Steve Jabba’s Purple Pill

October 12, 2015
krauserpua

I was asked in the comments of my previous post whether I could address my areas of disagreement with Steve Jabba, specifically:

“Nick, could you please write an article on Steve Jabba’s purple pill beliefs and mindsets and where some things he says aren’t true which if you have seen his YouTube videos know DO exist. I don’t think it’s fair you point out flaws in other people but not Steve Jabba just because he’s your mate.”

Rather than bury it in the comments, it’s probably worth giving my thoughts a more prominent platform. Ok, my main area of disagreement with Steve is simple: My neck is proportionately bigger than his, where as a percentage of height, weight or ratios. But seriously, let’s first recap my working definition of the Purple Pill given earlier: “a marketing ruse to use the credibility of red pill truths but water them down with blue pill illusions so that the listener isn’t required to stare into the abyss.”

My neck, in Steve's nightmares

My neck, in Steve’s nightmares

The key component of the Purple Pill is not too much reality. We’ll have a little reality so it feels edgy but not too much to make us feel like we’re on the wrong track. Kind of like a girl wanting her boyfriend to have a motorbike but no STDs or criminal record. While I often tell Steve he’s only loosely connected to reality, there are two caveats to that:

  1. He’s written about solipsism before here. The jist is that selectively amplifying or filtering out certain parts of reality can strengthen your frame and improve your success. It’s important to do systematically in the right direction in order to shape your reality, rather than from a position of fear (and thus avoidance).
  2. He’s written about reality before here. Much of successful pick-up is about confronting reality head on and then figuring out how to adapt. Cold approach forces the world to give you accurate feedback on your value and your abilities. There’s no hiding place on the street.

Putting these two together is what some noobs / intermediates struggle to get their head around because they appear to be contradictory. Are you telling me to avoid reality and remain delusional, or to face reality head-on warts and all? Um…… both. You must go out and trigger real feedback and you must process the lessons the world gives you – so, go cold approach. However you must then use that feedback as fuel to power the reconstruction of your identity and as the armour plating on your frame. So having absorbed the reality at the first pass, you can twist reality a little on the second pass.

Think of it like quarantine in a sea port of old. All your new experiences on the street arrive at your boundary control and are placed in quarantine for examination. You get a good look at them but they are not yet allowed into the general population. After some careful consideration the experiences that will enrich your frame are welcomed in and given the red carpet walk. The undesireables are shot in the head and dumped into the sea.

Basically, how we should be handling the migrant crisis.

That outlines what I think some might think of as the reality-denying element of Steve’s “purple pill” writing. It gets quite a long treatment in his book Primal Seduction so there’s a lot more nuance and practical advice on how to do the filtering process.

Secondly, Steve is often accused of the purple pill by way of his pedestalising women and being something of a vagina-worshipper under the cloak of “loving women” (the first of the Eleven Cornerstone Characteristics that forms the centrepiece of Primal Seduction). Ok, let’s address that. This one is easy to get for men who’ve already fucked a ton of women but really tough for those who haven’t. You have to feel it deep in your bones through reference experiences.

Let me tell you the story of losing my virginity. I was sixteen years old and met a girl at a Sepultura concert in Newcastle one night. She was the friend of a girl who was dating my best friend and those two had met a couple of weeks earlier at a Metallica concert. The girls lived about 150 miles away and were here for the weekend, just for the gig. The concert finished and my girl agreed to come home with me (parent’s house) so we were waiting in the centre of Newcastle at 2am for my dad to collect us in the car. One thing led to another and I ended up fucking her in a back alley behind Fenwick’s department store.

My first SNL and first public sex

My first SNL and first public sex

It was horrendous sex, because I had no idea what I was doing. I remember my biggest surprise was how hot, wet and tight she was. My previous “experience” with naked women had been entirely from looking at soft-porn magazines (this was 1991). I knew how they looked but it had never once occured to me how they feel. It never crossed my mind that the vagina isn’t really a hole but is actually a pulsating group of muscles and thus when you stick your dick in it doesn’t feel empty.

Why do I tell you something so vulgar? Because life is full of many situations where being on the outside does not prepare you for what’s on the inside. Another example is when I went to live in Okinawa for a year when I was 24. I’d only ever seen tropical countries on TV and in magazines where they look beautiful. It never occured to me how it feels to be there. The first thing I noticed is they are very itchy places because of the mosquitos and beetles. It’s also very tiring being out in the sun without a bottle of water. Those things surprised me.

Itchy, yesterday

Itchy, yesterday

So it goes with hot girls.

Most men are intimidated by hot girls. We see them as unattainable treasure troves of hotness value and our hormones compell us to pine after them. Even when you get inside some pretty girls, you’re an outsider for the hotter girls. Being on the outside prevents you feeling the reality of being an insider. The best way to feel an insider is to actually fuck and date a hot young girl. Preferably over an extended period of time. Then you get a window into the girl’s life, and how she feels. The first thing that surprised me was she has her own problems.

I’d always thought of women as a problem for me to solve. It was a shift in reality to realise women also have men problems they must solve. It’s like sitting in your WWI trench shitting yourself at how organised the German lines looked, and then suddenly being allowed to sit in those trenches and realise they are shitting themselves at how strong the English lines look. Once you’re inside you get past the fronting and see the real chaos and held-together-with-spit-and-glue nature of people’s lives. Those of you who worked in shops will know the staff experience differs somewhat from the customer experience.

Steve has fucked a lot of hot women so he’s an insider. He’s seen how fragile they can be the next morning as they try to correct their makeup before taking the walk of shame to work. He knows they are often scared (or excitable) little girls in a hot woman’s body, trying to understand and marshall their value while under assault from hundreds of predators trying to relieve them of that value. Often those girls look at men and their insecurities surface, wondering “how can he be so confident? why can’t I be as creative and impressive as him?” Even now it surprises me when I’m on a date with a hottie and she does something that lets slip that she feels like she’s the lucky one to be there.

I think this empathy – which is commonly deeply felt by players with 100+ notch counts of hot young women – is mistaken as pedestalisation by the men who are on the outside. No, we don’t think women are better than men, or special snowflakes. No, we don’t think they lack agency or should receive a “pussy pass” for bad behaviour. No, we don’t think the family court system or job market is fair on men.

We just have a very initimate experience of seeing how these girls live and how they too have problems. You can’t help but get a bit of empathy for them. That empathy is much harder if you’re still at the stage of getting “bitch face” in your nightclub opens. There’s a long chapter in Primal Seduction about empathy and emotional sensitivity.

Socrates: A Personal Map Of The Sexual Marketplace

October 10, 2015
krauserpua

Here are my thoughts on a recent video making the rounds. I do suggest you watch it as the guy has put a lot of effort into building his theory and then figuring out how to present it clearly. He’s offering value and it is worth trying. However, I think he makes some serious miscues – mainly because of who he is and who he’s talking to. Like Jack Nicholson’s famous line to Tom Cruise: “You can’t handle the truth!” It’s a poster boy for the Purple Pill (a marketing ruse to use the credibility of red pill truths but water them down with blue pill illusions so that the listener isn’t required to stare into the abyss)

So I’m going to skip over the stuff he gets right (which everyone reading this blog already knows and is already amply discussed in my own Personal Map Of The Sexual Marketplace talk with Tom Torero) and fisk the bits I think he gets wrong.

The 21 Convention has always been the Chump Convention. A room full of credible chumps lectured to by a stageful of posturing pseudo-intellectuals and PUA fakers. So, it’s with a shivering unease that I considered giving ninety minutes of my life to watching one of their speakers following a recommendation in the comments. I first skimmed through, clicking along the ninety-minute bar to see if it looked interesting. I’ve been burned way too many times into wasting my time on rubbish PUA nonsense (the brown Wayne brothers, I’m looking at you).

On walks a fat bald guy with bad fashion against a David DeAngelo type background. “Hi, my name is Socrates.”

I initially suspect he’s identifying more with the philosopher than the footballer, and that it’s hardly a modest start either way, but his bio says it’s actually his birth name. Okay, can’t hold that against him. Nonetheless he comes across rather pompous, like a Blue Pill Rollo – this will turn out to be closer to the truth than I first imagine. I’m not really against a bit of pomp in a public speaker (I do like irrationally confident people) but I do find myself asking “What’s his credibility?” I don’t actually know the answer to that. He just doesn’t feel credible. An armchair philosopher.

Nick, don’t jump to conclusions, I tell myself. Give him a chance. His ideas might be good enough to render such initial impressions meaningless. His first slide is a picture of some beta chump kissing some reasonably pretty girl, like the poster photo for a Hollywood rom-com. Right from one minute in he’s setting the prize as a monogamous relationship. Okay, that’s setting the bar low. “This isn’t something easily acheived…. You have to find a partner willing to commit to this.” O…..kay.

As I find over the remaining minutes, the purpose of his talk is to re-affirm to the audience what Rollo calls men’s burden of performance. A man must work hard to earn his right to intimacy. Every day. Sustained every day as a process requiring agency.

We then begin on the meat of the talk, outlining the sexual marketplace and the language continues to confuse. I’m not against a bit of intellectual mind-wank but you’ve got to go somewhere with it. This starts off heavy with the mind-wank and needlessly verbose. He’s just telling us the obvious, dressed up in latin-derived unusual words. It’s just S&R value from Mystery Method made opaque. I can save you the first hour with one sentence: Figure out if you need to boost either your alpha or beta traits, and then do so.

Socrates defines alpha as the traits we players generally consider as “sexiness”, which I agree with. However he wants to sell “provider” / sucker traits too because he’s in the Chump Convention and that’s what his audience wants to hear. So most of the next hour is spent finding ways to redefine the attractive men having sex with hotties as somehow limited or damaged, so his audience can feel superior with their chump traits.

For example he brings out the male-dom/fem-sub dynamic and the importance of conflict in nature as we all struggle to survive and replicate. Great, I agree. But then he poo-poos it as not being a nice place to be. Well, the world is struggle. He knows the chodes in the audience don’t want conflict and dominance, they want to be told there’s still a place for unicorns and rainbows. So he introduces the concept of virtue. This is a go-to throughout the talk to baby-talk the chumps.

“Nature’s a bitch. Nature’s a deadly violent place” he says and I agree. But I don’t agree that “the people who live on this domain are equally brutish and violent.” No. Human tribes co-operate into win-win behaviours in order to lift themselves out of it and create stability. That’s also pretty well established in both the biology literature and the game theory literature. Pretty much everyone has these latter traits, except for the small number of people with outright behavioural disorders. He contrasts nature along the x axis with civilisation up his y axis. That’s where virtue resides.

It’s still very wordy. Simple anglo-derived words are not used when there’s an unweildy latin-derived one that could replace it. I appreciate his wish to stablise language and be precise but it’s sounding little different to the 1950s functionalist sociology – an empty structure of interconnected words devoid of real meaning. The power of the logic comes from it’s tautological nature of carving up a chessboard that only dimly resembles the battlefield it’s meant to represent.

He’s pushing strongly that the “vertical domain” of civilisation is where you have to live, because it’s virtuous. And here we are getting to the main limiting factor of the model – he’s feeding the chodes’ desire to use virtue as a cloak to disguise their low SMV and inability to compete.

Beta traits are NOT virtue. To say they are is a sleight of hand. Beta is SMV failure. Beta is sacrificing yourself for the team because you have to. Hot young women only care about alpha traits. Beta traits exist in another dimension entirely and only become useful in preparing the beta male as the parachute for a woman hitting the Wall. Presenting this vertical domain as a component of SMV is pushing water uphill, literally in his graph. More muddying of waters follows.

“Men and women equally display alpha traits.” I know he is precisely defining his version of alpha for the purposes of the talk, but that’s just misleading. There is no alpha in the female side. Just replication value, which is mostly youth and hotness. It’s wrong to say Beta traits are what makes the world safe to raise families. Alphas are leaders who organise and bring the group together to pacify the land and defend it from outside invaders. Think Donald Trump and immigration. Alpha is inherently important to the whole tribe’s ability to make the world safe to raise families, which is why the whole tribe doesn’t just tolerate alphas but it follows them. Betas don’t have a monopoly on it.

His high beta / low alpha guys have a strength per his formulation: teamwork, stablity, handling relationships etc. I think that’s baby-talking his audience of chodes who reside here. Really, they aren’t there due to strengths, these are just compensations for overall weakness. Team Beta pulls together. Really the beta traits he’s describing as strengths are co-dependence and people-pleasing – weaknesses in the SMP (even if they can be strengths in nation building at times).

His advice is to build everything up so you move yourself towards the top-right quadrant. It’s kinda true that if you’re high in Y (beta) then shifting along right-wards with more X (alpha) is the path to success. What’s not true is that people high in X need to add Y. If you’re already strong it’s bad advice to introduce weakness. I get to this in a minute.

17 minutes in he starts mapping familiar territories to their places on the graph, correctly identifying the friendzone. The problem is that this graph requires the friendzone to occupy one location. The reality is the friendzone is relative to the quality of the girl you’re chasing, your competition, her preferences, and her position in the life cycle. It’s more dynamic than a simple category. In his defence, that’s bloody hard to represent on a graph so I’ll give him a pass. While it’s true that you can always stay out of the friendzone, it’s also true that often you do so by never talking to the girl again rather than by fucking her.

19 minutes in he defines high SMV as “emptiness and charm” and puts it as fuck buddies. This is more sleight of hand, trying to bring virtue in to an SMV calculation. This is the centrepoint of selling his presentation to the weaselling chodes. Women really don’t care about virtue. I’m reminded of Dalrock’s post here:

“this paradigm is almost certainly crucial to his friend’s view of himself as a man with a high Sexual Market Value (SMV) and especially Marriage Market Value (MMV). The twisted thinking goes like this:

– Women are attracted to good and noble men.
– I am better and more noble than other men.
– Therefore I am more attractive than other men.

There is of course one small problem with this line of reasoning, which is that the women around Hank’s friend aren’t acting in a way that would suggest that they find him attractive. At the same time, the women around Hank’s friend are demonstrating attraction for unworthy men. This must mean that less worthy men than Hank’s friend are tricking women, essentially impersonating him. These fakers are getting in the way of women realizing how attractive he really is.”

I think this is where I really disagree. Socrates wants to make the real high-SMV men into sociopaths and psychopaths in order to clear them out the way of the mid-SMV men he wants to elevate into their position. “These are dangerous individuals. I’m not kidding.” he warns.

Ok, I think, he’s never fucked a hot girl. Men who fuck hot women don’t feel the need to disparage the other men who do. They “get it”. They know all women like sex and all will sometimes have casual sex.

The individualist Alphas are not pulling their weight for Team Beta and so he’s calling them genetically damaged: “They can’t help themselves.” I think there’s a tell here about not understanding Game. He’s talking like men only get laid off the back of physical characteristics and dominance – Game is all dark triad and looks. After briefly saying the alphas are charming he later acts like they are socially awkward (putting the “awkardness zone” as the X-axis equivalent of the Y-axis “creepy zone”)….. okay. He later says these people need to learn pro-social behaviours to move themselves further into success.

No, they just need to change objectives – they aren’t lacking the skills.

So he’s subtly letting his chump audience position themselves above these high-SMV alphas. How very gamma. As if getting casual sex with hot girls is evil. With those pesky alphas neutered Socrates can move on to describe his happy place, the dating zone. That’s the happy place because ultimately he’s selling try-hard monogamy to gamma chodes. “This is the natural position of mankind” he stastes and therefore he has to define everyone outside the happy place as damaged. He just doesn’t get r/K as permanent and fluctuating strategies.

Up towards the top-right of the graph – high enough to be badass but not so high as to be unattainable – is the “marriage potential” zone. I wondered if the marriage potential area is so small, how come most people in the history of the West managed to get there? And why is he selling marriage as the goal to a room of men when surely it’s women who are desperate for the ring? It’s because in Socrates’ world the man has a burden of performance and he’s raising the next cohort of suckers.

“If you commit outside this range, you are betraying virtue.”

I press on. I think fundamentally his problem is he’s got a purity fantasy: “I’m here to shame”. He doesn’t get that casual sex is fun and consensual, that it can occur between emotionally balanced people who do it because they like it, rather than from personal dysfunction. That’s not allowed because then the virtue sleight of hand loses it’s power. If you want to tell people to be virtuous, great. Do so. But don’t tell them being virtuous raised your SMV. It doesn’t.

The talk is not all bad, mind. He’s right about where creepy and awkward are located. He’s half-right about creepy is an obstacle right at the beginning of your journey – yes, but only once you start hitting on girls or trying to be taken seriously. You can actually do the groundwork of gym / fashion and general social skills withouth encountering creepy. That only comes once you want to take some value back.

It’s a conceit 29 minutes in that the people having lots of casual sex want to enter the dating zone but are frozen out by lack of beta traits. No, only the women might be frozen out. Men who are having sex can enter the relationship zone any time they damn well please. But he can’t say that because that’s admitting the central truth the chodes don’t want to hear: the guys having sex have higher SMV in every way. All the stuff chodes have (money, listening skills etc) isn’t relevant. The chodes don’t have a single advantage. In the SMP they are simply lower value in every way.

“The work they [casual sex guys] have to do is the same as the other side [the chodes]”. Really? C’mon let that sink in and ask if it sounds convincing or if it’s just part of selling system to chumps.

You can’t derive ought from is, but he’s using ought to hamstring his model of is. He’s smart to say nature locates narcissism in teenage because it’s effective to breed and that’s when you need it. So what’s the obvious lesson? He wants you to fight it. Not harness it, but fight it. I disagree.

This talk is clearly to Team Beta on advising them how to be better betas.

33 minutes in he’s wrong. Hot girls with limited beta traits can get relationships, they just have to revise expectations towards thirstier guys or seek out chumps. And really, “don’t be a cunt” isn’t such a high bar for their beta traits. There are also different niches of relationship, from intimate soul mates to kept woman that a hot-but-annoying girl can use.

Socrates needs to paint alphas with low-beta as damaged. Really he’s talking about behaviour disorders rather than a lack of skill. He uses War Machine as an example – a total knacker (not a “world class MMA fighter”) who is “banging porn stars left and right” – so a bottom feeder. That’s not a guy with high-alpha. War Machine is just a roid monkey with issues. Ironically, he’s right that War Machine had no ground game – but it’s true literally, not in his sense. It’s an enduring manosphere myth that jail is full of alphas. No, it’s full of imbeciles.

By forty minutes I had to turn off. My impression is it’s a half-decent exposition of manosphere truisms twisted to make the Chump Convention crowd feel good with a purple pill. Did I miss something in the rest of the talk? Really, maybe the second half resolves all my issues. I’d like to know, but can’t be bothered to watch it.

Meltdowns are a feature not a bug

October 6, 2015
krauserpua

Nervous breakdowns are pretty unpleasant things to be in, but like most things in life they carry lots of benefits. I remember once when Colin was giving a talk to all the freaks of the London Seduction Society he said “This is a hard road and it’ll take at least two years to get good. The only people I know who got good quicker went through unbelievable mental pain.”

He’s right. There’s a fairly predictable path of pain in game because ultimately we are talking about a complete overhaul of your behaviours, beliefs and identity.

Cautious hope -> Optimism -> Hubris -> Vague Unease -> Crash -> Recovery

As ever I’m talking mostly about my own experience but I’ve seen this pattern among all the top guys on their way up. And seeing as few of them ever settle at a given plateau (we’re all strivers) then really this is a recurring cycle. When you take your first step in game you are unwittingly commiting yourself to a complete overhaul. You will eventually become the cool charismatic guy. Unfortunately there’s a major obstacle standing in your way:

Your ego.

Your ego is a fixing agent, as I’ve written about before. It’s the force that prevents you being tossed around like a leaf in a gale. It’s what gets your hackles up when someone’s trying to clown you and take what’s yours. Your ego is the force that says “I’m just fine like I am, thank you very much, and I’m not changing.”

Me, May 2015

A bug(s). Me, May 2015

Therein lies the rub for the aspiring player who wants to transform himself from Me v1.0 into Me v2.0. The ego will resist him every step of the way. Much of the “taking action” side of the player’s journey is about harnessing your forebrain’s reserves of mental discipline in order to achieve your forebrain’s goal of getting better with women. All of the negative emotions you feel (principally the approach anxiety and the avoidance weasels) are your hindbrain’s attempt to harness your reserves of emotion in order to thwart your forebrain and to instead achieve the hindbrain’s goal of staying exactly where you are.

So every aspiring player is being double-teamed by his ego and hindbrain. That’s where all the cognitive dissonance and badfeelz comes from. It’s tough. It’s also why most successful players have developed masterful emotional control and forebrain discipline.

Normal men might scoff when you say daygame is difficult. “Dude, all you’re doing is talking to women. It’s not like being in a WWI trench.” They don’t get that the conflict is fully internal and your brain is essentially in a state of perpetual Syria-like civil war. It’s about way more than knobbing some sloppy tarts – you are fighting for your destiny of what kind of person you wish to be. This is why every aspiring player has – and needs – periodic meltdowns. They occur when both sides of your brain have exhausted themselves fighting the daily war of attrition. There’s the last final battle and then like a cataclysmic shock both sides collapse. Both sides wave the white flag and you crash.

It’s awful when it happens. Sometimes it’s the death of hope. Other times it triggers hours of existential angst as you go through a long dark night of the soul. You have to remind yourself that your current emotion is not “you”, it’s just a phase. Your life is still exactly the same as it was two days ago, two weeks ago, two months ago.

Remind yourself this is a necessary creative destruction because your meltdown results in a rare opportunity: Your ego has died. It’ll respawn soon but for a precious few days the hindbrain is compliant. All those beliefs and reference experiences that you’ve tried to embed into your hindbrain so that you can feel (not merely intellectually recognise) the player mindset – the hindbrain absorbs them.

A meltdown, yesterday

A meltdown, yesterday

Every time I’ve had a meltdown, I’ve emerged stronger and closer to the man I wish to be. The calibre of my game always stepped up a level and I felt like my inner game house had been upgraded from hay to wood, then wood to brick and so on. Ultimately, your subconscious is looking out for your best interests. It lets you feel the optimism and hubris so you can go out and accumulate reference experiences, then it lets your hindbrain fight a weasel-based counterattack so you feel unease, and then it throws you both off a cliff and triggers the meltdown.

If you’re a normal guy who wants a normal life, nervous breakdowns are to be avoided. However, if you’re a normal guy who wants to become a player, you have to embrace them when they come. They are not a sign of failure – though they’ll definitely feel that way when they happen. Just remember you are not your emotions and this is the necessary bankruptcy in order to free up the capital to be redeployed into a more efficient enterprise. Your ability to embrace, ride out and then recover from meltdowns is a strong meta-level predictor of how good you’ll get at game.

Black Book – Intermediate Daygame Instructional Video

September 30, 2015
krauserpua

Many people have said my products are too detailed, too advanced, too complicated, too…… deep.

Fair enough. When I read, I like extremely dense books and when I play video games I like those with many hidden layers of gameplay depth. I’m a systems-builder by heart so every time I learn something new I want to pull the watch apart, examine every mechanical piece, and then learn how to reassemble it into perfect working order. That’s my mindset in life. I’m a perfectionist and a craftsman. I take real joy in the minutae.

Of course not everyone is like that. Some guys want to get to the point really fast. “Just give me the TL:DR, Nick”

Black Book poster

Buy the Black Book here for $99

This was recently brought to light when I gave Bodi an advance copy of the Black Book, my new video product. He knows daygame inside out and we share many personality traits so I thought he’d give me a good second opinion. “It’s very different to Mastery and Overkill” he said, a couple of days later. “When I watched Overkill I was pausing it every twenty seconds to jot down a new note. It’s so dense. Black Book if far easier to absorb. It’s more concise.”

And that’s the whole point of the video. I’ve already put out products which are reference encyclopedias of daygame (Daygame Mastery) and incredibly detailed deconstructions of my best sets (Daygame Overkill). That’s the “high end” of daygame theory staked out with the Team Krauser flag. The problem is it’s really difficult to absorb and you only get the full value of the material if you’re already banging plenty of girls from street game.

But what if you’re still pretty new? What if you’ve gotten the basics down pat and are pulling phone numbers and some dates but you want to get better? That’s where Black Book comes in.

Black Book is a long detailed seminar designed to bump guys up from beginner to intermediate daygame. How do I achieve this?

The big knock against beginner daygame is that it’s robotic, repetitive and often unconvincing. You run around stopping girls and dropping a series of lines onto them, in a structure designed to pull phone numbers out of girls who take a liking to you over those five minutes. It works and you can get laid off it. I did. The problem is that these are just training wheels. Eventually you become comfortable with the basics of managing approach anxiety, running up to girls, getting the body language about right, and having reasonably interesting words tumble out of your mouth.

Great, you’ve gotten started! For the first few hundred sets that’s all you need. Take your baby steps and learn to walk. We made it simple because beginners are so anxious that they can’t hold more than a few tips in mind at once and we need to just shuttle them end-to-end through a few hundred street stops. But now it’s time to start getting laid.

Black Book takes you back through the London Daygame Model but this time it’s at the intermediate level. What does that mean?

  • Creative teasing openers that you invent spontaneously;
  • Projecting sexual intent from the beginning;
  • Unlocking your capacity for interesting flirty conversation;
  • Physical testing on the street.

That’s the first half of the seminar. Now that you’re getting better at game you’ll be getting girls on dates so the second half takes you through the first date game, designed to get the girl home that night. What am I giving you in this section?

  • Dating mindsets to encourage you to push towards sex;
  • A dating structure with advice on what to do in each venue;
  • Verbal and physical escalation ladders so you always know the next step;
  • Calibration advice to know when she’s ready to take home;
  • Subtle body language tips to project sexuality and masculine power.

Black Book is designed to take the handcuffs off you. No longer will you be shackled to the latest opener you read on the internet, or a little routine your wing told you. Black Book focuses on simple principles and hands you the tools to build your own game from them. This is the simplest and most concise way to understand the principles that will give you deep identity-level change in your daygame. It’s time to get creative. It’s time to get sexual. It’s time to have fun!

Buy the Black Book here for $99

See below for what you’ll gain access to. This is a screenshot of the portal after you’ve logged in to your Black Book account.

Black Book content

Buy the Black Book here for $99

Text Game Clinic – Last Minute Derailment

August 4, 2015
krauserpua

In my previous post I told the story of a Serbian girl who got LMR on my bed after a very fast pull from the first date. Late the next evening she dropped a big shit test on me, which I glossed over in my blogpost. Unsurprisingly, many readers want to know what happened. Given that everyone who posted so far has managed to give sub-par responses to her test, let’s look at what I did and why.

The disclaimer for my readers is this: You weren’t there, you didn’t get anywhere near as much information to base your calibration decision upon as I did. So, I’m not pointing and laughing at your advice. In different situations, that might work. Just not this one.

Ok, so before proceeding be sure to read the previous post to get the context of the shit test. Ready?

High stakes

High stakes

Why bounce her home fast?

ASDgamer suggests I should’ve gone to her friend’s party and ran some version of social circle game to increase my value. No. The KISS rule applies in game as much as anywhere else. The whole point of a date is to get the girl isolated, horny, and close to a sex location. I had all three of these boxes ticked. Going to the party would be a backwards step. It would involve all of the following likely consequences:

  • Her buying temperature drops and the window of opportunity closes
  • Many new unknown variables introduced in people, situation and logistics
  • Highly likely there’s at least one of her orbiters there looking to cockblock
  • All deniability is removed

She suggested the party as a reflexive attempt to derail the train. She knew that she was horny and highly likely to have sex if we went to my apartment and therefore she instinctively triggered the “don’t get fucked” script and tried to derail. This had nothing at all to do with value. Value is one of the most misunderstood areas of game. She hooked on the street stop, played along in vibing, gave the number, replied enthusiastically in texts, came on the date dolled up, and made out with me. This is all confirmation that my value was just fine. Overconfirmation if anything. If you get that far with a girl and still think she’s doubting your value, you need to re-read Mystery Method. Value only matters in getting attraction, and I had plenty of that. By the time she started derailing, it was more of a comfort issue.

She had LMR because it was too much, too fast. As simple as that. So, let’s look at the next day when she drops the shit test on me. I’ll take the reader responses in order and comment, beginning with our intrepid ASDgamer again.

““Life is a beautiful tapestry…Que sera, sera.” Hamster wonders, “What does he mean? He seems very sure of himself. In control.” Builds value.

“The weatherman is predicting a storm of passion tomorrow night…but what does he know” Hamster wonders, “Is he into me?” Provokes her to chase.

Create a fantasy for her hamster to chew on.

The first reply is channeling the right kind of vibe, which is to distract and disorient. This is based on the idea that she’s not really serious with her test, she just wants to throw it out as plausible deniability so she can say to herself “at least I tried to avoid sex. He just kept going, so I couldn’t help fucking him.” I actually took that tack myself in my initial response, as you’ll see later.

The second reply is wrong. it’s far too aggressive and overtly sexual. Her shit test is based on her emotion of “too much, too fast. I don’t want to be obligated to sex” and therefore sending her a text with basically means “tomorrow will be sex” is giving her the ripcord she needs to avoid me entirely. Bad move.

So let’s consider Aunt Jemina

“You just need to say something quite basic which shows that what she said hasn’t really affected you, and also that you’re not putting too much pressure on her.

Example: “Let’s just see how it goes”

Or flip the script: “Pfft. Presumptuous. Let’s meet at X tomorrow at 8.”

The first one is too hopeful and needy. The subcommunication is defensive, accepting that she gets to make the rules because you don’t want to risk rocking the boat. It could work, but it just doesn’t feel right to me. It would be an okay fall-back text if you rack your mind and can’t think of something better.

The second one is similar – could work, but doesn’t feel right. This time it’s too bullying and lacking soft dominance. It’s forcing her into an ultimatum and subcommunicating that you’re someone who will just trampled over any objections. I don’t need anymore hard dominance because I already did a one-hour pull. Her worry is about being obligated to sex if she shows up on the date, because she’s still nervous and wants to retain the “out” to show up but not have sex. Re-read her initial objection: she knows what I want but doesn’t want to commit herself and then get into an awkward date where I get all arsey with her if she says no.

Now we’ll go to ARC

“I would have to agree that it would be pointless. Anytime I meet up with a woman who I have a sexual interest in for a drink I’m looking for one of two things. I either want to fuck her or have her suck my dick. Now if you have no interest in reciprocating my sexual desires then I appreciate you not being a time-waster. However, if there is some attraction on your part which you are willing to acknowledge then I’m sure I can get your pussy wet by whispering in your ear statements like ‘I’d just like to find the nearest motel room so I can bend you over and slowly slide my nice juicy dick in your tight wet pussy’”

This has numerous problems. It’ll work okay within the context of ARC’s overall method, which is mostly overtly filtering for DTF girls [there’s more to it than that, but that’s the relevant bit here]. Within the context of the pick-up that I actually did, here’s where it goes wrong:

  • The message is far too long. It’s making a “big issue” out of something that’s best nimbly side-stepped. Never give the girl a reason not to fuck you – she’s capable of coming up with enough of her own.
  • It’s 100% overt and logical, like you’re talking to a man.
  • Calling her a time-waster immediately makes it confrontational. Remember when a girl derails the train her mindset is “I know I’m gonna have sex with him, so I have to find any excuse whatsoever to avoid it”. Calling her a time-waster is that excuse.
  • Too vulgar for this type of girl.

Sometimes a girl is super-on and you can tip her over the edge with an ultimatum or by amping up her horniness, but I generally avoid that. You quickly end up losing all the strong maybe girls and all you’re left with is the Yes Girls. If you’re willing to squander potential lays in order to save being messed about, that’ll work. I prefer to work the Maybes and risk the time-wasting.

Lastly, let’s hear Walawala’s take

I’d use the line I always use when I get those types or responses and learned from K: “Behave…what makes you think I’d want to…you’d have to wine and dine me, the we’ll see”… That usually diffuses that tension.

This one is overplaying a mediocre hand. She knows full well that I want to fuck her. I picked her up, I pulled her home, I rammed two fingers up her pussy, and I got my dick out. To then say “you’d have to wine and dine me” – even as a joke – is just unconvincing. There is no flipping of the script this late into a pull. The only way the script can be flipped here is if I’m prepared to roll off for several days to give her a fear of loss (which I didn’t have time for) and even then it’s highly improbable.

So to summarise, the tendency in the replies is to be too gamey and evasive, or too overt. Let’s look at what I actually did and why.

Screenshot_2015-08-04-16-11-29

Step one was to just brush past the objection on the assumption that’s she’s not serious about it, similar to ASDgamer’s first response. So I just tell her I’m not perverted and then redirect. She seems to accept it so I just finish with a joke, expecting that to be the end of it. This turns out to have been the wrong play – she’s more serious than I thought and I’ve overplayed my hand a little.

Screenshot_2015-08-04-16-11-57

Now things get tangled up because she misunderstands me. Usually I’d say it’s good to be “real” long enough to let her know it’s not all jokes, and that I understand her main worry is in being forced to promise too much. I think it was the right play and I got unlucky with her misunderstanding.

Screenshot_2015-08-04-16-12-24

So that forces me to stay logical and serious longer than I’d like, to shuttle her to the end of her little wobble and then I return to playfulness as soon as I think it’s possible. That works and it ends well.

Screenshot_2015-08-04-16-12-46

So what you’re really seeing here is I overplayed my hand a bit, created a stir, then got a bit unlucky when trying to calm down the stir, but ultimately recovered it. Not the smoothest, but it worked. So now she’s in a holding pattern on long game and my next trip to Belgrade will provide the ultimate answer.

Cherry-pickers, Illusionists, Clowns and Fakes

July 25, 2015
krauserpua

Daygame is a squalid seedy world at times. There’s cool sleaziness when you’re trying to squeeze your dick into the un-corrupted back passage of a Kazahk virgin in your flea-ridden airbnb shared apartment on the first date, but there’s also the bad sleaziness when it comes to misdirecting noobs on YouTube. So, let’s talk about the typical shennanigans that will be encountered by the typical guy browsing YouTube for infields. I’ve split them into four different types of misdemeanour.

1. Cherry Pickers
As any active daygamer knows, the reality on the streets is you fail almost all the time and the lays are rare blips of glory. Exactly what your failure/success ratio is depends on all the intangibles such as your strengths (height/youth/looks/body/aesthetic/charisma/technical savvy etc) and on the girl (hotness/age/nationality/availability/religion etc). One thing that’s almost certain is if someone’s ratios sound too good to be true, they probably are. For example I recently had a guy tell me he only opens the very hottest girls and he fucks 1 out of 5 cold approaches. Sure. Even Leonardo Di Caprio won’t hit those stats (if pure cold approaching).

Here’s the rule for YouTube – Every single guy is cherry-picking his best sets for his channel (including me)

That doesn’t mean he’s a fake. When Match Of The Day shows you the one minute of goals and edits out the other 89 minutes of tedium, they aren’t lying to you. You know football is 90 minutes and is often boring, so you don’t shout “fakers” at the screen. It’s expected. So, expect it from YouTube channels. Different guys cherry pick with different rigour. Someone like Johnny Berba is happy to put up uninterrupted blowout streaks and all manner of mishaps and foul-ups. In contrast the likes of Ed Kahn or Daniel Blake only post the bouncebacks. Now I can’t tell you what % they cut, but I’ll guarantee that you’re seeing the best 1%-5% of their work.

That’s not dishonest. It’s showbusiness. Take heart that you’re not as shit as you think you are because your typical day doesn’t match their highlight reel. Many guys are out on the streets every day with the camera turned on. You’re just seeing the very best of a marathon filming effort. Think of it like a girl’s sole Tinder photo.

2. Illusionists
The cherry-pickers at least show you reality, no matter how carefully pruned. This second category are the smoke’n’mirrors mob who show you one thing and tell you it’s another. RSD are the worst offenders that I know of. Sure, some of their coaches have genuine talent (Julien springs to mind) but you always get the feeling that they are blowing smoke up your ass. Rapid cuts, clips cut mid-sentence, dropped audio, girls walking away with the guy but you never see where to, forced intimacy just long enough to capture it on camera before the girl disengages – There are many editing tricks to make you think you’re seeing something that never really happened. Add in voiceovers and hyperbole and you’re firmly in illusionist territory.

The easist way to spot an illusionist is that he uses editing. Some of these clip editors are as hyperactive as a Taylor Swift music video. If the guy can’t just put the camera in one place, mic up, and leave it then he’s an illusionist. Now we’re getting further towards dishonesty. They have a narrative to present and the in-fields will be forced to fit, regardless of how the set went. And bear in mind these guys are also cherry-picking.

3. Clowns
It’s so tempting to name some of these, but I’ll resist the urge. Some guys are just absolutely hopeless but they won’t turn that fucking camera off. If you’re really new you might not spot them because in your mind the act of simply walking up to a girl and saying “you look nice” is a death-defying stunt. Clowns don’t get good results so they tend to dress up their videos with gimmicks – costumes, weird openers, 30-day challenges, social freedom exercises and so on. You’ll also notice the girls just don’t seem very engaged. Another favourite is to post a twenty minute video where they are talking for fifteen about what you’re going to see, and only five minutes actually seeing it – the material isn’t good enough to stand alone.

I include in this category any guy who’s pulling women less attractive than himself. If you’re teaching guys to scrape the barrel, you’re a clown.

4. Fakes
I have my private opinions on who I think is fake but I’ll keep them to myself. Publically calling a guy out is a serious charge and I’ll not do so without evidence, even though I don’t take anyone at face value when forming my private opinions. Fakes are guys who pay actresses or arrange friends to act roles. These are scripted encounters meant to simulate a real infield so that you think the guy has skills he doesn’t really possess. How to spot one? Unfortunately, noobs are often so uncalibrated and so lacking in experience of what real daygame looks like that their spider sense doesn’t trigger to fakes. Here’s some things to watch out for:

  • Extremely stable camera work with the girl right in the centre frame
  • The camera is already in place before the opener. This very rarely happens in real life because opening happens fast and usually the camera man is rushing behind you to keep up
  • Camera never moves. In reality people walk past, the cameraman tries to get a better angle, the girl looks over and you have to move etc
  • Girl has hooked before the opener has been delivered (she’s been told to hook). Now this does happen sometimes for real, but it’s rare.
  • Stilted conversation, like each is waiting their turn to deliver scripted lines
  • Less artefacts of conversation, such as a girl hesitating, or saying something stupid, or the guy starting a conversational thread then changing on the fly because it’s not hitting.
  • The guy just doesn’t look cool enough or charismatic enough to get a girl like that to react so well.
  • The girl agrees too readily to compliance tests when the guy clearly hasn’t done the right things to get that. Again, sometimes a girl is just so strongly a Yes Girl that it doesn’t matter, but if all the guy’s channel is bad game that gets the girl, he’s faking.
  • You can’t find anyone you trust who has winged with these guys and will vouch for them. Likewise, if they coach they refuse to demo or the demos they do are shit compared to the videos.

I’d love to post some examples of what I consider fake videos, but that’ll start a shitstorm. Those pointers should be enough for you to form your own opinions. There are some very good legit infields up on YouTube. Just don’t think they are presenting a balanced picture of how daygame really goes.

My interview with Street Attraction

June 30, 2015
krauserpua

I just recently came back from a three-week jaunt with approximately 1/3 of it in each of Riga, Warsaw and Prague. It was pretty good. I took the anal virginity of a hot 18yr-old in Riga (she’s in the video below but gentleman’s honour prevents me saying which girl), then SLD’d a Daenerys Targaryen look-a-like in Prague and D2L’d a Tania Russof look-alike three days later. It would appear the daygame gods no longer curse me.

My weekend in Prague

My weekend in Prague

The week in Riga was with Eddie from well-known daygame YouTube channel (and London coaches) Street Attraction. I’d watched a bunch of their videos and been quite impressed with their solid execution of the London Daygame Model. Don’t be misled by the sometimes comical nature of their YouTubing – Eddie does real textbook daygame when he’s in it to get laid (rather than entertain the subscribers). The boys were kind enough to offer me an interview and here it is……

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKaNb3qoKBE