The Gift That Keeps On Giving

Image

I can’t go back, can I?

No. But if you could, would you really want to?

-The Matrix

The red pill really is the gift that keeps on giving. Knowledge of how the world really works is something I revere. I define it as an of understanding of the true nature of humanity—an observation from new context—and the application of that knowledge through game, or learned charisma. I’ve thought of five ways in which this knowledge has enriched my life.

Before I get into that, however, I would like to address my semi-sober Solstice satire post from Saturday. I wrote it in an effort to increase my traffic and to get a reaction out of people with a puerile yet forthright piece. I was successful in both counts. My traffic has never been better (20% of my all-time visit count has come the past three days), and the reactions amused me, though they could have been a bit more clever. Hear-hear to commenter cheesynougats, who lamented:

For one, I am disappointed. The quality of snark in the comments is just subpar. Someone certainly can do better, and this _50 Shades of Grey_ knock-off failure deserves better.

For the record, yes, the post was intended to be stupid and haphazardly written. And no, I’m not that depraved of a human being. It’s not a true story, nor is it based on a true story (though it’s still more realistic than some of the kitsch Hollywood passes of these days).

So anyway, thank you for indulging me in my 50 Shades knockoff–that goes doubly for the haters.

FIVE WAYS THE RED PILL HAS IMPROVED MY LIFE:

It allows me to truly “be myself” around women.

The most common argument against a man learning game is that by doing so, he isn’t “being himself.” That all the scripts, canned lines, and learned actions are somehow disingenuous or even manipulative. Wrong. Game is nothing less than the way a man presents himself to the world. We all practice game in some sense—from engaging in polite conversation with someone who repulses us to dressing up for an interview. There are times that “being ourselves” just doesn’t cut it. So don’t fault the man who, for whatever reason, has failed in his previous relationships and decides to make conscious changes to ensure he doesn’t repeat those mistakes. If it requires a canned line to approach a woman, when just “being himself” would lead him to say nothing, then by all means, he should use the canned line. Any time a man steps out of his comfort zone, whether in his beliefs or his actions, it means he is doing something contrary to his natural self. I consider myself a completely different person than I was five years ago—my beliefs, my behaviors, my perspectives have all changed considerably. In five more years, they may change even more. And that’s okay. A static life is a boring life.

It has improved friendships and work relationships.

Talking with friends about game and having them as a support system has been an immense help to my ability to attract women and live a fulfilling life. It’s been amazing to note how viewing the world with others through the lens of truth, rather than what we wish was the truth, can solidify bonds and increase the desire to help each other achieve competence in our social skills (and I include fellow bloggers in this). This knowledge has also helped me in my career. I am working where I want to work, on my terms, and a major reason I was able to secure the position was because of what I’ve learned about how to present myself to others. Again, it’s not about being fake; it’s about being confident in my abilities and sell myself in a way that shows that.

I don’t take myself so seriously anymore.

I would have never dreamed of publishing an idiotic post like “Story Time” a few years ago, but I did because it amused me. If people have an issue with it, then that’s their problem, not mine. If they liked it (or any of my other posts), then great; it’s my intention to provide entertainment and valuable insights into the blogosphere, but I don’t lose sleep if I fail. The same attitude goes toward my social relationships. I’ve learned that a man who doesn’t take himself too seriously can approach women and get blown out time and again and remain positive, because he’s in it for a better reason than just getting laid. I don’t interact with women socially simply to “score pussy,” I do it because I genuinely enjoy it. And if relationships develop or sex comes as a result, fantastic. I’m never in desperation mode—I’m just having fun with it—and women pick up on that.

I can no longer play the victim card as an excuse.

When I was younger, and I struggled a great deal with attracting women, the first thing that ran through my mind was, “I just don’t have any luck.” It was the woe-is-me approach, and it only made things worse. Blaming outside forces for one’s own misery will do nothing but cause a negative feedback loop that will ultimately cause even more misery. The victim card is dangerous because it allows us to transfer our faults from ourselves to others. When that occurs, personal responsibility goes out the window. The idea of improving one’s self is a mere afterthought. It’s one of the reasons why feminism is a destructive ideology. Everything is based on getting society to improve rather than the individual. Meanwhile, the individual becomes an insufferable lump of stagnation. Neil Strauss, author of The Game, has long advocated the pick-up principle that no women are bitches. Now, that doesn’t really mean there are no bitches; the fields are plentiful and the harvest is ripe with them. What it does mean is that if we view pick-up opportunities from the mindset that no women are bitches, then our rejections are met with self-reflection (and ultimately, self-improvement), not blame or malice towards external foes. You can probably guess which philosophy works better.

It gives me the hope that true love does exist.

Wow, the tone of this article is awfully sanguine (not common in the Manosphere, I must say). Maybe I’m just in the Christmas spirit. Now, to clear things up, by “true love,” I mean true love, as opposed to false, manufactured, or settled-for love. Being socially adept and possessing an understanding of the female nature is exactly what women want from their men, and anything less than this will cause doubt in their love for them. So much of the “love” beta males receive in today’s society is based on rationalization (“this is the guy my mom always wanted me to marry, he must be right for me”) and the drop of standards (“well, we’re both 39 and have never been in a long-term relationship—if we don’t get married, we’ll end up alone”). Their women don’t truly love them. Now, I don’t claim to be an expert on what love really is. Whether it’s intense neuron activity or something more spiritual, it doesn’t matter. What matters is that it exists. As Heartiste boldly declared, “Love is the only thing in this world that isn’t bullshit.” But for it to be true, it must be founded on truth. By knowing the truth, and acting on it, men will indeed find more love in their lives. That’s why women’s love for the alpha male has never been stronger.

Merry Christmas to you all. Hope it is filled with joy and merriment! (That goes doubly for the haters.)

Hot-Santa-Girls-20

Advertisements

Be Different

 

I love this video. Linked from a Return of Kings article, it demonstrates two things. One of them, as discussed in the majority of comments below the article, is the observation of how different society was in 1987 compared to today. As illustrated here, people, not distracted by their smartphones and iPods, were friendlier (even the French). They didn’t mind being videotaped or interrogated by strangers. Approaching was easier. It was a carefree time.

But what do I know? I was two years old in 1987. This is a single glance at a single place featuring people high on the Small World fumes of Walt Disney World. In reality, 1987 was a turbulent time, and violent crime was nearing its apex, more than double what it is today. That’s why I try to avoid blind romanticism of the past. Some things are better, some things are worse. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter.

Why? Because of the other thing the video demonstrates, something that transcends the generations. Being different can be used to your advantage.

What normal person would go to 7-Eleven in the middle of the night and do videotaped interviews with every random person who walks into the store? Add in some clever banter, and you’ve got a recipe for social success.

Nothing particularly newsworthy happens during the video. But, in its own silly and insignificant way, it gives a glimpse of what men can do with some balls and a cultivated, unapologetic sense of humor. It is this attitude that women love. A few snippets:

“Oh it’s not on, don’t worry about it…can you sign this form?”

“You pay 10 cents to have less. It’s Weight Watchers.”

“Why’d you come here?” “Just to buy toothpaste.” “Juice bars?”

“You’ve come all the way from France to buy toothpaste?”

“Do you think we could get that mirror surgically removed from your chin?”

“Do they have 7-Elevens in France?” “No, we don’t have 7-Eleven, we have some other–” “We have Seveen Eleveen.”

No one of these comments is going to get a women into bed, but finding a way to develop a pattern of breaking out from the boredom of the world and giving people the chance to see your real personality is an absolutely essential component to being socially competent, and therefore, attractive.

So, those who have taken the red pill and know how to be different, go out there and be different. And in today’s world, that might mean nothing more than just talking to a girl. Add in a little game and it’s game over, man!

“It’s About My Cock. In Your Ass.”

Recently, George from 3rd Milennium Men valiantly defended this outpost of masculinity, aka the Manosphere, in an interview on The Huffington Post’s website. Rollo posted a thought-provoking response, expressing sentiments I would mostly echo. I wouldn’t come down as hard on George as Rollo did–he felt he “dropped the ball” in the interview. Personally, I thought he did well, laying out a slew of red pill responses to the pablum being spouted by the rest of the panel. (To be to fair, Rollo later admitted he was a little too harsh in his first assessment.)

Regardless, after watching the interview, I have come to the conclusion that trying to convince people on any sort of mass scale, particularly in their frame (as Rollo observed in his main post), is completely and utterly pointless. Why? Because we’re on the defensive.

It won’t work. It can’t work. We should know that by now.

It’s ironic that our central message is Game, yet we forget one of the most basic lessons any dude who bought Rules of the Game should have learned by page 125: defensiveness is the antithesis to Game. When we are seeking approval, we aren’t in control. We don’t have an “I am the prize” mentality. And adios to the aloofness women crave. We seem to be able to get this when it comes to attracting women to our individual personalities, but when it comes attracting people to our message we become the same needy betas many of us worked so many years to change away from.

The remedy? Have a look at what Rational Male reader Haniel has to say:

Posts like this make me truly grateful for Rollo’s presence in the manosphere. I am frightened by the thought of the manosphere going mainstream, because I know that it will only be allowed to go mainstream in order to water it down and ridicule it.

Know this: you were brought on that show to be ridiculed in order to discredit the manosphere. The manosphere has grown enough and has had a large enough influence that they now have to deal with it. This is phase one. And being anonymous just gave them a freebie. Not that it matters: they could’ve taken one of a hundred different posts and laughed at it like they did your eye-fucking one(which is great advice to us in the know).

As an aside, hearing those ladies drone on was near unbearable. I haven’t watched TV in years, so I had almost forgotten that airheads that like are allowed air time. Seriously, most of their arguments were simply emphasizing buzz words (“It’s about honesty, It’s about togetherness…”). There was absolutely no substance at all. I just wanna go on that show and repeat whatever one of the women say back to them after running a quick find/replace algorithm:

“It’s about my cock. In your ass.”

And the other lady admitted she spent her youth in bars chasing bad boys. And her husband had weekly friend-date-nights in which he listened to her talk about her problems with her latest guy. And after a few years of this he got the prize of marrying her. And that’s how it should work out happily ever after? YEAH YOU SURE SOLD ME ON BEING A NICE GUY.

I couldn’t have said it any better. This panel of feminist marionettes wasn’t interested in learning something from George; they were interested in finding a bully they could band together and fight against. Add in the fact the anonymity automatically puts him in an impossible position, and we have a recipe for a Manosphere beatdown.

I want you guys to ask yourself a question; think hard (heh) for a second. What is the Manosphere really about? When the stones are laid bare (double heh), why are we here? Why are we writing? Why are we reading?

My answer is simple:

It’s about improving the quality and quantity of women I have in my life. Or, in Haniel terms, “It’s about my cock. In your ass.”

And, as a corollary, if I happen to assist a fellow man in a similar endeavor, awesome. If not, I won’t lose any sleep at night. And it certainly isn’t worth giving up my anonymity. As super commenter Ya Really wrote:

It’s retarded to me that people would even consider expecting the Manosphere/PUAs to use their real names/faces. Once your ideas are attached to your real life persona, you have to censor them so it doesn’t affect your day-to-day life/career/reputation/etc. We can have honest discussions because of our anonymity.

I’ve fucked a bunch of married chicks, and because of that I can explain all sorts of shit about attraction, hypergamy, alpha/beta dynamics, the psychology behind backwards rationalization, etc. that can help men. You think I’d want my real name/face plastered everywhere to score a few brownie points on a news clip? Lol

Plus like I said, it wouldn’t even make a difference. If you showed your face they’d just label you creepy because of your haircut or your movie posters in the background or one of 10,000 other things. All being anonymous did was give them an easy shit-test, like wearing a fuzzy hat to a bar.

That’s it. I’m not out to change the world, or convince the multitudes, or get people to like me. I’m out to find sex and love. The Manosphere is a medium through which I can teach and learn those things. Call me a socially inactive MGTOW if you wish, but there’s nothing more I want to do, much less can do. I’ve observed that we concern so much of our time on this planet worrying about things we cannot control (who will be president, global warming, how successful our favorite sports team is) and not enough on the things we truly can. That’s my focus.

I’ve tweeted that the Manosphere should neither be mainstreamed nor defended. We can’t completely control whether or not it gets mainstreamed, but we can certainly control how defensive we are about it. And as the Roosh prophecy continues towards fulfillment, perhaps we can channel our inner Haniel a little more often. So the next time some manboob lackey or feminist harridan “challenges” you, worry only about amusing yourself, and those men who have some sense and like the take-no-shit attitude will find us and the truths we espouse.

What’s the Manosphere about?

It’s about my cock. In your ass.

Why do girls date jerks?

Because their pussy wants a pounding.

Why don’t you reveal your face?

Because my face makes pussy cum.

The New Manginany

Honey, I’m home from the Manosphere! Hope my food is cooked and you’re prepared for a black eye!

And thus sums up the thesis of “The New Misogyny,” a vacuous piece (of steaming shit) on the Manosphere, written by Jeff Moniker of the Daily Kos. A vapid, cursory glance at a little slice of cold-hard reality, “The New Misogyny” is barely worthy of a rebuttal–but considering the readership of Daily Kos, I’ll pay Moniker’s story its due by shredding it to pieces. And by giving you a glance at the sad state of the blue pill world, hopefully this slander will achieve the purpose it’s so busy railing against.

There has been a growing internet movement of “men’s rights” activists, Pick up artists and others who call themselves “the Manosphere.” While it’s still small it has changed the way hateful ideologies function.

We’re off to a nice start. No surprise “men’s rights” is something that has to be included in quotation marks. But I am admittedly curious as to how we have “changed the way” hateful ideologies function! Perhaps the Jacobins could have learned something from us…

It’s no secret that for the past few years there has been a dramatic assault over women’s rights, re-opening questions that were thought to be settled for decades. From contraception to abortion to basic protection from rape, (seen in Congress’s failure to re-authorize the Violence Against Women Act), it seems that centuries of struggle have been re-opened.

The “dramatic assault” on women’s rights the past few years has boiled down to common-sense opposition to bad legislation. Contraception and abortions being funded by taxpayer money, with forced cooperation from religious organizations is wrong. VAWA is discriminatory by its very nature. The only thing being assaulted these days is the Constitution.

However beneath the public debates over contraception and abortion there has been a different kind of struggle over gender.  In the underbelly of the internet, what can only be called a new misogyny has emerged but hasn’t received the kind of attention it needs.

Careful with your suggestions, Jeffy. Too many people see the sensible, reality-based conclusions of the Manosphere, your hippy dippy SWPL edifice will come crashing down sooner rather than later…

The community that characterize this misogyny call themselves the Manosphere, an interlocking network of blogs for “men’s rights” activists (MRAs), pickup artists (PUA) and some online gamers. Unlike the mainstream conservative conceptions of women, the views espoused by the manosphere harkens back to what can only be described as a proto-fascist, and surprisingly, is becoming more popular on the internet.

Mussolini was the first Manosphere blogger. True story.

MRAs often favor policies as regressive as re-legalizing martial rape, preventing women from going into higher education, and with some going so far as to want to abolish female suffrage entirely (yes really) lest it interfere with women’s societal priorities as baby makers.

It should be noted now that Moniker never quotes a single Manosphere blogger in the entire piece. He can’t even be bothered to quote them out of context, or provide a context for any accusations. He’s just going to tell you what we proto-fascists all believe. By the way, Heartiste’s observation that “the worst thing to happen to America was women’s suffrage,” was just that–an observation. There are no calls for stripping such rights away; the main point of most of the red-pill writers is that we as men should take advantage of the situation we happen to find ourselves in. The Manosphere is much too hedonistic and apolitical (as Moniker admits in the next paragraph) to get around to “abolishing” anything. Why? More self-entitled, independent & amoral sluts=more sex.

What’s odd isn’t just the intensity of the regression but also the completely apolitical nature of it. Unlike conservatives who view women’s roles in a context of a broader political project, MRAs only interest is in women themselves, with little regard to politics insofar as it doesn’t affect men’s power over men [women?]. Indeed some of the hot button issues regarding women in American politics, from abortion to birth control are generally superfluous if not outright ignored by the community.

This seems to take the air out of the whole “dramatic assault” on women’s rights argument. “Those FASCISTS aren’t out to take away your rights or anything, they just have really baaaaaad beliefs!”

Originally it started off as a small movement of “men’s rights” activists in the late 1970s. However it didn’t grow until the development of the pickup community in the 80s and 90s. Much like the MRAs, PUAs base their practice on many of the same views, often relying on the dubious work of evolutionary psychology (good critiques of which can be found here and here). After pickup was popularized in the 2000s with the VH1 show The Pick Up Artist and the New York Times bestseller The Game, the communities melded with the MRAs to create the manosphere.

Ooh, two links “criticique”-ing evolutionary psychology! Guess that makes the score 200-2. Search the Chateau for all the science behind game. To say the work of evopsy is “dubious” is just as dubious. Personally, such proofs are not my main focus, as the red-pill truths are obvious to anyone willing to truly observe this culture we live in.

As an aside, I decree that Jeff Moniker’s “profession” shall henceforth only be referred to as “writer.” And you have to overtly do the quote fingers every time you say it out loud.

Recently it seems that the recession has been a major boon to their ideology. Because times are tough on both sexes, but especially hard on positions of employment typically held by men, it has been fuel for gender resentment. As the New York Times points out in an article titled The Myth of Male Decline:

“What we are seeing is a convergence in economic fortunes, not female ascendance. Between 2010 and 2011, men and women working full time year-round both experienced a 2.5 percent decline in income. Men suffered roughly 80 percent of the job losses at the beginning of the 2007 recession.”

First, this statistic is comparing income decline and job loss, two different things. And second, to the NYT, 2007 wasn’t that long ago! 80%?! Good lord! I didn’t even know that. Add a point to the cause!

It also seems the other factor growing this community, especially the pickup community, has been a lack of sex. As Sandy Hingston points out in an examination of twenty-something men, the situation is grim. The economy has made it so that “[y]oung men are now nearly twice as likely as young women to live with their parents; 59 percent of guys ages 18 to 24 and 19 percent of 25-to-34-year-olds live at home.” Indeed according to the Centers for Disease Control, even virginity has increased.

No argument here. It is grim. So men have a choice, they can keep living in the Matrix and doing the same crap they’ve been doing, or they can unplug, see the world for what it is, and improve their time on this planet.

In a way, the manosphere acts like a kind of self-help group for these kinds of problems with a clear sales pitch: “Can’t get a job? Can’t get laid? Still live with your mom? No fear, we’ll teach you how to pick up women and become a true Alpha Male. It’s those feminists trying to keep you down.”

Until Manginaker can deconstruct the techniques used to pick up women and develop alpha personas, instead of relying on sarcastically brushing aside the techniques as a hollow sales pitch, he has no argument.

It’s worth examining the pickup techniques themselves. On first examination, the techniques do seem to be effective. As one German study found, in a small group of 17 men and 23 women, men were able to pick up almost four times as many phone numbers after the training.

Failing so far…

However it came with a catch, in the same study, both men and women said they felt considerably guilt for using the techniques, a reportedly common problem for people in the PUA community.

Ah, guilt. One of the five roadblocks to game. But probably the least worrisome. Think about it this way: if I was to give the average man, one of those guys who “can’t get a job,” “can’t get laid,” and/or “still lives with mom,” a magic potion that allowed him to solve those problems, but the only side effect would be a little guilt, do you think he would take it?

Guilt can be overcome. Guilt does not HAVE to come from “running game.” There are basic things every man can do, from developing better body language to learning to shed his insecurities, that he can and should do to attract women. That should not induce guilt. Anyone who really gets the message of the Manosphere won’t be overly affected by guilt. In fact, the Manosphere helped me place Game (which I knew about for about a year before learning of this world of blogs) into a context that made game much more operable for me.

Also, this is based off one German study. Nicht schlüssig, Geoffrey!

larger study by the University of Kansas came with even more worrying findings. Using 850 national volunteers it was found that pickup techniques have a selection bias: they work best with men and women who already have sexist attitudes.  As it observed, hostilely sexist men (men who hate women) and benevolently sexist women (women who idolize men) were the most likely to benefit from pickup techniques. That is, the techniques create a self-fulfilling prophecy which confirms the sexist biases of the PUAs.

We wouldn’t want a benevolently sexist (aka “feminine”) woman, now would we?! Sounds like an additional point to our “sales pitch.”

I will call bullshit on this study, though, based solely on observation. Game works just fine on women who don’t “idolize” men, probably more so. They. eat. it. up.

On the one hand we might ask why we should even care. While it might have grown, the new misogyny is still a marginal force.

Moniker hasn’t been able to get the term “marginal force” out of his head ever since his first girlfriend dubbed him that.

To put it simply, it is successful because people don’t care; seeing it as an immature self-help tool and not as a full-blown ideology. Most other hateful ideologies operate semi-publicly: pointing to a scapegoat and then recruiting people to attack it. This does the opposite; it appears as neutral training and instills a scapegoat through its methods.

Wait, we’re already wrapping up? Where was the supporting evidence behind the “hateful ideology” accusation? This little drivel-filled essay would get an INCOMPLETE stamp in a freshman English class.

Imagine for instance if people gave supposedly non-ideological training to “Avoid Money Manipulation” (AMM). As part of AMM training it gives characteristics of people that will try to manipulate your money, and that these people just happened to be Jewish; you see it’s not anti-Semitic, it’s because of evolutionary-you get the idea.

Aaaaand we’ve come to the reductio ad Hitlerium portion of the show. Really, Jeff? Why don’t you look in the mirror before “giving the characteristics of people” you disagree with?

Indeed we may be witnessing a shift for hateful ideologies; no longer able to function publicly, they now rely on supposedly neutral, private training to instill and spread their values.

This in a sense has always been the refuge of hate groups, to keep their mode of operation secret, even if this now means making their beliefs a semi-secret as well. Thus, the best we have to confront these kinds of attitudes is to make them known to the public.

The first reaction the mangina has to the cold truths of reality is to dub it “hateful.” So he makes it his mission to expose this dangerous ideology, which must be confronted. And how exactly? I get the feeling the solution to that has a lot more to do with “proto-fascism” than do red-pill beliefs, centered around the idea that “love is the only thing in this world that isn’t bullshit.”

Types Of Beta: The J.F. Sebastian

There is no greater teaching tool than the real-world example. The next best option is the manufactured example based on a “type” which can be found in the real world–i.e., movies.

The Manosphere is chock-full of references to the alpha-beta dynamic. But what does it mean to be an alpha or a beta? Or, more precisely, what does it look like? How exactly does the alpha succeed and the beta fail in both the hedonistic pursuit of sexual interaction and the romantic pursuit of the fulfilling relationship? In an attempt to answer this, I plan a recurring series of “Types” posts, featuring greater alphas and lesser betas and everything in between. No need to focus on omegas–just flip the channel to TLC on a weeknight sometime if you want a glimpse into that self-inflicted hell.

For my first beta type, I refer you to the sci-fi classic Blade Runner. As I watched it recently, it occurred to me how much one of the characters–J.F. Sebastian–reminded me of oh-so-many guys I’ve come across over the years.

Sebastian’s character, played by William Sanderson, is a genetic designer working for the Tyrell Corporation, which created some renegade Replicants (androids) seeking to confront their maker. Two of these Replicants–the male Batty and female Pris–use Sebastian to gain access to Tyrell, where Batty kills him (and, it is implied, Sebastian as well).

The following transcript is the scene in which Pris, who pretends to be vagabond sleeping in a pile of trash, arranges her preplanned meeting with Sebastian (my comments in crimson):

Sebastian: Hey! You forgot your bag.

Pris: I’m lost.

Sebastian: Don’t worry, I won’t hurt you. (pause) What’s your name?

Pris: Pris.

Sebastian: Mine’s J. F. Sebastian.

Already he has come off as harmless as a three-legged puppy and given out his name unprovoked. Rough start.

Pris: Hi.

Sebastian: Hi. Oh, where were you going? Home?

Pris: I don’t have one. We scared each other pretty good, didn’t we?

Sebastian: We sure did.

Her frame.

Pris: I’m hungry.

J. F. Sebastian: I’ve got some stuff inside. You want to come in?

No challenge, no teasing…no fun.

Pris: I was hoping you’d say that.

As Sebastian walks up to his building to unlock the door, the camera pans on a mischievous Pris, slyly grinning as she realizes her plan is moving along swimmingly. Imagine a spoiled girl getting her daddy to cave into her desires just because she puts on the innocent act. Sebastian falls for it hook line and sinker.

[Pris and Sebastian enter building.]

Pris: Do you live in this building all by yourself?

Sebastian: Yeah, I live here pretty much alone right now. No housing shortage around here. Plenty of room for everybody. (pause)

Being a lone wolf isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but it’s clear he’s not exactly turning on any preselection switches here.

Pris: (cough)

Sebastian: Watch out for the water.

Pris: Must get lonely here.

J. F. Sebastian: Mmm… Not really. I make friends… [Wait a second, maybe he can recover here!] They’re toys. My friends are toys. [Nevermind.] I make them. It’s a hobby. I’m a genetic designer. Do you know what that is?

Another unprovoked piece of information.

Pris: No.

Sebastian: Yoo-hoo, home again.

Toys: Home again, home again, jiggity jig. Good evening.

J. F. Sebastian: Good evening, fellas.

Toy 1: Oooh!

Sebastian: They’re my friends. I made them. Where are you’re folks?

Pris: I’m sort of an orphan.

Sebastian: Oh, what about your friends?

Pris: I have some, but I have to find them. I’ll let ’em know where I am tomorrow.

Sebastian: Oh. Can I take those things for you? They’re soaked aren’t they?

And finishes it off with a little dose of white knightery. You can see where this is going.

I won’t post any more of the script, as this is enough to demonstrate the J.F. Sebastian Beta. Suffice to say, he goes on to get embarrassingly cockblocked (Batty comes over and kisses Pris right in front of him), talks about why he is physically unable to leave Earth (caused by the “accelerated decrepitude” of Methuselah Syndrome), and gets killed in a naive effort to allow Batty to speak with Tyrell. (You can see that scene–great cinema, by the way– here. Note Sebastian’s bewildered, cowering demeanor at 1:53.)

For sake of argument, I’m treating the interactions Sebastian had with Pris as pick-up opportunities, even if the actual situation was not such. I simply analyze the interactions for what they are and what can be gleaned from them. Also keep in mind the crimson arts are more than picking up women in bars; they compose a suite of traits useful for any social encounter.

Further, I realize Blade Runner is far from being a film one watches to critique the nuances of good and bad game, but I saw in this side character a beta too blustering to pass up as an example. So then, my final assessment of the J.F. Sebastian, categorized by important aspects of game: (Ratings: Very weak, weak, moderate, strong, very strong)

Opening: Moderate. He allowed her to spook him in his territory, but she opened him (albeit for nefarious reasons) and he was, at the very least, engaging.

Negs/Teasing: Very weak. He presents no challenges. He fails to leverage the situation to his advantage by knocking her down a peg.

Qualifying: Very weak. Hmmm… strange girl in an ominous world just shows up out of nowhere and wants to come into your house and you abide without asking her a single qualifying question?

DHV: Weak. He has no friends besides toys, but at least he doesn’t apologize for it. Also, he seems to not give off the vibe he’s miserable in his situation, so it’s not his weakest attribute.

Preselection: Very weak. He is practically begging for a female visitor. Pris knows his sexual loneliness is a vulnerability and she takes full advantage of it.

Rapport: Moderate. Most betas aren’t bad at this; the problem is they focus solely on this and fall into the friend zone. Sebastian does his best to get to know her, but most of it is a barrage of the boring questions girls are all-too accustomed to hearing.

Frame Control: Very Weak. Whether it’s with Pris or Batty in later scenes, Sebastian’s world is always swallowed up by the world of his guests.

Physical (Body Language, KINO): Very weak. He has no sense of escalation, and exhibits mostly docile, even submissive, body language.

Dark Triad: Weak. He is a beacon of nonthreatening passivity, but I’ll give him points for having a mysterious aura about himself and for working for the shady corporation in charge of manufacturing vengeful androids.

FINAL ANALYSIS: The J.F. Sebastian is the guy who would be, coincidentally, the beta most likely to watch Blade Runner by himself in his studio apartment on a Friday night rather than go out. He is warm, independent, and has the ability to gain rapport and trust from a woman. He probably has a mildly interesting vocation and maybe, if a woman is willing to dig deep enough, an enigmatic existence and life philosophy. He has some major sticking points, however. He has no sense of what it means to be dominant, and is easily manipulated. His frame is feeble. He pedestalizes women and hopes they will like him for his dotty nice-guy disposition, to no avail. While he’s not necessarily an introvert, he is content with his enclosed world, and thus, his hopes of ever spreading his seed are low without massive game intervention and some friends willing to pull him out of his comfort zone.

If you have any ideas for an alpha or beta type whom I could analyze using this system, please comment here. There are scores of different types of men; I don’t put limits on how many examples I choose to learn from.

The Barrage Of Boring

I had some extra free time last week, and after discovering new full-length compilations of seminars given by Neil Strauss and Mystery put up recently on youtube (thanks to users johnboy20011 and Sacha Pua), I decided to go old-school and watch them. Granted, much of this stuff is from the mid-2000s, and yes, many other pick-up artists have emerged since, but it still amazes me how clear and sensible these two guys come off. Some of the techniques have changed, but the basic fundamentals are all right here, fellas. This stuff works, as long as you believe in your ability to execute it. Combine it with some of the red-pill advice, philosophy, and science from the manosphere and you’ve got a template for masculine success.

I’ll let the videos speak for themselves (and perhaps comment on certain aspects of the seminars in later posts). But here I would like to discuss a phrase Mystery used a couple times throughout his seminars–“barrage of boring.” It is a phrase that carries with it a lot of weight. Not only does it perfectly describe the Beta Experience® offered to and passed upon by women the world over, it is powerful ammunition in the fight against haters who claim game is subterfuge.

The best arguments tend to be laconic in nature. What better response to some blowhard who rails on about game being a tool to manipulate women, or that it creates fake guys, or that it’s only good for teaching guys what not to do, than “Girls are tired of the barrage of bore.” In this smartphone world of meager attention spans and flaking epidemics, the last thing a man can be in front of a woman is BORING. And they indeed suffer through a barrage of it. As much as we’d like to think that men are slowly gravitating towards the light of truth vis-á-vis women’s primal natures, I can’t tell you how much bad game I witness on a regular basis. The getting-to-know-you questions of the comfort stage are commonplace within the first five minutes (if not as the opener itself). Demonstrations of higher value are as rare as French war victories. Negs and teasing? Out of the question.

Men, our women are bored. Mystery pointed this out in 2005. And it’s not getting any better. If there’s any cause we really need to “man up” for, this would be it. The fact is, most women would ultimately RATHER be manipulated by an exciting, high value man than engage in stodgy conversation with a milquetoast beta playing it straight. Mystery pointed out that the average good-looking 23-year old girl has already been hit on thousands of times in her life. You really think you can come in and play Interview Question game with her and achieve anything beyond a phone number not worth the receipt it’s written on?

Sadly, reality isn’t what most of us wish it was. Men, the true romantics, like to envision a world in which a girl “gets them” after five minutes of dull conversation and they go on to live happily ever after. Unless you’re courting Jennifer Livingston, that doesn’t happen. You have to provide value, real or not, to be interesting to an attractive woman. Like it or not, you’ve got to entertain the hamster, just not in the typical ways it has come to expect.

So, how does one avoid becoming another flying turd in her barrage of bore? A few thoughts:

  • Stand out. Know your situation and calibrate. If all the other guys are stumbling around drunk, keep your head on tight for the night. If you’re at the church social, be the shady guy who’s cool enough to make her forget her parents would never approve of you. Be masculine when the world is turning every other man gynic. Peacock inasmuch as you can exude confidence, while remembering the real reason you’re doing it.
  • Come up with stories illustrating you’re preselected, dominant, a protector of loved ones, fun, and spontaneous. If you don’t have any such stories, start going out more. Or make one up.
  • Demonstrate that you have a sense of humor. Bring an energy slightly above that which is already in the set. Learn to recognize shit tests and stop falling for them.
  • Demonstrate an ability to walk away, even if she’s “hijacked your brain” (great phrase coined by Mystery) during comfort.
  • Don’t be afraid to admit you have feelings for her, but in ways that show you’re not needy or desperate.
  • Develop skills and talents. Be a well-rounded, well-read man.
  • Don’t be afraid to try something new. I’m all for following a pre-schemed path from attraction to comfort to seduction, but you’ve got to learn to trust your gut. The man who can’t calibrate is a man who must masturbate.

So You’re Suddenly Cocky-Funny?

Over at PUA Forums, there was a concern coming from someone who felt he had failed in transitioning from his old AFC self to cocky-funny at his workplace, noting that the girls there didn’t want to talk to him anymore. There was an insightful comment from LockDown, who expounded on a theory he had about using cocky-funny techniques on girls at work:

Im not a super PUA yet or anything but i had a theory about c and f and work.

I believe when u try it at work, you are dealing with women who have known u for so long that c&f fries their brain. They already have u set up as a friend ( u said they used to hang out). Now they see a new side of u… an attractive side. Its hard to reconcile those two things. So they kinda back off. B4 they were comfortable with u because u were in LJBF zone (unless u have more info to contrary). So it was easy for them to approach u and ask to hang out. However, when u show the alpha qualities, they now want u to lead. They are attracted so they go into ‘ i dont want to give off obvious signs that i like him’ mode.

But trust me its there. U just have to lead now. Take the rains and run with it. Im sure they are at least curious about why/how u had this personality change.

I too have noticed this phenomenon. When you go C&F on a girl you’ve never met before, she won’t bat an eye, because she doesn’t have any preconceived notions of you. But when you do it on a girl who knows you already (particularly at work, where you’re not only pegged as beta but you’re also within the bounds of a “professional” environment), your feedback may not be so welcoming.

The reason I quote LockDown’s post and not the others isn’t because there wasn’t good advice, but that it was predictable — he went “over the top,” he didn’t “calibrate correctly,” etc. But they were all based on the assumption that the girls at work didn’t like what he was doing. LockDown’s analysis adds another possibility — that they actually were attracted to their new and improved co-worker but didn’t know how to “reconcile” it. In other words, the same behavior coming from a complete stranger would have had them swooning, but because it was from their LJBF work buddy, they rationalized against their attraction.

I like the last paragraph of the comment the best. It illustrates the maxim that irrational self-confidence trumps rational defeatism every time. Assume the sale. That is the heart of cocky-funny. Without that attitude as your foundation, your cocky-funny will crash and burn, and will make girls uncomfortable. Also, he is very astute in the observation that the girls are “at least curious” about why the sudden change in attitude and behavior has come about. Even if he did take it “too far,” the female brain can’t help but wonder why. And if they’re wondering about you, that means you’ve gotten into their heads — which puts you above 90% of the ignored whitenoise coming from the scores of betas they sift through every day.

Of course it’s possible that the guy who made the original post didn’t calibrate properly, and the advice of the other posters was spot-on. But as far as what we can take and apply from his experiences, LockDown’s theory is what should be kept in mind. Just a few caveats:

  • Don’t bother trying this on unattractive girls, and keep it to a minimum on average girls. The hotter the girl, the better C&F game works. And while every girl, fat or thin, ugly or pretty, will be curious about the change, why bother if she’s not worth hooking up with?
  • It should be obvious, but save your best C&F game for when you get together outside the workplace. The core of your workplace game should be about leading with authority, constructing an unbreakable frame, and not being overly accommodating to others’ demands. So in other words, demonstrate alpha much more indirectly than directly. The last thing you need is some bullshit sexual harassment suit. But then again, if you’re really C&F’ing correctly, they’re going to feel so disqualified that if you do get in trouble, it will be for simply being an asshole. Not necessarily a bad thing. Calibration is of utmost importance on this one.
  • Don’t actively chase any girl who has LJBF’ed you. Your pursuits should be going towards a new crop of girls. Let the co-worker chicks chase you if they like your game enough. But remember, the best way for that to happen is to combine your C&F with a little dose of preselection.

Tomorrow The Sun Will Rise

“And I know what I have to do now. I gotta keep breathing. Because tomorrow the sun will rise. Who knows what the tide could bring?” -Chuck Noland, Cast Away

—-

We all have those nights.

I was tired. I was inside my head. I had a few too many drinks. My game sucked. And I wanted out. Not just of the venue, but of the game entirely.

I was sick of women. Sick of the hoops, the entitled attitude, the flaking. And yes, I was blaming them. They were the reason I was striking out. It was their fault. I was the victim.

—-

[the sun rises]

What a counterproductive mindset that is. The victim mentality is the most cankerous psychological struggle we face when trying to improve our social interactions. It provides a tidy little excuse why we shouldn’t improve, or worse, why we can’t improve. Once we convince ourselves that something is beyond our control, it is. The victim card is the subterfuge for a weak will.

I believe the antidote is hope.

I have a different view on hope than some of my fellow bloggers, who tend to criticize the concept. Hope is what drives me. Not the phony hope of a fantasy world so many of us have constructed. But hope grounded in truth, like that tomorrow the sun will rise. Or that I am capable of attracting the girls I desire.

Keep breathing, gentlemen.

Great Scenes Of Game On TV

The rise of feminism in the West has manifested itself in many outlets, perhaps none more overt than in the entertainment industry. For the most part, American television and cinema has become an egalitarian wasteland flooded with stories of empowered chicks having their pick in the sexual market into their menopausal years and beyond, spineless men being forced into puppydog submission by their domineering wives, gender roles being completely reversed, beta persistence paying off to “win” the girl at the end, and beautiful young women pining over glittery vampires.

However, once in awhile, a gem stands out. And in this case, it comes in one of the unlikeliest of places — the long-running hit sitcom “Friends.” While cleverly written, “Friends” consistently parroted the popular feminist shibboleths of its day underneath the warm exterior of humor — that the player life was not one to be desired, that single motherhood should be celebrated, that past sluttiness shouldn’t be a deterring factor in committing to a girlfriend or wife, that pompous wedding ceremonies and ravish rings were the only legitimate way to kick off a marriage, etc.

The diamond in the rough came in a Season Nine run of episodes featuring a romance between Rachel (Jennifer Aniston) and her co-worker Gavin (Dermot Mulroney). Gavin, the “jerk” (Rachel’s words) who filled in for her while she was away on maternity leave, displayed some excellent examples of Alphetiquette in his brief run on the show. Needless to say, if you’re someone who enjoys seeing solid game (as opposed to beta pandering) winning over the girl, you’d probably wish NBC replaced the hapless Ross (David Schwimmer) with Gavin as Rachel’s ultimate choice at the end of the series.

Here is a clip of the scenes of the episode in which Gavin is introduced, with dialogue and the Colonel’s commentary below:

Scene 1: 0:00-0:36

[Ross and Rachel, with their newborn child, head to Rachel’s office at Ralph Lauren, where she plans to be returning in two weeks. They discuss how their girl keeps being mistaken for a boy.]

The only problem with the entire pickup is unveiled right away: Gavin’s about to go after a single mom. But since it’s Jennifer Aniston, who maintained her looks well into her 30s, I’ll cut him some slack.

Rachel: Who the hell are you!?

Gavin: Who the hell are you?

Hoop 1 avoided. Gavin immediately shows he’s in charge of the conversation and he’s not playing by the rules of beta social convention by eagerly answering every question like he would in a job interview.

Rachel: I’m the hell person whose office this is!

Ross: Good one, Rache.

Guy: I’m Gavin Mitchell, the person who’s taken over your job.

Now he answers, brimming with confidence and authority.

Rachel: Excuse me?

Gavin: Oh, your baby’s so cute. Why did you put a pink bow on a boy?

Probably not a neg you’d read in The Game but it achieves the same result.

Scene 2: 0:36-2:31

Rachel: Wait a minute! What do you mean, you’re taking over my job?

Gavin: Well, while you were on your baby vacation I was doing your job.

Game principle displayed: reframing.

Rachel: A vacation? My idea of a vacation does not involve something sucking on my nipples until they are raw.

Gavin: Clearly you’ve never been to Sandles Paradise Island.

Game principle displayed: wit.

Rachel: Alright! Don’t get too comfortable there, because I’m back in two weeks! And I want everything back to the way it was. I can’t say that I care too much for the way you’ve rearranged my office.

Gavin: I can’t say I care too much for that smell you’ve brought in with you.

You’ll notice he never lets her lead the conversation. And he never goes on the defensive; he simply reframes.

Rachel: Excuse me?

Ross: Rache, we have a code brown situation.

Rachel: Can you please, please take care of it for me?

Ross: Alright, but you have to do one sometime.

Meanwhile, in Betaland, Ross is stuck changing diapers for his born-out-of-wedlock child while his baby’s momma gets hit on by an alpha right in front of him.

Rachel: Let me just get this straight! So I go have a baby and they send some guy in to do my job?

Gavin: Well, there was talk of shutting down Ralph Lauren all together.

Funniest line of the episode. He’s slowly chiseling away at the pedestal guys like Ross took years to craft for her.

Rachel: That’s right. You’re very cheeky for a temp.

Gavin: I’m not a temp. I was transferred here from another department.

Rachel: Oh yeah, what department was that? The Jerk department?

If a girl calls you a jerk, especially while bantering with you, you know you’ve activated her tingle sequence.

Gavin: Oh, they didn’t tell me about your quick wit.

If only betas understood that respect must be earned. A bad comeback deserves teasing, not feeble supplication. And women wouldn’t have it any other way.

Rachel: Did they mention that I’m rubber and you’re glue?

Mr. Zelner: (Enters) Gavin, Ralph loved your ideas.

Rachel: Oh, hi Mr. Zelner.

Mr. Zelner: Ah, Rachel, I see you’ve met Gavin. I must say, when you left us we weren’t sure what we were gonna do. But then, Gavin to the rescue. Super Gavin!

His boss is a great wingman. DHV for him so he doesn’t have to.

Rachel: That’s great. So now, Super Gavin, when I come back where are you planning on flying off to?

Gavin: Well, that’s up to Mr. Zelner. I’m sure he’ll make the right decision.

Rachel: (To herself) Oh, wow. Super ass-kissing power.

Mr. Zelner: Incidentally, when are you coming back?

Rachel: Uh…today.

Gavin: You said two weeks.

Rachel: No, I said to-day! See, for a superhero, not so much with the listening.

Scene 3: 2:31-3:20

Rachel: Alright. Now that I’m back, why don’t you just fill me in on what you’ve been up to?

Gavin: Well, I’ve changed your screensaver from that picture of N-Sync.

More teasing. Excellent.

Rachel: Hey, they were popular when I left!

Gavin: But mostly I’ve just been working on this big presentation for tomorrow.

Rachel: Well, I should be involved in that, so why don’t you get me up to speed?

Gavin: That’s gonna take weeks. Why don’t just let me take care of the presentation?

Never forget the critical importance of body language and vocal tonality in pickup. If you were to just read Gavin’s previous line of dialogue, you’d probably imagine him whining this line, pleading with Rachel to allow him to take care of the presentation. But when you watch the video, you see he gives her a back turn, throws out an authoritative hand, and speaks the question as though it were a statement.

Rachel: Oh, no no no no. I see what you’re doing here, alright, listen, this is my job buddy. Okay, I’ve had it for five years, and I know how it works, so why don’t you just catch me up?

Gavin: Fine.

Notice how his responses are almost always more terse than hers. Game principle displayed: the 2/3 rule.

Rachel: (Sits down in her chair) Oh god. You’ve totally messed with the back support of my chair. How do you fix this?

Gavin: Hey, you’ve been here five years, you figure it out.

He wins an Asshole Game gold medal for this line (and the delivery by Mulroney is perfect). In a situation where most guys would rush at the chance to aid (or, more accurately, impress) the damsel in distress, he doesn’t. Game principle displayed: Don’t be like everyone else.

Rachel: Fine, I will. (Pushes lever on chair, making it collapse) Alright, fill me in!

Note the smug, shit-eating grin at 3:15. Mulroney’s got his alpha body language down pat.

Scene 4: 3:23-5:15

Gavin: (Enters) Wow, you’re here already.

Rachel: Yes. Emma and I came in a little early to do research on the presentation. I actually made a few changes, but I think I’m caught up on everything. So ask me anything!

Gavin: How do you fix the chair?

The best way to psychologically maintain your status above hers is through humor. Never take her too seriously.

Rachel: Except that! (Mr. Zelner enters) Oh, hello, Mr. Zelner. We’re all ready for our presentation this afternoon.

Mr. Zelner: Good, because it’s in ten minutes.

Rachel: What? I can’t do that! I have the baby, and Ross is not gonna pick her up for another hour.

Mr. Zelner: Well, then Gavin can give the presentation, okay, we have to do it now. Ralph needs to leave early today. He’s going helicopter shopping.

Rachel: Alright well, there you go. You win, you win. You get to do the presentation, you’ll knock ’em dead, no one will ever remember that I worked here, and then Ralph will buy his helicopter, and Super Gavin will just fly right along side of him!

Gavin: You can do the presentation.

This is where Gavin switches gears, displaying his nice guy side. This works because he has already demonstrated enough value at this point. This is a prime example of Contrast Game. He continues to defy her expectations, which is actually more attractive to her than had he plowed through a constant onslaught of a-hole game. Game principle demonstrated: Push-pull.

Rachel: No, I can’t, I have a baby.

Gavin: I’ll watch her.

Rachel: Why would you do that?

Gavin: Because you worked really hard, and it’s your job, and you’re a little crazy.

Once he transitions, however, he makes sure to not abandon the tactics that got him to this point. This shows her the original approach was not an act, that he’s genuine.

Rachel: That’s really nice.

Gavin: I should tell you that crying women make me very uncomfortable.

Rachel: Well you’re not gonna like what’s coming. (Starts crying) I’m sorry, I’m sorry, I’m sorry, I’m sorry. Thank you, thank you.

Gavin: I’m really fine, don’t worry, I’m great with children. (To Emma) Gavin Mitchell. Pleased to meet you.

This is the first (and only) time he qualifies himself to her in the entire episode. I wonder how long it would have taken most men confronting the snarky, attractive woman whose job they’d taken over. And if you are going to qualify yourself, at least demonstrate a game principle while you’re doing it — in this case, protector of loved ones.

She leaves, smitten as a schoolgirl.

——–

There are no more videos on YouTube of Mulroney scenes from the other two episodes he was in (barring a grainy 46-second clip, again in the office, featuring mostly Rachel and Monica), but Gavin eventually kisses Rachel on her balcony. As a bonus for my readers, I’ll post the dialogue of that scene here as well:

[Rachel and Monica are standing outside on the balcony of their apartment. Rachel’s birthday party has just ended.]

Monica: Well, at least you have one thing to be happy about. That jerk Gavin from your office didn’t show up (Gavin shows up at the balcony windows).

Rachel: Mmm-hmm.

Gavin: Yeah, hey. (He comes in to the balcony)

Monica: Oh, we weren’t talking about you… No, no way to recover.

Rachel: No.

(Monica goes back inside)

Gavin: Nice party.

Rachel: Well, it was, and you would have seen it if you didn’t showed up at (looks at his watch) … 9:30? God! Oh, this party was lame!

Monica: (from inside) Again, you’re welcome.

Gavin: Look, I’ll just give you this and go.

Rachel: Oh, you bought me a present! Why?

Gavin: Well, let me explain how birthday parties usually work. There are presents, and a cake, perhaps a fourth or fifth person… OK, I… got you the present to make up for being such a jerk to you earlier.

More push-pull.

Rachel: Aww. Well, ok, well that’s very nice. And you wrote a card (opens the card). “From Gavin.”

Gavin: I really mean it.

Most girls view romantic gestures from a guy who hasn’t slept with her yet, much less kissed her, as not only unnecessary, but creepy. And certainly not a tingle generator. The card (and the accompanying joke) is perfect. And he did a good job rooting (by explaining how birthdays work — plausible deniability!) why he got her a gift.

Rachel: (opens the present, it’s a green scarf) Awww, awww, it’s beautiful.

Gavin: You don’t mind? (puts it around her neck) Well, what do you know, it fits!

He doesn’t just give her a scarf; he puts it around her neck. He is unafraid to kino escalate.

Rachel: See, Gavin, you’re capable of being a nice guy. Why did you give me such a hard time?

Gavin: I’m not sure.

Rachel: Well Monica seems to think it’s because you have feelings for me.

Gavin: I do have feelings for you.

Rachel: You do?

Gavin: Yes, I feel that you are a little annoying.

Reframe, push-pull, takeaway, all melded together. Great example of well-rounded game.

Rachel: See? Why, Gavin, why? Right when I’m about to change my opinion of you, you go and you … (he kisses her) and you do that … (they kiss again)

And one more push-pull to top it off. The kiss is the inevitable icing on the cake. He had this one-set on lockdown from the second he stepped onto the balcony. With PUA lessons like this, “Friends” might have been watchable in the final season had they kept Mulroney around.

It Wouldn’t Matter

I was browsing the comments of a Manosphere blog, and came across a Mystery hater who posted a link to a YouTube video of the famed pick-up artist in set displaying that he is, according to the title, a “total fraud.” The video is heavily edited, and littered with puerile, acerbic comments on the screen while showing Mystery (i.e., “zzzzz” and “Shut up faggot”).

Admittedly, it’s not Mystery’s finest moment– the majority of the time he’s rambling, repeating overused phrases, and laughing at his own jokes. No matter how obvious it is this is clearly a piece of anti-Mystery propaganda (for example, when he laughs at his own joke, the video repeats it five times), you definitely wouldn’t conclude you’re witnessing the work of the world’s greatest pick-up artist (though I thought that was a designation given to Style, not Mystery).

But so what?

This got me thinking, what if Mystery was a fraud? What if Neil Strauss and David DeAngelo and the rest of the PUAs were all frauds?

It wouldn’t matter.

There are only two reasons why Mystery or any other PUA could be deemed a fraud– a) what he preaches isn’t true, or b) he is unable to practice what he preaches.

This video, along with most any anti-game diatribe these days, is geared at making the case based off the second reason. The person who posted the video is known as “vixenlixen,” who makes it obvious he can’t debate the merits of Mystery’s tactics, considering his inane comments inserted into the video are mere hate and nothing of substance. I should also state that contrary to being the part of the gang of usual suspects of manginas and feminazis, vixenlixen appears to be a card-carrying Manosphere member himself. He posts anti-feminism videos and links to a site called the Manhood Academy. While being critical of PUA guru types like Mystery, it looks to be a solid source for a man looking to improve his social interactions. I have no beef with that.

What I do have beef with is the idea that it is necessary, like vixenlixen and Manhood Academy believe, to attack those who led the way in the PUA movement. Mystery pioneered the science of pick-up, and what he’s published has been field-tested time and time again for over a decade with success. Countless men have reaped the benefits of the Mystery Method algorithm and its modified progeny. Castigating Mystery is doing men a disservice because it is eliminating a viable option, no matter how limited it may be in scope compared to modern PUAs who have built off his work, in allowing men to get sex and love.

So now, to the only viable reason Mystery could be a fraud– he is unable to practice what he preaches. By showing unflattering footage of a pick-up artist in-field, vixenlixen hopes to discredit him, and consequently, his method. This video, however, does not achieve that goal.

First of all, we are given no context. Mystery could have been drunk, sick, or otherwise incapacitated. He did not appear to possess the swagger or eloquence that he has displayed in other similar situations. (Yet he still managed to get girls engaged– they laughed and initiated kino with him.)

Secondly, and more importantly, such is the life of ANY pick-up artist. Anyone who goes out in public on a consistent basis and has the balls to talk to girls he doesn’t know WILL experience nights like this. There WILL be awkward moments, he WILL look like a buffoon, and he WILL get rejected. Rejection is part of the game; anyone who claims otherwise is the real fraud. Mastering pick-up is, above all, going out and talking to literally thousands of women. Mystery and his disciples have made that fact clear as day in everything they’ve written. So you can watch this video and conclude Mystery is a horrible pick-up artist (despite the mountains of testimony to the contrary) or you can watch this video and learn that even the best face struggles and experience off-nights. Most of us believe we learn more from our failures than we do our successes; then why can’t we hold pick-up artists to the same standard? Do we criticize a baseball player whose batting average is .300 or do we vote to send him to the all-star game? Rhetorical.

Though I felt it was important to defend the PUAs who helped open the eyes of men like me who’ve risen from the ashes of sexual market cluelessness, most of this post was a digression from the ultimate point– that it wouldn’t matter if Mystery was a fraud. Even if Mystery sucked in set, it wouldn’t fucking matter. This whole anti-PUA fad among certain Manosphere guys is one giant shit test geared to weed out the weaklings. (Why? Less competition.) This is about your inner game, not Mystery’s. You know his basic premises are true. Learn from them what you will, add other perspectives to them as you wish, but don’t give up on the game because its pioneer looks mediocre in a 10-minute YouTube video.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Whether you believe game is a scam or not, you’re right. Whatever belief you choose will manifest in your results.

Don’t worry about what Mystery does. Worry about getting out there and mastering your own life.