It would appear that the world at large is more interested to hear me talk than the dickheads I live with. Here’s a recent interview I did with the London Real boys. They do a regular radio-style interview program based around male development with guests such as Olympians, MMA fighters, yoga instructors and so on. This week was your humble writer here.
Thanks to Nic and Brian for the invitation and delicious thai green curry.
Krauser PUA 
May 21, 2012 at 9:04 pm
Krauser truly drops some epic science on this episode of London Real. We started with pick up and quickly progressed to the evolution of modern society and how it has created the beta male. An excellent watch indeed!
Pingback: Feminism Reframing the Patriarchy « Grit Artisan
May 21, 2012 at 10:18 pm
Jesus mate, you’re blowing up the Delusion Damage feed, i’ve seen (including yours) at least five links with this interview in the post. Nice work, people are starting to label you a thinking man, soon you;ll have to grow a beard
May 21, 2012 at 11:05 pm
Krauser, THAT interview was really an eye-opener for me. Especially the part about how women tick as opposed to men starting 18:06. It’s not about how much value you have in the men’s world (although it helps a lot having it), it’s about your ability to elicit women’s emotions. Beta-males are catching women with their men’s-world-value, alphas don’t. They do what they want to do AND are “treating women right”. So this ultimately means that you can be an absolutely useless piece of shit according to what society makes us think is useful, but if you’re able to impose certain emotions on women, they’re absolutely going to fall for you. That’s why guys like Casanova (yeah i know he was only fictional) are getting all the women. Or singers and actors, as it’s their profession to make people feel certain things. Women will always act according to their feelings at that certain moment. Thus a heavy, heavy load has now been taken off me. I definitely swallowed the Red Pill now. Well, I know I’m heavily nuthuggin’ right now, but I actually just watched a talk show on tv with a pimp from Stuttgart on one side and a feminist and a social worker on the other side. So, while wanting to puke from disgust listening to their fannyscist crap, I decided to write something on here.
Thank you for sharing your impeccable efforts with us all in this blog. I mean you could keep it all for yourself. Fuck, I’d hate to have to go through what you did to get the knowledge I have right now. Massive respect for being on the forefront of us men despite taking so much flak from society. You’re doing a lot of good for this world, mate. When being asked at deathbed who had a big influence on me, you’re name will be amongst those being called out.
With gratitude,
Tom from Munich
P.S. :
Sidefact: I found your website while looking for “pua croatia” on youtube! š (I’m a 3rd generation Croat living in Germany).
May 22, 2012 at 8:32 pm
Casanova isn’t fictional. Google him. But yeah, agreed this was an awesome video.
May 21, 2012 at 11:08 pm
very nice interview.
May 22, 2012 at 6:20 pm
@Tom from Munich Casanova isn’t fictional. With his autobiography, pretty much the first ever game blogger.
May 22, 2012 at 10:13 pm
haha you do have a point here, my friend. well, at least my mistake led to spread of a historical fact across the internet.
May 22, 2012 at 7:43 pm
Epic Nick.
Oh and re: What Jake said. He was a real historical 18th century figure, who operated all around Europe though mostly in Italy and France. Don Juan was fictional.
May 22, 2012 at 10:10 pm
lol yeah you’re right. Thanks for clearing this up. I was refering to Don Juan, not Casanova.
May 22, 2012 at 7:43 pm
re: Casanova
May 22, 2012 at 8:59 pm
Awesome interview bro. I celebrate the turn from PUA to “becoming” too. Simply awesome.
May 22, 2012 at 9:09 pm
Son, I am proud.
I suppose I’ll need to buy the rational male domain for real now.
https://rationalmale.wordpress.com/
May 22, 2012 at 9:12 pm
Hey, thanks for the mention at minute 42
May 22, 2012 at 10:06 pm
Can you elaborate about the woman being “honest to their emotions” and not keeping promises and changing their mind all the time(min 27)?
May 22, 2012 at 11:08 pm
her emotions > her rational mind. She’ll be true to what she feels to be true, and not to what the rational mind, logic, promises, history, facts… say to be true. None of that matters if they get in the way of the emotional truth.
And then, obviously, emotions can vary from moment to moment.
May 23, 2012 at 9:50 am
So how can a man(from his logical POV) can trust/rely on woman?
May 23, 2012 at 2:24 pm
Can you trust/rely on a computer? a dog? a wave? a chair? a friend?
You can trust/rely when something behaves as expected: your expectation is what you rely on.
So you can rely / trust women to follow their fluid feelings, to put feelings prior to facts, to protect their feelings and treat their feelings like they are a treasure and the ultimate truth, you can trust that whatever they do is what they feel benefits them the most, that whatever they tell you is because they expect to get emotional payout from it, and you can rely on whatever state she’s in to last for only a short span.
You can also trust/rely that because of these dynamics a lot of them go insane (all it takes is their emotional intelligence goes damaged, and there’s no rational shell to compensate for it) and have BPD traits. If a girl has a couple of moves on her emotional dance that are simply soar / chaotic / conflictive… you can trust this wont ever stop no matter what you do, because she owns her own emotional reality.
May 23, 2012 at 2:36 am
Well done interview. I liked hearing about your own self-development journey. Very honest.
You also give a very good history lesson on the evolution of the beta male; how early societies that rewarded beta male investment (such as through monogamy) developed greater inclusive fitness vs.societies that stuck with more primitive social structures. The one flaw in this discussion is where you attribute this to Christianity. The causal connection between monogamy and Christianity is a popular one–but it’s wrong.
Christianity from 100 BC onward espoused a morality that was certainly compatible with a monogamous social structure. But Christianity was very much late to the party. Persian, Greek, Hebrew, and Roman cultures–as well as cultures in the far east–all practiced monogamy (albeit alongside low levels of polygyny) long before the advent of Christianity. It’s simply that at some point between the advent of agriculture and the development of the large city-state, cultures that promoted monogamy began to outperform cultures stuck on more primitive multi-mate mating strategies. Like you say, beta males–once given a genetic stake in the future–make for a stronger, more productive, less (internally) violent society. For more on the evolution of monogamy (and its predating Christianity), see…
Herlihy – The Triumph of Monogamy
MacDonald – An Evolutionary Perspective on Human Fertility
Lagerlƶf – Pacifying Monogamy: The Mystery Revisited
Alexander – The Biology of Moral Systems
Schiedel – Monogamy and polygyny in Greece, Rome, and world history
Betzig – Despotism and Differential Reproduction: A Darwinian View of History
[Thanks. Good info. K]
May 23, 2012 at 11:18 am
Great interview – a pleasure to listen to despite their constant interruptions with questions.
NB: “Cervantes” is pronounced “Thervantes” not “Servantes”. [Not by me, it’s not. K.]
May 23, 2012 at 3:20 pm
Ferociously good interview. It’s going ’round the Manosphere quickly. I need to get you on my blogroll.
May 23, 2012 at 8:24 pm
Man, you articulate this stuff so well..
I couldn’t find the Female Shaming Language color system you mentioned. Do you have a link?
[It was the top link for a google search of “female shaming language” K]
May 24, 2012 at 4:42 pm
Good stuff, mate. Lot of wisdom shared in that hour interview.
May 24, 2012 at 6:40 pm
nick, could you post the site link for your other blog you cited in the interview?
May 24, 2012 at 10:40 pm
daft–
Here:
http://countcervantes.wordpress.com/
May 26, 2012 at 8:54 pm
Thank you very much for your interview, it was very generous of you. I appreciate your commitment to building an āauthentic selfā that is greater than the gratification that comes from Game. I started my journey into the male/female dynamic with the book you referenced, David Deidaās Way of the Superior Man, and it was interesting to hear you talk about it. Your take on Deida and the False Self I found really useful.
I am an older (English) man, in my fifties. Like you I was married to a woman I loved, who left. I went through that Ego destruction you talk about, just over a year ago. I discovered Game (Roissy) at roughly the same time. It helped me make sense of what happened. Still in transition, until recently I avoided women, too much pain, but recently have had some tries at Game. I need to stop thinking and get out and practice.
I read your site, along with Roissy, Yohami and Mr Tomassi. Thank you for your work. I also enjoy Count Cervantes and wish you luck with the journey. [It’s a pleasure, fella. Game is not just for young guys trawling clubs. K.]
May 27, 2012 at 9:56 am
Krauser, you are the PhD of pick up! Brilliant analysis. And your blog is really a gold mine of information. We will see what you discover on your new journey at Cervantes. Maybe you can write a book about it all as well.
June 3, 2012 at 10:01 am
Finally got the time to sit down and watch it.
Great job, Krauser, really. More than covers all the bases.
June 3, 2012 at 11:26 am
yeah, FFY’s tweet just reminded me to watch this. only 12 minutes in and it is *awesome*. i don’t know who those london real guys are, but am going to check them out. they are open minded and thoughtful. great interview so far, with mentions of rollo and roissy, which of course they deserve.
maybe the tipping point is coming, at least in europe.
Pingback: You Are Amazing to Turn Up Infield | Saturday Sarge
October 16, 2013 at 6:53 pm
Good interview, but I had comments on the interview regarding George Clooney and Feminists.
First, the reason that even men would want George Clooney to get married isn’t (or isn’t simply because) they’ve internalized the feminist narrative about monogamy. One other reason is that men (particularly single men) see other men who do well with women as a threat. In this worldview, women are opportunities for (relationships/sex) and men are competition. A man who is married has been taken off the market (though he takes one woman off the market, as well). But, if a man bounces around from woman to woman, he is a potential threat to all the other guys. He’s competing for the same women as you are. Admittedly, George Clooney is not actually competing for the same women as the average guy, but the general pattern of “wanting those guys off the market by getting them bonded inside a marriage” is still the same. This is also the reason men would be against polygamy – because if one man can monopolize the relationship/sexual time of multiple women, it makes him a constant threat and also alters the single male/single female ratios. If one guy does it, it’s not really a problem, but if the lifestyle became common, it would become a problem.
Regarding feminists: I thought Krauser was overly harsh about feminism being about the accumulation of resources to women (and ugly women in particular). And, yes, I know some attractive young feminists. It seems to be a point of pride for college-age women (including attractive college-age women) to call themselves feminists. (I suppose you could argue that they’ve been tricked into it, though I would disagree.) First off: a lot of feminists I know are concerned about rape, sexual consent, and sexual harassment. The whole “don’t rape” is something that seems reasonable, and has nothing to do with accumulating resources. Feminists are also pretty concerned about things like “equal pay for equal work” and career opportunities. While I do have some questions about the actual pay-gap (and there is some evidence that it’s small), I can also understand why equal pay for equal work is just fair – and if you (rightly or wrongly) believe that women are getting underpaid relative to their male peers. While this is about the accumulation of money, it could be a legitimate complaint. To say that welfare is feminist way of getting resources from men seems questionable, since (a) most feminists I know don’t want to live on welfare because it’s a crappy way to live – they certainly haven’t indulged in the welfare life; rather, most feminists are more concerned with their career opportunities, the “glass ceiling”, women becoming CEOs, and getting paid,equally to their male peers – all of which tell me that they want to work (b) I’ve never actually heard most feminists talk about welfare or increasing welfare.
Pingback: The Package - tddaygame