While camping under the open sky one morning, the twinkling stars in the grey velvet night giving way to the first red rays of dawn over the hilltop, the soft tweets of a birdsong carried across the wind. Deep in the forest birds conducted their elaborate dance without a care for human ears. I sat and listened as I put a kettle on the stove. How musical!
Back in civilisation and wifi range I did a little sleuthing* on these birds, having considered the purpose of the birdsong. It would appear the birdsong has developed as a mating strategy amongst certain birds. And it’s clever.
The normal male birds range widely to forage for twigs and leaves that will make an impressive nest. Throughout winter these males work, gradually slotting each element into the construction until a grand nest is complete. I imagine even in such a little bird-brain the male feels tremendous satisfaction upon the culmination of his labours. He has created something out of nothing! Now, his little bird breast puffed out he seeks a female to install into his nest.
The females didn’t do much in winter. Their role is not nest-building. They simply wait for the males to finish and then perform a tour of the nests, much like the Queen inspecting her guards. The male bird who has foraged best and created the most impressive nest earns the honour of the female taking up residence. The mating ritual is almost complete.
Within this species is another mating strategy. The song birds don’t build nests. They don’t forage a metre further than they need for their own sustenance. Rather, the songbird spends his time perfecting his beautifully melodic singing voice. And with good reason.
While the nest-building males are showing off their real estate, the songbird males are showcasing their vocal talents. And the females have a weakness for singing. It would appear that there is an exploit within the female bird’s brain that would make Internet Explorer 8 blush. That female brain is not properly secured with it’s AntiSong software. So the songbird sings and the female at first pays slight attention. That attention soon becomes rapt, she’s intrigued. Before long she’s enraptured by the melodic tweets. The songbird ups the ante until he’s rogering the female, passing his DNA to the next generation to be raised in another male’s nest.
Nature has it’s own K and R selection strategies.
This is the point about Game. It’s fine to earn money, travel, build social circles, dress in suits or whatever else the “get your shit together” blogs recommend. That’s an impressive nest for a female to take a guided tour of. But while you’re dicking around with that, other men are working on their Song.
You can’t keep your female in the nest 24/7. She keeps hearing the beautiful melody carried across the wind, wondering who is singing. She’ll venture out. And then, much faster than it takes to build a nest, she’ll be seduced and enraptured**
Game is a trojan horse that detects and exploits weaknesses in a woman’s No Filter. All day every day a hot young girl is under attack from male mating strategies, be it the omnipresent orbiter, the promotion-with-strings manager, the helpful neighbour, or the back alley rapist. Evolution has equipped her with a strong anti-virus software – the No Filter – to rebuff these attacks so she can retain control of the mating ritual and make it work for her to get what she wants. Evolution never prepared her for Game – the deliberate and practiced study of charisma, custom-designed to defeat that No Filter. It’s like a weaponised virus attacking a common immune system.
You can only build one nest, and few females are willing to share it with rivals. The birdsong is song across the entire forest and all surrounding fields, luring the females out of their nests just long enough to notch them. If only somebody had written a book on Birdsong Mastery you could dispense with all the nest-building bullshit.
* Long enough to find this link, and that’s it. Didn’t bother reading past the fourth paragraph. I have no idea if the biology is correct.
** Probably fucked in the disabled toilets of Charing Cross Hotel at 4pm.
*** Credit to Bodi for putting the birdsong name onto the concept.
June 25, 2014 at 3:11 pm
Good analogy/parable. Could serve and an introduction in Mastery or Nitro for people to get a dearer view of the big picture. How to sing that song is in the rest of the book.
Note of course that those birds are singing all the time whereas most of us men will say that we want to learn game (i.e. the song) but our priorities and the way we spend our time don’t reflect it. Instead most of our effort is put into increasing our SMV which is important too but that’s like….ok it’s world cup time so – it’s like playing football but only being proficient at headers.
June 25, 2014 at 3:36 pm
June 25, 2014 at 4:01 pm
Great post. I’ll throw in my latest kudos to DayGame Mastery. I just met up with a 23 year old girl I met on OKC. I used Krauser’s standard opener…she hooked, we chatted quickly and then decided to meet up. She’s a foreign exchange student from Mainland China, i’d say 7, long silky hair, heels, big smile, sexy vampire eyes. A bit of an ass but overall well put together.
To Krauser’s new mantra, that she’s a bit curvy didn’t bother me because I’m pushing 50 she’s 23. Without game there is no way I would be able to do what I did tonight.
Read the fucking book! It tells you everything you need to know and how to escalate. She showed up in short shorts and 5 inch heels after I told her I was tall. Makeup, sexy long silky hair and looked like she was up for something. I immediately kissed on both cheeks and grabbed her hand and we sat down. She was nervous at first. It was because she is a bit of a nerd who dresses sexy.
We played the Questions Game and had one drink. I escalated the questions game to move it towards sex. She slowly got into it. I was asking her that great question: “Besides your lips what part of your body do you most like kissed?”
She then asked me to give her a read. “What is my personality?” I did a cold read that nailed her. That’s when I knew it was on—brushing her hair holding my hand.
I go for the k-close as outlined in the book—mid drink. She kind of turns her head but doesn’t get upset. I try later and we’re making out.
I didn’t bang her because she put up her ASD and was hesitating. But at no point in that interaction did she ever push me away, shame me for trying to kiss her—she responded and we were making out.
The point I make here is …i adopted an r-selected mind-set from the start. It is a mindset. Also, i’m pushing 50–though look younger and fit. She never asked me age. She’s 23. These younger girls are so much more chilled and fun to be around than the 35 year old cunts I’d been chasing in the past.
So it’s all doable. If you adopt the mindset, don’t rush it, pay close attention to her cues and escalate as per the model laid out in the book it’s on.
I wasn’t able to overcome her ASD which only kicked in at the end. But she now knows what she’s in for with me so the next time we meet up it will be on.
I couldn’t have done this without the guidance in the book and without my own confidence in my own desirability returning. This was simply a situation of frame control and fighting the resistance and hesitation. I let those pauses build tension while i sat back and smiled and eye fucked her.
June 25, 2014 at 6:40 pm
That sounds great man! I’m glad to see you’re still killing it. Haven’t been to heartiste’s in a while.
June 25, 2014 at 11:58 pm
When I read Krauser’s blog a lot of times what comes to mind is “Really?? You can do that!???” and then i’ll tailor it to my own situation and try it out.
The blue pill is easy—passivity is easy…..and when you take a stand other blue pill guys are ready to jump down your throat and shame you more than girls.
I’ve had different guys say “Wow, you’re such a chauvinist”.
June 25, 2014 at 4:12 pm
Songbird females tend to balance K and R selection strategies. Many form monogamous bonds with a single male, but still cheat outside of that pair bond – this gives them access to more diverse genes while still benefiting from the male’s parental care ( http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/10/031017073401.htm and http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/6/l_016_07.html ).
Song is one way to show fitness – physical appearance is another. Remember that in most birds, the males are the ones with the most colorful, elaborate feathers.
Also, have a look at this vid of a very beta provider bird – the Australian Satin Bower bird
June 25, 2014 at 8:47 pm
«You can only build one nest, and few females are willing to share it with rivals. The birdsong is song across the entire forest and all surrounding fields, luring the females out of their nests just long enough to notch them»
This is a very good insight. My impression is that the key points are:
* Women’s sexual selection pressure is to have many *grandchildren*.
* To have many grandchildren her best way is to have sons who fuck around
a lot without forming attachments with those women, and therefore who are
serial cuckolders of other women’s sons, because that means that they can
will give her lots of grandchildren.
* The best way for a woman to have sons who fuck around a lot without
forming attachments and outcuckold the sons of other women is to choose
as their fathers those men who are emotionally cold and very popular with
other women, in particular who are so attractive that they are popular
with women hotter than her.
* A woman does not necessarily know directly how popular a man is with
other women and how easy it is for him to avoid emotional attachment to
one of them and just pumop and dump them; so her instinct is to estimate
that by how emotionally detached he is to her, and by ho little he can be
bothered to fuck her, and whether his aim is to jump pump and dump her.
Therefore typical women will get their gina tingled most by smooth talking, experience players, uncaring jerks who can be hardly bothered to fuck her and only for pumping and dumping, for NSA hookups; ideally a guy with whom she can cuckold her husband or boyfriend; because such a man is more likely to give her sons who are like him and who will fuck around a lot and outcuckold the sons of other women giving her lots and lots of grandchildren with her own genes.
If a man shows her his inexperience or awkwardness with women, gets emotionally invested in her, shows by his eagerness that he thinks she is his best option, wants to be monogamous to her, she will be disgusted by his sexual interest, because she will be terrified of wasting her precious few pregnancies having sons like him who are likely to be cuckolded by the sons of other women who chose emotionally detached players who fuck around.
There are a few additional points (e.g. why women then decide to abort female children and request dowries from women who marry their sons), but the above are the core ones.
June 26, 2014 at 7:06 pm
“smooth talking, experienced players, uncaring jerks who can be hardly bothered to be intimate, and only for brief encounters, for NSA hookups…”
“If a man shows her his inexperience or awkwardness with women, gets emotionally invested in her, shows by his eagerness that he thinks she is his best option, wants to be monogamous to her, she will be disgusted by his romantic interest…”
Never seen Game expressed so simply & clearly; if your personality resembles the first quotation, and you never act like the second, you will be attractive to many women.
June 25, 2014 at 6:38 pm
I heard Yad’s been working on a new “birdsong-stop.” …Something about flapping his arms and cacaw-ing. Should be super effective on those Russian greyhounds.
June 25, 2014 at 9:19 pm
«Game is a trojan horse that detects and exploits weaknesses in a woman’s No Filter.»
This is the wrong fact and the wrong attitude, even if it is a popular idea in many PUA philosophies, because it is based on “beta” thinking.
Women DONT WANT TO SAY NO to sex. They BADLY WANT TO SAY YES. They don’t have (much of) a “no” filter. For most women sex is a magic, amazing experience, their orgasms are way better than men’s, their horniness can be during the right part of the cycle much higher than men (think she-cats on heat, even if a bit less so).
But this is not what “beta” see, because the above is only true when women’s gina tingles, and it never tingles for “beta”s. Most women are promiscuous sluts who would always say yes, and often lack the self control to fuck around as much as they can, but only with “alphas”. They may have a “no” filter that advises them not to fuck an “alpha” even if the gina tingles, in some cases, but it does not work that well.
What you call a “No Filter” is simply a “fuckable”/”alpha” filter.
«All day every day a hot young girl is under attack from male mating strategies,»
Oh no they wish so! If only “alpha”s mating strategies attacked them! The biggest complaint hot young women constantly repeat is that there are not enough “good men” and that they never get enough attention from men.
By this they mean that since fuckable women outnumber “alpha”s by several times, most women rarely get any attack from what they regard as male mating strategies, which is being played for a pump-and-dump by an uncaring alpha. Indeed as any alpha has experience many times if they are really not that interested in pumping and dumping a woman she will throw herself at him and pursue him often hard and for years, as well as any other gina-tinglers she hopes to have a chance for sex with.
Women (not just hot and young ones) they don’t consider “beta”s as males, and they don’t consider “beta”s sexual interest in them as a mating strategy, but as a degrading and nauseating threat.
To understand that, try to imagine that as attractive heterosexual male who just wants to get laid with hot young women you were instead constantly hit upon by fat old camp gays in drags, in front of your friends too. You would not think you had “No Filter” for rejecting them and you would not consider their hitting upon you as a female mating strategy. You would probably consider that a degrading and nauseating threat.
June 26, 2014 at 3:23 am
You might think that the nest-builders build their nests for the sole purpose of sex, but that’s only true of the wretched ones. The good ones build them for the family and the children. Of course you need a woman for the family and the children, but in that case she (and sex) are only a means, and not the end.
Your view of the situation is weak and nihilistic. You wouldn’t even exist to advocate this decadent strategy if your father (and his father, and his father before him, all the way back to the evolution of sexuation one billion years ago) thought this way. Human beings aren’t birds, and though a peacock’s mating strategy might work for peacocks, it won’t work for human beings (and note that, contrary to what you might think, if you are not making babies your mating strategy is not a mating strategy, and you are merely abusing biological terms).
Not that there’s anything wrong with birdsongs, mind you, or with learning how to game inferior women for quick sex. There are good things to be said for both of these activities. However… it would be a good idea to try and take a step back from the “game” now and then, because you (like all PUAs) are consistently missing the bigger picture.
Also, what whatnew said.
June 26, 2014 at 3:11 am
I guess most can’t build more than one nest, but it can be done. It’s true that the average salaryman will have the usual limited options, but those are not lifes options.
Not only can a man keep more than one abode, but he can install girls into various nests where he does not live.
The K/R mental map works quite well, but it’s the mixtures that people have a hard time visualizing.
June 26, 2014 at 3:31 am
It can be done, but they will be inferior than if you put all your resources into a single nest. And the children that will be raised in these nests will tend to be inferior children. That’s why human beings have evolved to build only one.
June 26, 2014 at 3:49 am
Thats not historically correct. It has been a mating strategy since recorded history and likely well before for those with wealth and power to control multiple females.
There is often more than mere correlation between resource success and gene fitness. Men who can afford to provide for more than one mate are often simply more genetically fit. The babies can be better, and so can the outcomes for the babies lives.
Monogamy is not the only K strategy there is.
June 26, 2014 at 4:05 am
I am not saying that multiple nests is not a mating strategy that has been used. I am saying that, for human beings, today, it is a bad mating strategy unless you are a millionaire ubermensch. And since there are no millionaire ubermensch currently alive (I am not a millionaire), it is a bad strategy for everyone alive today. Human children need affection from both parents to grow up without psychological issues, and if you divided your time between two or three or half a dozen homes you wouldn’t be able to give them that. Also less money for a good education, etc.
A much better strategy would be to find an uberwoman and have 5 or 6 children with her. Much greater chances of success than having 1 or 2 children from 2 or 3 women. You’d still be dividing your resources among many children, but at least not your affection among many households.
But none of this has any meaning to you, or Krauser, because you dudes are in it for the sex. Any objections you raise will be made from that viewpoint, and hence will be weak objections. You simply do not care about the future or the children (since children ARE the future). So whenever you bring biology into this, you use it in a weak manner.
June 26, 2014 at 4:17 am
It seems obvious to me that you are speaking from a muddled emotional position. You have an emotional investment in your intellecual position.
I enjoy talking about ideas, but doing so with a hater is has always proved pointless, for anything other than hearing myself speak. Which I do like to do.
Your point about affection being a limited resource might be valid, however your idea about money being a limited resource that needs concentration is not. The way labour and money works is that one man can have an overabundance of resources that are of diminishing returns when concentrated.
Affection also can even be outsourced, to a degree.
We don’t see many non-monogamous K strategy examples in our feminized world nowadays. The femborg forbids even the thought of it.
But it happens.
Salarymen don’t get much quality time with their kids in any case. i spend more quality time with each of my two girlfriends than even the most devoted monogamous husband can afford to muster. Time as a resource is limted, but can be apportioned in ways that salarymen never want to imagine.
Yes, I know, sexual competion of other types gives you the feel-bads.
June 26, 2014 at 4:21 am
“Yes, I know, sexual competion of other types gives you the feel-bads.”
I look like this: http://0-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/board/jp/image/1335/78/1335784421749.jpg
Yes I know, intellectual competition from real intellectuals gives you the feel-bads.
June 26, 2014 at 4:17 am
Let me put it another way. Krauser is neither “r” nor “K” selected. If he doesn’t marry a woman and become a “beta”, he is EXTINCT. No woman is going to carry his child if he keeps “gaming” them. If he does manage to impregnate a woman by mistake, the woman will ABORT it.
In a similar manner, Roosh is not “spreading his seed”. He might as well be coming in his hands and rubbing it in his face, as far as evolution is concerned.
PUAs are awesome and I love them, but if they don’t want to continue making fools of themselves when they step outside of their field of expertise (which is sex), they need to sober up and try to think a little also with the big head.
June 26, 2014 at 4:25 am
You have no idea how many children Krauser already has.
I’m sure you’d never guess how many pregnancies I’ve already caused either.
Nor how many I’m likely to cause in the future.
So in order to stave off more feel bads, quickly reverse your steps and try another attempt at downplaying my childrens futures.
June 26, 2014 at 4:28 am
I am talking theory and you are trying to drag the discussion down to personal anecdotes (and fabricated ones to boot). You are the one with the feel-bads here and you know it.
I am going to stop posting in this thread out of respect for Krauser. Have a nice day, sir. [Somebody posted a comment yesterday trying to dox you. I read the links, and while he presents a decent prima-facie case against you, I don’t tolerating doxxing on this blog so I trashed it. So long as you continue to contribute polite, thought-out comments you are welcome to keep doing so regardless of whether I disagree with the positions (which I usually do). K.]
June 26, 2014 at 4:32 pm
I’d had such thoughts myself. I gather that there’s something called an r/K strategy and I’m interested in learning more about it after I get all the way through this blog (gasp). It might be what is contained in daygame.com’s Girlfriend Sequence. Now something like THAT makes sense both at the level of the individual consciousness’ gratification and at the gene level. My being craves both.
June 26, 2014 at 8:06 pm
The thing is, the best men crave both at the consciousness level. These men are called “fathers”. They REALLY want children. It’s not a calculated effort with a view to “winning” at the gene level. It’s a genuine thirst to sculpt the men of tomorrow. And these are the best fathers (as opposed to the ones who FIND themselves becoming fathers because “oops pregnancy”, or to those who impregnate a woman merely in order to keep her around).
Not to mention that bonding with a woman to the point of spending years with her raising children is an experience that is barred to the sterile “k-selected” PUA The PUA has a multitude of shallow relationships, and though there’s something to be said for those, there’s also something to be said of a deeper relationship, especially for those who value quality over quantity. And quality over quantity is precisely what separates human evolutionary strategies over those of birds or rabbits or whatever (see gestation periods, declining birth rates in the civilized world, etc.)
June 26, 2014 at 4:37 pm
By the way, a strategy that starts off as “r” and ending up as “k”, would be an interesting example of hijacking an evolutionary hijack.
June 29, 2014 at 5:50 pm
A disgusting image if ever there was one. Thanks for that
June 26, 2014 at 8:48 am
Yet if all men at least largely dispense with nest-building, then all men are songbirds, then the women start becoming more selective about songbirds or even seeking out the rare few that still build nests. Women still need provision and an environment in which to have children. Women are still selective breeders. The more songbirds. the more the women learn to deal with them, the harder the songbirds have to work. The fewer nest-builders, the more women in need of a nest, the better the nests look, the more the women love the nest-builders. This could happen as social evolution (women start seeking provision and herd-mentality engages. as more women storm the nest-builders, more women want them) or biological evolution (the women who are provided for carry their children to term and the women who have their nest-builders’ children are likely to stay in the nest along with the children), but when something becomes commonplace, life adapts.
June 26, 2014 at 10:37 am
Yes, we live not merely in a society in which we choose sexual strategies, but in a social ecosystem in which any niche which exists will be filled. Humans have genetic and social predispositions that casts us into castes, however no amount of social control can homogenize the effective sexual strategies. Evolution itself will never allow for that.
June 26, 2014 at 10:43 am
June 26, 2014 at 11:36 am
Yes, but true players are rare and will be rare. Even if Krauser sold million books, not many would truly adopt it and truly embrace the change. So I don’t think there is a danger of a “genetic drift” where suddenly 10% of men are good “players”. Even guys doing “nice guy daygame” are mostly poor…
June 26, 2014 at 11:49 am
You’re right that guys posting up their knowledge and methods won’t have big social effects.
No matter what the sexual strategy, attraction fundamentally boils down to standing out as superior to other men.
And we can’t all do that. So people can give advice for how to be in the top 5%, and that will never make us all in the top 5%.
But that’s the point. The point isn’t that we can’t all do that, therefore it’s attraction improvement in any area is trivial, but that we can’t all do that, therefore attraction improvement in any area is non-tivial.
This IS a competition.
Social conservatives also compete, in the same way the femborg does. By banding together their shared socialist agendas into a bargain of trade-union non-competition. Socialism is a form of competition – it just uses cooperation within it’s competitive strategy.
The guys who can get sex without much investment generally are more handsome, rich, tall, funny, or otherwise show uncommon and useful heritable traits. Social intelligence can be learned, and is also just another signal of genetic fitness. Not all can learn it, now will want to. Thats WHY it works.
Everybody thinks they want to be rich and successful. Or at least the though crosses ones for as long as it can remain realistic. Unreaslistic hopes can lower life happiness, but ambition just continually a carrot one stick length away can increase happiness, as real goals are continually attained. Not everybody can be rich, tall, charming, and own a modeling agency and a nightclub and travel agency and have worldwide jet setter and nautical contacts. And that’s the whole point.
It’s a competition.
Whoever gets the smartest and most beautiful women to fuck (and some say be impregnated by) him, wins. [Thanks Xsplat for getting involved. I appreciate the input. K.]
June 26, 2014 at 9:50 pm
Hi Nick. Smartest? In your Real London interview you deprecated the desirability of intelligence in a woman. Whatever, I like them smart too, since allows a form of sexual intercourse to continue after the physical phase has lost its novelty.
June 26, 2014 at 9:53 pm
Oops, it was xsplat who said “smartest” and not Nick. Sorry for confusing the two.
June 26, 2014 at 3:09 pm
“Whoever gets the smartest and most beautiful women to fuck (and some say be impregnated by) him, wins.”
What does he win? Becoming extinct?
You STILL can’t see that evolution is about children, not sex? And Krauser agrees with you?
I’ll take it even further. I read your site. Really like it too. So I know of your situation. Your girls are SE Asia girls. You do realize that they are genetically inferior to white women, right? Krauser, at least from his Twitter comments, seems to realize it.
Also, both you and Krauser are pushing 40 or 50. You do realize that EVEN IF you have children now, they will likely be genetically inferior to those you’d have in your 20’s…
Talk about sex all you want. But sex isn’t evolution. It is not an end goal. It can only SEEM like an end goal if you have a problem getting good sex. Or if you HAD a problem in the past, and though you might have solved it now, you still have a mental problem in that area. Notch-counting comes in here.
June 26, 2014 at 9:58 pm
We all become extinct. At least, that’s the default condition until radical life extension becomes available.
June 26, 2014 at 3:24 pm
PUAs legacy will not be in the children they father (because they will not father any children). It is in the philosophy that permeates their writings. And this is what I am trying to combat.
PUAs love to justify their lifestyles by appealing to BIOLOGICAL evolution, and as I’ve just explained this is a mistake. They should be talking about INTELLECTUAL evolution instead. But the philosophers have them beat there.
In the end, PUAs need to be more modest about their claims. They are masters of SEDUCTION, not of family-building and child-rearing, never mind society-shaping, and so THAT is where their contribution will be recognized. Seduction is not a small thing, but it is not philosophy. (And Austrian economics is not philosophy either.)
I wish there was some way to make this understood without ruffling any feathers. But there isn’t. If you step out of your field of expertise, someone will have to put you in your place. It happens all the time. If you want to expand outside your field of expertise, you’ll have to do the work. How much time did Krauser spend going from chode to daygame mastery? That’s how much time he’ll have to put into philosophy if he wants to talk about evolution or make social commentary that will rival the leaders in those fields. And the same goes for you.
June 26, 2014 at 10:16 pm
1. The impossibility of establishing prices for resources that allowed for their efficient allocation, under socialism, is indeed an epistemological issue, and therefore a philosophical issue, and it was resolved by the Austrians (principally by Hayek). The epistemological issue was how to get an objective measure of a subjective phenomenon – a particular person’s desire for a resource.
2. Not all actual or would-be PUAs are concerned exclusively with fucking, to the exclusion of family. Some, such as myself, are, at their core, would-be providers/nest-builders so far frustrated in their efforts, willing to try anything, even learning to sing.
June 26, 2014 at 10:30 pm
“2. Not all actual or would-be PUAs are concerned exclusively with fucking, to the exclusion of family. Some, such as myself, are, at their core, would-be providers/nest-builders so far frustrated in their efforts, willing to try anything, even learning to sing.”
And the future is theirs. Because nest-building is culture- and civilization-building — that’s what culture and civilization is: one giant nest. PUAs are merely a tool which these people will use in one specific area of their lives. And that’s why the PUA MUST be childless — at least the top of the pile ones like Krauser and Roosh. Thet;s why you are reading Krauser’s game blog instead of the other way around. The best and most highly effective tools can only be used for ONE purpose.
So like I said, PUAs should stop pushing the idea that their contributions are directly biological. They are intellectual, and only indirectly biological (by helping nest-builders like you improve their chances of mating and the quality of your mating partners).
June 26, 2014 at 10:25 pm
However, I think the critiquing of movies is a better framework for dazzling a woman with intellectual mastery than is economics, because it starts with something she is certain to know something about, and to have experienced some pleasure and interest in, and introduces her to philosophical themes that she might not have heard of.
June 27, 2014 at 12:28 pm
The sometimes bitter & frustrated commenters on Roosh & here in recent days made me think about the other 3 bears in the true story link on Krauser’s twitter feed today on the Alpha Spanish bear.
The commenters strike me as the other 3 non-alpha bears in the story – people who can’t control the market complaining about the unfairness or irrationality of market. Traders used to whine on the CBOT (Chicago Board of Trade – when there were actually trading pits) ‘the market doesn’t make any sense!!!’ so often that a standard reply evolved…….. “The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay liquid”
Choices: either adapt to the irrationality/unfairness, find a different forest that favors your skills, or ‘flame out’ (as they said in the pits).
But no, society at large has developed another option – in Krauser’s twitter linked bear story it’s to castrate the alpha bear – reminds me of the Kurt Vonnegut story “Harrison Bergeron”
plot summary here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron
the same impulse/sentiment that gave rise to communism. Can’t compete with the successful guys? Let’s cut them down a few notches through legistlation. [Agreed. Most manosphere lurkers are sexual communists. K.]
June 28, 2014 at 2:14 pm
Sure, that’s one distinction, between the sexual communists (motivated by laziness or envy) and those willing to give it their best try. I believe there’s also another distinction of significance, little discussed here at least, which is between psychopaths (i.e., the small minority of maybe 1% of the general population who are born without the capacity for emotion, and therefore without the capacity for love and compassion), and human beings. Psychopaths have all the feelings that originate in the most primitive part of the brain (sex drive, hunger, thirst, pain and comfort) but the limbic region is offline. To further complicate matters there is a much bigger minority of people (10-20%) who were born normal but have become so damaged by their early environment or experiences that they exhibit some of the traits of psychopaths. They are variously labelled proto-psychopaths or secondary psychopaths, depending on the author.
June 29, 2014 at 1:13 pm
There are different ways to measure success. Happiness. Enlightenment. Money. Great grandchildren.
The success of ones great-great grandchildren is a real true and good measure of success of the game of life.
The measures can overap. I can imagine a future in which I’m rich with multiple high value impregnated women and enough social and financial resources to influence futures. I can imagine a future in which my positive attributes are well leveraged, and people benefit. I can imagine a future in which generations of families benefit from ripples from stones cast where my influence was in the room.
June 29, 2014 at 5:54 pm
“There are different ways to measure success. Happiness. Enlightenment. Money. Great grandchildren.”
The problem is that the PUAs continually mistake success in sex with evolutionary success. They continually make fun of “beta” “chodes”, and constantly imply that they (the PUAs) are biologically superior, “r-selected” or whatever. I mean look at what you said above:
“Whoever gets the smartest and most beautiful women to fuck (and some say be impregnated by) him, wins.”
“Some say”, lol. While the fact is that even getting women impregnated means nothing if she doesn’t also DELIVER the child, and if the child is not nurtured and raised to be a strong, healthy man (or woman), and go on to make even more children.
The problem is that your mind is geared towards sex as the ultimate achievement, whereas as far as biology is concerned a sperm donor, who doesn’t even need to have any sex, is infinitely superior biologically to you.
I mean look at how contemptuously Krauser talks about nest-building above. But the nest-builders made the airliners with which he does his euro-jaunts. The nest-builders built the internet through which he sells his books and can afford to not have a “real” job. The nest-builders are basically the reason he is not still living in caves. There is a tremendous amount of pure HATRED throughout the PUA world and the “manosphere” for the “beta” males which, from a pure cultural perspective, are contributing immeasurably more to our civilization than any PUA. For if it came to choosing between doctors and PUAs, or engineers and PUAs, or even artists and PUAs, the PUAs would not stand the slightest chance, hence there is not the slightest doubt that they stand BENEATH them.
Philip II of Macedon was the father of Alexander the Great. We are talking about a king here, who brought Aristotle to teach his son letters, and the best warriors of his kingdom to teach him how to fight. A man who, according to Krauser’s understanding of biology, was a “beta” “chode” because he provided for his family and his heir (and indeed for the future of all his subjects and all of Greece — and by extension all of Western civilization). A king is now a “beta” “provider” lol. And birds or rabbits or cockroaches or whatever are brought in as examples of evolutionary success to convince us of this fact!
I could go on and on about this crap. Every single PUA site I am aware of apart from GLL’s is full of it (and even GLL fucks up in one of his articles, by calling higher education “a scam” — for which I took him to task in his comments sections, as I did with Krauser here).
Finally, look at yourself. At first you were all “sex, sex, sex”. Then, when I told you how things are, you were “sex, sex, sex (but some say pregnancy)”. And now finally you are talking about children and grandchildren too, among other things.
To me all of this behavior is sad. I literally get a little depressed every time I witness it. But psychologically, it makes perfect sense. It still is annoying when I sign up to a site to comment on the phenomenon, and my words are being resisted. Roosh and Heartiste have already banned me. I wouldn’t be surprised if Krauser follows suit soon. I wouldn’t dream of posting on your site again after our little exchange here. Nevertheless, the things I am saying have to be said, and I’ll be saying them on my site, and as long as I am being tolerated, in the comments section of any PUA who cares to listen.
June 29, 2014 at 6:30 pm
In raw terms, sex is a MEANS. A form of REPRODUCTION (and one among many — see “asexual reproduction”). If you do not REPRODUCE, sex has FAILED in its purpose to COMPEL you to do so. To make fun of the “betas” who REPRODUCE while you spend your whole life essentially FIRING BLANKS is beyond ridiculous. It is retarded. It is sick. You may as well stick an electrode in your brain and massage your pleasure centers all day long while you die of hunger and thirst within days. That’s exactly what “sex as hedonism” is. A physio-psychological feedback mechanism that’s malfunctioning. And there’s no way to spin this so that you come on top of those for whom sex works as intended. From Krauser’s Twitter:
“Had two girls ask me to father their children yesterday. Sigh…. 4 hours ago”
Makes no difference if you don’t actually MAKE the children. You could have every single woman on the planet begging you to give her babies, but if you don’t actually do so, the beta chode who will will pass on his genes and yours will die out, and then in 100 years their descendants will be posturing on Twitter, and not yours.
If Krauser was superior biologically to betas, then instead of “Younger, Hotter, Tighter (women)”, the tagline of his site would be “Healthier, Smarter, Stronger (children)”.
If quantity and quality of sex were the determining factor in who “wins”, fags, dykes and trannies would also be in the running.
The truth, which no one apart from PUA haters wants to hear (and PUA haters are in every respect worse than PUAs), is that all PUAs are by definition gammas, and once you’ve understood this every aspect of their behavior makes perfect sense (the beta-hatred, the anti-work rhetoric, the endless posturing, the notch- and flag-counting, and so on and so forth).
June 29, 2014 at 8:17 pm
This nonlinear ecosystem cannot be explained in linear fashion and many strategies work. All people who argue in these discussions have their basic needs covered and the top of the pyramid is up to you. Top scientists devote it to work at the expense of kids, top PUA’s devote it to living life to the fullest and tasting all “vines” it offers at the expense of kids, etc. Anyway, children don’t have to be part of the equation. The same way civbuilder uses his cortex to overcome some basic instincts, like to fuck hot 17yo in public toilets, so does the PUA, for example to have kids at the age of 30. Their conscious preference is different. Top scientists in medical field often don’t have kids year are extremely happy because of their work. They get up at 6AM and smile all day because the tumour in the microscope is apparently benign. Or it is malign, but rare type. Yep, some people derive happiness from seeing rare malign tumours. Not really, but you get the point. There are many shades of grey and many ways to tick all the boxes of your personal life projects. Even as a PUA. [Just bear in mind IcyCalm and Sam Neumann are as gamma as any gamma who has ever lived. Treat their comments as self-absorbed rambling rather than true counterpoints. K.]
June 29, 2014 at 8:48 pm
You continually miss the point. We are talking PRINCIPLES here. If PUAs disappeared, “betas” would still reproduce, and the species would continue. If “betas” disappeared PUAs would not reproduce and the species would DIE OUT. This means that “betas” > PUAs for the future of the species. This means that whichever PUA speaks with contempt for “betas” or “nests” is WRONG.
It’s the same for fags and dykes. If they disappeared we’d hardly notice, but if straight people disappeared the SPECIES would disappear.
That doesn’t meant that fags and dykes have nothing to offer. They do, just as PUAs do. But if you want to make cultural commentary that is not RETARDED, you have to be able to see the REAL contribution of every person and every group, and place it in the correct position in your model. And personal happiness has nothing to do with it. Drug addicts too are very happy while in the middle of their trips, but this means nothing to the rest of us, never mind to our children. If you want to make cultural commentary that is not LAUGHABLE, you have to learn to disregard every little person’s and group’s personal happiness and claims of value or superiority, and instead value their contribution with a view to the future of the culture and the species. Look how clueless you are in this regard:
“All people who argue in these discussions have their basic needs covered and the top of the pyramid is up to you.”
The “top of the pyramid” is subjective? Really? What’s next, that beauty is in the eye of the beholder? This is reality-denying solipsism of which even the most solipsistic women would be envious. (Not even women believe that it is a matter of opinion who is at the top of the pyramid.)
June 29, 2014 at 7:47 pm
You still banging that ballerina? That video. She was fucking hot. [Yes. Rotation. K.]
June 30, 2014 at 4:55 am
You know I’m around your age. Few years younger. Right now sleeping with two young women. One is 21 and the other 28. Both quite attractive. Could care less about either. The one I’m chasing. The one I really want is a high caliber gorgeous 26 year old nurse. She is simply stunning. Extremely sweet. Intelligent. Hard working. Very feminine. She has 5 million guys after her. I’ve piqued her interest but fucked up a couple of times. I can’t treat her the same way I treat the other two. Doesn’t work and will only lower my value in her eyes. I don’t need your guide for banging hot young women. I need a guide for getting a high caliber girl. [What you need is more Rollo, to dispel the myth of “high calibre girls” Try this post. K.]
June 30, 2014 at 7:48 pm
as to your high caliber girl, as krauser says, stop pedestalizing her oh please.
the main thing an alpha learns is that there arer no good girls, because alphas get to experience what good girls are really like when their gina is tingled by an alpha.
the most important thing that Heartiste says is maxim #20: “The gina tingle is the principal moral code to which women subscribe. All other moral considerations pale in comparison.”
Getting an (imaginary) high caliber girl is the same as for any other woman: tingle her gina. As long as you tingle her gina you have her; if you stop tingling her gina, you lose her.
also the nmost important thing about dealing with women is leaving oneities behind: understanding women and giving them what they need to turn them on gives you success with most women; there is no guide to give you success with a specific woman.
you are really asking for a love potion to win over a specific princess.
there is no love potionm, and if you think there is one and you want one, you are a very sad excuse for a man.
July 2, 2014 at 10:06 am
Hunting big game is different than hunting small prey. Yes, they both make use of a gun to kill the animal but to say they are the same only reveals you to be an amateur.
June 30, 2014 at 8:11 pm
icycalm your argument sound both entirely wrong and depressing to me.
wrong because you have this completely imaginary fantasy that “alphas” don’t want to have children and only “betas” want to have children, That’s just your imagination. Most alphas have more children than betas, and with more women, and get betas to invest in raising them. Because what makes an alpha is being sexually attractive to women, and as a previous comment says, what is sexually attractive to women is men who look like being good cuckolders. Putting your sperm in a lot of wombs and then relying on the women to find the resources to raise the children is as valid a reproductive strategy as trying hard to put your sperm in a single womb and then finding for her the resources to raise the children.
depressing because your arguments are the usual tired demented “man up” argument that manginas, feminists and white knights use: that all that is wrong with the relationship between the sexes is men’s fault, and if only men “manned up” and invested in giving women whatever women want, for absolutely nothing in exchange.
Instead if many men don’t invest in women and just spray-and-pray their sperm and let women find the resources to raise the resulting children that’s because what women prefer: because women very much prefer to have children from gina tingling alphas who pump-and-dump them than from repulsively clingy betas who invest in and commit to them, and that’s why women want sex from alphas.
Perhaps you haven’t learned it yet: it is women who make babies.
It is then women who decide when and with whom to have children: because there is no male pill or abortion choice.
Women have complete reproductive choice currently, and only a mangina can blame men for whether sex results in children or not: men, whether alpha or beta, have no direct control over that.
When you talk of sex as pure hedonism and blame men for that, talk to women about that: it is their choice, not any man’s.
June 30, 2014 at 8:49 pm
To explain it better to icycalm the core of PUA knowledge is that women are disgusted and repulsed by what he calls “nest builders”, not that they just want to get laid. Plenty of men want to become PUAs to get laid to start a family and have children, and there is a lot of long term relationship PUA advice around.
It may seem strange and disappointing that men who want to have a long term relationship involving children need to learn the opposite attitude to attract women so that they can have that relationship and children with some woman. That is something many men regret, but that’s how things actually work.
It is not that PUAs never want to be “nest builders”, but that sexual desire from a “nest builder” makes women feel degraded and threatened. The biggest nightmare women have is risking to bear children with a “nest builder” father, as that means risking having sons who are themselves repulsive “nest builders”, and thus reproductive losers.
If being a “nest builder” was sexually attractive to women and women badly wanted to have their children fathered by “nest builders” then Krauser here would be teaching “investment and commitment game” instead of “uncaring and cocky game”, and AFCs would be the pump-and-dump aloof jerks, not the pedestalizing clingy romantics. Roosh has put it very well in humorful terms here as a “compliment and cuddle” game guide: http://www.rooshv.com/compliment-and-cuddle
But it is women who are nauseated by “nest builders” and want badly to avoid having sex and children with those “nest builders”; and who throw themselves at and try hard to have children fathered by pump-and-dumpers.
If you want for men who want to have children to benefit from being “nest builder”, develop some genetic engineering technique that make women’s gina tingle for “nest builders” instead.
June 30, 2014 at 9:50 pm
For me the craziest thing that icycalm writes about being a PUA is:
“No woman is going to carry his child if he keeps “gaming” them. If he does manage to impregnate a woman by mistake, the woman will ABORT it.”
This to me seems entirely delirious, pure quite deluded wishful thinking of the mangina/white knight sort, and is contrary to mountains of experience and evidence. It also seems based on the quite absurd assumption that women want most to have their children fathered by the men whom they are least sexually attracted to. Because either “game” does not work, and women are not sexually attracted to “alphas”, and don’t want to have sex with them, and then why care about “game”? Or “game” works, and women are most sexually attracted to “alphas”, but don’t want to have children from the men they are sexually attracted to.
Instead women seem to desperately want to invest their pregnancies into having “alpha” sons who can easily get laid with other women’s daughters and cuckold other women’s “beta” sons, and are terrified by the risk of wasting pregnancies on “beta” nest building sons who can’t get laid with other women’s daughters and get cuckolded by other women’s “alpha” sons, and want sexually attractive “alpha” fathers to get a good chance of having sexually attractive “alpha” sons.
It is women who make babies and who decide whether it is gina-tingling “alphas” or nest-building “betas” who get to have children…
The mother is always certain, the father never, the ancients wrote. [You are wasting your time arguing with IcyCalm. Here’s a gamma fantasist. By all means do so, but don’t expect there’s anything to win. K.]
June 30, 2014 at 11:59 pm
The entire idea that it is somehow “beta” to provide is a fantasy dreamt up by poor people. Providing IS alpha. Having descendants IS alpha. Not having descendants (the PUA philosophy) is gamma, if not omega. The PUAs understand as much about evolutionary biology as I do about belly dancing.
July 1, 2014 at 12:03 am
You are dealing with a man who thinks that bird mating strategies are applicable to humans.
July 1, 2014 at 12:04 am
Or who thinks that sex that doesn’t lead to descendants is a “mating strategy”.
July 1, 2014 at 12:38 am
That’s why I like GLL so much. His site is about “Getting Laid”. No pseudo-biological BS from insecure people who will go as far to bring goddamn BIRDS into it to somehow convince themselves (and us) that they are “winning”.
You know what birds managed to win with their mating strategies that you are trying to learn from? EXTINCTION. And the same goes for every other species under the sun except ours. Maybe instead of writing a blog about men learning from birds you should be writing for birds on how to learn from men. Think about that for a while. I am not even kidding.
July 1, 2014 at 8:14 am
Oh well icycalm, your imagination is one thing, but what actually Professor Krauser wrote is:
“The songbird ups the ante until he’s rogering the female, passing his DNA to the next generation to be raised in another male’s nest”
It seems like that Krauser celebrates that “game” helps DNA gets passed to the next generation, rather than being about purely sex sex sex.
And it is women who make babies and who decide whose DNA gets passed to the next generation… Men can only adapt to that or become extinct.
Again, if you think that “game” does not work at all, and results in no sex and no “passing his DNA to the next generation”, why do you worry about it? And if it does work and leads to sex and the “passing his DNA to the next generatio”, why do you blame men for a choice that is made by women?
You seem to be outraged that women want to have sex and children with men with “game” rather than “nest builders”, and in typical mangina/feminist/white knight fashion you blame men for that.
BTW as to the literature about birds and learning from birds, Krauser was just using it as an allegory. There is plenty of serious scientific studies about human women reproductive strategies, and they are often mentioned in the Heartiste blog…
Women don’t want to make babies with “nest builder” fathers. You can rage against that, but don’t blame men for that.
July 1, 2014 at 8:24 am
BTW K. I agree with you that discussing with icycalm is pointless as far as he is concerned because he is very invested in his fantasies, but I am playing to the gallery, to the blue pill guys who may be reading this and have often been badly raised in “pretty lies” by fathers like him.
Your blog is mostly for people who have already realized how false the “pretty lies” of the manginas are, and want to act on that, but sometimes a bit of reminding people of why it works helps.
July 1, 2014 at 4:32 pm
“It seems like that Krauser celebrates that “game” helps DNA gets passed to the next generation, rather than being about purely sex sex sex.”
So where is the next generation of little Krausers then? He’s been doing this for half a decade now, why is his mating strategy not working?
I’ve already explain why. BECAUSE HUMAN BEINGS AREN’T BIRDS and they have a little thing called BIRTH CONTROL AND ABORTION.
You are worse than he is. At least he realizes he is wrong, and that’s why he doesn’t say anything (like xsplat did earlier on), but you just keep on blabbing. Typical of PUA students. At least the PUAs can get laid. Their keyboard jockey readers can’t even manage that much.
July 1, 2014 at 4:44 pm
The truth is that YOU are the next generation of little Krausers, once more because human beings aren’t birds and because, on top of biological procreation, we also have the intellectual kind. But Krauser is no Voltaire and no Nietzsche, and if you remain adamant in your desire to make him your intellectual father, you have chosen a bad father. Quite apart from the fact that he obviously hasn’t read anything genuinely intellectual in his entire life, the simple fact that he can’t admit to a single mistake and come out and say “You are right and I was wrong in this” should tell you the whole story. [And with that, dear reader, I announce the end of my “let the gamma show his colours” experiment. I suggest any of you interested in what a real live gamma looks like carefully sift through his earlier comments on this post. Ignore the substantive arguments and instead notice: 1) constant simmering rage 2) unconvincing superiority complex 3) always “telling” us he’s awesome while “showing” the opposite 4) malignant frame control 5) feminine thought process 6) delusions of grandeur, in this case self-positioning as a philosopher 7) pedantic hair-splitting 8) long rambling self-absorption 9) extreme ego-investment in an unsuccessful strategy with women. It should be no surprise that the photo the guy who tried to dox him linked to was in Japan. This is the personality type you see propping up ex-pat bars throughout Asia. K.]
Pingback: Sparta Day 6 | Spherical Male