House to back its stonewall. And it even began spinning that daddy of all superspook arguments—that revealing any detail about this particular asset could result in “loss of human lives.”

This is desperation, and it strongly suggests that whatever is in these files is going to prove very uncomfortable to the FBI. […]

The bureau already has some explaining to do. Thanks to the Washington Post’s unnamed law-enforcement leakers, we know Mr. Nunes’s request deals with a “top secret intelligence source” of the FBI and CIA, who is a U.S. citizen and who was involved in the Russia collusion probe. When government agencies refer to sources, they mean people who appear to be average citizens but use their profession or contacts to spy for the agency. Ergo, we might take this to mean that the FBI secretly had a person on the payroll who used his or her non-FBI credentials to interact in some capacity with the Trump campaign.

This would amount to spying, and it is hugely disconcerting. […]

Obama political appointees rampantly “unmasked” Trump campaign officials to monitor their conversations, while the FBI played dirty with its surveillance warrant against Carter Page, failing to tell the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that its supporting information came from the Hillary Clinton campaign. Now we find it may have also been rolling out human intelligence, John Le Carré style, to infiltrate the Trump campaign. […]

Nixon resigned because a loyalist bugged a hotel room used by the DNC. The Gay Mulatto-Clinton-DNC-Deep State axis of weasels surveilled, bugged, tapped, and SPIED on the Trump campaign AND the Trump transition team AFTER Trump had been elected President in an all-out effort to delegitimize the incoming Trump Administration, set the table for impeachment, and steal the votes from the American people who put Trump in the White House.

Bigger that Watergate? This makes Watergate look like piker’s play.

This suggests the “source” may be overseas, have ties to foreign intelligence, or both. That’s notable, given the highly suspicious role foreigners have played in this escapade. It was an Australian diplomat who reported the Papadopoulos conversation. Dossier author Christopher Steele is British, used to work for MI6, and retains ties to that spy agency as well as to a network of former spooks. It was a former British diplomat who tipped off Sen. John McCain to the dossier.

Deep State, Clinton, Obama, and DNC collusion with British, Australian, and Russian foreign agents. What’s that saying about accusing your enemy of the very crimes you are committing?

I believe I know the name of the informant, but my intelligence sources did not provide it to me and refuse to confirm it. It would therefore be irresponsible to publish it.

Carter Page may or may not have been the Deep State’s mole in the Trump campaign and transition team, but my instincts were right. Someone working for the FBI was planted in Trump’s inner circle to set him up and arrange the pieces for the later Mueller investigation aka attempted coup.

GAL-LOWS
SWEET LARIAT

***

Latest: Brennan, Strzok And Kerry Allegedly Set “Spy Traps” For Trump Team; Hunt For FBI Mole Intensifies

Your Daily Game: A Tasty Hamster Treat

The first scribed instance of use of the coinage “rationalization hamster” at Le Chateau. A later definition:

The rationalization hamster is a descriptive term for the typical woman’s tendency to rationalize her decisions to fulfill herself sexually such that her personal culpability in making the sex happen is removed or reduced. Since that original definition, the rationalization hamster has come to acquire a broader meaning, encapsulating all the odd little mental tricks that women (and sometimes men) do in service to their glowing self-conceptions.

I bring this up because in my Pullkit I have many lines that excite women’s hamsters, and a spinning hamster is a slicking clamster. (Translating from the wordplay: a woman thinking a lot about the hidden meaning behind a man’s words is emotionally investing in him, which will persuade her to perceive the man as a high value mate prospect.)

Zee personal anecdote:

YER ‘UMBLE BED-RAKER: i like your kicks.

THE LADY AND HER HAMSTER: thanks.

YER ‘UMBLE BED-RAKER: the unisex style is in right now.

THE LADY AND HER HAMSTER: *rictus grin* i’m preeeetty sure these aren’t unisex.

YER ‘UMBLE BED-RAKER: don’t run from it. look at me. *sweeps hands over self* everything i’m wearing is unisex.

THE LADY AND HER HAMSTER: haha, but no these are women’s shoes.

YER ‘UMBLE BED-RAKER: i figured you’d say that.

***

It’s that last line — “I figured you’d say that” — which has been killer for me on many occasions. It can be deployed in a multitude of milieus and in response to a plethora of parries (notably excepting two: when she calls out your self-disqualification bluff and when she rejects your advance outright), and it works the same ambiguity magic every time, stroking that hamster against the grain so hard it spins itself into a fluffy orgasm.

HER: buy me a drink first.

ME: i figured you’d say that.

***

HER: are you hitting on me?

ME: i figured you’d say that.

***

HER: what do you do?

ME: i figured you’d say that.

***

HER: well i’m a lawyer at ballcutter, llc

ME: i figured you’d say that.

***

HER: no i don’t have a waterbed.

ME: i figured you’d say that.

The point of the line, if used correctly, is to pave the way for a cold read. It gets the girl wondering, “what did he mean by that? what is it about me that seems predictable to him?”, and then you are off to the races if she so much as haltingly whispers, “how do you figure that?”. Curiosity drills the hamster.

Fuglyamory

From Thhhlate,

Easier With Three

My wife’s girlfriend moved in with us, and balancing work, life, and leisure has never gone better.

By EVAN URQUHART

*SHUDDER*

*SHIVER*

*THERE GOES MY DINNER*

More proof that avowed polyamory is a refuge for subhuman dregs so ugly their mommas don’t love them.

Atavator reclines into the bigger picture,

Either of those “women” could be a tranny — no problem.

These cases raise an interesting question: is there, perhaps, a correlation or at least a parallel between polyamory, and what the evolutionary guys call r-selection?

That is, when you get high r-selection, there is care, but it’s generalized and weak, with low particular investment.  Your kid just got mowed over? Oh well, shit happens. (Parenthetically, I’m always horrified by the nonchalance of some of my liberal neighbors regarding not just dirt and squalor, but the fates of people in their own families.)

Is polyamory just one type of r-select behavior? There is the sex urge, but it’s not targeted with any particularity, and hence jealousy cannot exercise as much force.

Though the language was not present for this sort of thing at the time, it is more or less the way the first “sociologists” in the 17th and 18th centuries described the amorous lives of primitives. This was before either “racism” or egalitarianism came into vogue, and I tend to think the early observers got this right.

And you have to figure there is some genetic remnant for these behaviors even among white europeans; it’s just that for a long time civilized mores prevented their expression.

If sexual markets can become disrupted and grossly distorted by degenerating social forces similar to those of Calhoun’s rat experiments, then the evidence you’d look for would be increases in sexual deviancy, loneliness, involuntary celibacy, rancor within and between the sexes, sexual identity problems, STDs, sex panics, ideological hysteria, and miscegenation. You would look as well for decreases in the marriage rate, long-term relationship formation, and fertility.

Well, look around. What do you see?

***

In related Fuggernaut News, the NeverTrump Uniparty’s pathological open borders xenophilia continues importing thousands of MS-13 gang members who shoot dead completely random innocents and then burn the bodies in their cars. Let’s have a look-see at the chupacabran horrors our virtue signaling single White women are welcoming into your neighborhood:

I’ve lost count of how many treasonous fucks in our ruling class deserve to sway eye-bulgingly in the warm Spring breeze.

Oh, and Fred Reed? Go fuck yourself and the burro you rode out on.

ps tonight let’s all say a prayer for mccain’s tumor.

The Manipulated Man: Denial – Playing The Victim – Confrontation

Here’s an insightful post from what looks like a Reddit group source. (click on the link for zoomable reading)

Summarizing, women employ a three tiered counterstrategy when they are accused of lying or cheating (or of doing anything a self-respecting man would consider out of bounds).

Stage One: Denial

If a man confronts a woman with her deceit/lies, she will ALWAYS start denying whatever he’s accusing her of. [Beta males] are easily manipulated and they don’t want to believe that their woman would cheat on them/lie to them, so they WANT to believe her lies. Most men never get past this stage of the flowchart.

Stage Two: Playing The Victim

[If the man presses further] she will start crying and blaming the other men/other people. She will start using words like rape, drunk, drugs, roofies, “I was going to pay you back”, “I thought it was our money” etc. They deviously abuse the male protective instinct. […] 99% of men will be fooled by stage 1 or stage 2.

Stage Three: Confrontation

There is a rare side of women that men will only see if they STILL aren’t fooled by stage 2. She will start getting angry at HIM and she will blame HIM for whatever she’s accusing him of. She could have been doing gangbangs and stealing money out of his bank account and she will tell him that he wasn’t home enough and she wasn’t feeling desired. She will start yelling, throwing shit, destroying property and doing lord knows what else. At this stage there are STILL men who will believe her and think they’re somehow responsible for their woman’s behaviour.

This Three Stage description of women’s self-defense strategy is spot on. Denial, victimhood, blame shifting (aka psychological projection). Coincidentally, it’s also the typical self-preservation strategy of narcissistic sociopaths.

Women are narcissistic sociopaths? What kind of sexy jerkboy would draw such a comparison!?

If you are the rare man that is actually able to see through her lies and you break up with her/kick her out/sue her, you will have a new stalker in your life.

Sadly, so true. You want to turn a half-hearted girlfriend into an obsessed lovestruck stalker? Follow these three easy steps:

1. Be unmoved by her antics
2. Call her bluff
3. Show her the door

She’ll be curled up at your door the next day, begging you to take her back [true story].

It’s not even that they actually care about you, it just seems like women are traumatized by the fact that they weren’t able to manipulate a man into believing her.

Understandable reaction. Most men are appeasing credulous betas inexperienced in the wiles of woman, and will fold like a cheap lawn chair under pussy pressure. Give this reality, women are unprepared for the rare alpha male who defies her expectation of a toady.

That shit is the worst feeling for a woman and she will spend a LONG TIME trying to figure out HOW she wasn’t able to fool the man.

In fact, the emotional and mental energy the woman will spend trying to figure out how she wasn’t able to wrap the Chateau acolyte around her finger WILL make her care more about him. The frazzled hamster is a form of devotion, of investment, and women are programmed by the Cosmic Coder to fall deeply in love with men who have wrested this form of emotional commitment from them.

This blog teaches men how to identify these three stages of female smoke and mirrors and to see them for what they are: manipulative tactics to exculpate herself, to hide the contours of her hypergamy, and to place all blame and accountability on the man. Once you can see them coming, you have the tools — Game and jerkboy psy ops — to dismantle them and come out looking like a champ instead of a chump.