I’ve noticed in person and on the internet that wannabe players are frequently talking at cross purposes. Game is a big big subject of infinite depth, wrapped up in a distortion field of ego and bullshit. It’s also an intensely personal journey where every man must find his own way.

UPSELL!!! My fantastic new deep game video Womanizer’s Bible provides the toolkit to chart your own way UPSELL!!!

I was thinking recently why some men (I’ll call them Former Chumps) find the Player’s Journey to be a life-changing struggle of high drama and near collapse spread over four volumes of a Tolkien-esque memoir….

UPSELL!!! Check out my Balls Deep memoir and upcoming Adventure Sex for my own memoir detailing my life-changing struggle UPSELL!!!

…. whereas other men (I’ll call them Trainee Chads) would summarise their journey as “learned a few openers, put myself out there, and got laid plenty. Cool”. Naturally the fChumps tend to write detailed blogposts, build and memorise systems that are “a bit like looking at a Gothic cathedral or reading Ulysses: you are incredibly grateful that someone has put in the work and created the artifact before you, but it’s hard to fathom precisely how they went about doing it.”* In contrast the tChad is often ridiculing the fChump – “it’s just talking to girls. Dude.”

I recently finished a short coaching session with an American former Marine. That means he has finished USMC boot camp, picked up a rifle and at any time in his service could’ve been sent to a third world shithole to get shot at by camel-riding goat-fuckers hiding behind a line of children in the local mosque. Three days into our street hustling game he commented words to the effect of “this daygame thing might be the toughest thing I ever do.”

Tougher than USMC boot-camp? Tougher than getting shot at in war?

“I’ve got this set, mate. You just keep storming the machine gun nest”

Somewhere on the internet, a tChad laughed derisively. And yet many men say the same thing – setting out on the Player’s Journey is harder than anything they’ve done before, just as it was for me despite me having already earned a tough professional finance qualification, competed in boxing and kickboxing matches, and completed the first three Souls games **

So why the divergence in opinion? I think it comes down to which side of this divide you fall on. Is your Journey a process of:

1. Uncovering a pre-existing SMV and personality that is attractive to women, or;
2. Ridding yourself of a Pussy Repellent virus and then building an attractive man from scratch.

The tChads are normal men with normal social skills and outlook and inhabit bodies that are reasonably attractive to a wide range of women. Some will require more work than others but all are building on a strong base. It’s like cooking a meal starting with fresh organic high quality ingredients. These men already have decent value, they just lack a Value Delivery Mechanism*** Teaching them Game is like having an out-of-shape teenage Usain Bolt show up on his first day of Learn To Sprint School. They have to put in the work but the rewards are almost immediate. There’s never any real struggle.

“Dude, it’s not rocket science. You just say hi and escalate”

In contrast, fChumps are a broken mess and the older they are upon discovering Game the more traumatic the transformation **** Whereas tChad just needs a daygame model and a shove in the back to start opening, fChump needs a complete overhaul of his entire personality and lifestyle. It’s like the difference between giving your house a lick of paint vs ripping out the entire edifice because every wooden board and beam is infested with woodworm and damp. They are not the same process.

• The tChad is fundamentally attractive to women already. He just needs to reveal it.
• The fChump is fundamentally unattractive to women and needs to restructure everything about him.

This is why the Player’s Journey can be so traumatic for many men. They are diving deep into their inner game to confront long-suppressed demons. They are learning entirely new ways of thinking and interacting (what Bodi calls the difference between Digital and Analog communication). They may have decrepit bodies that require extreme diet changes, cutting out all the food they like and changing their brain chemistry to overcome long-standing associations with food and mood. They might walk into a gym for the first time in their life and suddenly realise that gym discipline is, initially, very tough. And they are learning the model and hitting on girls.

Any one of those challenges is big in and of itself. Some faggots spend literally years in therapy and that’s the only thing they do. Others spend years in the gym and that’s the only thing they do. That’s normal – some people only have one “thing” that sucks up all their motivation and willpower. Most don’t even have one.

One…. more…. set

The poor little fChump is doing them all at the same time. Not only that, he has an additional emotional issue: The fear of discovering he’s sexually irrelevant.

In the beginning of a fChump’s Player’s Journey he doesn’t have the reference experiences that pretty girls like him. He doesn’t know if he has it in him to learn all these new things. He worries that the next string of bad blowouts might be the one that breaks his grip on the barrel wall and he tumbles back down into the mass of crabs below him. For a long time, it can be terrifying to contemplate that actually, no, sorry mate but you aren’t going to fuck pretty girls. You missed your window. You were born on the sexual scrap heap and you aren’t getting off it.

The tChads don’t deal with this fear nor that degree of personal restructuring. They do the work and get the results. The fChumps must do far more, far tougher work, and all the time cope with the uncertainty over whether results will ever come.

So, that’s why the fChump is rather self-obsessed during his early years and then extremely proud of his Hero’s Player’s Journey once he’s started banging hotties. The tChad might think those lay reports and +1 tweets are just ego validation. Yes, they are. He just doesn’t realise how vindicating it feels to finally get your leg over the rim of the barrel and roll onto solid ground, forever free of the crabs snapping their claws below you.

* Actual quote from a Daygame Mastery review.

** I only recently bought the fourth, Dark Souls III, so give me time.
*** Term introduced on page x of Daygame Mastery
**** For example, I started aged 34 so I’d already had 34 years of reference experiences built up of “hot girls don’t fancy you” and I’d passed the age window within which a young dog can learn new tricks.

I’m sure most aspiring PUAs are well aware of Robert B Cialdini’s classic book Influence. I’m wading through it right now and I must say it’s a very interesting text buttressed with lots of research and fun anecdotes (although most social psychology experiments are junk and cannot be replicated). So far so good and now that I’m halfway through, it looks like a book I can recommend. However, there’s one rather important caveat: If you’re a cunt, this book will make you more of a cunt, ultimately to the detriment of your game.

Before we get into that, let’s make an example of the first of his six weapons of influence: reciprocation. Cialdini explains it thus: “The rule says that we should try to repay, in kind, what another person has provided us”

Cialdini cites research suggesting reciprocity is a universal human trait evolved because it creates high social trust and thus unlocks the benefits of cooperation and division of labour. Societies with high social trust outperform those without – as seen in an obvious comparison between Northern Europe and the Middle East. Cialdini’s best example is an experiment performed by Professor Dennis Regan of Cornell University *. The experimental task was ostensibly about two subjects rating paintings on their artistic merits. The real deal was that one subject was real and the other – “Joe” – was a stooge. Cialdini continues:

“For our purposes, the experiment took place under two different conditions. In some cases…. during a short rest period, Joe left the room for a couple of minutes and returned with two bottles of Coca-Cola, one for the subject and one for himself, saying, “I asked him [the experimenter] if I could get myself a Coke, and he said it was okay, so I bought one for you, too.” In other cases, Joe did not provide the subject with a favour; he simply returned from the two-minute break empty-handed. In all other respects, however, Joe behaved identically.”

After the art appreciation ended Joe asked the subject for a favour – to buy some raffle tickets for a new car at 25c (the Coke was a dime). Subjects who’d received his favour of a Coke reciprocated by buying twice as many tickets as those who hadn’t. Interestingly, while the “no Coke” control group scaled their ticket sales according to how likeable they rated Joe in a post-experiment debriefing, the “received Coke” group bought the same number of tickets independent of his likeability. Cialdini concludes the obligation of reciprocity was triggered and completely overruled likeability.

Cialdini then explains how the reciprocity rule applies to daygame. Sorry, I mean Hare Krishnas offering flowers in airports and refusing to take the gift back. He explains his observations that many travelers will try hard to avoid the Krishnas precisely to avoid feeling indebted, and that once the Krishnas successfully thrust the flower into your hand they will not allow you to return it. They know they’ve triggered the rule and got you indebted.

This is something Gavin De Becker in “The Gift of Fear” calls loansharking. A predator will aggressively thrust an unwelcome gift or favour onto a stranger precisely in order to trigger feelings of indebtedness and thus the obligation of reciprocation. The stranger is now faced with an internal struggle (Do I reciprocate against my better judgement, or risk the cognitive dissonance of refusing the gift and thus risking the identity of being an “ingrate”) and also a frame control battle (“No, I don’t want it” / “It’s our gift to you” / “Yes, but I didn’t ask for it” / “That’s okay, please keep it” / “Take it back” / “No. Please consider a donation”)

The typical stranger just isn’t mentally prepared for that kind of internal struggle and frame control battle – they are just trying to catch a flight. In contrast the Hare Krishna / mugger is well-practiced, mentally prepared, and carries a self-serving ideology to justify their loan-sharking ** It’s not an even battle. I’d be very surprised if you haven’t spotted the parallels to game. Let’s start with a neutral comparison and then trend darker.

Mystery Method does not engage in immediate reciprocation because it’s an indirect style of game. So in the classic MM set the player will make an offhand observation to a group, perhaps an opinion opener. If that gets a response he may drop in a neg against the girl he wants. I quite like MM but it doesn’t work in the daygame scenarios I favour. What’s important for this discussion, though, is that no favour is given. It isn’t until stage A2 (Female-To-Male attraction) that the girl IOIs the player, and thus he will reciprocate with A3 (Male-To-Female attraction) and IOI and/or qualify the girl. This is rather clever in how it flips the script at a meta-level. It just doesn’t work in street game so the London style changes the opening.

Street game requires an early favour to stop the girl: the compliment-tease. A player’s ability to kill momentum and reach hook point comes from pouring in some early value via the act of stopping, the insertion of good vibe into her day, and then stacking forwards with a mythology. By the time you’ve finished those early seconds you’ve done the girl a rather pleasant (but un-requested) favour. She feels indebted and the reciprocation urge is triggered. Usually this will be expressed by her smiling and politely receiving your advance until she decides Yes/Maybe/No.

In the happy-clappy world of unicorns and rainbows this is a win-win scenario because girls like to be approached. Human courtship does not allow girls to overtly initiate seduction so they can only dress nice, put themselves in the mix, and then hope the right man approaches. Even if you’re not that right man, you’ve reminded her she’s sexually relevant and given her a pleasant encounter. Win-win.

The problem is how tempting it is for an aspiring daygamer to misuse the reciprocity rule, to drain girls of the will to live. They’ll plow on despite increasingly strong IODs and constantly hit the girl with “one more thing before you go”. If they are RSD-trained they’ll follow her all the way down the street with a non-stop pestering. So we have now slipped from the win-win of reciprocity to the win-lose of loansharking.

Good daygame will implement all the powerful lessons of persuasion but without the black-hearted exploitation seen by the scammers and Ted Cruz types of this world. Perhaps one of these days I’ll explain how all six of Cialdini’s weapons of influence are hard-boiled into the London Daygame Model. The purpose of game is not to instigate a frame-control battle with an unprepared girl and then to hammer her down until you draw out an unwilling “Yes”. That’s the road to flaky numbers, text-hell, and dates-to-nowhere. If you get very good at it you’ll get some lays that the girls bitterly regret once free of your influence.

If that last sentence got you thinking “fine by me, bring it on” you have some inner game work to do.

As both Lord of the Rings and Star Wars amply demonstrate, the Dark Side is seductive because it’s easier. It’s a set of hacks and tricks that let you plunder the world for a while. For game, the problem is that it rots your soul and pushes you deeper into the win-lose interactions that kill your vibe long term. When your vibe suffers your results will crater and you’ll get longer periods of daygame revulsion.

I always tell students: “Game in a way that protects your vibe over the long term”

Cialdini is just describing the dark side rather than recommending it. He ends every chapter with advice on how to resist such attempts to influence you. Enjoy his book because it really is a fascinating look into the world of professional persuasion but don’t get too carried away with the skills of scammers, fund-raisers, Hare Krishnas, TV evangelists or any other huckster persuaders. Try to extract their tactical wisdom but leave the whole win-lose frame behind or it’ll tank your vibe.

If you think this post was persuasive, you should see my book.

* I dread to think where this position has be relocated under the current regressive Leftist stranglehold on US universities. Probably an affirmative action hire for an immigrant doing Anti-Male Studies.
** If you’ve ever said “Fuck off gypsy cunt I hope you die” to an aggressive gypsy beggar you’ll see spectacular levels of entitlement and ego defence from them. Trust me, I’ve tested this.

Back in February 2015 I recorded the intermediate daygame seminar that would become my Black Book product. I had a bunch of fairly new daygame students in the room and took them through the key technical elements of creating attraction on the street and escalating on dates. While I was in London that weekend and in a seminar frame of mind, I decided to pull the trigger on another project that had been on my mind for over a year – a deep dive into the sociology of Game, red pill and advanced daygame. I wanted to weave together the disparate strands of “underground” knowledge that I’d collected over the years, and create a grand unified theory of Game.

That was rather ambitious. I felt like I could leverage some of my stronger points, what Scott Adams of Dilbert fame would call my “talent stack”:

• High-level post-graduate education
• Ten years working in international finance
• Thousands of daygame sets
• Six years of game theory obsession

How could I get all the benefits of mental masturbation / high theory without falling into the trap most such guys have – namely that they got it all from books and never proved themselves through actually banging younger-hotter-tighter? I got ten keen daygame enthusiasts into a room on a Sunday afternoon and ran a seminar called Womanizer’s Bible with the video camera rolling. Six hours later I emerged, completely depleted. It was fun. The guys enjoyed it.

A PUA forum, yesterday

Rather than release the seminar video, I kept it locked up on my hard drive and instead moved my focus onto a free podcast series bearing the same name. The podcast has been well received. It picks a narrow topic each time and dives deep. Something regular listeners have probably noticed is that it’s episodic in nature – there’s no clear progression between podcasts. I guess it’s like the fable of the blind men and the elephant. Each podcast I show you a different part of the elephant without ever giving a full view of the whole thing. Well, my original Womanizer’s Bible seminar is that full view of the elephant.

So, as I beavered away on my Sigma Wolf projects over winter I put a lot of time into preparing the seminar for release. I decided it would fit nicely as a “VIP upgrade” to the free podcasts. If that kind of thing floats your boat, check it out here for the grand old price of $49

Click on photo to visit sales page

I have deliberately refrained from using Game concepts and jargon in the following polemic because I want readers to draw their own connections between the concepts of the 1840s German tradition and their modern PUA-centric equivalents. There really is nothing new under the sun*

The greatest lecture I ever attended at university was given in the Politics faculty in 1994 and I was an interloper. I’d already signed up for all my elective modules that semester but I continued to peruse the course prospectus of each faculty to see if there was anything I fancied. I was hungry for knowledge, instinctively looking to feed my brain at that time of life when intelligence is most fluid.

• Rousseau and Marx
• An Introduction to Informal Logic
• Marx and the Young Hegelians

Aha, those sounded good. The latter was a ten-week series of lectures on the main names from Hegel through Feuerbach and ending in Marx. I knocked on the professor’s door and politely inquired if I may sit in on the lectures without registering. No problem, he said.

The first of the lecture series I got to was on Max Stirner, a mediocre gamma pedant whose one claim to fame was writing The Ego and his Own. But what a claim! Marx and Engels (rival gammas) were so triggered by this book that they devoted three hundred pages of their The German Ideology to an ankle-biting rebuttal that wouldn’t look out of place on a modern internet forum. Why so serious?

Max Stirner, yesterday

I sat in my chair at the back of the seminar room, notepad open (a paper one, this was 1994). In strode said professor with his tweed blazer, handkerchief, and foppish hair. Imagine those writer picture shoots for J R R Tolkien or Dennis Wheatley and you’re about right. He was rather dapper. He then launched into a masterful 45-minute monologue explaining Stirner. I really wish someone had recorded it. It was one-part academic exposition, one-part human psychology, one-part reading between the lines of the German Idealist’s petty rivalries, and ALL PARTS zero fucks given.

I dare say it was a pivotal moment in my intellectual life. I looked at this guy and thought “Wow, that’s what an academic should be like”. I only wish I could remember his name. Stirner was the perfect foil for this performance and I think diving into his theory will hit all my daygamer and red pill readers with a sweet jolt of head-nodding satisfaction.

Stirner began in the Left Hegelian meeting group obsessed with the Hegelian concept of “alienation”. Put crudely, it means to be separated from your true self and this separation creates dysfunction and unhappiness. Marx would later assert that the capitalist mode of production (think Fordism, production lines, and now office cubicles) created alienation. The Left Hegelians asserted religion is a form of alienation in which the believer projects his own desired qualities onto a transcendant deity. Man is not created in God’s image, but God is created in Man’s ideal image. To overcome this alienation, it is necessary to reappropriate the human essence and to realise these ideal God-like qualities are actually Man’s own.

Stirner wasn’t having any of that, considering it pompous humanism that elevates Man to a new quasi-Religion. The concept of human essence is merely an abstraction and thus cannot be a standard to measure actions. Like all those other big abstractions such as God, State, and Justice, the concept of Man is nothing more than “wheels in the head”. Stirner celebrated the primacy of the individual, which he called the Ego, and we know ourself as the mental point of origin

“It is not that the ego is all, but that the ego destroys all”

We are not bound by great abstractions to serve the phantasmic causes of God, State, Justice or Man. Our only duty is to our Ego. “For me you are nothing but – my food, even as I too am fed upon and turned to use by you. We have only one relation to each other, that of useableness, of utility, of use” The Ego is not the only reality (i.e. Stirner is not a solipsist) it is the only one that matters to us. The ego is unique. Each individual is entirely single and incomparable: “My flesh is not their flesh, my mind is not their mind”. This leads to an atomistic conception of the self – we are each a sovereign island in the large sea of the world, rather than links in a chain. Seeing as we are not chained to our fellow tribesmen nor to grand abstractions we are thus unfettered.

“What am I?…. An abyss of lawless and unregulated impulses, desires, wishes, passions, chaos without light or guiding star”.

The ego is corporeal, of and in the real physical world. The products of the intellect or ideas can have no independent existence (scholars will note all the Young Hegelians pushed to invert Hegel’s philosophical Idealism that posited the moving force of history is the non-corporeal Spirit). Stirner has so far broken down the “brotherhood of Man” type philosphers and insisted on reducing the unit of importance down to the sovereign individal. Not unlike classic Liberalism, without the tether of grand abstractions such as Liberty. How he builds it back up is interesting.

This edition of the Ego is my own

The Ego develops by becoming more aware of itself and other things as its property (again, very Hegelian if you replace “ego” with “spirit”). It can thus develop it’s ‘ownness’, its sense of self-possession. This means a progressive process of unplugging untethering from the matrix grand abstractions in order to make itself the mental point of origin its own. The Ego is a unity acting from a self-seeking will: “I am everything to myself and I do everything on my account.” Stirner thus anticipated Freud in his stress on the force of the desires to influence the intellect, and Adler in his description of the will as the highest faculty of the ego.

It is in the nature of the Ego to follow its own interest. Pre-figuring both Darwin and Dawkins, Stirner posits that altruism is a complete illusion. The apparent altruist is really an unconscious, involuntary egoist. Even love is a type of egoism: I love because love makes me happy. Conscious egoism is preferable to egoism disguised as altruism since it allows the development of the will, which gives one the dignity of a free man.

There are no eternal moral truths or values to be discovered in nature: “Owner and creator of my right, I recognise no other source of right than – me, neither God nor the State nor nature nor even Man himself.” We don’t even have a duty to ourselves because that requires separating the Ego into both a higher and a base self. The conscious egoist must choose what pleases him as the sole good. Enjoyment of life is the ultimate aim. This is not the same as proposing a hedonistic pursuit of short-term pleasure. Rather, whatever you determine your source of fulfillment is legitimate. Those grand abstractions cannot tell you what to pursue nor can they incept into you mind viruses that will twist your goals towards false ideals.

The Ego has no more moral calling than does a flower. It he acts, it is because he wants to. He is his own mental point of origin. He puts himself first and foremost always. Natural law, social contract, historical rights, moral imperatives, religious law – these are all grand abstractions. “What you have the power to be you have the right to… I decide whether it is the right thing in me; there is no right outside me.” The conscious egoist is thus beyond good and evil (prefiguring Nietzsche). Such concepts are grand abstractions.

“Away, then, with every concern that is not altogether my concern! You think at least the ‘good cause’ must be my concern? What’s good, what’s bad? Why, I myself am my concern, and I am neither good nor bad. Neither has meaning for me…. Nothing is more to me than myself!”

Even Freedom does not trump your Ownness. Society and State can take away your freedom but your Ownness is always in your control.

“One becomes free from much, not from everything…. Freedom lives only in the realm of dreams! Ownness, on the contrary, is my whole being and existence, it is I myself. I am free from what I am rid of, owner of what I have in my power or what I control. My own I am at all times and under all circumstances, if I know to have myself and do not throw myself away on others…. I am my own only when I am master of myself”

A man retains his ownness when he does not give his power away to others.

Freedom is not the goal – to make it so is to make it sacred, to elevate it to a grand abstraction and to thus tether yourself to a limiting force. Metaphysically, it is to sink back into Idealism. Man is constantly tempted to huddle with his peers around the security of such warming grand abstractions. The Ego must resist the urge because he will thus trade his Ownness for an illusory freedom. Serving Freedom as a higher cause is no better than serving God, State, Justice or Man – it is to slavishly perform one’s duty at the expense of self. All philosophies that promote grand abstractions of freedom are promoting a particular freedom – a one-size-fits-all freedom to be writ large across society. Stirner rejects this as a contradiction: It is only possible to be free if one acts with self-awareness, self-determination and free will. As an individual.

“All freedom is essentially – self-liberation – that I can have only so much freedom as I procure for myself by my ownness.”

The Ego looks on everything in the world as a candidate for ownership: “I think it belongs to him who knows how to take it, or who does not let it be taken from him” but it’s never a big deal. The only truly valuable possession is one’s ownness and that can never be taken. Whether a man succeeds or fails in the battle to own other things, he can treat the result “smilingly” and “with humour”. He is Stoic in his acceptance that each man’s power is limited.

Stirner rejects both State and Society (grand abstractions that tether the Ego and have no real existence outside a mass delusion). The matrix State has become a fixed idea that demands worship and tribute. It is utterly opposed to our individuality and interests. Its sole purpose is “to limit, tame, subordinate the individual – to make him subject to some generality or other…. it is an enemy and murderer of ownness.” There is no legitimate social contract. To claim the State has a legitimate right to rule and make law because it expresses the will of the sovereign (or the People) overlooks the fact that only the individual ego has a claim to sovereignty (again this blows close to classic liberalism and the constitutional republic).

“I am free in no State. No-one has any business to command my actions, to say what course I shall pursue and set up a code to govern it.” Society is a coercive association demaning each member think of the well-being of the whole. This well-being is another grand abstraction, beautifully captured by Ayn Rand in the trial of Hank Rearden in Atlas Shrugged:

Prosecutor: “Mr. Rearden, the law which you are denouncing is based on the highest principle – the principle of the public good.”
Rearden: “Who is the public? What does it hold as its good? There was a time when men believed that ‘the good’ was a concept to be defined by a code of moral values and that no man had the right to seek his good through the violation of the rights of another. If it is now believed that my fellow men may sacrifice me in any manner they please for the sake of whatever they deem to be their own good, if they believe that they may seize my property simply because they need it – well, so does any burglar. There is only this difference: the burglar does not ask me to sanction his act…. The public good be damned, I will have no part of it!”

What does Stirner suggest us to do?

“Why will you not take courage now to really make yourselves the central point and the main thing altogether?”

And if you disagree with Stirner and wish to argue he should agree with x social theory……… Who are you to tell him to tether himself to your grand abstraction? Who are you to lay claim to his ownness?**

* I’m working from Peter Marshall’s Demanding The Impossible for many of the quotes. He has a good chapter on Stirner.

** That’s a philosophical version of “GTFO”

Now is a good time to try my hardcopy books. Enter the codes FREEMONEY and LULURC at checkout for a big fat discount and free shipping.

I’ve just started reading Scott Dilbert’s Adams’ blog and in particular his Master Persuader series on Donald Trump (h/t Mike at Danger&Play). Each time I read a post I start transposing words like a find/place bot swapping “Trump” for “the player” and “voter” for “girl”. That in itself was interesting because I’ve found this is a general habit for me. Every time I learn something new my mind tries to find a game lesson in it.

But let’s stick with Dilbert Adams. First allow me to quote him at length.

“Have you ever been listening to Donald Trump speaking, or reading one of his quotes, and found yourself laughing out loud?

Maybe you think he has a good sense of humor and he says funny stuff. Maybe you think he is so shocking that you laugh out of social horror. Maybe you love how he pokes your political enemies. If you are not a Trump fan, maybe you think you are laughing at him, or laughing out of disgust, or out of certainty he will be dooming himself this time for sure.

It’s a tell for persuasion. You laugh at Trump because you feel the persuasion, on a subconscious level, and not because anything was especially funny.

When I learned hypnosis, the instructor taught us that subjects often laugh during an induction.”

Laughter is a tell for persuasion. A causeless laugh means you got persuaded to the point where it challenged some long-held truth in your mind. The laugh is an automatic reflex in that situation.”

People often tell me that making girls laugh isn’t seductive: “bro, you’re not a comedian”. If you’re on a nightclub dancefloor grinding a drunk horny girl, I’ll agree. If you’re on a street stop or first date with a girl then I most certainly disagree.

Game is about persuading the girl to sleep with you. That’s the very essence of dealing with Maybe Girls. Note that “persuasion” is not the same as wheedling, begging, imploring or logic-ing. You are attracting a girl’s attention, getting her interested, then persuading her to reach a decision that leads to action. It’s the AIDA model from sales. When you lay a cocky tease on a girl early in the set she laughs. It’s not a ha-ha laugh, it’s more like a “I’m can’t believe you just said that” laugh that crackles with sexual tension. The better your sexual vibe the more she’ll produce illogical giggles and laughs as an exhaust pipe for her growing sexual interest.

The girl is feeling persuasion. She senses her increasing sexual attraction towards you and can’t help laughing to cope with the tension. Look for it. It means you’re winning.

It’s not his money that makes him alpha

Let’s try another one of Adams’ posts from the series:

“I can’t stop laughing about Trump’s Iowa reframing. You probably heard about it. The setup goes like this:

– Trump was trailing Cruz in Iowa polls.
– Trump taunted an Iowa audience with “You have not picked a lot of winners.”
– The media reported Trump’s taunts.

And the very next poll showed Trump slightly atop Cruz. The trap that Trump set for Iowa is that they can either vote for him – in which case he wins – or they can vote for Cruz and prove he was right about Iowa having a bad track record. Then, say the polls, he will go on to win New Hampshire.

What you think you see is Trump telling people they should vote for him. In the 2D world, he is simply using different language to say what all politicians say. But in the 3D world of persuasion Trump just created a situation in which…wait for it… Iowans are voting on their own intelligence. That’s an identity play. You should recognize it by now as the strongest form of persuasion.

Here’s what does NOT work: “Look at my awesome policies.”
Here’s what DOES work: “Smart people vote this way.”

This is exactly what we do when we’re reframing the girl on the good girl / bad girl spectrum. We are inviting her to position herself as either:

• The bad girl who has to pretend to be a good girl, but we both know better, nudge wink
• The good girl who has a bad girl inside her trying to get out

Both positions increase the likelihood of fast sex. This is the “Iowa picking a winner” position. The alternative is for her to be one of those boring good girls just like everyone else – the “Iowa having a bad track record position”. We are making an identity play on her wish to be different from all those other girls.

So we cold read the girl and reframe the adventure sex option. “You look like a kitten on the outside but there’s a tiger inside”. “I get the feeling you are more adventurous than you look”. “Look at that [item of clothing]. You almost convinced me you were a good girl until I noticed that.”

There’s a segment in Daygame Overkill all about how to do this and why. Like Adams says, it’s an identity play. You aren’t convincing her that you’re a logical (i.e. high SMV) alliance to make. You’re persuading her on the basis that she’s a bit special and likes adventure. Then you provide her with a safe outlet to pursue it (you).

“When you hear mentions of Trump as a good front-runner it means – to borrow a phrase from the world of investing – we are on the brink of “capitulation.” That’s the point where everyone just stops resisting the idea of a President Trump and starts adjusting to the reality of it.”

A girl might resist this positioning but if you keep reframing her you’ll often feel that moment of capitulation arrive. She decides she’s gonna do that one crazy thing after all. She’s capitulated to the idea of being in your bed and starts adjusting to the reality of it. YOLO.

Add together the two Dilbert Adams’ concepts and you get why the Daygame Overkill style fractionates between the highly sexual bad boy and the charmingly polite gentleman. We need the smarts to verbally convey the reframing and as the likeability cover for the outrageous pushes and pulls that make her laugh.

Little Scott turns up for school again, early one summer morning. He’s twelve years old and he likes the lessons. Only problem is every now and then one of the other boys bullies him. It’s not a persistent problem but every now and then he gets pushed around and occasionally punched on the back of the head and laughed at. It could be worse. The thing is, he’s sick of getting into disagreements with the other boys. Any time he speaks his mind, one of the tougher boys will start escalating it. He knows where that eventually leads – shoves, punches and kicks. So he just nips it in the bud early and avoids disagreement. It doesn’t feel right, bottling that up and letting people walk over him.

He sees boxing on TV. The local star has just won the British title and is being interviewed post fight. The champ says he got into boxing because he’d been bullied at school. Something clicks in Scott’s mind and he pesters his dad to let him try out at the local gym.

A week later Scott shows up with his shorts and t-shirt. He’s been freaking out about it all week, nervous about jumping into something so new and scary. Yet, immediately, he loves the atmosphere. There’s the incessant rattle of the speedball rapping against the board. A rhythmic swish and clatter as an amateur fighter whips the leather jump rope under his feet round after round. Even the smell of dried sweat and aging leather is good. Scott loves it.

The coach comes over, makes a bit of small talk to put the new boy at ease, then sends him to get changed. The kids class is about to start. The coach knows when a boy has come in due to bullying or a general sense of physical inadequacy. What’s new to Scott is just a hundreth time for the coach. Scott looks at him with a mix of hope and trust – this coach is an experienced guy who will show him the way to toughen up. Scott’s ready and willing to work as hard as he must.

The group starts the warm up, stretching off. A bit of jogging on the spot, then star jumps, press ups and squat thrusts. Scott is struggling with the latter, getting his feet mixed up and clipping his heels. The coach walks over and has a look, but doesn’t offer any technical advice. He’ll figure it out for himself.

“Keep it up, Scott.” he encourages.

Ten minutes later they are all in front of the mirrors, shadow boxing. Some of the other kids are bobbing and weaving in a rough approximation of the older more experienced boys. Scott is ill-coordinated and doesn’t really know how to stand. Most of the boys have their left foot forward but a few have their right foot out instead. What’s that about?

“Don’t worry about it” says the coach. “Just stand however feels best”

So Scott awkwardly pushes his hands out in front in something looking a bit like a punch and tries bobbing his head. It’s a bit tough. He falls off balance a few times. He tries left foot forward, right foot forward and also standing square-on.

Another ten minutes pass and now the boys have all pulled a pair of boxing gloves out of the communal box and are each standing in front of a punch bag. The round bell rings and Scott starts cuffing his a bit, then looking around at the other boys. One of the older lads, a competitive fighter, is punching away on the top-bottom bag, swaying left and right to dodge as it springs back at him after every punch. Scott turns back to his heavy bag and tries that. It doesn’t move much – it’s not the same bag, after all.

“Nice one Scott” says the coach and pats him on the shoulder. “Keep it up”

Twenty minutes later the coach is pulling a couple of boys out of training and sending them into the ring to spar.

“Scott” shouts the coach. “Let’s see how you look in the ring. Do you fancy a go?”

“Um, ok” Scott nervously replies.

He steps through the ropes and sees his opponent across the ring, a boy of similar size but who has obviously been training a lot longer. Scott had noticed him hitting the bag with fluid hard punches, sending it flying backwards with a meaty thwack. He’s a bit nervous.

“What should I do?” Scott asks.

The coach smiles, pats him on the shoulder again with a kind gesture.

“Don’t worry about technique. Just go be your self. Be natural.”

Ten minutes later, Scott wakes up on the table in the dressing room with a bloody nose and mild headache.

“I guess I’m not cut out for boxing” he concludes. “I’ll just put up with the shit at school.”

Time for some mindwank.

Back when I was receiving my professional education in business Michael Porter was all the rage on the MBA circuit for his Five Forces analysis. This was a simple tool to map out the competitive pressure in your industry so you can play to your strengths and limit weaknesses. It’s also useful before enterting an industry to decide if it’s worth the effort. Some industries are more lucrative than others.

For example, as I may outline in a subsequent post, I simply wouldn’t recommend entering the “blogging to monetize” or “YouTube to monetize” industries unless you’re exceptionally talented and are willing to keep it up even if the money never comes.

Five Forces Analysis assumes that there are five important forces that determine competitive power in a business situation. These are:

Supplier Power: Here you assess how easy it is for suppliers to drive up prices. This is driven by the number of suppliers of each key input, the uniqueness of their product or service, their strength and control over you, the cost of switching from one to another, and so on. The fewer the supplier choices you have, and the more you need suppliers’ help, the more powerful your suppliers are.

Buyer Power: Here you ask yourself how easy it is for buyers to drive prices down. Again, this is driven by the number of buyers, the importance of each individual buyer to your business, the cost to them of switching from your products and services to those of someone else, and so on. If you deal with few, powerful buyers, then they are often able to dictate terms to you.

Competitive Rivalry: What is important here is the number and capability of your competitors. If you have many competitors, and they offer equally attractive products and services, then you’ll most likely have little power in the situation, because suppliers and buyers will go elsewhere if they don’t get a good deal from you. On the other hand, if no-one else can do what you do, then you can often have tremendous strength.

Threat of Substitution: This is affected by the ability of your customers to find a different way of doing what you do – for example, if you supply a unique software product that automates an important process, people may substitute by doing the process manually or by outsourcing it. If substitution is easy and substitution is viable, then this weakens your power.

Threat of New Entry: Power is also affected by the ability of people to enter your market. If it costs little in time or money to enter your market and compete effectively, if there are few economies of scale in place, or if you have little protection for your key technologies, then new competitors can quickly enter your market and weaken your position. If you have strong and durable barriers to entry, then you can preserve a favorable position and take fair advantage of it.

Seeing as we constantly refer to dating as a Sexual Market Place, let’s first apply the model to a man entering “the game”. Don’t take any of this too seriously, BTW.

Supplier Power is what drives up the cost / time / effort of producing your product. Since the product in the SMP is you, this means how much control do the inputs of self-improvement have upon you. I’ve focused on the Game strategy – if you’re going to play some variant of LMS then the supplier inputs are different. Mostly, it comes down to how much you want it (Motivation) and that ebbs and flows, can run down to zero, and you’ve only got so much of it depending on your temperament. Likewise different people will have different talents for the Game. Lucky men are unhindered by work, health, financial or familial liabilities and thus have the freedom to take their chances. Eddie was recently telling me of a Canadian guy who managed to separate himself from his Wall-Smashing LTR and then packed up and moved to Poland. A big move like that relies upon freedom.

Buyer Power is what the girls bring to the table to bargain with you. Men really need sex but women do too, and they hate to be alone, so that’s a wash. The size of a female buyer’s metaphorical wallet is her youth, beauty and bloom. The more of that they have, the better service they can demand of the men. The more such qualified customers around (i.e. a city full of YHT) the less any one of them can dictate terms to you. The one slim girl in an Alaskan oil refinery has far greater buyer power than the one of many slim girls in a Moscow nightclub.

Competitive Rivalry is every other dude trying to get laid. We players aren’t running the only hustle. Female buyers will also window shop the Good Looking Guys, the Sponsors, the Celebrities, and the Lifestyle In guys. Different cities and different types of guy will have a different mix of relevant rivalries. For example, London is full of all such hustlers and has a sizeable crop of girls who will accept weak game if the rest of the hustle is good (e.g. the Instagram porta-potties are the extreme outlier of this girl). If you’re wandering through the university in Poznan you’ll get a different mix – not many Sponsors amongst male students.

Substitutes are things girls can do to sublimate their sexual desires without having to involve a heterosexual man. There is a wave of smartphone addiction tumbling ominously East out of the US which forces the players to focus on providing high-quality attention as a USP smartphones can’t match (them being vehicles to accumulate masses of low-quality attention, aka. The Chodestream). Girls can sublimate their temporary horniness via porn and sex toys or their long-term affection needs through cat ownership. If they are really fat and ugly they can tumble into degenerate subcultures like feminism and professional careers to blunt the pain.

New Entrants are guys previously out of the game who suddenly show up. That can be literally new entrants i.e. immigrants. I don’t know a lot about Rape Game but that’s a hustle muslims seem to be working hard on. LIkewise decaying social values lead to mudsharking and thus ethnics being allowed onto the battlefield (which is great for you if you’re one of them). An increasing societal awareness of game and the mainstreaming of the manosphere has expanded the outreach and acceptance of the player lifestyle and thus there’s an ever-refreshing crop of men trying out their first cold approaches. Lastly, there’s a million new coffee drinkers born every day. Just as society churns out a new crop of 18 year olds every single year, it also churns out a new crop of men to chase them.

First a qualifier: this piece is only applicable to men who are or wish to be sigma. If you’re a wannabe alpha, this is the wrong place. If you’re already alpha, I don’t believe you.

I have one overriding goal in life: to increase and protect my medium-term happiness. What does that mean? Happiness is the goal and everything else is contingent upon advancing it. Some people will put other objectives first:

• be rich
• be popular
• fuck hot women

I don’t.

At best those are second-order objectives because you think they’ll make you happy. At worst, they aren’t even that. Becoming rich traps you and directly limits your power (that sounds paradoxical until you begin to understand true power lies not in controlling others but in being able to do whatever you want to do). Can Prince William go icognito to Budapest and fuck some hot chicks in a whorehouse? No, but you can. Can Bill Gates argue with someone in a bar and punch him in the face for getting lippy? no, but you can. Can Cristiano Ronaldo go for a quiet walk through a Madrid park? No, but you can. The greatest personal freedom is found in not being too well-known.

Yes we can

Often, what riches, popularity and hotties give you with one hand they take away with another. There were some experiments on chimps in which they were rewarded with food if they collected special tokens. Soon researchers could motivate the chimps to perform tasks just for tokens – because the chimps had learned tokens could be exchanged for food. Before long, there was a secondary market amongst chimps doing favours for each other for tokens. Kind of like EBT cards now.

But what happens when the experimentors stopped redeeming tokens for food? Chaos.

Chasing riches, popularity, hotties (or whatever else is a second-order objective) should never be the objective. Always keep your eye on the real food – happiness – and be prepared to switch up on those second-order objectives if they take you away from the goal. I choose medium-term happiness because short-term hedonism is extremely destructive and long-term happiness is a mirage which won’t be there when you are finally ready to claim it.

So given this one overriding goal, how do I achieve it?

The devil is in the details and will differ for each man but here is a little wisdom which will apply to every man. Two meta-level goals that will almost inevitably put you closer to the main goal: Increase your control of your time. Increase your personal freedom. If you can do that, you can act upon the opportunities for happiness that come up and there are no accumulated liabilities holding you back. This is the essence of sigma masculinity. With this in mind, here’s a cheat sheet for mindset shifts that will steer you ever closer to increased control of your time and freedom.

1. Never surrender your right to decide
You can never ever delegate your responsibility for your own decisions. No matter who pressures you into a decision, no matter what their prestige or power, you must always make up your own mind. Circumstances may force you to act out of alignment (e.g. corporate work) but keep your thoughts your own. If you find yourself waiting for a blogpost by your favourite writer before developing an opinion on a subject, you aren’t being prudent. You’re being a woman.

It’s okay to defer to a superior authority’s expertise but not to defer to their interests. So for example if you’re in a gym and a superior fighter gives you some technical advice on your right hook, you should probably take it. He still has to convince you, but you’re amenable to the advise. In contrast, if he wants to push you off the heavy bag so he can queue jump it, tell him to fuck off. Nobody – not Putin, not Jesus, not anybody – has the right to co-opt your mind and your interests.

2. Don’t be a fan or a follower
If you desribe yourself as this, you’ve already broken rule #1. A fan is someone who sucks another man’s dick. A follower is someone who carries another man’s baggage. There are men in the world you will naturally respect and admire and this is a great thing. There are heroes in this world. You can be inspired by and taught by such men. I highly recommend it. But heroes are not looking for men to suck their dick.

Follow them? No, don’t be such a faggot. Women and children follow.

3. Don’t lead
I respect the hell out of Donald Trump, the man is a natural leader. That’s great and he’s alpha. Thing is, I’m not alpha and don’t wish to be. Alphas are permanently tied up in alliances, conflicts and status-jockeying. While that energies them, it flatly contradicts a sigma male’s control of his time and freedom. Trump has access to many great things that I don’t, but those things don’t matter to me half as much as my time and my freedom.

A good leader becomes responsile for his followers. That’s restrictive and undermines medium-term happiness.

Let him lead. You have hotties to fuck

4. Never give a shit about the opinion of anyone you don’t respect
I almost wrote this without adding “you don’t respect” but that would’ve been a little too isolating, and isolation leads to hubris. Respected peers can give you encouragement in your darker times and bring you down a peg during your more hubristic times. Value that but be very careful who you allow to advise you. Would you seek investment advice from a hobo? Relationship advice from a hen-pecked cuck? Fitness advice from a slob? Seduction advice from a chode?

The world is brimming with unsolicited opinoins from morons whose only goal is to chip away at you in order to make themselves feel good about messing with your frame. Anyone who has started a blog or high-profile Twitter account knows all about them. Ignore them. You have no duty to listen to, or even acknowledge, the opinions of any person on this earth.

5. Being respected is more important than being liked.
Stop trying to be liked. It’s extremely feminised behaviour. Women care what other people think about them because they are hard-wired to fear outgrouping. Men are their own powerplant. We bring the value to the group and if we don’t like the group we’ll take it elsewhere. When you’re the value, you don’t fear outgrouping. The group fears you leaving it.

People won’t trust you anyway. There’s something fluid, icky and distasteful about dealing with a man who moderates his own opinions in order to win popularity. Stand up for what you believe, polarise, and the let the chips fall where they may. You’ll have everybody’s respect, even if it’s grudging and hostile. From there, the men who deserve your friendship will make themselves known to you.

Short-term happiness personified

6. Better the respect of a small group of worthy peers than the adulation of a million morons
I used to call this the “Robbie Williams effect”. The former boy-band member can’t sing, can’t dance, can’t play an instrument, can’t write a song and yet for two years he was the most feted performer in the UK. At one point he performaced in front of 40,000 morons at a RobbieFest live event. Shortly afterwards he was in drug rehab.

The reasons are complex but a big part of it is the Imposter Effect. The adulation of no-nothing idiots is worse than worthless – it’s harmful. It’s the reverse of the supposed “wisdom of crowds”. If so many morons have so unswervingly come to like you, then you must be they kind of person morons like. That’s more damning to your psych than fucking thirty fat girls in a row. If you must solicit respect from others, make sure it’s people whose respect is worth having and that it’s based on living your values.

7. Popularity is weakness
I’ve known men who are so good-looking that they are constantly checked out by girls in bars or on the street. It’s a favourable position to be in if you can handle it. How could you fail to handle such an obviously favourable situation, you ask?

When you swim in unsolicited positive affirmations you become accustomed to them, and soon dependent upon them. Rather than looking inward for reasons to feel good, you become externally referenced. Feeling good is no longer within your control but is dependent upon a never-ending supply of positive affirmations. That will cause your internal referencing to wither and die. You should be as happy sitting under a tree alone at the beach as you are performing on a stage in front of a thousand fans. The exhilaration and emotional involvement will obviously differ, but your base level of self-worth should not.

We’ve all seen the spectacle of old boxers who can’t give up the sport, of singers touring long after their voice cracked, of formerly good-looking guys still hanging round bars trying to draw IOIs. It’s undignified. Don’t seek popularity. If it comes, keep it in perspective.

8. Never follow the flavour of the month
There will always be a new cause celebre, a new star, or a new fad. Always, without exception, and like the Wehrmacht trundling East it’ll always seem like it’ll last forever. There’s a word for people who follow trends: women.

Following a trend means unmooring your boat and letting the current dictate where you go. When that current expires the next current picks you up. There’s a word for people who allow themselves to be swept off their feet: women.

A man is in control of his own destiny. He doesn’t surrender it to fashion. Some of you may decide it’s smart to hop in front of a bandwagon and try to direct the crowd – whether it be Sarah Palin co-opting the Tea Party, or one of the many manosphere attempts to latch onto popular movements. This may be smart, but it’s effeminate. If you’re pushing the bandwagon, you’re effeminate without having the consolation of being smart.

Always be on the look-out for better-positioned men looking to co-opt your money and time into building their own empires. It’s like going to a rock concert – all that your money and adulation does is elevate the rock star to a position where he can fuck your girlfriend backstage. Don’t be cucked.

10. Always be ready to walk
No matter who you are talking to, how long you’ve known them, and what rewards they can bestow upon you….. be ready to walk away if they start tooling you. Your happiness is internally-referenced and you control your time and freedom. Nothing they might give you can ever outrank that, and they might well start chipping away at those things you desire most. Don’t even bother fighting to try to “beat them” – that also cuts into your time and freedom. Lock them out and never think of them again.

Sigma, yesterday

Paradoxically, if you live your life by the above-mentioned principles you probably will be more respected, more popular, richer, and fuck more hotties. That shouldn’t be the goal.

Lulu is having a 25% off + free shipping sale on all my printed books. Click here, choose your book, and enter LULURC code at the checkout.