Since I made the conscious move towards presenting myself purely as the r-selected male, I realised that many ideas that used to trouble me just slipped away into the category of “meh!” So much seduction community advice is unwittingly targeted towards k-selected chumps and thus will create cognitive dissonance (and mixed signals) for the man walking our path. As a self-diagnostic tool here are some giveaways that show you haven’t yet made the leap. If these describe you, you’ve got inner game work to do.
- Men give love for sex. Women give sex for love. This is a standard sexual relationships trope that is completely wrong. Women have two types of sex – transactional and validational. They are either fucking you to get something (k-selection) or because they actually enjoy it (r-selection). So this trope is basically a condensed aphorism of the k-selected male’s mindset. He thinks he has to trade something other than his own sexual value in order to fuck the woman. Once you believe deep down women are fucking you for the sheer pleasure of it, you’re “getting it”. And if you’re not sure, watch what happens when you try to come on her face. If she dodges it, she has you in the “doesn’t get it” box.
- You get angry that women cheat. This just means you are the guy they cheat on rather than the guy they cheat with. The k-selected guy is pumping his time, effort, provisioning and protection into the relationship in order to build a comfortable nest for his mate. Therefore any time she flies the nest, such as a foreign holiday with her girlfriends, he is instinctively frightened. Whether his ego will recognise it or not, his gut feel knows she’s likely to cheat. The r-selected male absolutely loves the fact women cheat because that’s the narrow window of opportunity that gives him so much sexual gratification. He’s happy to send her back afterwards to another guy’s nest. If hearing “I have a boyfriend” cause your hear to sink, you’re k-selected. If you think “great, she’ll fuck much faster”, you’re r-selected.
- You divide women into Good Girls and Bad Girls. When I see a girl slink past showing a navel piercing, dyed black hair and a bitchy expression I don’t think “slut”. I don’t rule her out or demote her because I’m not interested in a relationship anyway. I look at the sexual vibe oozing out of her and think “she’s up for it”. Likewise when I see a slightly stiff modestly-dressed girl glide past carrying a library book I don’t assume she needs several dates of wining and dining. She’s just as horny and just as up for it fast, if I do things right. So if you find yourself ruling out “sluts” (mainly because their awareness of their own sexual power scares you) and thinking Good Girls are going to be harder to fuck, you’re still k-selected.
- You believe in God. I see this all the time in the manosphere, especially in the US. Men will recognise the intellectual fact that women have a dual mating strategy and then write reams of self-righteous vitriol about how these women are in rebellion against God and thus tearing down civilisation. Now, I’m not saying this is incorrect. The problem is faith is a monumental cockblock in seduction for the same reason it is a barrier to technological and societal advancement – you are hamstringing yourself to an ancient code of conduct that may (or may not) be relevant in the here and now. Just as Muslims will never create advanced productive societies for as long as they base their social organisation on a 7th century system (e.g. forbidding charging of interest and thus mispricing the time value of money), religious Christians will never truly let themselves jump into the Secret Society whether it be due to a genuine moral opposition, or just a trumped-up rationalisation to weasel out of actually doing the hard work to get good at women. So, if you’re joining that tedious status-jockeying comment competition on Christian blogs over who is the most alpha head of household for his fat housefrau and insufferable children, you’re k-selected.
- You argue with feminists. The key goal of feminism is to remove all limits to women optimising their hypergamy. The march of time has gradually constrained k-selected male’s sexual options while freeing the women to alpha-chase (r-selection). Being angry about this is a giveaway that you identify with Team K-Selection. Just like the previous point I’m not saying the “angry at feminists” thesis is factually incorrect – it’s the fact you’re angry about it (rather than emotionally detached) that gives you away. It means you’re hankering for the white picket fence / pillar of the community 1950s American Dream where you work hard then come home to a hot dinner cooked by your loving wife. Feminists are fucking with that, so you fear an r-selected world both from personal preference (civilisation is, after all, rather pleasant) and an instinctive recognition that you can’t get laid without the beta support structure.
Does this sadden you?
To boil this all down to a simple heuristic, just look deep into yourself. Identify the emotion you feel when considering successful players, loudmouth feminists, and general civilisational decline:
Anger and a personalised sense of loss = you’re k-selected
Indifference and a personalised sense of opportunism = you’re r-selected
Krauser PUA 
August 14, 2014 at 1:11 am
Genius. You’ve put the jumbled thoughts and intuitions of degenerate niggers in ghettos everywhere into words on the page. Thanks homie, see you poolside Biggs!
August 15, 2014 at 8:04 pm
i believe in G-d. but what Krauser says is also true.
By the way, we suffer from social engineering. There is no such thing as a r-selected white man, just a facsimile. And whilst white guys used to be k selected, arguably, now there is no k selected white guy either. Jews may or may not be the only k selected pseudocaucasian.
August 14, 2014 at 1:18 am
Great to see someone call out the feminist-fighters.
I shake my head every time I see another banal argument agains feminism.
Yes we know it did more harm then good, yes we know that most of them are fat, ugly, and obnoxious–that’s the way the world is.
Get over it and live your life.
August 14, 2014 at 10:41 am
“I shake my head every time I see another banal argument agains feminism. Get over it and live your life.” I agree that it is important to focus on the positive, on how beautiful life is, and that to try to “educate” women that feminism is bad is a lost cause — however, I do think it is worth it to try and educate young men about the red pill, because so many of them — like Elliot Rodger — are suffering like I was suffering. And also, we have so many male victims of feminism — Robin Williams just being the latest example — and so I feel that we have a moral duty to help other men as much as possible without getting angry and bitter. Finally, men like Roosh who fight the good fight against feminism every day, and take all the heat, they are heroes. In particular, false rape accusations make me so angry, and Roosh talks about this publicly, which takes a lot of balls. Rape is the topic that 99% of men won’t talk about.
August 14, 2014 at 10:33 pm
It is a fucking disease. I even find myself doing it. I need some sort of system to get rid of the nasty habit. Donate money to charity, or do 100 pushups or something if I backslide.
August 18, 2014 at 6:40 am
“Great to see someone call out the feminist-fighters.
I shake my head every time I see another banal argument agains feminism.
Yes we know it did more harm then good, yes we know that most of them are fat, ugly, and obnoxious–that’s the way the world is. ”
You’re talking as though feminism is something that happened in the 60’s, and that’s it, and that we need to ‘get over it’ (else it might harm our lay ratio).
As well as the fact that the sexual revolution had more to do with the pill than ‘feminism’, feminists have been trying to close the sexual market ever since the 80’s and are currently engaging in a legislative orgy that appears to have no end – unless men can finally put aside their dick sizing rivalries just for a moment and act with some kind of collective will to combat it.
Having the optimal state of mind to produce the best approach-to-lay ratio isn’t much use when approaching a female in the street gets you locked up and placed on the register under the latest feminist sexual harassment law.
August 14, 2014 at 1:20 am
Krauser,
We can all agree that girls are aroused in the company of
” famous and powerful men”
Are ” famous and powerful men” K-selected men or R-selected men , generally speaking?
I’m thinking they are both
Two examples: Branson and Clooney
Both are showing K-selection ( outsized wealth plus power in their business/ showbiz connections,)
Both also showing R-selection – (deep charisma, sport fuck, have had many women)
I’m thinking that “famous and powerful men” are the rare men who have both R and K in one man. Torero talked about how this does exist, and is the ideal in a man for any girl, but are very rare in reality
Hence the dramatic appeal of the man ” famous and powerful” – finally, R and K in the same place [It’s possible to have both r and K. Tom did a good video explaining this. I think most men would like to eventually be the “r-selected boyfriend”. K.]
August 14, 2014 at 10:43 am
Since women have a dual strategy, it’s actually very easy to control how you present yourself depending on what you want.
Most guys have been conditioned to be K-Selected and not realising there are other ways.
With my ex gf. I deliberately didn’t display anything resembling wealth when I first met her. This meant I attracted the type of girl who was into me for me and quickly filtered out the ones that didn’t.
None of the things I did with her involved money and involved hanging out at hers or at the park followed by sex.
It saddens me when I hear guys saying they have to have money and status to bed the hotter girls. It’s simply not true, and is the main thing that stops you from getting them due to your insecurity of not believing you’re enough as yourself, which typically gets projected to the girls you’re talking to.
The key thing is to be comfortable not having money or wealth on your side. Women will test you on this, but if you make a mockery out of it using the ‘parody brute’ concepts Nick talks about in his book, they will eventually fall into your frame and see you as a fuck worthy guy.
You can be K after you’ve fucked them, but it really depends on what your long term goals are.
August 14, 2014 at 2:56 pm
Onder, could you explain this: “With my ex gf. I deliberately didn’t display anything resembling wealth [and status, I’m assuming?] when I first met her.” How did you do this? Are you referring to just the conversational aspects alone or the nonverbals, too?
For example, were you dressed well/edgy/masculine when approaching this chick? Did you have a good haircut that accented your facial features? Because those are status/money markers plain and simple.
August 15, 2014 at 8:09 pm
i think being younger helps because you are in the crowds with more attractive women. Older men, irrespective of looks and game, have to compensate with being in a position of authority to the girl, like being her manager or something. the compensation with status works, not with wealth.
August 14, 2014 at 4:06 am
I’ll have to disagree with #4. I was really gung ho about atheism when I was younger but have rediscovered my spirituality with age. I just don’t believe god is particularly concerned with whoever I may exchange orgasms with. What I guess you are referring to here is the moral superiority brand of christianity.
August 15, 2014 at 8:11 pm
if we reduce r selection to what game means it to be, it means we must all behave as degenerates for fast sex, which is true.
August 14, 2014 at 4:15 am
“Indifference and opportunism” is healthy. “Anger and a sense of loss” is unhealthy, generally.
The former is a “towards emotion:”
(a) Lowers stress
(b) Leads to an attitude of abundance
(c) Gives you an ability to make better decisions
The latter is an “away emotion:”
(a) Increases stress
(b) Leads to an attitude of scarcity, impairing judgement
(b) Impairs your ability to act (except in a way that stops the bleeding)
Away emotions can be good if they force you to change for the better. Like an obese person exercising, a beta improving his game or a businessman getting through a tough week. They’re clearly no good if they’re about something you can’t change (the collapse of civilization; a woman cheating; a successful player).
August 14, 2014 at 5:10 am
When all men go for r-selection, America will be Haiti without the warm climate.
August 14, 2014 at 5:28 pm
«When all men go for r-selection, America will be Haiti without the warm climate»
This is the classic moronic comment from a “traditional conservative”, number 4 in Krauser’s list.
It is a moronic comment because it is not men but women who have babies, and therefore only women get to decide between k-selection or r-selection. Men can only adapt to whatever women have chosen, or become extinct.
If today’s women gina tingles makes them choose r-selection, that is not in the power of men to change.
August 15, 2014 at 8:39 pm
its already readhed critical mass, the haiti thing will happen. Not such a bad comment.
August 15, 2014 at 8:49 pm
My devoutly Catholic aunt told me about a program at her church that teaches young men to be “good husbands”. I said, unless you charter a plane to the Philippines so they can find good wives, you’re wasting your time. Case in point: only one of her four sons is married, and his wife is Filipina.
“Traditional” conservatism fails because it’s hopelessly infected with feminism. Letting women decide who they have sex with, against the wishes of their k-selected fathers, is a really bad idea. My 8-yo daughter crushes on Dzokhar Tsarnaev, and I doubt that the onset of puberty will improve her judgment.
August 15, 2014 at 9:00 pm
Any program that teaches men to be “good husbands” – better Betas without equally teaching women to be “good wives” and taking into account their very nature thus giving a man most of the rights in marriage – thus ends badly for men. The teaching would have to encompass teaching men Game from an early age and women Female Game – plus adding several drastic changes to marriage law etc. In effect religions are teaching Santa Clause Game deeply steeped in Feminism.
August 20, 2014 at 10:02 pm
Oh, we managed to change that just fine, or at least we made it largely irrelevant for about 6000 years or so, we seemed to have a good run.
We are not the norm, nor will we be the new norm, we are just a self correcting abberation.
August 15, 2014 at 8:14 pm
Doesn’t have to be all. It just has to reach critical mass. This describes the UK perfectly. I listen when white folk say I am being oppressed, but they are the cause of their own oppression (as well as the bankers who have house trained them well). So 99.9% of whites havenothing meaningful to say about anything of real importance. Sadly this is true, compared to the continent, where male thinking is better ( dependent on where you go).
August 14, 2014 at 5:35 am
You seem to be evolving from an “enjoy the decline” attitude towards a “be the decline” one, from spectator to conscious participant. [Not really. I’m not holding up r-selection as a noble goal. This entire post is predicated on the assumption you want to become more r-selected, which many people won’t. I’m explaining mindsets that hold you back if you’ve made that lifestyle choice. K.]
August 14, 2014 at 4:02 pm
Na Krauser thats not true and you know it. You say Lifestyle choice like you view it as on equal terms but in reality you just look down on it. You are just immunizing your Lifestyle choice by claiming óthers are angry if they disagree with you. It’s as easy to say that you cant’ Keep a girlfriend and therefore are angrily lashing at men who can.
August 15, 2014 at 8:17 pm
Krauser is a juden tool to destroy whites and have them replaced by everyone else. even he at some level knows this. Most caucasians in the UK hold his views, they just cannot get the results. But he is representative in his behaviour of 90-95% of the society. Fast sex, no investment. He is the decline. But the white race here has no future, and it is due ti such ideas. He is not so much to blame. It is the mass opinion that is to blame. [Give it a rest, you stupid cunt. K.]
August 17, 2014 at 10:53 pm
You’re right. Look at the dismissive reaction he continually gives, as if the people who raise these points are beneath him. He doesn’t want to face up to any of this, most likely because he is still deeply upset over having been divorced (and with reason).
If any white man 35+ is reading, please use these powers to suss out the best woman you can find, and then pump her full of children. Do not give in to the absolute narcissism that shall consume people like St. Nick here.
August 18, 2014 at 6:30 am
Jeez – you guys/women have truly strange perceptions. Find a woman and pump her full of kids – yeah – that will certainly solve everything. And you should not forget just like the other married guys of the manosphere, that all of them use adjusted advice by the PUAs and also by Krauser to keep that marriage & attraction going.
In fact his r-selected / Lover Game style is one which keeps the interaction with the girls free of emotional drama as she classifies the man differently. Is this creating a better tomorrow? No – promiscuity is the global plan, but tell me how you believe to stop the shit from happening. Do you think you would make truly a change if all PUAs and Game-aware men suddenly settled down and had kids? Would the sluts stop slutting, stop “experimenting” with their sexuality and would they try to marry in their prime? Would Media & Academia and the Gender Crazy Complex stop indoctrinating everyone from age 6 upwards? All the cads in the world with their families would be just a drop of water on the hot pavement of reality.
August 29, 2014 at 11:23 am
Have you any idea who you’re talking to? Of course not. I purchased Nick’s first offering years ago. Actually, that’s not true: a girl I was banging happily bought it for me (nexted soon after). Hope you enjoyed her money as much as I enjoyed her various slots, Nick. Your book was helpful too.
I’m concerned about the future of Northern Europeans as a race. That’s it. Therefore I believe we must eventually have children. Pretty fucking simple.
So yeah, when Nick asks, “does this sadden you?” my answer is you’re goddamn right it does, and so it should for us all. What you advocate is defeat. Resignation. Evolutionary suicide for the sake of a fucking cumshot. Ultimately, death. I’m not interested in any of those, thanks.
It’s also incredibly simple to solve the problems you mention. Just do what men always do – organize and get rough with these mouthy, lily-livered pansies. Take away women’s freedom, sort of like Jizzlam does currently, by authorizing and encouraging corrective domestic violence in concert with social shaming. Whip a slut like an Olympic Cossack = Boom, problem fucking solved.
Thing is, it will probably take an epic collapse before most of us snap out of our addiction to the sex & drug slathered, disease riddled, decomposing whore that is the West. Hey, I love it too. But I’m not willing to go with the flow forever. There comes a point when you cannot walk away.
August 14, 2014 at 6:55 am
Krauser, thank you for all your excellent work. The concept of r-selection vs k-selection, lover vs provider, has taken my game to a new level.
There really is a “secret society” of men (and women!) who enjoy sex for the sheer pleasure of it.
As for your point #4 — under Christianity, God is essentially the One True Alpha, and all of us mortals must regard ourselves essentially as the subjects or servants of this almighty being. Not to do so is a terrible sin, and can get you thrown into the lake of fire (for the double sin of arrogance & pride).
I was raised Catholic, and recently attended a funeral for a friend. It was my first time being back in church after many years. I was struck by how much of the mass is spent apologizing for having been born human, and beseeching God for some vague “forgiveness.”
I imagined God up in Heaven listening to this wailing, finally getting fed up, and shouting back: “Stop bothering me! Save yourselves!”
Keep up the great work. I’d rather read you than the Bible any day.
August 15, 2014 at 8:19 pm
Hmm. In 15 years time maz, most western people will be too broke tomdo PUA. and they will be indentured slaves living off mass debts. Living the way we do is the problem. Society is over.
August 14, 2014 at 6:56 am
You speak like all men should want nothing more then fuck a lot of sluts and die childless.
Many men would actually prefer to have a house, a beautiful and faithful wife (and be r-selected by her) and children carrying on their values. Many men would like to be builders, patriarchs and kings of their own hill, rather then opportunists scoring pleasure and leaving nothing after them, but bigger mess.
A man who is r-selected, but has children should still worry about the mother of his children cheating, he still should be angry about feminists trying to plant the idea that divorce and cheating is ok to his wife. He has all the right to do this and still be r-selected rather then k-selected.
You don’t even factor the fact that most men want children, because you are a part of dying culture and despite your success with women, you are genetically dead. And some bastard spawn who gets raised by a single mommy you pumped and dumped, who’s name you never know and who becomes a gay male feminist due to his fatherless doesn’t count.
You are just blabbing about how to spend the miserable years on this planet with most pleasure. But you are dead and all this playing the field stuff is mere masturbation. The truth is that your line is killed by feminism and destruction of family. You are no better then a homosexual. The only difference is that you sleep with women, but your conquests are still in vain. [This is the kind of anger I mean. K.]
August 15, 2014 at 12:28 am
Maximus, I will assume you are middle aged, have a loving family at home, some kids that love you and you are afraid of r-selected men and the “damage” they could cause you and your family. Guy, listen, this isnt personal, we are not attacking you or western civilazation, if your daughther or your neighbours daughter wants me to fuck her neither I or you will stop her and you know it, shel just find a way to get fucked, if not by me then someone else. I like your anger, but where we diverge is that i channell it into intensity while you channel it into hate. We are not Maximus from Gladiator, we are men on a mission just as you, so dont stand in our way and we wont stand in yours. Im really young, seriously im 17, I dont have your life experience, but I still advise you to listen to me, we are not enemies , im just trying to profit from this decline. I dont want to get screwed over and get with a woman who will cheat on me with a younger version of me when im old. Best of luck, and write back if you want to share your opinion.
August 15, 2014 at 3:46 am
Just because it’s anger doesn’t necessarily mean he doesn’t have valid points Krauser (and no disrespect to you K – you’re an interesting, thought-provoking man who makes a lot of sober, truthful observations).
However, the Anglo Saxon, Northern European peoples must survive, and the current system does not seem conducive to that.. Any suggestions on that..?
August 15, 2014 at 8:23 pm
Im not angry at you krauser. But is not some of what he says true? You maxed out in a socially engineered society, but now that most of the society lives the way you live, it has led qto unaccountability in all sorts of ways, leading to wars of genocide abroad and mass immigration at home because whites dont have kids as that is what the society tells them to do. Not everyone shares your priorities. you succeed, but the costs of what you do are socialized in this globalized world to be passe onto others who do not wish to bear them.
August 14, 2014 at 7:11 am
Krauser, showing the way…
August 14, 2014 at 8:02 am
Thanks Nick. Regarding the detachment point in number 5, I’ve always been naturally detached to the point of the games people play going completely over my head because I genuinely. didn’t care. People competing with me when I really didn’t give a damn either way – win or lose. However, now I have become consciously aware of social dynamics, I feel this knowledge has somewhat put a spanner in the works and I’ve ended up second guessing myself.
As you say, you have to look deep in yourself and trust the inner voice until the said mechanism becomes internalized – only way to go I think.
August 14, 2014 at 8:12 am
Are r-selection and k-selection irrefutable choices on the girls part? Is it completely binary with no middle ground? [It’s a continuum. Few are 100% r or 100% k. K.]
August 14, 2014 at 11:21 am
Cheers.
August 14, 2014 at 8:23 am
1) I think your recent Prague article shows than in different society than England or US you might be willing to move sligthly more towards K-selection, less partners of higher quality etc. Do you feel that local men who display R as well as K are better adapted to this marketplace or is it better to be strictly R here?
2) Is the ideal mix of R and K in one man truly ideal or the fact that you display some K traits cripples your fast sex strategy anyway, even if you maxed out relevant R selected traits as well? (Clooney…)
For example, my medical career may trigger K-selection thoughts in girls. I don’t want to quit because it’s precisely the type of the career you recommended in “accumulation” article. I also don’t think this should adfect my R-selected strategy if played right. [I don’t wish to be 100% r because I enjoy having girls around longer than just SNLs. When Tom and I were discussing his r/k video typology I suggested that the sweet spot for most daygamers is the loose harem with occasional rest periods as the r-boyfriend. K.]
August 14, 2014 at 10:02 am
Makes sense, and crystalizes and condenses key secret society concepts. Many of these facts anger people when they first encounter them, but every disadvantage has an opposite advantage. I agree with blind wrist feeler above on the subject of God; (if there is a God) I don’t think he minds who I share orgasms with. It is movements that advocate no sex before marriage, for example, that make us k-selected (note: ”k” does not stand for ”Krauser”). Everyone who reads this article ultimately needs to come away with “Indifference and a personalised sense of opportunism”. I’m going to read this liberating and empowering post by Krauser again and again and memorize and internalize what he has written here as it resonates so strongly with me.
Here is another great article and video, called “The Secret Society of Sex” by Boy Toy: http://www.boytoystory.com/secret-society-of-sex/
“If hearing ‘I have a boyfriend’ causes your hear to sink, you’re k-selected. If you think ‘great, she’ll fuck much faster’, you’re r-selected.” This used to always happen to me, but real life experience proved to me that what Krauser is saying is true: http://justlikethis2014.wordpress.com/2014/07/12/100-boy-toy-approaches-approaches-32-39-saturday-12-july-2014/
August 14, 2014 at 11:47 am
This article is stupid.
You are r-selected if you get laid without paying for it or promising to pay.
You are k-selected if you get laid by bribing a woman or signalling a promise of material gain if she sleeps with you.
Thats it.
It has nothing to do with whether you like feminism, misandry and emasculation of society or rightfully hate it.
You think you are the coolest guy on earth because you can pick up the government-wed sluts for an ONS or a two-month mini relationship.
Yet you will never own any woman for life like your ancestors did. You will never be a master who owns the life and destiny of your women and your children. Yet you consider yourself a master.
You just think you are cool because you are cooler then guys who don’t get laid at all.
You are just hooked up on the free sex drug that is one of the many drugs to get people into the matrix in a docile manner.
August 14, 2014 at 5:55 pm
That’s the usual delirious delusion of tradcons: men never own women; women can decide to cuckold any man whenever and however they want.
As the realistic ancients said, the mother is always certain, the father never. That is central fact between men and women.
If you invest for the whole of your life in a woman and her children, and she has cuckolded you, she has owned you…
August 15, 2014 at 8:27 pm
TRUTH! Why else go to EE and Russia to meet women? Because. krauser is a consequence of the times and people like him ALREADY DESTROYED his own society.
August 14, 2014 at 11:57 am
Excellent post – again condensing the best mindset for our current times.
Though you called the article click-bait, which seems that you do not necessarily disagree with the fact that rampant r-selected breeding will likely destroy civilization over time as criminals with an IQ of 80 will have 10 kids by single-moms while the 150+-IQ-scientist may have one or none.
But I absolutely agree that regardless whether you have chosen for the Player lifestyle or even attempt the picket-fence-Family-Man way, adopting all viewpoints is useful in our current mating climate.
(Now on another point – lack of usury was not the reason for the demise of the Muslim countries. It was the stifling of science and technology by religion and also a lack of social movement opportunities between the classes. Christian societies started their ascent right after a scientific discovery did not follow the risk of being tortured and killed because of it and then it went to turbocharge after implementation of widespread education. Meanwhile the Muslims were still exercising their mental prowess by learning the Koran word for word. As far as monetary systems and financing go – there are superior systems around – just not so profitable to the 0,01%.)
In either case religion should be left out of science as well as the mating life – useless cockblockers to both endeavors.
August 14, 2014 at 3:00 pm
I’m no expert in economic matters, but the “time value of money” seems to be just a post-hoc rationalization for usury … [read Economics In One Lesson and you’ll understand more than 99% of actual economists. K.]
August 14, 2014 at 4:01 pm
Yeah – it is in fact a correct definition of “time value of money”. K – not that it would change anything in real life, but you might be interested to look into the alternative view of things and the real life examples of Woergl 1930s (interest free money with demurrage) – here a short run-down on the usury-scam: https://ia600506.us.archive.org/4/items/TheNaturalEconomicOrder/GesellSilvio-TheNaturalEconomicOrder1920207P..pdf. On the other side of the Von Mises Side is Silvio Gesell’s NATURAL ECONOMIC ORDER. In fact his views are quite free-market and stress the importance of rampant individualism and even egoism. But of course he argues quite convincingly for interest-free money.
I do not wish to detract the discussion here. Most non-billionaire libertarians are actually the real liberals – they would likely allow for certain areas to experiment with demurrage, sound interest-free credit etc. – if found superior then it could be expanded successfully in other areas. That is what true objectivism should be about – test it out, if it works apply everywhere even despite previous misgivings or disbelief.
Too bad we cannot start a different monetary system individually like learning Game and adopting Red Pill wisdom in our life.
August 15, 2014 at 8:30 pm
No, he is right. It is usury. You just are too brainwashed to see it. Or you dont want to.
August 15, 2014 at 8:28 pm
Europe amd North america wont exist in 50 years time. Political collapse and massive depopulation of various means.
The kinds of people that live in these places (so called civilized, but this is a joke) is the reason why.
Pingback: Figuring out Madrid (there’s a reason why there’s an R in Rivelino) | Rivelino's Diary
August 14, 2014 at 3:54 pm
Alright, if you read Krauser you know he is one of those guys who gets things on a deep level. You can tell he analyzes things from a level above, examining all the interworking parts. Thus, while its easy for guys who have the civilization gene to get pissed at a post like this, you have to remember that K gets it. If he wanted to put his analysis powers to use on how to build civilization, he could. But he’s not. He is just telling you, coldly and amorally, how to get laid. He is not saying this is “right” or admirable or whatever.
Krauser, one thing that crosses my mind whenever I read your r vs. K paradigm is that while you are taking an r-selected sex strategy, you are holding girls to K-selected standards. Namely: young (high residual fertility), chaste, thin, high emphasis on face. Things that matter when you are choosing one partner to have multiple offspring with over a long period of time. True r-selected impulses would place higher value on indicators of immediate fertility like big hips and ass, sexual availability, less care about face. Breed now with a woman who can support a child before you get gored by hippo tomorrow. K-selected societies produce K-selected women, r-selected socities produce r-selected women.
In my view, Krauser is exploiting a loophole of modernity that was unavailable to men in the pre-contraception, pre-urbanized/mass transit era. That is, he is enjoying the hedonistic benefits of r-selection with beauties who have been honed by many generations of K-selection. Te salud, r-selected man. [Agreed. K.]
August 14, 2014 at 4:59 pm
back from the dead!
August 15, 2014 at 4:34 am
IMO, the sexual liberation of the 1960s created something that never existed before to this extent; ie the short term mating market. Birth control has made this possible. We now have two main mating markets; the short term market emphasizing sex and lust and the longer term relationship market emphasizing comfort and emotional and material provisioning. When women enter the short term sexual market they are going to end up sleeping with r-selected men; in fact the short term market *is* the r-selected market. Ideally a woman would want a r-selected man to commit to her; ie alpha bux. But that is not common. So women eventually move away from the short term market and find the best relationship candidate that they can find in the long term market.. Some women get that mix of r and k, but not many statistically speaking. I’m willing to bet that many of the women Krauser is now with will have new Kish boyfriends within 6 months.
But if the man is pure “beta bux” then he is pure k-selected and sadly that means no facial cumshots and no anal as well. Terrible place to be in. Krauser has become a short term mating market specialist. So his current perspective is from that mindframe. Any guy who wants a serious long term relationship will care about female virtue and fidelity, which is entirely normal. One could question if the r-selected player lifestyle is inherently nihilistic. Probably. But then again, our society has essentially become a cesspool of nihilism because of the cultural and political dominance of Leftism and its entire ideological foundation. In many ways, trying to live a virtuous k-selected family life in the current legal and political climate is not easy. I can see the lure of r-selected “secret society” pussy chasing.
The r and k selected thing is nice heuristic device but I’m not going to get to carried away with it because the science on this keeps developing. I actually like the “lover/provider” terminology better as it was more general and didn’t pretend to any scientific precision. But that being said, the think I have taken from all of this is that whenever you sleep with a woman you always want it to be out of lust. And any self aware man should know if his sex is lust oriented or not. If your woman is letting you porn fuck her in every hole she has, is wearing whatever degenerate outfit you ask for and letting you pee on her in the shower, whether or not your technically r-selected or not, you’re good to go.
August 15, 2014 at 8:31 pm
Truth. but it is engineered. And european society will not exist (or europeans) because of such behaviours which have been adopted enmasse.
August 14, 2014 at 4:22 pm
Since I picked up your book a few months back and read through some of your descriptions of r-selected vs k-selected in this blog, my own success has been phenomenal–by my own standards. I’ve banged 8 girls this year, with 6 girls below the age of 30…no drama…most I met one or two times.
There was no guilt on their part (except the one with the bf I’m gaming) but even that one got the whole thing being about fucking and pleasure without me being the provider chump.
These are just normal girls, all are cute or hot and they’re all very nice in their own way. You would not imagine they could be so crazy sexually if you saw them on the street walking around.
It is truly a “secret society” or perhaps one of “have’s” and “have nots”.
But this has to be a mind-set. Because I have shifted from k-selected to r-selected by simply making my intentions known and holding my frame.
This concept isn’t something evil, it’s really tapping into what already exists in a girl’s psyche and bringing it out. All girls are sexual. Honestly now…it baffles me how I see guys struggling to get one girl to go out with them whereas i’m now being more selective because my time is so limited.
I do get angry women cheat. I was cheated on. But now I’m the dude a girl is cheating with.
August 14, 2014 at 5:23 pm
Sidenote: Christians are/were forbidden from charging interest as well, not just Muslims. This has fallen by the way side since the Middle Ages however, coincidentally when Christian civilization overtook the Middle East in development. This is why Jews historically dominated the banking and finance sector in Europe, because they weren’t subject to this restriction.
August 14, 2014 at 6:03 pm
+++ I’ve banged 8 girls this year, with 6 girls below the age of 30…no drama…
+++ most I met one or two times.
+++ You would not imagine they could be so crazy sexually if you saw them on
+++ the street walking around.
+++ whereas i’m now being more selective because my time is so limited.
That’s what most “beta” chumps don’t get: women want sex, badly, they want sex soon and hard.
But ONLY WITH ALPHAS. Only with men who tingle their gina. Only with men who are indifferent players who can get laid with women hotter than them. Women get sexual and needy only with the men who can be hardly bothered to duck them because they have better options.
For women sexual interest from a “beta” chump is like sexual interest for a man from a smelly obese gay transvestite. For women monogamous dutiful “beta” chumps don’t even register as males.
August 14, 2014 at 6:08 pm
The problem with the heuristic is that every single PUA practitioner in existence prefers countries with less loud-mouthed feminists and less cultural decline, than those with more. In other words, even the r-selected guys are feeling anger and a personalised sense of loss about the situation, because they vote with their feet and leave Toronto, LA, London etc. Life ain’t better with feminism.
In the end, the ‘new reality’ is that the practical application of r & K is largely the same. These days the only way–outside of social circle game,–you can get K is by doing r first. Fuck them first, then decide if you want K with them, because the longer you leave it, the less chance you have of either. The real issue for K guys is that ‘r-framing’ is often created by a limited time frame (girl is on vacation, you are only in city for a week etc) i.e. scenarios which do not make for potential K outcomes. All power to the guys who are successfully creating a social circle game, but it’s not always easy to do.
This line of thinking leads to a conclusions that would seem to be counter-intuitive. Consider the following questions, and anyone who has done daygame will know they are very common, then think about he optimal answer for a guy looking for K.
1. How long are you here for?
2. Do you know anyone in the city?
These two questions are the female equivalent of Chris Rock’s ‘you want some dick?’. The correct answer to these questions is as short a timeframe as possible within which you think you can logistically bang her (you can always change the story afterwards “hey I’m staying another two days!”), and “nope no-one whatsoever”. In other words, pure ‘r-framing’. I’ve come to realise that even if you are after K (as I am, provided the girl is quality) you might as well lie and answer in the r-selection manner suggested.
Would appreciate any thoughts on the matter. [Good comment. My first instinct is to agree, but I’m gonna ruminate on it. K.]
August 14, 2014 at 8:59 pm
+++ the practical application of r & K is largely the same. These days
+++ the only way–outside of social circle game,–you can get K is by
+++ oing r first. Fuck them first, then decide if you want K with them,
That is a crazy illusion: men cannot decide whether to have K or R selection, because it is women who make babies and get to choose the fathers, and whether the father is the monogamous loser husband or boyfriend, or the attractive random player who fucks around.
If you are a man who thinks he can “decide if you want K” with a woman who instead wants R, you are just begging to become a cuckold.
Krauser’s and Heartiste’s message is not really that R selection is better for men than K selection, or vice-versa, but that most or nearly all of today’s women have chosen R selection, and if you adapt to what women have chosen you get to fuck them and have children with them.
Again, it is women who decide whom they fuck and have children with. It is not men. Men don’t make babies and thus cannot choose between between R and K selection; they can only choose between nothing and whatever women have chosen.
August 15, 2014 at 4:48 am
This is wrong. First, a man can chose the mating market he wants to compete in. If he wants quick sex then he has to compete in the r-selected market. If you want a club ONS or if you want a daygame lay in under 7 hours face to face time, you are in the r-selected market whether you know it or not. Its r-selected because you are not offering relationship commitment for sex; that defines the k-selected market. When a girl sleeps with a guy without knowing if she is getting commitment, that is r-selection because she is having sex and risking pregnancy (in the “eyes” of her genes) without securing a provider. She is placing lust over logic and the short term emotionalism over long term planning. It is only the better players that can do that to women’s emotions. That’s been known since at least the time of Ross Jeffries. So you saying that women can only chose if a man is r or k is perhaps true but irrelevant. The man can chose what market he wants to play in.
Secondly, its not true that all women have chosen r-selection today. That’s contentious. I don’t have the answer but I have seen studies to suggest that its only 20 percent of women who are truly r-selected women as a lifestyle. Now how many dabble with r-selection at least once in their life? I don’t know. But if they do when Krauser or Torrero is in town, well that is going to be their r-selected memory that they won’t tell their husband about.
August 15, 2014 at 8:33 pm
[[Its r-selected because you are not offering relationship commitment for sex; that defines the k-selected market.]]
That is a common point of view but it leads to quite wrong conclusions because what matters is the commitment made by the sex that makes babies, and as to that the mother is always certain, the father never.
What defines the K-selected market is not the commitment of the man, but of the woman.
When a man is K-selected by a woman that means that the woman has committed to him (not viceversa), and up to the recent past this meant at least three core things:
* A woman who K-selected a man would give him voluntarily her virginity to give him a tangible (hymen) guarantee that he had assured paternity of the firstborn.
* A woman who K-selected a man would give him voluntarily a guarantee of monogamy by agreeing to social norms that imposed heavy penalties on adulterous women, up to public stoning.
* A women who K-selected a man would give him voluntarily a commitment to bear him as many children as he wanted, and have sex with him when he wanted.
In exchange for this commitment a woman expected from a man unlimited personal and financial support for her and their children, with him breaking his back and achieving an early death working even in very strenuous and dangerous jobs, leaving her in her forties a respected and prosperous widowed matriarch supported and obeyed by her sons and grandsons.
Now women when they agree to an LTR or marriage with a man they offer absolutely no guarantees to him, and they regard any commitment to him as described above as vicious abuse and slavery.
That is not K-selection, it is just an arrangement of convenience, and it is one way only, if the man is so gullible that he believes that he has been K-selected when he commits to her but she does not commit to him.
PS: In particular women enter a relationship with the understanding that they accept no restrictions or penalties for having had prior sex with many alpha men, continuing to have sex with alphas during the relationship, and having the children fathered by alphas, but they demand that beta men continue to support and invest in a woman and her children regardless.
[[When a girl sleeps with a guy without knowing if she is getting commitment, that is r-selection because she is having sex and risking pregnancy (in the “eyes” of her genes) without securing a provider.]]
It is R-selection but not for the reason you give. Whether it is K or R selection depends on the commitment of the woman, and in the case you describe while she is risking pregnancy with him, she has not committed to be monogamous with him or not aborting her pregnancies from him or bearing his children and having sex with him in the future.
It is R-selection but not because he has avoided committing to her, but because she has not committed to him, and she is fucking him as a random among potentially many randoms.
You are mistaking the *consequences* of R-selection with R-selection. When a woman does not commit to a man but has sex with him she is R-selecting him as a random sperm donor; a consequence is that she cannot count on his commitment, but that is not what defines R-selection, it is her lack of commitment to having his children and only his children.
[[Secondly, its not true that all women have chosen r-selection today. That’s contentious. I don’t have the answer but I have seen studies to suggest that its only 20 percent of women who are truly r-selected women as a lifestyle.]]
Sure, perhaps 20% of women don’t want to get married and just screw around, and perhaps 80% still want to get into a LTR or married, but given today’s LTR or marriage conditions, when a woman has an LTR or marries a man she does not commit to him in any way.
That 80% does not mean that 80% of women are K-selecting beta men, simply that 80% of men are betas who *think* that a woman is K-selecting them, but their LTR girlfriends or wives will take everything they can from them while reserving the right to R-select any alpha they want whenever they want.
Put another way, the core value of feminism is cuckolding betas with alphas, for which they use the “reproductive freedom” euphemism, and feminism has achieved the goal to enable 80% of women to do that with little or no consequences for the women, and many heavy consequences for the beta men.
The basic bit of knowledge missing here is that many if most women are enthusiastic cheaters, and if they don’t cheat their boyfriends or husbands is often just because alpha men are few and busy, and so women of lesser attractiveness simply don’t have much opportunity to find one to cheat, and when they manage, it is “five minutes of alpha beats five years of beta” at long last!
That bit of knowledge is understood only by alphas, because it is only with alphas that women show their true sexual nature of greedy, needy, sexual predators who totally objectify those alphas who tingle their ginas, and who think nothing of cheating on their non-K-selected boyfriends and alphas.
August 15, 2014 at 8:34 pm
almost all white women , even the well bred, are degenerates. Hot sometimes, but degenerates nonetheless. They destriyed their own society and menfolk. They’re useless.
August 14, 2014 at 6:51 pm
interesting comment on those two questions. very interesting.
August 15, 2014 at 1:17 am
Byron. Couldn’t reply to your earlier comment as there was no reply button. But to answer your question.I was basically dressed in a fitted t-shirt to emphasise my physique as i’m in good shape. But that wasn’t the main reason. The main reason was my verbal game. It’s constitutes 95% of your communication. Your r or K selection criteria is all determined by how sexualised and polarised your sets are.
It’s very hard to explain without actually demonstrating it. There are very few Youtube approach videos of guys who display r-selection in their sets. But to get a good idea. Watch Krauser’s and Steve Jabba’s approach videos.
August 15, 2014 at 1:48 am
ah, okay – thanks for the break down Onder. Funnily enough, I’ve watched a bunch of Jabba’s work – not too much of Krauser’s though. I’ll have to get to it
August 15, 2014 at 3:21 am
Listen to Tom Torrero fuck a girl who has a loving boyfriend back home: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhWEQf76758
August 15, 2014 at 4:05 am
@Onder Krauser had some recent examples of how to inject r-selected game more subtly…I often ask directly: “Have you ever had a foreign lover?” The answer is always driving the interaction into r-selection. This one question always ensures the interaction is about fucking and not friendship.
The girl I was out with last night…I held her hand while escalating. Her: “Why are you holding my hand?” Me: “Because I’m a man and you’re a woman…”
When I’ve said this…EVERY girl immediately gets it. The interaction then proceeds much quicker to k-close or f-close.
Mucking around with what her favorite movies are …is k-selected. Move from that to the physical…and you’re driving it.
August 15, 2014 at 4:58 am
If your goal is getting laid within 3 dates, then all daygame is r-selected. Yes Jabba is very sexual in his approach, and he does it without being physical. He is definitely selling sex without commitment. But I don’t think the approach matters all that much. What matters is how you conduct the date. Can you arouse her emotions and create sexual desire in a 2-3 hour date? That’s more important than the approach. I’ve had first date sex where my approach was friendly and lacked any push pull or teasing; just good conversation and me showing intent with an soi. But I ran the date well. And that lead to r-selected sex.
Personally, I can’t really think of any daygame systems that are k-selected. Fuck the majority of every PUA system that is sold is aimed at getting laid fast. I don’t see any K-selected game systems. Which is actually bad, as I think it would be good for those men who are wedded to a moral belief system and regular game stuff is too machiavellian for them. Many religious guys are totally turned off by Roissy (I cant say I blame them). Someone should market a system “game for normal guys”. Basically a system of removing the standard and obvious anti-game pitfalls that sink normal dudes. Teach men who to get the girl in 3-5 dates and set up a good relationship. I think it could be done. A kind of r/k hybrid approach. Not ideal but for some men its all they could do.
August 16, 2014 at 6:12 pm
@Gareth
Sheer mastery there. Ice in his veins.
Just to test this all out, yesterday I approached a few girls with large rings on their wedding fingers (never done so before). I ended up going out on an instant date with one and number closed her. She was engaged to be married soon. It made me feel very, very uneasy.
August 15, 2014 at 1:36 am
Just getting laid and being the guy girls cheat with means “you get it”.
This was just poorly written ranting.
August 15, 2014 at 3:30 am
Roosh ain’t holier than thou art.
He’s a k-selection blogger: angry at women (like 99% of the manosphere), trying to use other ways around r-selection (appear on tv, become a famous Youtuber, ask for a pet store!!) and a long time to bang girls in the countries he writes about.
Don’t believe the hype.
August 15, 2014 at 5:44 am
This is great, especially the last two. I find anyone who actually feels the need to argue about feminism just doesn’t get it. They cannot affect me anyhow. Feminists are women, and women are weak. If they attack me personally then they will lose, but all they’re doing right now is making it harder for betas to lock down mates. No complaints here.
August 15, 2014 at 7:16 am
Walawala, escalating, making it clear you are a sexual person and you like sex, works only for men who are already perceived as attractive.
It does not by itself make you attractive. ‘Move from that to the physical…’ is deeply disgusting to a woman if the man is unattractive.
Sure. it adds to the attractiveness of an already attractive man, but its main effect is “dread game”: when attractive man makes clear that he is interested in sex, a woman has to decide whether to lose him or fuck him, and if she is tingling for him, the second is likely, otherwise the first.
First be the sort of them she dreads to lose, first get her to figure out your SMV and tingle fopr you. Else you are perceived as just a pushy creep.
August 15, 2014 at 10:54 am
A generic and layman article using a weak mixture of amateur psychology and trite observations. This is the problem with the internet ,anyone has access. [Gamma positioning as superior intellect. K.]
August 15, 2014 at 9:07 pm
That comment is so bereft of any individual thinking prowess. Layman = because you gotta believe in “experts” always like an obedient drone (never mind that “experts” are often wrong, agenda-driven or simply don’t give a shit about you). “Anyone has internet access” = yes, let us restrict knowledge and have only official Media and Academia indoctrinate everyone. That is sooo much better. Superior intellect – my ass.
August 16, 2014 at 4:14 am
Krauser thinks he’s too cool for school cause he can go up to EE girls that barely speak english and call them chipmunk and I like your dress and take them home. Big whoop, stupid bitches with loose pussies are everywhere. This game amounts to be playful then slip ’em the dick. If these girls are going for bald little men with broken grills like Krauser or Tom Torero types that look like lesbians with down syndrome the standard really isn’t high enough to justify all this amateur philosophizing.
Krauser’s game in one sentence: wear a tight t-shirt, do 1000 approaches, now you’re a little man with a Napoleon complex on the internet. [TL:DR – I suck. K.]
August 18, 2014 at 5:16 pm
For every finger you point at socool, 3 of your other fingers are pointing back at you.
Don’t throw stones at people if you’re living in a glass house.
August 15, 2014 at 9:11 pm
The concept that is implicit elsewhere and here about a woman fucking a random alpha:
[[in the case you describe while she is risking pregnancy with him, she has not committed to be monogamous with him or not aborting her pregnancies from him or bearing his children and having sex with him in the future.]]
is that of investment, and the risk of loss of that investment. When a woman r-selects a random alpha for a fuck she is not investing anything in him that she might lose, because the pill and abortion give her sole control of whether she will have his children, and she gets her five minutes of alpha and his precious sperm bearer of player instincts if she decides to have a child from him.
In exchange for her no-investment position he invests in her the risk to spend the next 18 years paying her to raise her child if she in her unilateral decision decides to have one. Some women will do dirty tricks to get a child fathered by an alpha, to the point that part of the alpha attitude is safe sperm disposal.
That women currently can R-select with (almost always) no consequences for themselves, and that the law charges the bill entirely to the father, is so important that a standard feminist position is that contraception for men is an abusive, misogynistic violation of women’s sexual rights, because it removes from women’s reproductive freedom the right to have children from unwilling alphas who don’t want to pay a woman for 18 years of child-raising.
August 17, 2014 at 7:05 am
How did you get so many haters? Anyway, another great post, I still have 1 and 3 mindsets at some level and need to work on them.
August 17, 2014 at 7:33 am
“so you fear an r-selected world both from personal preference (civilisation is, after all, rather pleasant) and an instinctive recognition that you can’t get laid without the beta support structure.”
I fear the r-selected world not because of my inability to compete or perform (I’m over that bothering me), but because everyone who is not aware that mating has always been an r-selected free-for-all runs a good risk of getting massively shat upon, and my empathy forbids me from seeing that as anything other than a bad thing. I fear for the sanity and well-being of other men, even if they don’t care about mine. If it pleases me, why not try to make things better or push for the change I want to see?
August 17, 2014 at 12:04 pm
Ohi Dan, it is really not true that “mating has always been an r-selected free-for-all” because for example up to a few decades ago in first-world cultures 90 to 95% of brides were virgins on marriage (the current rate if perhaps 1-5%), that is they were K-selecting their husbands, at least in part. That is something that is often forgotten, and yet it is a gigantic change.
And for the past ten thousand years the matriarchy (no spelling mistake: “m”atriarchy not “p”atriarchy) not only ensured that women K-selected their husbands at least for the firstborn, in exchange for lifetime investment, but also enforced penalties on R-selecting women, because these interfered with the promise of that lifetime investment to K-selecting women.
The end of the matriarchy was caused by the pill and a huge fall in baby mortality, both of which have it possible for women to switch to R-selection without immediate negative consequences.
The problem you see with men who have not realized that many or most women have *switched* to R-selection does exist, but it is largely because of the weight of tradition of ten thousand years of matriarchy.
August 17, 2014 at 12:15 pm
Also Dan if you “fear for the sanity and well-being of other men” don’t worry too much, it is a very temporary issue; such men will become extinct.
Sexual selection is a very fast-acting form of evolution, and currently many or most women choose to have children only from very attractive R-selectable players for which they have massive gina tingles, and those sons will often be like their fathers. Unattractive monogamous men are not getting reproduced by women, they will become extinct as a category. Also women who are not totally obsessed with having children by very attractive players are not having any, they are choosing voluntary sterility.
In a few generations women will have ensured by such sexual selection that many if not most men will be very attractive pump-and-dump players, and that many if not most women will be so driven by their gina tingles for them that they will do whatever those men want.
August 17, 2014 at 12:27 pm
That we have had a matriarchy for the past ten thousand years is made obvious by the clear fact that 80%+ of men today have been bred and raised by their mothers as docile beta providers, as manginas and white-knights, trained to put women’s wellbeing above their own, and to work hard under pressure from their wives to give those wives the best lifestyle and retirement possible while they would die early (e.g. women usually got a pension 5-10 years before men, and then outlived them in retirement by 10-15 years) from hard and dangerous work.
The matriarchy ensured this by K-selecting for docile beta provider husbands (and sons) at the cost of having to suppresses most of their gina tineles and instead grit their teeth and close their eyes and “think of England” every time those betas paswed them over or worse, because women controlled those docile chumps by selling them the chance of having children.
August 17, 2014 at 12:39 pm
No – the prevalence of Betas is not proof of a matriarchy. You have to realize that the Ruling Class have utmost interest for most of the males to remain servile Betas or Omegas. In fact I truly believe that in a highly masculine encouraging society most men would be Sigmas, then a whole bunch would be charismatic leadership inducing Alphas. In certain areas of society you still see it – remote Monasteries with hardened monks, criminal gangs and organizations etc.
Based on reproduction females are in fact more valuable by default, thus we are a species different for a variety of reasons – men should lead, create, explore and protect – women should follow, make babies and be happily obedient. Even higher civilizations are bound to revert to that default psychological makeup of our species. Matriarchy always encompasses the leadership of females and those cultures are either gone or consist of mud-huts. Never forget that a country led by Dark Triad Men always prefers to weed out those pesky unruly Alpha & Sigma Males. Just look at the current Game community of men and what they are doing in their lives – going alone, becoming Players, cutting down expenses, becoming location independent – at the very least they strengthen their marriages and become captains of their families. All of them are now by far more difficult to be indoctrinated and made to believe any bullshit story from the media, politics and academia. Imagine most men doing that! The whole feminine imperative scam and consumerist corporate culture built on debt would be coming down within a short period and women would be scrambling in panic for any man willing to give her protection. Nah – the current predatory economic system counts on most men being docile Betas and Omegas.
August 17, 2014 at 12:53 pm
Speculating wildly from:
[[most women will be so driven by their gina tingles for them that they will do whatever those men want.]]
That describes most women being sexually selected to be hot submissive nymphos to get a better chance of getting laid and having sons with attractive players; and most men being attractive players screwing around at will with hot submissive nymphos who compete with each other to get fucked by them and thus support them is the patriarchy.
But there is some hope for ugly frigid women, which is probably what created the matriarchy: if ugly frigid women who can’t get laid with attractive players or are not that motivated to get laid instead grit their teeth and sell reproductive services to unattractive docile beta providers, they can out-compete the hot submissive nymphos on the material plane, by controlling and manipulating their betas and have them work hard and even fight for them.
If ugly frigid domineering women cannot have the overwhelming joy of gina-tingling sex with hot assholes, they can instead settle for building empires by raising and manipulating herds and armies of hard working expendable beta livestock. Thus civilization was born…
August 17, 2014 at 1:02 pm
[[the prevalence of Betas is not proof of a matriarchy. You have to realize that the Ruling Class have utmost interest for most of the males to remain servile]]
What makes you think that the “ruling class” is made of men, rather than their wives? What if the “ruling class” is matriarchal women?
[[Betas or Omegas. In fact I truly believe that in a highly masculine encouraging society most men would be Sigmas, then a whole bunch would be charismatic leadership inducing Alphas.]]
I detect a common confusion confusion here, between the the meaning of “beta” and “alpha” used by etologists and primatologists, and the meaning used here.
Fort etologists and primatologists, “alpha” and “beta” mean something about social roles, about dominance usually. For our discussion “alpha” means “can get laid easily because women tingle for him” and “beta” means “can’t get laid because women don’t tingle for him”.
As heartiste points out, sexual “alpha” can be a nobody in a social hierarchy sense (e.g. “bring the movies” man) and viceversa a socially dominant leader of men can be a total beta to his wife and other women. Sure, some social dominance helps with sexual attraction, but the relationship is not great.
Sexual charisma is not at all the same as social charisma.
August 17, 2014 at 1:21 pm
+++ the current predatory economic system counts on most men
+++ being docile Betas and Omegas.
As tho this I can agree in part, if here “Beta” actually means “sexual beta” instead of “social beta”.
Because the current economic system controls most men through their wives, by making them subservient to fulling the needs and wants of those wives, which if after all something you notice too:
+++ The whole feminine imperative scam and consumerist corporate
+++ culture built on debt]]
By contrast (sexual) alphas get invited to dinner, given expensive presents, taken on vacations, given “loans” by the women who are desperate to get their ginas tingled by them. This is something that (sexual) betas never “see” even if there is plenty of novels etc. that describe that.
+++ a country led by Dark Triad Men
One detail that many people forget is that most capital and property in most first-world countries are owned by women, and those economies are run for the benefit of women (and not just rich women); just consider welfare, where men pay 2/3 of the costs of the state, and women receive 2/3 of the benefits, or small revealing news such that state-paid funerals are 75% of time for men who died poor and lonely (a 3 to 1 ratio), even if men live on average 5-15 years less than women and work in paid work for more years.
Also another two details that women are on average more Dark Triad than men. and the men whom you think are leaders of countries may be just the alpha males of the male herd. Male and female dominance hierarchies may be separate.
On a farm one bull may be the alpha (social sense) leader of the cattle, but the farm is run for the benefit of the farmer (or rather his wife), not of the alpha bull.
August 17, 2014 at 2:28 pm
Yeah – right. I hardly care to respond to that kind of talk. Sexual Alphas and Real Life Success Alphas are not related – that is true, but most big family fortunes have been created by Major Alphas. Also in the highest echelons of Corporate Boards you see plenty of Alphas – both sexual and paper.
And if you truly believe that the real ruling Elite is led by women then you haven’t been around those circles enough or studied their ways. You would also see by far more business-interested Rockefeller and Rothschilds if that were the case. The super-wealthy women are either fucked up or actually married rather early. This was even more so some decades ago. And most of those marriages are to create progeny and connect to wealthy families. Sometimes they did not even see each other much. Men were gone doing business and seeing their mistresses. Good luck on influencing her husband. Considering that Matriarchy is just bollocks. Not even Feminism was created by women, but was well-financed and promoted for a good reason – destruction of the family unit (better indoctrination of all individuals), increase of the hitherto untaxed female labor force, also creation of wage pressure from within. Guess what would happen if children as young as 10 would be allowed to work?
While I would not say that we live in a Patriarchy, I would say that we live in a Plutocratic system that has been set up by absolutely psychopathic Men aided by equally sociopathic Women. But Women did not set it up. If the Big Boys wanted Feminism gone, it would be so within 10 years and the Picket Fences of the 1950s would be back – the bitches could scream and holler all they wanted, but the Media and Academia would do their reasoning for them. In our species – close to all organisations are ultimately led by men – that is how our species developed. Women are only following orders – even the feminists do – allowed and financed to do their dirty deed until the New World Order is built. Then they will disappear on command.
August 17, 2014 at 10:18 am
#4 god is cool the righteous man holier than thou type is full it and makes #4 a necessary part of the list
Pingback: Krauser says K-types should jump to r-selection. I offer a third way. | Koanic Soul
August 17, 2014 at 1:06 pm
Great blog, was good to meet you on the street yesterday however brief. Hope I wasnt imposing or disturbing your teaching…
August 17, 2014 at 6:16 pm
Nick when you say women have either transactional or validational sex, where do you put women who have sex just for the pleasure, just because they enjoy the act itself?
August 18, 2014 at 3:12 am
I don’t get these assholes/trolls, A few years ago I would have been posting these classic gamma comments but following Krauser’s and others’s advice my life is now great. It’s great that he leaves them up so people can see the uselessness of the detractors [Gammaness becomes very easy to spot after you’ve emerged from it after a long hard struggle. I’m an example of that. K.]
August 18, 2014 at 5:19 pm
I can relate Nostromo. Blaming the world around you has a shelf life.
It’s only a matter of time until you get bored of it and realise that it’s all down to you and not anyone else. The minute I truly embraced that, I never looked back.
August 18, 2014 at 7:37 pm
]]I don’t get these assholes/trolls,[[
I get them all too well, they are infused with the belief that women are pure and honest innocent victims, and it is only men who take advantage of them; the classic neocon imbecility.
Therefore if their wife cuckolds them with every hot uncaring asshole she could get chance with it is Krauser’s fault, and if they find out that their mom cuckolded their father with every hot uncaring asshole she could get chance with it is Heartiste’s fault, and if their daughters go around dressed “to kill” and rubbing the crotches of every hot uncaring asshole she hopes to get a chance with it is Mystery’s fault. Because their wives, mothers, daughters cannot be alpha-craving and promiscuous, or else they are gullible clowns, and that can’t be :-).
They seem to me invested in the idea that they are in control of their women, and that bad people threaten that control; and the suspicion that they are not in control of their women, but the chumps those women use and laugh at behind their backs, does occasionally touch them, but that can’t be,
]]Blaming the world around you has a shelf life. It’s only a matter of time until you get bored of it and realise that it’s all down to you and not anyone else.[[
That’s a delusion too. By and large the chances your are given, down to where and how you are born, are not at all down to you but down to history and whoever is more powerful than you, but how well you make those chances work for you is down to you. A very important distinction.
Some of the gammas above think that K-selection is down to them: if you just got rid of alpha players, K-selection would be back, implicitly assuming that women don’t have a choice in that.
Some of the more deluded wannabe players above also think that being K-select or R-selected is down to them: if they act as K-selectable, women will K-select them, and if they act as R-selectable women will R-select them, implicitly assuming that women don’t get a choice in that.
The more realistic attitude is that whether women K-select or R-select is up to them and their balancing of the tradeoffs they face, and given that currently most or all women have no reason to K-select a man, and the only practical option is thus to be R-selected by one or many women the best thing to do is to be good at being R-selected, because that is a choice that is truly down to you.
August 18, 2014 at 9:22 pm
“beauties who have been honed by many generations of K-selection.”
I disagree. I think there’s always been a constant destruction and replenishment of the r and K stocks. Eventually, a successful K-selected family will breed hedonistic kids that end up living like Lindsey Lohan and Miley Cyrus, bringing the genetic line back into r-selected status. K-selection is borne of necessity, but rich families and rich kids aren’t worried about survival.
As families slide back into r-selection, there’s a new set of K-selected people coming along to replace the families that slipped back into r-status. If you think about it from the Pareto perspective, most societies are probably 80% r and 20% K at any given time.
No matter what Krauser teaches, only a small number of r-selected men will actually go all the way and impregnate a K-selected woman outside of a K-selected relationship. If a K selected 32 year old has kids, she’ll still have K-selected offspring, in spite of the 30, 40, 50 men in her past. There might be some birth issues from having an older mom, but her promiscuity doesn’t affect her genetic and physical ability to reproduce beauty. We’ll run out of oil before we run out of lithe women.
August 20, 2014 at 5:39 am
Your “circle of life” drivel is just another aspect of the problem.
The human brain has been continuously shrinking for the past 20,000 years and people get dumber by the hour. There is no balance between K & R, it is that warm climates have allowed Rs to thrive where formerly they died.
The Rs are winning and that victory leads mankind back to a turdpile in a mud hut filled with tapeworms. This sick twisted sex carousel leads to inferior males physically, mentally and spiritually. IT won’t end well and your notion of one balancing the other out is completely arbitrary fantasy with no evidence to support it. [Whether your point is true or not, you show precisely the pussy-repellent anger that I was talking about. K.]
August 20, 2014 at 11:59 am
Biff, I have to agree with you. A fully r-selected male community is a return to grass huts. If you research matriarchal animals (i.e. monkeys), r-selection is what you find. Rule by women always leads to dominant r-selection as that is a females preferred strategy. Not to say men don’t also engage in it, but selecting for genes and not morals/ethics is the pinnacle of Darwinian selection and the matriarchy.
Where I disagree with you is with the human brain bit. I have not done the research myself and perhaps the brain has been shrinking, but the view that people are getting dumber by the hour is a bit pessimistic. Yes, the average person is not as sharp as they once were, but I truly believe this is a nurture/culture issue. If you are looking at humanity from a strictly evolutionary perspective, this won’t make sense to you. But if you see even the slightest possibility that human beings are more than genes and memes, then intelligence is a product of something greater than nurture and nature. It is a matter of spirit.
When you look at the mainstream media today and what is being pushed on the masses, especially musically, this does begin to make some sense. There is a very clear belief by some in hollywood and the music industry that anything to do with the spirit/God is something to be ridiculed and made obsolete. Call it conspiracy if you want, but you can’t deny the fact that the agenda to corrupt the whole of the world is in full force right now. I.e. Get out there and fuck. Measure everything in your life against money and pussy/dick. What you own defines who you are. God is dead. Do as though wilt shall be the whole of the law. When this is the environment people are subjected to, it is not inconceivable that the intelligence of the population is taking a nose dive.
While I agree completely with Krauser’s 5 points, I think what some of the counter opinions in the comments about r vs k selection are demonstrating is that sex is not black and white. Ohiostater is a good example of trying to make sex black and white and creating a system/pattern that conforms to ONLY evolutionary selection in mating. i.e. Dawkin’s selfish genes rule all. Just look at the complexity of his analysis of mating strategy. It’s a little too much for me.
Anyone who has had any experience sexing women will have had at least ONE encounter… where the sex was just off. She is hot as all get out. You’re hard as steel and have power and stamina on turbo… but… the blow off just never comes. Conversely, you may be erect, but not like with some other girls. Sometimes you blow off almost immediately when you know you have no premature issues with other girls. Or worst of all, you just can’t perform at all. Nothing she does gets you up in any functional way, and you are both sitting there on the bed trying to figure it out. You both want it, you both are into it and each other… but… WTF???
The answer, in my opinion, is spirit. Which our emotions will intuitively tell is the case. You are just not into this girl, or she you. Despite having either matched up r or k selection, something is still not working.
Which is the fallacy of God is dead and there is no soul. As much as Dawkins and the atheist crowd would like to believe we are just two fleshy bodies of carbon atoms randomly thrown together and driven by genetic encoding to get it on… there is something deeper at work. Because if there was not, we would still be the apes we supposedly evolved from. There is no reason to change a sexual selection strategy that clearly works for the majority of the animal kingdom.
If we are just big monkeys who walk erect, why all this problem with sex? If our genes are that selfish, why do they get in the way when two people clearly want to have sex? Why is it so much better with THIS girl/guy than someone else, despite all the evolutionary dominoes being lined up and clearly falling into place?
Just food for thought and a counter argument for pure genetic r/k selection when it comes to sex for both men and women. I think any man who focuses on genes alone is going to miss a big part seduction mastery.
August 18, 2014 at 10:25 pm
+++ If a K selected 32 year old has kids, she’ll still have K-selected offspring
The usual silly confusion here: if a “K selectING 32 year old has kids”, not “K selectED”. If a woman is K-selected by a man, that does not mean at all that she will K-select *him*. She might well be R-selecting instead many others and her offspring could be R-selected.
As usual, the R or K selection that matters is that done by women, because it is an anatomical fact that only women can make babies. This anatomical fact is often forgotten.
Also, women can make their own (gina-tingle driven) decisions, and they can decide whether to R-select or K-select quite independently of whether men K-select or R-select them.
Then the question is why ever would a woman choose K-selection voluntarily today, and how a promise by a woman of K-selecting a man is enforceable by that man in first-world patriarchal/feminist countries.
August 18, 2014 at 11:56 pm
This garbage is a hair short of full blown homosexuality and represents exactly the kinds of genes we need to make sure don’t reproduce themselves. It is a roundup of coping strategies for inferior males in a dying civilization. Follow this guy’s advice if you have a burning desire to be either a ‘freakan or openly gay.
August 19, 2014 at 6:09 pm
Agree on gamma-ness being easy to spot once you’ve gotten out of it… Another example here. I also identify strongly with the majority of your five points.
To what extent do you think it’s possible to get out of your natural r/k state, e.g. become more r-selected if you’re naturally k-selected?
August 19, 2014 at 8:55 pm
This post helped my mindset a lot. In fact, I was thinking this very question just this week. What are my inner sticking points moving forward? The belief in God is not just a sticking point, it’s a bloody concrete wall!!!
I don’t agree with Nick’s assessment of religion and belief in God holding society back. It may have under Christianity that did not separate God from the material world, but in the case of Islam which did, we have all the science, medicine and mathematics we have today because Muslims saw no conflict between God’s word and investigating His creation.
The moral/ethic point of contention for me on r vs k selection is simply this. R selection leads us back to the cave and Hobbe’s “brutish ,nasty and short” world. We can see it all around us.
What I would like to see more writing on in the Game community is not the lamentation of a lost 1950s (it is never coming back), but a new moral/ethical paradigm around which both men and women can live and love by embracing their natures and also restraining them know that we know the truth.
The prior Maximus comments are just angry. He may be right, but he is stuck in the past.
Don’t hate the player, hate the Game is also wrong.
Just stop hating. Period.
Love… is the only way forward.
August 22, 2014 at 9:40 am
If you have a problem with this;
[[The moral/ethic point of contention for me on r vs k selection is simply this. R selection leads us back to the cave and Hobbe’s “brutish ,nasty and short” world. We can see it all around us.]]
then discuss it with women (ideally on feminist sites :->), because the K or R selection that matters is that made by women. Just persuade women to choose to K-select and thus invest in men by offering enforceable monogamy, sex and childbearing, and verifiable paternity, and most men will invest back in them and the future of their children.
It is pointless to discuss K or R selection with men, because they can only adapt to whatever choice women have made.
If women don’t want to offer men enforceable, verifiable exclusive investment, men who invest in them are just gullible hopeless betas begging to be cuckolded.
August 22, 2014 at 3:25 pm
WhatsNEWS, Thank you for your comment.
I have never visited a feminist website. I know they are out there, but I have no interest. I have read their books to become familiar with their arguments, but that was as much brain destruction as I care to subject myself to.
You make a good point. Women do the “choosing” as you say. That was actually one of the biggest societal shocks of Darwin’s Origin of Species, the idea that women choose the men they mate with was anathema to the men of that age. Women were held in such low regard it was impossible to believe they actually chose, let alone guided, mate selection and evolution.
That said, what feminists have done since then is very machiavellian. I don’t know quite how it happened, but as your comment proves, men seem to think women are the ONLY sex who can make genetic selection choices in propagation of the species.
I have a radical mind thought experiment for you.
Which sex actually has the power of choice?
Seriously… think about the meaning and definition of choice for a moment.
Would you say that someone who only has the power to say YES OR NO has choice?
Or… would someone who can actually CHOOSE an object, and if denied it, CHOOSE another object, actually be someone with choice?
Again… think deeply on this.
Women… have only the power to say YES OR NO. It does not matter how alpha a man is or how many women want a particular guy. It matters NOT what their mating strategy is, r or k. All she can do is say yes or no IF a man CHOOSES to ask mate with her.
Now look at it from the man’s perspective.
A man walks into a room. A bevy of beautiful ladies abounds!!! R or K in strategy, it matters not for him. This man may approach ANY WOMAN and CHOOSE to talk to her, all he requires is the balls to do so.
Will some women who prefer r over k select for those men? Of course.
But the point I am making here is that for the guy, he can continue to approach women until he finds one that HE WANTS of his own choosing. He does not have to settle. And if there are no women in this particular room that meet his requirements for being chosen by him or none accept his invitation to mate, he can MOVE ON to more women!!!
Remember, the ratio of men to women on average is ALWAYS IN FAVOR OF MEN. There are always less men than women in any given room.
All he has to do is find ONE woman that wants HIM, on HIS terms, of HIS choice. All he needs is a yes, and HIS choice in mate is made.
Now flip it.
What do those women have the power to do to “choose” their mate, r or k?
Well… whore it up, what else. Or, prim and proper if they so wish. R or k once again, and they can flip and cocold if they want.
But note… they can’t actually CHOOSE any man. They can run up to every man in the room and try to ply their genetic goods (which expire mighty fast by the way) but she can in NO WAY choose any of those men if they don’t FIRST choose her.
The mating dance begins and ends with men. But women have men convinced it is the other way around. That why men approach, and women attract. It is the MEN who choose, not the women. And note… they women PREFER to be approached. Women WANT to be CHOSEN. They fight like cats to be SELECTED by the top male. Does that sound like a person with any power of choice in the mating game?
And evolution supports this.
The Y chromosome is nature’s filter. For every child born of a union between man and woman, or if a man dies without leaving a legacy, AN X IS LOST forever to time.
That’s right, a FEMALE chromosome is DISCARDED, not a male. While a Y is also lost with the birth of a girl or no child at all, it is the X that matters for genetic fitness and diversity.
Man… is responsible for genetic evolution.
UFC does not stand for Ultimate Fighting Championship.
It stands for ultimate FEMALE CHROMOSOME!!!
So the next time you think about the world in a black and white r vs k way (which is not to say it does not exist, just want you to think outside the box and big picture here), remember, the power of choice lies in MAN for the future evolutionary fitness of humanity.
For every man that chooses to SETTLE and COMPROMISE on his mate selection by believing the power of choice lies solely with the woman, we take one step further back toward the cave.
Women have choice, no doubt about it, but it is not of the same KIND of choice as men. Men by far have more selection in their hands than women do. And if men exercise their power of choice, the game changes entirely.
There is NOTHING stopping men from presenting themselves as fully R MALES, and then choosing the best K WOMAN to breed with. And yes, it can be done because you are being HER DREAM MAN. The one that gives her tingles AND supplies here with long term provision and companionship.
The whole r vs k debate is too black and white for me. It is either one or the other with no in between it seems.
If you remove all letters entirely from the debate, sexual strategy boils down to a very old school way of thinking.
May the best MAN win the best LADY.
And if you think men have no power to alter a woman’s entire character and behaviour, you have a lot to learn.
There is a reason the Y chromosome is as old as it is without any changes.
A man changes for no woman. A woman will change for a real man.
August 25, 2014 at 12:57 pm
@Realmaximus when you write:
]] You make a good point. Women do the “choosing” as you say.
that means you have completely misudnersttod myu point, which is women choose between K-selection (more or less monogamous) or R-selection (more or less promiscuous) reproduction, because of the anatomical fact of the womb.
I was not at all arguing whether it is women or men who choose each other, because the discussion is about K-selection and R-selection, and the tradcons think that MEN can make that choice for women.
While in theory both men and women can choose to be promiscuous or monogamous as to having children, in practice the only choice that matters is that made by women, because only women can bear children.
My rephrasing of Krauser’s arguments is that today’s women almost all R-select/are promiscuous, and for men to K-select (be monogamous) to an R-selecting (promiscuous) woman is not the best choice. Krauser’s realistic argument is that if women want to K-select many attractive, indifferent, tough attitude men, it is best to be K-select*able* and give up the stupid hope of being K-select*ed* by women.
August 20, 2014 at 2:34 am
Damn, got all but No 5….stupid feminists
reading this post 3 times gets me past that hump…good info here… the R/K dichotomy may well be a good heuristic — I don’t actually know what it is— but don’t need it to learn from this post..Good writing, good insight
August 21, 2014 at 7:50 am
Anger and a personalised sense of loss = you’re a balanced individual
Indifference and a personalised sense of opportunism = you’ve retreated into yourself as a coping mechanism
August 27, 2014 at 11:15 pm
Nope.
Anger and a personalized sense of loss = you identify with the husband.
Indifference and personalized sense of opportunism = you identify with his wife’s lover.
August 31, 2014 at 8:02 am
Yup I identify with order over disorder (bringing order to disorder is the best definition of ‘alpha’).
Some truths are more important than others and Krausers’ assertion that morality is subjective is almost certainly false, circular arguments notwithstanding. Anyone interested in a big picture life should know this.
August 21, 2014 at 8:08 pm
Long time fan of your work Nick (routinely share your article on dead and alive arts- daygame compliance to just about everyone), but you seem to be pushing this r versus k thing way too much buddy.
There’s always that implication that every other manosphere person is either gamma (which might be true) or k selected, and that your r selected greyhound chasing ‘alpha’ versus abundance approach is the way.
Even on the articles that directly compare your ideas on K versus R, there’s always that undertone of “i’m doing this shit the true way a man should do it, and the rest of you just really dont get it with your pithy club game/gym /provider game etc”
That point seems to hammer itself across repeatedly in your writings over and over that K is a cop out, R is better.
It always reads like your 5 minutes short of calling everyone else shit and lone wolfing it.
I don’t know, Maybe i’m ‘being gamma’ and reading too much into it.
Your thoughts? [Almost everything I write here is prefaced by the unspoken words “If you’re a bit like me, and like the things I like….” K.]
Best,
Anon1
August 27, 2014 at 11:02 pm
OMG you read my mind, especially with #4. I used to get pissed when I thought about cheating women. A few months ago, I noticed that it now turns me on. What changed in between? I started banging married women. 🙂
October 22, 2014 at 5:19 pm
“Just as Muslims will never create advanced productive societies for as long as they base their social organisation on a 7th century system (e.g. forbidding charging of interest and thus mispricing the time value of money),”
Does the Ottoman Empire of the 15-17th century count?
And how would permitting interest improve the lot of the society? By providing an incentive to loan money and thus incentivizing capitalist ventures?
I ask this, because usury has frequently been described by the commenters around these parts of the internet as the seed of what we don’t like as opposed to the seed of things we like.
October 22, 2014 at 8:42 pm
Interest… usury… is pure evil. The Prophet (PBUH) declared war on usury in the Quran (seeing as we are talking about Muslims here.)
I keep hearing this “time value of money” thing about the good of interest. It’s brainwashing. It’s what the elite want the peon slaves to believe about interest.
The truth is. interest is making money from simply having money I.e. NO WORK to make money, just have money. Or if you are a bank, just PRINT IT OUT OF THIN AIR.
Then charge “interest” on the ponzi fiat you just created out of nothing.
For every dollar in existence, there is interest attached to it that is NEVER CREATED, thus requiring the system to FOREVER go deeper and deeper into debt until the system implodes on itself, which , by the nature of compound interest, is a MATHEMATICAL certainty.
That’s right.
The bank prints a dollar. Loans it out and asks for 10 cents interest that was NEVER CREATED to allow a person to pay the “loan” back.
So… you go back to the bank. Borrow another dollar (the bank is generous and you are upstanding guy with good “credit”).
Now you have two dollars. You quickly pay back your first dollar loan PLUS ten cents interest. Phew!!!!
Now you have 90 cents left in your pocket to do whatever you want with and are only in debt another dollar and ten cents!!!
Wait… what just happened here?
Something does not add up.
Which is WHY the elite want the education system to be as dumbed down as possible.
Can’t have people using basic mathematics to figure out the entire country is ENSLAVED to the Federal Reserve based on a WORTHLESS piece of paper they “manufactured” out of thin air now can we.
I can’t find the link right now. But I am pretty sure I read J.P. Morgan, in testimony to congress or some other such body, speak to the fact that the private banks, like a steel company, are manufacturers.. the “make” money and are in the BUSINESS of SELLING their product… fiat, debt notes… to the public.
Boy, what a business you could have if you could get a government to contract EXCLUSIVE USE of your paper “product” and call it the official “money” of the nation and require, BY LAW, that EVERYONE be forced to conduct business using it, save their “wealth” in it, and make it a crime for them to “manufacture” it for themselves like the banks do via counterfitting.
Charge what for using it? Interest? And this… “interest”… debt is never created so they have to keep coming back to us for more of our “product” to pay it off, creating more “interest” again and again and again in a never ending cycle?
Oy vey… You’re crazy. NO ONE would fall for that hutzpah of a scam. [You have no idea how money works. Read some Mises or Rothbard. There is no reason at all to loan someone capital unless you get a return, i.e. interest. As soon as you remove interest you corrupt the entire saving/lending dynamic that creates wealth. Seriously, quit with your silly conspiracy theories and learn some basic economic logic. K.]
December 6, 2014 at 12:52 pm
There are more ways to Generate Wealth then intrest/banking/savings and wealth. While print worthless paper money out of thin air backed by some saudi arabian petrol dollar, previously IMF Gold which was devalued by the amount they kept printing! The British Zionist BS Monetary system and its Jewish usury is to rob the everyday folk..Gold and Silver or precious metal has any actual value today. One just has to look at the over night robbing og American Citizens in 1933 Gold for cash Scheme to get a drift. The Fiat interest based system will fall along with the entirety of the west and there is nothing anybody can do to prevent it,
Do more research and study on the actual conspiracy of the International Monetary system and not coming up with more theories.
December 6, 2014 at 12:39 pm
“You believe in God” – So? This has little or nothing to do with the mindset. How does believing in God limit you or me from fucking women? Yes, Lose women do destroy Society and Civilization as a whole, look at western society today. What can a Woman offer a man other then Sex? Answer..Her Companionship & Loyalty, A Man has everything, Power, Wealth, Sea of Women to chose from, when a Women is not good for the later two as most women at least in the western world are, then we use that oppturnity to exploit them for what they have allowed themselves to be, sex toys for you and ten other men. When we claim a woman she becomes our property…Our blood…For only us not every guy in the street. Then again we wont pick every other whore we fucked as our property will we. No She has a boyfriend/husband…As you say, good, see it as a opportunity as the way she has been conditiond she has no problem deeply rooted to jump beds with a high value man, from your nest back to hers… I fail to even see good girl or bad girl, religions girl or non religious girl when shes been westernized or western influenced, I even fail to see westernized feminist women as humans. Does that make me feel angry, no the feeling is disgusted…Get the mentality Krauser?
All Religions are Eastern/Middle Eastern, Westerners as in Anglo saxon Britons including were living Primitive conditions as cave dwellers, hunters, gatherers and barbarians when there were Civilizations as Persia, Egypt, Assyria, Greece. We had empires when west lived in caves, you are going to tell us? Thanks Romans for Civilizing the barbarians from Europe..Most advancements in science and medicine were done by muslims uptill the 15th century! Go look up the father of Algorithm, Astronomy to Medicine…Its usually always a Persian, a Greek, a Arab or a Russian..Even most modern advancements of the West were done by refugees and immigrant scientists including USSR and NAZI German ones that were imported! What has the West done in the last 50 years? Ensured no progress is done in other lands that it rapes and pillages while installing dictators or waged countless wars, backed terrorists and displaced millions and murdered tens of millions, talk of progress in these conditions…Our God allows us harems of such women, Western civilization is coming to an end Krauser along with the British Zionist installed Petra Dollar Saudis Sheys in Arabia, Fuck your Western logic Krauser,.muslim societies are doing much better then the west! Basic needs are meet, feminist isn’t tolerated and the problems you have in western society doesn’t occur there, and nor will your game work there either! You want to allow your daughters, wives and sisters, girlfriends whatever to sleep around, do so, good for every body, you me and every other K and R rated guy out there who wants to fuck them for what they are encouraged to be, by all means do so, But don’t expect us to do that and corrupt our gene pool or our property. We are assertive an highly dominant men. West will go back to the caves where it belongs..
Just keep from injecting religious/athiest things in such matters, i know you yourself are disgusted about the behaviours of feminist western women…also putting god religion into the mix for your fan base, but you need to put your anger and words and target it in a different way to truly reflect what you mean then mix it with game topics…I sincerely hope you dont end up from a genuine direct alpha man game guy to the path of that bearded monkey who injects too many random topics that are in little in relation to the concept to better and understand the matter of game.
Sincerely,
Your long time silent reader & fan
The Dictator [Thanks for the comprehensive comment. I think that, ironically, you are proving my point. It’s not about whether God does/doesn’t exist or whether r-selection is/isn’t decivilising. The point is that being so strongly pro-civilisation is a signal girls pick up on and interpret as “he’s not an adventure sex guy, so don’t fuck him”. K.]
December 7, 2014 at 6:24 pm
I will try to keep this one shorter. LOL
And I think I can do it by quoting Nick himself. My argument is that Game and r-selection thinking will lead to the corruption and end of civilization.
To whit and quote: “being so strongly pro-civilisation is a signal girls pick up on and interpret as “he’s not an adventure sex guy, so don’t fuck him”
Precisely my point!!!
If you are pro-civilization – laws, rules, justice, tall buildings, running water, etc, etc… you don’t get laid.
If that is the case, where does adventure sex guy lead humanity to?
I humbly suggest it leads us back to grass huts and goddess worship. But, that is just my opinion, take it for what it’s worth.
Again… if a guy wants to get laid and asks me for advice, I will tell him to go read your blog Nick. You are absolutely correct on your analysis of the sexual marketplace and how women operate in it. It is not so much a secret society as simply awakening to the truth of female nature.
While I appreciate The Dictator’s support for my comments and the many additional points made, he does make one fundamentally flawed error that Nick, and the philosophy of Game, is crushing for the truly religious minded.
The error is believing the nature of women is Companionship & Loyalty.
I just finished watching Eyes Wide Shut by Kubrick again for the 2nd time. Stunning film. It is the dialogue at one point between Tom and Nicole about the nature of women and sex. As Kubrick’s wife explains in talking about the film in the extras on the BluRay, she noted that what Nicole does in this scene is to proceed to “burst Tom’s love bubble.” I.e. That women are all about security, loyalty, “love” and that sex – carnal, animal, anonymous – is simply not a part of the female’s nature and make-up.
This… is the bubble I had burst and it is why I am having such a hard time moving forward with my relations with women.
Nick… and his theory about r and k selection… is abso-fucking-lutely bang-on.
There are a LOT of women out there that will fuck a guy from nothing more than a confident, firm, masculine, dominant and indeed, even dangerous smile and “Hi, how you doin?”
This… is what Game is truly breaking across the Western mindset. That the nature of the female, is in all likelyhood upon reflection and experience, MORE PRIMAL / SEXUAL than man’s!!!
That said, women can CHOOSE to tame those bestial carnal desires, as man must ALSO do if you want to build a civilization.
If you want to go back to goddess worship, living in grass huts and fucking like animals, then by all means… be adventure sex guy.
Which again, is not to say adventure sex guy is wrong or immoral per se. It is simply stating a FACT OF REALITY.
Causation. Cause. Effect. A very Buddhist argument for those who are averse or disinclined to hear a religious / God moral argument on the consequences of rampant, impersonal casual sexual relations on a community and society as a whole.
The Dictator: “Just keep from injecting religious/athiest things in such matters”
And perhaps it is here I must apologize. It is in my nature to still, naively I suspect, look at the world and events / people therein from a moral perspective, to ask moral questions, to think in moral terms, right and wrong.
Justice… at it’s core… is about what is right and wrong.
If man no longer cares what is right or wrong, does this not lead, eventually and predictably, to total anarchy and chaos?
One can discuss Game from a neutral moral point of view, to leave questions of God and Soul and Purpose out of the discussion. And for the purposes of getting laid, it is almost mandatory that one does so.
But at the age of 40, for myself, I am curious.
Man… capital M.
Has he ‘progressed’ to the point where he can exist now without asking himself the most fundamental and basic questions about his existence?
And if so… I ask you in follow up this.
What kind of society do we get where no moral questions, what is right and wrong are asked?
More importantly and to the point… who benefits from an immoral society where right and wrong are cast into the dustbin of history as outdated and irrelevant?
My two cents… if only I had two pennies in Canada to offer, which I can’t because we stopped making them, which means the currency is WORTHLESS, but is that really right or wrong, a good or bad thing? Am I wrong for even caring to ask such a question? How can I use wrong in that sentence if moral terms are no longer necessary for man to make choices on how to live? Does man even need to make choices to live in an amoral world? Is choice itself an obsolete concept?
I’ll stop now. LOL 🙂 [I think you got the central point of my post here – that r-selection is decivilising, but getting angry about it dries up every nearby vagina. K.]
February 18, 2015 at 4:20 pm
Krauser, I’ve been a real-life White-Knight, and it got me my first lay. I chased off a stalker when I was walking a woman to her bus stop. Nothing more civilizing than a White-Knight. That was case 1.
Case 2
A woman I dance with is married; I don’t do married women. Her attraction to me is feral. I saw her do the primate attraction behavior from 30 feet away. She saw me; her eyes went wide; she smiled and turned her head to the side; she approached.
This woman goes out dancing solo, as do I (I’m married). We often go to the same venue–not meeting up. She’s always asking me to dance with her a lot. I used to ask her to dance, too. However, dancing so much with her has led to me bonding with her (and likely her with me as well). She has much more experience dancing than I do. I suspect that I have been gamed. The bonding messes with my head and causes me to cuss a blue streak. A real hassle.
I asked the woman to practice an advanced move during a weekly dance party where we would be somewhat isolated. We did this two weeks in a row. I never made a move and she was really snotty after the second time–probably because she didn’t get what she wanted. She was still hoping for action a couple of weeks later. She still asks me to dance a lot.
A while back, I gave her my No-Fun&Games Chat. Didn’t seem to affect her behavior. I think that she doesn’t believe my words and reads my Dread behavior as anti-civilization. Bad Boy behavior.
So, I acted civilized and she didn’t pick up on my mindset and was trying to get action. Maybe mixed messages from my behavior? Your analysis, please.
December 7, 2014 at 5:45 pm
Wow… I don’t know quite where to begin. Completely forgot about this post and did not know Nick added a few observations of his own.
First… I want to be sure Nick knows where I am coming from.
I highly value the Krauser PUA blog. It is a gold mine of the BEST Game analysis out there… period. You get it. Which is why it probably took me so long to find you. The real deals are always under the radar.
That said… what I have put forward in my comments on this post are valid points of critique. Each man is free to choose his life, God gave us that free will. What we choose defines who we are, and for better or worse, we take our choices with us when we die. Whether one believes in a soul or not and a life after this material one, one must admit… choices… affect our lives on more than a material level.
Nick, I respect your points about interest and the cost of capital. It is staple text book justification for usury. And, it also makes sense on some level. If you have worked hard and saved, and someone wants to borrow your money to put to use for their own good, why should you give it away for free? It makes no sense.
While my knowledge of Islamic finance is limited… there is nothing wrong with making a return on your money. But… it must be LIMITED… and a ONE TIME profit/pay off. I.e. There is NO continual charge, compounded, on a loan to another person, that puts undue stress and hardship on that person, especially to the point of bankrupting them.
For example: I come to you Nick with a great idea for a collaborative book/web project. You like the idea, but there is a clear need for capital to get it off the ground that I do not have. You look at the project, assess the risks, and decide a flat 10% of the total loan (let’s say $1000 profit on $10,000 loan) is good enough for your needs for profit. I agree to these terms and we strike up a contract. I borrow $10K now, and in a fixed time period, promise to pay you back $11,000.
For the sake of this thought experiment, let’s assume the project works out and you get your $11,000.
Is this a bad way to do business? A business venture has been started and both parties have made a profit. Capital has been put to good use instead of it sitting doing nothing, not circulating, and thus creating depressing economic conditions. It is the RESTRICTION of the flow of capital/credit that creates financial crisis, not the lack of capital in the system. Unless you have created a ponzi of derivatives from derivatives into the 10s of trillions that has ZERO actual capital/wealth assets backing them in our current re-hypothecation-is-the-name-of-the-game insane dance of musical debt instrument chairs.
But I digress.
The difference between THIS model of finance and the western world view you have in your mind is that the PROFIT, i.e. the interest on a loan, IS A FIXED AMOUNT!!! There is no compounding. There is no making of money FROM money for money’s sake.
Further, let’s now assume I was unable to repay the loan in the agreed upon time period. I believe Islamic finance prescribes that a new re-payment agreement be written up that will allow me to pay off the loan, perhaps over a longer time period, but paid in full none the less WITHOUT ADDITIONAL INTEREST OR PENALTY. Even then, if additional interest is asked and agreed upon, again, the new contract will be for a FIXED AMOUNT, a SINGE PRINCIPLE AMOUNT of loan plus profit, not a compounding monthly and ever increasing debt SLAVERY model that is the western fractional reserve system of ‘cost of capital’ loan financing.
THAT… is what I am talking about when I say ‘interest free’. It is usurious compounding, the making of money FROM money, just for having it, as a CAREER, an entire sector of the economy. (i.e. western fiat fractional reserve banking.)
As for my point about HOW our monetary system works (i.e. at the root, every GBP has interest attached to it that is NOT in the system to repay), I humbly suggest Nick you go to the library, find some OLD BOOKS, and learn how banking even came into existence. What a ‘note’ actually is, because the paper in your hand is nothing more than a PROMISE TO PAY… i.e. to render into a TANGIBLE WEALTH ASSET (a good or service) that in the old days, was physical GOLD!!!
“Money is gold, nothing else.” – J. P. Morgan
http://blog.milesfranklin.com/gold-is-money-everything-else-is-credit-jp-morgan
QUOTE: “JP Morgan was in my opinion trying to convey the idea (his knowledge) that gold was the money itself and everything else was a “derivative” (derived) from this money. He understood that any currency, any debt, any equity or receipt had counterparty risk. He understood that “promises” were made to be broken. They could be outright broken through fraud or default or broken slowly through the debasement of a currency. He also understood that the longer the chain of promises became, the more likely that one link in the chain would ultimately break rendering all of the links worthless.”
You want to argue with the big J.P.M. himself… testifying before congress about what exactly is money, credit and currency BEFORE the creation of the US Fed?
To give you my education on this matter, I have read a small portion of the 4 (or was it 6?) inch, two volume treatise on CENTRAL BANKING that was written by Paul Warburg for the foundation of the US Federal Reserve system in 1913. I have also read about the economic and banking/currency plight of Weirmar Germany after WWI that led up to the break out of WWII.
I know what I am talking about. I AGREE you have the correct current world view/definition of western monetary ‘cost of capital.’ It fully complies with the mainstream and accepted matrix world view of the west.
But I will respectfully disagree that you have your definition wrong with respect to how fiat currency and interest/debt ACTUALLY works and especially how central bank/nation state fiat currency comes into existence.
I have read Mises. Fully in university. I am a Mises fan. But, he was still working from the paradigm that ‘cost of capital’ means compounding, every increasing, forever owed interest in a fractional reserve fiat banking system where the money to actually PAY the interest is NEVER CREATED in the first place. Mises…. was still living inside the Martix, just like you.
Example #2: You borrow me a dollar and ask for two in return (you shark you)… but YOU are the person (i.e. central bank) that CONTROLS THE PRINTING of the dollar you just put in my hand and you have only printed ONE DOLLAR for the entire financial system I operate in (where I have to find my 100% interest return for your loan) and for which you have a MONOPOLY on the dollars circulating in it!!!!
Does that make my argument a little clearer?
The corruption of our current financial paradigm will NOT come from removing interest and thus destroying the financial principle of a ‘reasonable’ and ‘just’ return on one’s ‘cost of capital.’
It comes from demanding interest on a loan… at the level of the state central bank… to that states citizens for which there is no ability to pay it (for it is never created) and for which the state must turn to the central bank to PRINT the interest needed to repay the loan AT MORE INTEREST, forever compounding until the whole system implodes with mathematical certainty, to wit… the present state of economic and financial malaise across the entire globe presently.
Here are my sources. If I found them in my library, I am sure you will find them where you live.
KING SOLOMON
Solomon the Magnificent
Solomon his life and times
Bankers, Moneylenders, and Interest Rates In the Roman Republic
The House of Rothschild
The Rise of ibid above
Europe The World’s Bankers 1870-1914
The German Reichsbank (Flink)
REICHSBANK 1876-1900
The Great Disorder
M.M. Warburg & Co. (p 30, 56, 64, 70, 106, 138)
The Federal Reserve System (two volumes, 4″ each!!!)
The House of Morgan
Rockefeller Power (p 56)
The Rockefeller Report on the Americas
Missionary Capitalist – Nelson Rockefeller In Venezuela
George Woods and the World Bank
The Future Role of the WB
WB & IMF Pay and Benefits
Currencies in Crisis
Deepening Crisis of the Capitalist Monetary System
The Origins of Economic International Disorder
The Politics of Money (p 4, 18, 20, 38, 46, 106, 114/5)
The IMF and WB in Africa
The African Debt Crisis
Central Banking in Developing Countries
[Not bad, but I think Murray Rothbard very clearly explains this in What Has Government Done To Our Money and also a classic by Steve Keen here: http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2009/01/31/therovingcavaliersofcredit/ K.]
Pingback: Primal Seduction vs. Calculated Courtship - tddaygame - bold approach to daygame and seduction
Pingback: The r/K Selection | Okay With Where You Are | Rant A. Tonne
Pingback: Can You Date More Than One Woman? Yes, you can. • Absolute Ability
December 22, 2023 at 6:37 pm
Muslims not creating productive societies? get your head out of your arse. I’ve studied history in great detail for the last decade. Look at the islamic golden age, Grand Library of Baghdad, the world’s first university (by …. a muslim). Sure, most of them are up to no good these days…..
Anyway, your confirmation bias is apparent. and your ego will probably say “fuck this comment”
I agree with everything else. Gotta be fair.