Tactics Tuesdays: How to Dismantle Anyone Who Condescends to You | Girls Chase

Tactics Tuesdays: How to Dismantle Anyone Who Condescends to You

Chase Amante

Hey! Chase Amante here.

You've read all the free articles I can offer you for this month.

If you'd like to read more, I've got to ask for your help keeping the lights on at Girls Chase.

Click a plan below to sign up now and get right back to reading. It's only 99¢ the first month.

Already a GirlsChase.com subscriber? Log in here.

condescends to you
Use these 10 rhetorical techniques to beat back anyone who condescends toward you. Plus: why the heck do people do this, anyway?

Guys have been asking me for more stuff on debating for a while now (since the piece on Donald Trump persuasion).

In this article, we’ll take a brief foray away from girl-getting, into the land of general social calibration.

In particular, we’ll talk about defending yourself against smug, condescending attacks:

“Oh, you think that, do you? Well, you’re just misinformed.”

This form of condescension has become extremely common among some populations in the early 21st Century West. My typical advice is to avoid smug individuals. Smugness is a giveaway for social ladder climbing behavior; those who engage in it are not fruitful contacts for the active, ambitious man, and are better avoided.

It didn’t used to be like this; Christian conservatives in the 1990s used moral superiority, but they did not condescend to the same extent other groups do today. If you’re a free-thinking man, the attacks you’ll find yourself up against today are some of the dirtiest, most dastardly attacks humans can wield in the verbal arena... and if you want to defend yourself, you’re going to need some tools to do it.

Chase AmanteAbout the Author: Chase Amante

Chase woke up one day in 2004 tired of being alone. So, he set to work and read every book he could find, studied every teacher he could meet, and talked to every girl he could talk to to figure out dating. After four years, scads of lays, and many great girlfriends (plus plenty of failures along the way), he launched this website. He will teach you everything he knows about girls in one single program in his Mastery Package.



stefxxxyyy's picture

wonderfull chase thank you and bless you

Alexander's picture

Especially in the situation I've found myself in at the moment, articles like these are a godsend!

Bond's picture

Your article popped just in time! I have Model United Nations in two days!
I learnt a lot from the Trump article, thank you for this one too.
I'm got into debating a few months ago and this article is spot on!
Cheers Bro,
P.S. How's the new course so far?

Chase Amante's picture


Hoped you kicked butt at MUN!

I have a small update on the course here:

Sneak Peek / Update on One Date

More coming soon (I think).


Fabio's picture

Chase, you wrote in a comment once that you didnt let people borrow money. Were you talking about both friends and family members? Also, how do you say you dont let people borrow money without coming across as a dick?

Chase Amante's picture


Right. If I give someone money, I give it to them, not lend it to them. I lent money enough when younger, then spent enough time chasing after my debtors, that I decided I wasn't going to do that anymore. Neither a borrower nor a lender be, for loan oft loses both itself and friend, as the Hamlet quote goes.

Typical conversation goes like this:

Guy: Chase, can I borrow 20 bucks? I need to buy [whatever].

Me: Sorry man. I do not lend money. Matter of principle. It ruins friendships and relationships and is just bad all around.

Guy: But I really, really need [whatever]! Can you just spot me a 20?

Me: If you need it that much you should've saved up for it. You're just going to have to wait until you can afford it.

Just treat the other person like a small child who has not yet learned to spend all his money and keep something saved up. Also, most of the things people try to borrow money for are not things they need. The guy is never going to starve to death or die of dehydration. If he needs an emergency medical procedure, that is covered by the hospital in most countries, even if he lacks the cash.

The closest I may come is with food or something cheap, where I tell the person to just get me back for it later. Then if he doesn't, he never gets food / anything else from me again.

A more important note is the type of people who need to borrow money are almost never the type of people you want to have around. So if you deny someone loans and he un-friends you, usually you're much better off for it.


Atra's picture

Yes, these are supression technics that I’ve been subjected to, more so in the past than nowadays. I guess that’s the point of the article, but the technics you are suggesting can bee oppressive too, right?

I especially find that «socratic questioning» can be quite manipulative. A guy a know used to do this a lot. For example, if you had talked about «hordes of impoverished people with no work skills or education who commit crimes and live on welfare», he ‘d probably ask back «Are *all* immigrants impoverish, lacking skills and living of crime or social welfare?» Very few things apply to everyone, so the question really only has one answer and hence isn’t really a question.

Pretending that you suggest something because it’s the best for the oher person(s) when you actually have your own interests in mind, is another classic. You say «What concerns me though is this: by bringing all these people into a society where they don’t fit in (…)» when what in fact concerns you, is bringing in «impoverished people with no work skills or education who commit crimes and live on welfare». I share your concern and I also share the way of arguing, that you suggested it to me as an answer to me in another blog post. Arguing like this is highly effective and leaves me unimpeachable, but it’s not honest (which probaby isn’t the aim either).

Another suppression technic is insisting about which words shall be used when these words imply values. For example, I discussed Methadone treatment with someone who rather aggressively inisted that Methadone is «medicine». That’s a valid point but even amongst professionals some people will have the opinion that Methadone («substitution treatment») maintains substance abuse more than it treats it.

Then there are some interesting cultural differences too. I can’t imagine anyone in my country (North European one) calling someone «almost white». At the other hand, I’ve had several conversations with people about rape and almost everyone agrees that gray zones do exist and that women can make false accusations.
Anyway, thank you for another thought provocing article! Even for the least computer competent person it’s easy to read more than 10 articles/month for free, which i admit i did for some time, but last year I decided to become a subscriber and actually pay you for your work because I felt that was the right thing to do. I’m looking forward to moore articles from you!

Chase Amante's picture


but the technics you are suggesting can bee oppressive too, right?

Of course. Any technique can be used for manipulation. Comes down to how it's used.

For example, if you had talked about «hordes of impoverished people with no work skills or education who commit crimes and live on welfare», he ‘d probably ask back «Are *all* immigrants impoverish, lacking skills and living of crime or social welfare?» Very few things apply to everyone, so the question really only has one answer and hence isn’t really a question.

At this point it's down to debate skill. Can you recognize traps and climb out of them?

The "yes, but not all are like that" argument is lower level debate easily hurdled. Like so:

You: blah blah some kind of generalization

Him: But are they ALL like that? I don't think so. [implication: you made a generalization, therefore your entire argument is invalid]

You: Oh come off it. You and I both know we're not talking about 'the good ones' here, or denying that such exist. We're talking about bad apples, and how one spoils the whole bunch, and whether we want to bring in cases with bad apples in them. Or just not even import them at all, especially when we have plenty of apples here already and don't need more.

On the honesty question:

You say «What concerns me though is this: by bringing all these people into a society where they don’t fit in (…)» when what in fact concerns you, is bringing in «impoverished people with no work skills or education who commit crimes and live on welfare». I share your concern and I also share the way of arguing, that you suggested it to me as an answer to me in another blog post. Arguing like this is highly effective and leaves me unimpeachable, but it’s not honest (which probaby isn’t the aim either).

Yes, that may be true. It depends on the person making the argument.

I'll tell you for one, I legitimately am concerned about many of the European migrants who have no real prospects for integration, careers, or anything in Europe. I am especially concerned for the actual Syrian migrants - Syria was one of the best, most Westernized, freest societies in the Middle East, and the people there quite like Europeans, until the West started importing terrorists there for regime change purposes. The Syrians in Europe are the ones probably best suited to integration, the most similar both culturally and genetically to Europeans, and many of them actually did bring their families - they're not just military age men flooding in. And they have legitimately been dispossessed at home. But I think Europe will struggle to absorb them, which may leave them rootless, and their children as part of an underclass. Which is very sad.

Many of the more trouble-making military-age male economic migrants I have less direct concern for, but I am still concerned with their lots... largely because if they remain detached outsiders with no future prospects, they are going to do what detached male outsiders with no future prospects do in any society, and that is cause as much chaos as humanly possible to try to get some chance of cracking the power structure and win something for themselves.

So, depends how you use it. I actually am concerned, though for various reasons that differ among the various groups of migrants in the European migration.

Another suppression technic is insisting about which words shall be used when these words imply values. For example, I discussed Methadone treatment with someone who rather aggressively inisted that Methadone is «medicine». That’s a valid point but even amongst professionals some people will have the opinion that Methadone («substitution treatment») maintains substance abuse more than it treats it.

Yes, word choice is key. The right words can make the argument for you. That's a big part of why word usage ends up being a hill movements battle over. In abortion it is life vs. choice; one side tries to paint the other as anti-life, while the other side tries to paint its opposite as anti-choice. In the 2016 elections, Trump used 'radical Islamic terrorism' to shine a light on the Obama administration's shying away from this term and rally middle Americans who were suspicious of Islam or tired of Muslim terrorist attacks.

Against someone not savvy enough to fight on key word choices, when you decide the terms of use you may dominate the debate. A big part of the reason Republicans have gotten drubbed for most of the 2000s has been progressives' dominance of the word choices used in public dialogue (especially labels like 'racism', 'sexism', 'homophobia', etc.).

Anyway, thank you for another thought provocing article! Even for the least computer competent person it’s easy to read more than 10 articles/month for free, which i admit i did for some time, but last year I decided to become a subscriber and actually pay you for your work because I felt that was the right thing to do. I’m looking forward to moore articles from you!

Thank you, Atra!

And, we actually tightened up the paywall quite a bit last autumn (perhaps a month or so after you joined). A fair bit harder to circumvent now (though I suppose there are always ways) :)


Trail-Mix's picture

Hey chase,
Great article. The article was very informative but I had some questions that stemmed from this post such as if there are any things to do when you catch yourself being condescending. Also mansplaining seems to be directed towards one gender but I personally am condescending to both men and women, is there any reason for this: I mean is this a social reprecussion that is gender specific or is this sjw fodder. Also Tucker v Stewart seems to be about egos instead of their arguments, my personal opinion is that of a previous post we don't matter but women's feelings do, having said that Stewart does a better job of providing positive feelings wheras Carlson seems to be doing a good job of social conditioning. But neither seems to be doing a good job of being sexy, they get so angry that they're as bad as the other.Theres a good argument to be made for anti intellectualism, because intellectualism is not always sexy but I don't know enough about it to speak about it. There seems to be a similarity between your previous how to get a mentor and the entitlement issue. So is condescention a product of the student master dynamic? And if you're ever put on the spot by an aggressive individual how do you keep your mystery and say something to change the conversation away from a polarized topic?

Atra's picture

Obviously, I'm not Chase, but if you don't mind a woman's perspective, here are my thoughts! The most typical male supression technic I can think of, is *interruptions*. The thing is, men have stronger and deeper voices than women, so if they talk over me and I try to talk louder to be heard, I can just raise my voice so much before my voice sounds sharp and harsh, that I usually don't want. My strategy to counteract this, is calmly pointing out that "now you're not listening".

As for being intellectual: imo being intellectual and even arrogant can be very sexy when combined with a flirty tone! You can engage her in some intellectual banter and show her that you appreciate and admire her intellect and no way feel threatend by her because you perhaps are just *a little* smarter than her anyway. Obviously, this works best on girls who are intellectual themselves, but maybe that' s who you should go for anyway?

Chase Amante's picture

Trail Mix-

Interesting comment. Lots in a short space.

It sounds like you're asking why you are condescending to both sexes? Some people just are. I couldn't tell you whether it's inborn or it's the result of life experiences or what... maybe one's the case for some folks, another for others? Not sure how changeable it is once you are that way... it seems like a pretty robust personality trait.

Yes, Stewart and Carlson are both focused on besting each other in the argument. Though it's been my experience women often find anger / fights between men arousing in and of itself. You'd have to ask some women, but I'd bet you there are women who watch that clip and find one man or the other more compelling.

I'm with Atra that intellectualism can work if you're her + a little bit above her. Too much more and you're unattainable; at her level or below and you're an equal or an inferior, which is not generally attractive.

Condescension is a product of someone believing himself to be more skilled, better informed, more aware, etc., AND to be dealing with someone markedly less skilled, informed, or aware, who is trying his patience, ignorant of his own ignorance, or otherwise annoying or frustrating. It's basically "I am great" + "He is not great" + "He does not realize I am great but he is not." That'd be my breakdown of it, anyway.

And if you're ever put on the spot by an aggressive individual how do you keep your mystery and say something to change the conversation away from a polarized topic?

It'll depend on the individual, the situation, the issue, and a variety of other factors. Context, basically. But a good default evasion on a polarized topic is, "I'd like to be better informed on that issue than I am before I pick a side, so let's talk about that another time." Then if he presses: "Look, I just don't have enough information to pick a side right now."

The great thing about this evasion is almost all issues people argue about lots have large amounts of detail on them and are colossal rabbit holes... if they weren't, there wouldn't be much argument over them. So this can always be true. Even if you lean toward one side, if you're a guy who likes to do his homework you may find as you investigate the issue your views are challenged, shaped, or changed.

I for one often beg off discussing matters I don't feel I have a deep enough understanding of. Or I'll just refer someone to the most convincing stuff I've seen for one side or the other and ask them to poke holes in it if they're able to (and then evaluating their argument - do they raise good points or just flail about?). This can be another way you deal with aggressive people - "Hey, I'm not an expert, but I've seen this really good [whatever - article, video, etc.]. Can you take a look, and let me know your counterarguments if you do not agree with its message?"


Lawliet's picture

Hey Chase,

Great article, Speaking of condescending,

Re: Busting balls

Do you also have a method for busting balls on girls who are seeking compliments or in another situation where this move is appropriate? Like a way of coming up with busting ball comebacks that aren't too harsh but not too nice guy ish.

Foreword: I usually come up with these things as it just happens. But sometimes when I'm not in the mood, my mind goes blank. So I want to have a set guidelines so even if I'm not in the energy mood, I can easily come up with a playful comeback and get some banter happening.

Re: Her insulting banter
i'm curious if there's a way to come up with ways of replying that busts their balls back.

I know the usual way is to give them a bored/skeptical look when they say things like these, but it also would be fun to be able to bend the frame towards our side ;)

I came across these two interesting scenarios, and couldn't think of a better way apart from skeptical / bored look.
We can use them as examples.

1. At a party,

She says guy is smart before after banter. Then...

Guy: What do you think of Betty?
Her: Ugh, I can't stand her. She's so stupid. But hey, look on the bright side, since she's more on par with your intelligence level, you have a better chance of scoring with her tonight than me...

She's bantering back, but the "other girls and you" frame is bugging me.
Bored look/ skeptical might be best here, bbut Assuming we want to banter back, what would be a way of coming up with one that sets the frame right and doesn't seem too random (thread cut properly)?

I thought of a few ones but I feel they're off
A) They do say attraction makes someone dumber...
Flirting back when she's hinting you have fewer chances to be with her than another girl... hmm

B) Well looks like you'll miss all the fun we'll be having
This one looks ok, it's one upping back for her disqualifying you, and so it feels off.
Btw, same concept, ties back to why sometimes girls say "I have a bf".

C) That sounds like a good idea, but then you'll be all alone. It's too bad I have a soft side for damsel in distress ;)
Hmm... this one sounds ok, but she can easily "Nah I'm good ;)"

D) They say girls who say stuff like that actually likes the guy secretly
Hmm... also something she can just say no, which isn't good

E) you're right, it is usually the smart ones that score me and I have to go score the dumb ones
*Combined with bored but playful smile*

Idk, I'm sure you will come up with something much better than me haha

2. A bit of calibration for this second scenario
Let's say you want to learn a new language.
You head to the school and the teacher asks you why do you want to learn it in that language.
You take it as asking if you want to, so you continue to say yes.
And the teaching assistant teases you saying "She's asking you why, and you keep saying yes. You'll be a great "yes man"". Just a playful tease, so I feel a bored look or skeptical would kinda ruin the fun.

For these, what would be the best way to respond?
It seems harmless but is it really?

Should we do a groan? Or bored look? or what if we're in a playful mood and how would we banter (which is great since she's just getting to know you, great to start off) back in harmless teases?

A guideline or formuula to come up with the responses will be great. If there's a calibration tree, that'll also be great too.


Chase Amante's picture


Yes, spontaneous humor is good.

I haven't considered if I have a method for ball-busting. I guess my ball-busting comebacks all seem to follow a certain pattern. So there must be a system there for it. Let me see...

If a girl says, "Do these pants make me look fat?", I am going to respond with some kind of over-dramatic absurdist humor, like,

  • Jesus, those are pants? I thought that was the moon!
  • Of course not. It is you who makes the pants look fat, not the other way around!
  • Only on the hips. See, right there, it's really fat. Everywhere else it's fine.

... then followed by a dismissal of my remark + a sincere remark to reduce the tension and save attainability: "Nah, I'm kidding. You look great in those pants," or, "Nah, I'm kidding. But those pants do make you look kinda bigger than usual. What about the striped ones?"

Each of those three comebacks follows a different zinger formula. One is "shock and disbelief + ridiculous exaggeration" ("Jesus, those are pants?" is the shock/disbelief; "I thought that was the moon!" is the ridiculous exaggeration).

One is "boring expected response + total reversal of what's expected" ("Of course not" is the boring expected response; "It's you who makes the pants look fat" is the total reversal).

And one is the outlandish nuance comment she thinks is humor but can't quite tell (when you're telling her it's "only in the hips" and then pretending to point out some specific area where the pants make her look fat - she's going to be looking at it wondering if you're telling the truth or pulling her leg).

So yeah, I guess there is a system at work there. Totally unconscious to me until I analyzed it just now. I've no idea how many humor/comeback formulas there are... these are off the top of my head. So probably a bunch more.

As for your specific examples...

Guy: What do you think of Betty?

Her: Ugh, I can't stand her. She's so stupid. But hey, look on the bright side, since she's more on par with your intelligence level, you have a better chance of scoring with her tonight than me...

Guy: Oh thank God. I am so sick of these brainiac women. The last chick I hooked up with tried to give me a math test before we had sex.

All this is is "agree + amplify." You just agree with her that you'd rather hook up with the dumb chick.

Then you make an exaggerated claim about hooking up with an annoying smart chick - the reason for that is you want to a.) be attainable to the girl [i.e., communicate you sleep with brainiac chicks too], and b.) indirectly bust her balls [by implying brainiac girls are no fun and bust your balls too much with overly brainy, uncalibrated stuff].

Second example:

Assistant: She's asking you why, and you keep saying yes. You'll be a great "yes man."

You: [stroke chin, devilish look] Yessss....!

Just more agree & amplify. She called you a yes man, so you said yes. Of course...


DavidR's picture

Thanks for an interesting read.
On the subject of transsexuals, while I agree on principle, I think people who suffer to the extent that they have to go under the knife to become someone of the other sex should be addressed as their new sex. Just cut them some slack. Just like you wouldn't constantly remind someone who had a nose job of their past bulbous beak. That's just good taste and manners in my opinion.
By the way, you probably meant "ethology", not "etymology" ;)

Chase Amante's picture


Ah, good catch on etymology. Just fixed. Thank you.

The manners thing with transsexuals is a strange domain, yeah. I suppose it depends on your demanor. I generally come across rough enough I can be direct with people on all sorts of things and they are not offended.

In my experience with transsexuals, if you are otherwise cool and relaxed with them, yet refer to them as 'dude', 'bro', 'man', etc., they tend to fixate on you, flirt with you harder, and chase you more than anyone other man in their vicinity. I could theorize about why... but it definitely doesn't seem to wound their egos or put them off you.

On occasion I've met sensitive-seeming transsexuals, and with those guys I just won't use pronouns and just will exit the conversation with them ASAP. Don't want to offend them, but I don't want to talk with them if I can't have a frank conversation with them either.


lux7's picture

Wow Chase, interesting to see you going full disclosure on your political views via your examples (provided those were reflecting your views).

When you double down on deep topics the quality is guaranteed, and this is another pearl.

I was thinking about the length too, I suppose by now you've optimized and thought it about it and they sit well with your SEO efforts and audience, but maybe you could make some of them a bit shorter?

Chase Amante's picture


I am trying to shorten articles a bit, yeah. A few of the Tactics Tuesdays posts I've gotten close to the 2000-word range of late.

But man, it is hard for me to be concise in article-writing these days.

Don't know why. All my early articles were short... :/


lux7's picture

BTW, I'd like to add some color from my perspective and would love getting your opinion Chase:

I watched the video and Carlson does indeed does "win", hands down, but he does so in a highly annoying way, I don't think that's a "real" win.
When the other guy is losing it, I feel like sympathizing with him the same way Hillary made me sympathize with Trump (argh! And BTW, I didn't know any of those two guys before).

To me, he wins the debate exactly the same way Hillary would do: lots of rhetorical devices, some big words thrown in there to sound smart (most people don't like big words) and lots of sneaky, low remarks about the other party (ie "that's why nobody takes you seriously").
It makes me wince like you said another interviewer made you wince.

That Carlson approach WILL make you "win" the debate, but at a high price: by making you disliked. It's like the best in the class who always raises his hand during lessons: he got the answers but he's unpopular.
Exactly what happened to Hillary.


Chase Amante's picture


Good points. Carlson definitely does take a holier-than-thou "You have no argument. Come on. It's all puffery and you know it" type of tack.

Suppose that's the nature of debate shows. It's very hard to win a debate on pure merit of the argument. In most contested debates, both sides are going to have good points, and winning on points may well be impossible. Very often, the winner of the argument comes down to who is better able to get the audience on his side. (in your case, both Clinton and Carlson were alienating to you)

I think we could also say Stewart and Carlson were both similar in this regard: both mocking/cutting/biting. The merit of these types of figures, I imagine, is the folks who share their point of view get a kick out of watching them tear up their opponents. They likely don't win many converts though - at least not in knock down, drag out debates like this.


lux's picture

Good points.

I think Trump is also a better debater than many gave him credit for.

He was better with vitriolic retorts that get cheers out of people and, of course, he didn't pull any stops to snatch that win: https://thepowermoves.com/how-to-win-a-debate-like-trump/

Jalen's picture

I'm hitting a wall here.
There was a time when I would spend time with a girl, we'd really connect and it would have a real impact on me and I could think about it for days. I would meditate on how life is beautiful, how I liked her. Nothing needy but I had a connection.
Since I started becoming smooth, rejections no more affected me that much and it is amazing! And I still have women tell me they really feel like I understand them and they feel a strong connection between us. The problem is I do not feel quite the same. I barely feel connected.

One of the main reasons I became smooth and aloof is to never be affected by a girl and to be able to next her the moment I see things are not progressing. And I am enjoying other benefits: I appear very much in control, guys think twice about challenging me and girls are 100% sure I will not chase.
I do not want to lose all these advantages but I would love to get back to being mesmerized by a girl before, to feel those butterflies when I hear her sweet laugh and to feel like our connection is unique.
I'm feeling like I was not made to be a seducer but I really want to be one though I feel by being so, I'm repressing myself in some way.
So, I wanna be madly in love with girls and still come across as a James Bond.
How can I do that Chase?

Chase Amante's picture


How connected you feel to someone else is a function of how deeply understood you feel by that person.

If you want to feel deeply connected to a girl, tell her everything about you. Especially your deepest motivations, biggest struggles, most important aspects of yourself, etc.

The more you tell her, the more connected you will feel, and the more magical it will seem for you.

Just as when women tell you all about themselves, they feel connected to you.

Of course, this is not what James Bond does. He keeps himself to himself, and does not fall madly in love.

So to a large extent, you will need to choose. Cool and detached, or hot and connected?


Sam2's picture


This is a great thought-provoking article.

I sort of detect a discontinuity in your thought, though, concerning "social climberism", having read all relevant articles on it including that on Trump's debate strategies.

You wrote on the effectiveness of Trump's political strategy and debate style - and I agree. On the other hand, you seem to consider "social climberism" sort of "poor choice" or "poor situation" for someone to be in. But: Trump did exactly that. He presented himself as the "outsider", read political climber, he painted his opponent as the "status quo" , he was outrageously outspoken, audacious and....condescending. He also used abundantly generalisations like there is no tomorrow (e.g. "Mexicans are rapists", "I will prohibid Muslims to enter USA" etc). A rather successful social and political climber, I would say. One that becomes president.

Furthermore, all of us have been and still are "social climbers" in the sense that we strive to become better, more recognised and more successful on one or several fields of our lives - and that doesn't seem so bad to me.

Last, I am into politics in my country and I am trying to take advantage of a change which happened 2 years ago with the purpose of putting myself in the political map as a young and promising politician. And do you know what I discovered? That acting, talking and debating like an "outsider" or social climber pays off hugely....People have called me things like "charismatic", "passionate", "boiling youth", "orator" and "fearless".

When you are new to anything and want to shake things and make heads turn you simply can't follow the classic path. You need to have an edge, be original and talk with passion. If you want to be known or acquire something you MUST be loud about it. You are not there yet to tone it down. You want to be the guy. All of your readers, us, we are de facto "climbers".

So, in my mind "social climberism" is a necessary step to stand out beore you get what you want and then be of a "devil may care" attitude - but not before. Or do you think there is a third way?

lux7's picture

That's an interesting point man.

However you can pick many different styles and say "see, that's what's successful".

Merkel, arguably the most successful politician of our times, has done nothing but fit in within the system and didn't rock the boat in no significant way. Just purely followed in the footsteps of bigger politicians as a youngster.

On your definition of "social climber", I believe Chase refers to those people "cheating and tricking their way into climbing" and "climbing by taking others down".
The other, healthy way, is to help people up while you go up yourself.

lux7's picture

Also keep in mind one more thing:

we tend to judge final results, and if Hillary had won you probably wouldn't be making your point and Chase wouldn't have written that Trump article.

matter of fact, Trump got less vote, a lot of the votes he got a muppet would have taken anyway -people on the right who simply hate democrats- and a lot of votes he got because many just didn't wanna see Hillary win (I for one would have NOT voted for Hillary and got an article on her jarring communication issues).

This is NOT to say Trump's style isn't effective, quite the opposite, just putting things a bit more in perspective.

Chase Amante's picture


I published my article on Trump on October 20th, so a good 19 days before the election ;)

I had a good discussion with a German friend about Merkel the other day. The point I made was if you look at most leaders, in any government system (republic, monarchy, whatever), the majority of leaders, the majority of the time, are not actually 'leaders' - they are more like stewards. Merkel has served by and large as a steward of Germany. During good times, you do not want a leader who is going to take charge and change a lot of things. You just want to keep the ship upright.

It is only when things start to fall apart, unrest begins to foment, and so on, that leaders emerge and shoot to popularity. According to my friends, this is starting to happen in Germany - he says if you go to any beer bar in Germany and listen to the men talk, they will be telling each other "I want the migrants OUT of Germany!" and all agreeing with each other - but it's still quite a ways away. During the daytime, in polite company, people still self-censor to a large degree out of a desire to not be called out and ostracized. Until they have cause to get fed up enough to change that, Germany will continue to have stewards that guide it gently along the path it is on, rather than leaders who come in with a wrecking ball or a jaws-of-life to remake or restore the country in a new image.

For now, it's still okay enough in Germany that people more prefer to keep things the way they are going than bring in someone who will change the course.


Chase Amante's picture


Donald Trump presents an interesting mix of advantages and disadvantages. In normal times I suspect he'd not have gotten as far. And in fact, Trump has been trying to run for president since I think the 2000 election if I recall right. He never got any traction until 2015.

The reason it was different this time, I believe, is we happen to exist in a weird upside down age in the West where war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, and we have always been at war with Eastasia. Trump was the only guy in the room willing to come in and unabashedly declare the emperor had no clothes, and keep pointing that out over and over and over again.

Any time you have a populace living under a tyranny of "you can't say this, you can't say that!", which we are in the West right now, people flock to the asshole willing to come in and say all the things you aren't allowed to say but they wished they could say themselves. He's a breath of fresh air, and the one sane man in the insane asylum. That was Trump's advantage.

If you're in a country where everything is topsy-turvy, and you're willing to take on the establishment and point out where the emperor has no clothes, then yes, this will work.

I do not recommend social climber-ism for socializing or seduction usually, because the reason people are in the group is different. A social climber is not a representative of them; he is a threat to them. He is a challenger, someone who will climb over them, and whom they will tolerate only so long as they have to. But in politics, most people are not directly involved, and they will love a climber who is willing to climb over the other politicians they feel are no longer serving them. This is a big part of why Trump has such an ecstatic fan base, yet is so utterly loathed by the whole of the political establishment. He is the climber backed by the people, but with his foot on the heads of the political class, using them as a rung. And they hate it. (Trump also uses illegal immigrants, Muslim terrorists, progressives, the media, etc., as rungs, and they understandably absolutely detest him and want to hurt him and destroy him too)

If Trump is able to cement control over Washington (big "if" - he is still at war with the legislative branch, and the Obama holdovers in the executive branch are in an ongoing 'resistance' against him), he'll likely shift into a different mode. But we'll see if he is actually able to really get his hands on the steering wheel or not. Probably a lot of that will come down to how the voters vote in the 2018 elections - whether they vote in Trump-supporting Republicans, or more Democrats and RINOs.


Anonymous 's picture

Great article Chase!

Had a random question.

I have been interested in making money online, but the thing is I'm a very private person, but I see that for almost anything you have to put yourself online if you want to make money.

I even see this with freelancing, when they ask you to take a picture and such, even you have a picture up.

One method aside from freelancing is for me to put myself out there on social media to make money, with that method I have to expose more of myself, but I have a video where I was sparring and didn't look too good online. It wasn't terrible, but I looked kinda bad and had some mishaps, you know, no one cares about what you did good, just what you did bad. So this makes me want to hold back on social media and freelancing because I don't want people to see that video and it making me look bad.

Unfortunately, I see that you have two really put yourself out there to make a lot of money.

I had some questions I wanted to ask you.

1. For my embarrassing sparring video, should I let it hold me back? This thing makes me feel so bad and I don't want anyone to see it. With what I'm trying to do, it would make me very known, for both online ideas that I have, and I wouldn't want to be known for that video. What would you say about that?

I was also thinking of trying to make another sparring video and having that in my back pocket, but haven't had the time to do it yet, and it's been years, hows that sound?

2. How does being known online affect people with women? I'm talking about being well known social media wise, freelance wise, and having an online presence. Would that help or hurt you with women, if you have an online presence
that gets very popular?

It would be like they would know everything about you, you're not a regular person anymore, you can't even go out solo because you'll be known by way too many people, your life is just out there. If you get rejected who knows if a girl might try to make it known.

I also wonder how do you hide your onljne presence from girls you pick up or whatever. I know a few girls who look people up by their names in google.

3. I'm African American, do you think that will have clients not take me seriously? I have no experience what's so ever, but I'm learning.

4. Is it worth my privacy to make money online? I don't want to work a normal job for 40 years, you make a lot of money too by exposing your life on social media, but my privacy means a lot to me.

Thoughts? Thanks.

Chase Amante's picture


I don't think I'd worry about the sparring video much. I mean, if it's just on one site, you might be able to email the site owner or video poster and ask him to remove it. Otherwise, I'd just ignore it.

There are services out there that take care of your Google rankings for you. Search for "personal brand" or "personal brand management" and you can likely find them. You pay a certain fee and they set up various social media and other profiles for you and get them ranked on the first few pages of Google to flood out anything else and push it deeper in the SERPs.

Otherwise though, I mean, I guess it depends on the nature of your work. But many employers may not bother to search for you. And unless you have a very unique name, even if they do search they may not know for sure the guy in the video is you. Or even if the video is clearly you... who's to say they are going to sit there and watch their way through your sparring video. I've done a lot of hiring, particularly of freelance workers (I must've hired somewhere between 100 to 200 different people over the years), and I can't say I've ever watched a video on any of them I found through search.

You'd have to get quite well known to be recognized by women when you go out. But if you do get recognized, well, just think of celebrity as like social proof on steroids. You're that guy she knows, whom she assumes everybody knows, only you're so high status relative to her that she knows who you are but you don't know who she is. Almost any celebrity reputation is good - if you're a villain online, that's cool. Villains are sexy. A hero online, cool. If you're a politics guy and she hates your politics, she may still shag you anyway, because OMG, a celebrity. He's famous.

Celebrities get rejected by women all the time. I have seen and heard women try to talk about rejecting various huge name celebrities. "I rejected Brad Pitt," etc. It never gains any traction because no one cares. And if "I rejected Brad Pitt" doesn't get a girl any but the most fleeting attention, you don't have too much to worry about until you're past Brad Pitt in terms of name and influence.

As for your name, just use a different name in business and with girls. Give women your middle name as a last name. Or adopt a pseudonym, if you are trying to keep business and personal separated (often a good course of action. I never talk about Girls Chase with women. Never).

Being black can hurt you with getting hired, yes. But it's not a total deal breaker. There's research to show a very African American name results in -33% call backs on job applications, compared to traditionally white names. If you have a black-sounding name, then, you might want to adopt a white
reinterpretation of that name (turn 'Jamal' into 'Jason' or 'Daquan' into 'John', for instance). Get some professional photographs in a nice button-down shirt or maybe a suit, with good lighting, and use one of those as your profile picture. And then otherwise have a descriptive, proofread, spell-checked, and well-written profile. And then you'll buck most of the harmful trends black folks run into.

I wouldn't worry about privacy working online though. You're not going to be sharing your personal life - are you? I run a website that does over a million visits a month and nobody knows anything about me aside from what I choose to put online (which is quite a bit, to be honest, though far from everything). You share much, much, much more about yourself in social media than you do from working online. Which is a big part of why I left social media so long ago.

I suppose at this point you could say I'm quasi-famous... I mean, close to 20 million people a year visit my website. Over 100 million people have been exposed to GirlsChase.com, and by extension, me. Yet nobody I interact with knows who I am unless I start telling them details or they're a business contact and already know GC. 99.999% of the time I am just some guy. It's fairly uncommon for me to randomly be recognized. I'm sure it would happen more if I started doing public videos, but I don't want fame so I don't do that. And I control my recognizability as a result.


Add new comment

The Latest from GirlsChase.com