Third Rule

July 17, 2011 — Leave a comment

Third Rule of Social Mastery

Control Your Emotions

You must recognize that social game is fundamentally a system governed by patterns, with the goal of any given interaction being the acquisition of power. Do not judge what a person says or does based on your emotional response to it; instead, view it with a clear head and reason as your primary guide. You will inevitably experience anger, irritation, guilt, sadness, etc, in response to situations and interactions that vary individualistically. Experiencing this spectrum of emotions is fine, and any attempt at suppression is doomed to fail. Instead, experience the emotions, and use them as imply another source of information in judging or determining your course of action/speech. Never fall into the trap of being guided solely by your emotions; not only will this weaken your game, but will place tremendous power in the hands of those around you. By simply recognizing what makes you angry or joyous or sad, they will be able to manipulate your actions.

An excellent juxtaposition of two such opposing mindsets—-one in which the individual is guided primarily by his emotional mechanisms, and one in which he is led by the reasoning of a clear mind—-is presented in the Coppola’s The Godfather’, with the brothers Sonny and Michael Corleone. Sonny’s inclination to react immediately to his emotions (primarily an easily triggered anger) renders him an simple target of assassination. In contrast, Michael’s ability to remain cold and calculating irrespective of external circumstance, allows him to annihilate his enemies completely, and establish his power as the new Don. The character of Michael Corleone illustrates the Third Rule with near perfection. Remember: reason/rationality are your greatest allies in social game, and in the ultimate quest for power.

The Bitches of Today

July 17, 2011 — 1 Comment

This sickening clip has been circulating male circles over the last few days: (watch after 4:47)

Enough has been said about the television show itself, and many have berated these women for their sadistic reactions to a victim of physical violence. This particular crime, wherein a man’s penis was severed by his angry wife in response to a divorce threat, is noteworthy because it thoroughly encapsulates our societal attitude towards men. It also offers us material through which to understand the nature of woman.

Now, violence is commonplace even in a nation as developed as these Untied States, and female on male violence, especially in relationships, is far more common than feminists would have you believe. This crime is different because it represents the total domination of the female over the male—-a woman robs a man of his masculinity, his sexual identity, and his biological imperative in a single swipe of her kitchen knife. It is precisely this aspect of the crime that lends itself to humor, as witnessed on CBS’ ‘The Talk’.

Visualize the entirety of it: masculinity has universally been associated with aggressiveness, ambition, drive, physical prowess, competitiveness, sexual dominance—-in sum, masculinity, cross-culturally and biologically, is synonymous with strength. Penile mutilation represents a subversion of this concept of  strength, as if to say: ‘you men think you’re strong? well, how about now?’ The humor and the mockery is perfectly sensible in a feminist culture with a self-declared imperative to raise the feminine above the masculine. Make no mistake about it: the root of feminism has always been a hatred of classical masculinity.

All feminist leaders, those paragons of yesteryear such as Andrea Dworkin and Naomi Wolf, and today’s rising breed of man-hating internet women (read: Jessica Valenti), despise the fundamental qualities of maleness. Nearly all Western women have been indoctrinated with a homogeneous message, and follow in line. One base compliant has remained the same since the beginning of the movement: men have sexual standards. This puts pressure on women, to look a particular way, to meet specific ideals of sexual appeal. Yes, this is true, but the pressure is not one of force; those women who do not wish to conform to male biological hard-wiring are free to live as they wish. Women of today want to have their cake and eat it too (i.e. be fat/absent of sex appeal and still attract high status men). The fact that mens’ sexual standards will never change, is the only remaining thorn of compliant—feminists have been granted everything else they have ever asked for (see: divorce laws, VAWA, rape laws, etc). Thus, despite gross legal advances that have removed innumerable male freedoms and constitutional rights, women remain pissed at masculinity. Thus the humor at penile mutilation.

Have women always been this way? Have they always despised men for making them meet certain standards? Can they never achieve happiness and peace of mind? Young women have, more or less, always fit such a category. They compete for sexual attention, with the most beautiful girls attracting the most powerful and high-status alpha males. Those without the genetic gifts of beauty have been resentful—-towards other attractive women, the alpha men they could never get, and the beta/lower status men who ended up marrying them.* It used to be the case that this resentment would subside as the girl matured into a woman with a family, and was responsible for the well-being of her children.

In the modern world of female empowerment, as women wrongly assume that the older they get, the more advanced degrees they collect, the higher their sexual worth, the resentment towards masculinity does not fade. They go through their sad lives fighting against the inevitable—-that at some point they will have to settle for someone below their ideal. There is not a straight man alive who would not want to have Jessica Alba in her prime, but most of us know better than to hold onto a fairy tale expectation. This is not the same for the modern generation of women. As each day goes by, and their sexual vitality and attractiveness decreases, they naively believe that a prince-charming alpha male is not far away. The resentment and hatred for men only magnifies as time goes by, as the years tear away at a face that was once beautiful.

Can you see it now? The more these women avoid reality, the more justified they feel in laughing sadistically at another human being’s pain. They are despicable, yes. Childish, naive. But their worst enemy is themselves. Happiness, freedom from fear and insecurity is unknown to them. Across the country women are laughing at a man whose penis was severed, a man who nearly bled to death. But remember, we have the final laugh. These women live in a state of self-inflicted perpetual misery that we can only imagine.

*It is useful to note here that lower status men, who usually had less talent, intelligence, competitive drive, sexual vitality, etc, were rarely resentful of their inability to garner more attractive sexual partners—-they were usually satisfied with the quality of pussy they could get. Male resentment nearly always led to violence, and thus was generally too costly to harbor for long.

Approach anxiety (AA), while a commonplace topic in any discussion of social game, is quite tricky—even the most successful PUAs will readily admit that they not always above its debilitating grasp.  Fundamentally, AA refers to a negative emotional response that, at its worst, prevents the individual from initiating conversation with an attractive girl, and, at its best, is a psychological thorn that simply has to be put up with. The bio-evolutionary reasons for its existence are complex and debatable, but they unnecessary for this particular discussion. All you need to remember is that AA occurs as a consequence of a fear of disapproval from the other party—the more value the person you wish to talk to holds, the greater the magnitude of the anxiety experienced. Thus, the more attractive the girl, the greater the level of the anxiety. Indeed, approach anxiety is not limited to potential sexual partners; it can extend to anyone who holds value relative to you; if you encounter your boss at the supermarket, or say your landlord, you will feel a similar emotional response. In each of these cases, the fear of disapproval manifests itself in the form of approach anxiety.

Approach anxiety must be handled in the same manner as all other fears—conquer it with practice. Do not, under any circumstances, give in to the anxiety and fall back; do what you must in spite of the fear; force yourself to act against it. This will be difficult at first, very uncomfortable and even painful. But, be patient. As you do it more and more, the fears will fade, and you will gain greater emotional mastery. You will realize that by and large, the fears are unfounded.

Say you speak to a remarkably beautiful girl; say your worst fears are made true—she rejects you cruelly and, for added flair, calls you a loser or creep. This will suck in the beginning: you will be hurt, you will feel low and never want to talk to girls again. But, more importantly, you will achieve greater emotional resilience. Now that you’ve faced the worst of it—and lived!—you will naturally experience greater confidence, rising strength. Each subsequent occurrence will be easier. The worst tactic to conquer approach anxiety is to sit and moan, or, almost nearly as bad, try to intellectualize it. No, just go out, balls in hand, and face it. This is the only way to conquer your fear. No amount of talking, discussing, pondering, or self-assessment will help you in this regard.  It is tough, but worth every ounce of the initial hardship.

You want to achieve the following state, where you’re constantly comfortable, relaxed, regardless of how the other individual reacts, or says:

Irrespective of his success with picking up the girls he approaches, notice his natural comfort. He’s having a good time. Many of the girls are uncomfortable with his encounter, and some are borderline rude, but his state is unchanged—a constant smile, high energy, and relaxed. Now, it’s important to note that his game isn’t as good as it could be, so be carful of emulating him blindly. I will do future posts with a more direct and analytical approach to the intricacies and science of game, but take from the video his fundamental attitude. Regardless of the girls’ reactions, he’s unchanged.

Keep practicing, and know that you have nothing to fear: a girl’s disapproval isn’t going to kill you, it isn’t going to plummet you into harsh poverty or intense pain. She doesn’t want you, well, her loss.

Never be like this fucking tool, this sorry excuse for a man:

She probably said yes because it was a free dinner.

Growing up in the confines of a specific cultural environment tends to skew our understanding of fundamental aspects of human nature, and thereby hinders our ability to take full advantage of social game. It is crucial to wade through not only the fog of culture but also the bullshit of people’s proclaimed truths in order to identify and explore the true motives of human interaction. I will start with specific ‘lessons’ that I have garnered through experience and study, and then examine each of them in sufficient depth. This post addresses the first of these lessons.

Fundamental of Human Nature (FHN) 1

It’s all about power

Whether an individual is being utterly nice to you or downright cruel, the base motive underlying all social interplay remains the same: power. We all have an intrinsic need to assert dominance over and to control others–those without sense of such power are undeniably miserable. This yearning for social power is distinct between the two genders, and plays out in specific ways, which I will explore a bit later. First and foremost, however, it is imperative to recognize that each individual you meet, speak to, or bond with, is after, primarily, power over you. This includes friends, parents, children, siblings, bosses, classmates, and everyone else you may know. This power is essentially a quest to fulfill a particular psychological need for dominance  or superiority as well as a sense of authority.

It might seem as though I am tarnishing the very foundations of human relationships by asserting that even the ones we claim to love are in purist of power. In a sense, yes, this is true. ‘Unconditional’ love or caring does not exist, even between the closets friends or lovers. The deepest relationships are tradeoffs, with power playing at least a sizable role. The only case where we as a species come close to unconditional bonding is in the face of death–which is why the strongest friendships are built during war or military service; the proximity of death tears away at several layers of psychological desire.

The takeaway here is simple: understand that no individual will be there for you unconditionally. They are all after something, and in the confines of social interaction, that need is power. They want to assert dominance, to make you feel subordinate, and to thereby control you, psychologically and emotionally. This is not something to lament. It is simply the nature of the human species, and a part of reality that we must accept and use to our advantage. We begin with this loss of innocence–no one is truly trustworthy, due to in-built psychological mechanisms that produce a drive for power.

Let’s now explore how this power manifests in social interaction. For men, power rests mainly over other men, and is more about dominance that about control. This need for dominance takes various forms, with violence being the most common manifestation through the course of human history. Social dominance, at least in modern society, is now the norm, with ‘contests’ for dominance rarely being settled by physical means. Social hierarchy is generally established through specific cues of communication: insults, aggressive tones, alpha body language, sarcasm, intentional disagreement, etc. Conversation between men is, thus, necessarily more aggressive and a clear contest for dominance. Men do not share a similar desire for dominance-assertion over women, focusing almost exclusively on getting the lay. Indeed, if supplicating and being meek were effective means of having sex with women, even the most high status men would employ those techniques. The male need for power, therefore, plays out in the form of contests for social dominance over other men (this includes even best male friends).

In the context of power struggle, women are quite different. They’re power is less about dominance and more about control, and is dependent not so much on social mechanics, as it is on their physical appearance. Women’s social power, then, is more or less equivalent to sexual power. A beautiful women (say, an HB10) is able to control male behavior to her will, and, by being a fierce competitor in the sexual market, derivatively controls her fellow females as well. Men will be willing and eager to provide her with resource, wealth and time for the chance to sleep with her, and women will want to associate with her socially so as to increase both their sexual market value (by association) and ability to meet high-status men (the kind of men HB10 would be able to attract). The female desire for power, or more accurately, the need for control, is strongly aligned to their appearance and sexual attractiveness. Interestingly, however, the man a beautiful woman is able to control is not the one she is most attracted to. Women intrinsically judge male status based on their subservience; fundamentally, then, the more difficult a man is to control (i.e. the less power the woman has over him), the higher his perceived status, and the greater her attraction. Female attraction is very intertwined with this cross-gender power play, and is the basis of sexual game. This is something I plan to address in many future posts, but for those of you with an immediate yearning, please read anything by Mystery or Style.

While a man’s psychological need for power manifests in the form of dominance contests with other men (and is separate from his sexual desires) and is determined by both status and social cues, a woman’s yearning for control is satisfied based on the extent of her beauty, and is fundamentally interlinked with her sexual mechanisms.

girl with no power


sexy girls able to control/assert power over men

Every now and again I will analyze a movie that lends itself particularly well to a discussion of social game and mastery. Generally, I take two or more scenes that provide an interesting example of game, though if the movie is especially impressive, I can find myself doing a full review as well. Today’s pick is ‘Youth in Revolt’. While this movie does fall in the category of beta-male aggrandizement, in the vain of ’40-year-old-virgin’, ‘Knocked Up’, ‘Juno’, and ‘Superbad’, it has an added component that makes it far more valuable than a regular Apatow or Diablo Cody flick. As a film, it is painfully mediocre; the story is lacking, the characters are boring and dull, and the conclusion will make any man who is unafraid of his masculinity want to burn polite society to the ground. What makes it of particular interest is the coherent juxtaposition of two characters with completely opposite approaches to social interaction/game–i.e. the movie provides a solid platform for direct comparison of an alpha and beta male.

Both characters are played by the lead actor, Michael Cera, and both are, in fact, the same person. Nice-guy/beta Nick Twisp is the real lead, and his alter ego, Francois Dillinger, is an alpha badboy. The story is typical: Nick, a self-loathing virgin, finds an attractive young girl he wants to bed, and discovers, strangely to him, that she enjoys badboys instead of his own supplicating, testicle-less self. In most movies of this sort, the man would continue subordinating himself, while the girl happily fucks every alpha-male penis in sight. Eventually, with enough subordination and clumsily executed ‘romantic-gestures’ on his part, she realizes that she does love him after all. ‘Youth In Revolt’ present a twist, though the ending is essentially the same. Nick produces an alter ego, something of the type you would expect in an individual with multiple personality disorder, who epitomizes the alpha badboy that his oneitis* so dearly craves. Here is a contrast; the first video shows the beta, Nick, applying sunscreen to the girl (he is incredibly awkward about it, and fails to even enjoy the experience of touching her skin). The second shows his alter ego, Francois, talking down a police officer his mom happens to be dating.

There are many points of contrast between Nick and Francois. Their body language and voice tone are the most immediately apparent. There is comfort and energy that Francois carries into each movement–the way he walks or the gleam in his eyes–that is utterly lacking in the much more hesitant and unsure Nick. Many who view this video, as students of game and social mastery, will have a tendency towards imitation: to calculate and perform each move or each statement the way Francois does (and indeed in the movie, he is far more attractive in the eyes of the girl). This is fine, and can be an effective way to progress towards social mastery. But often this involves missing the deeper aspects of character underlie the differences in demeanor between the two characters.

Watch the videos again. What is the fundamental difference in personal disposition between these two guys? What separates them as individuals? Why does one seem so much more masculine, or alternatively, so much more sexually appealing (in spite of that grotesque mustache and tight-fitting clothing)?

The answer: fear.

Nick is consumed by it, afraid to touch a girl, afraid that something he sys will displease her. When you watch the movie in its entirety, it consists only of scenes such as this–a boy scared out of wits of most everything. He has desires and ambitions, but is hindered by his own emotional mechanisms. Francois, in contrast, is completely absent of any fear. He talks down and dominates an aggressive, angry police officer, and does it with pleasure in his eyes. He is unafraid of going to jail, being hit, or anything that would be significantly worse than what a little young girl might be able to do. In another very good scene (one that I unfortunately could not find on Youtube), Nick is willing to risk incarceration to be able to get the girl, the object of his sexual desires. Francois swiftly replies: no pussy is worth imprisonment. These are fundamentally distinct attitudes and views. Francois is fearless and confident, and sees himself as the most important person on Earth. Nick is spineless, spends the length of the movies shitting his pants for one reason or another, and is willing to give up everything for a chance to bed an annoyingly talkative girl.

While the movie’s plot and secondary characters conform to the stereotypical beta-aggrandizement that is so common in modern movies and media, the contrast between Nick and the Francois alter ego is a juicy learning opportunity, and makes bearing through the more painful parts of the movie worthwhile. Rent the movie, and, at the very least, just watch the scenes with Francois. His character is deliciously alpha.

*Note: I will often use terms that are the language of social game, such as alpha, beta, oneitis, pairbonding, negs, etc. Look them up on google for a quick definition, or, better yet, read any of Mystery’s books for an more in-depth understanding.

Second Rule

July 3, 2011 — 2 Comments

Second Rule of Social Mastery

(2) View all other individuals as tools for your own gain

This is controversial, but only because it is effective. To arrive at this rule, one must first grasp, after wading through piles of fake moral constructs and politically correct bullshit, that each individual views you, whether conscious or subconsciously, as a tool to be used. They may desire to use you to fulfill some psychological need or for a more direct and obvious material/existential need.

(An example of ‘Psychological Need’ that is almost universally common in human culture:  Many parents, especially mothers, have a need to control their children. The kids must follow rules, arbitrary or not, helpful or not, precisely because it gives the parent a sense of power and control. To many such parents, losing that control is equivalent to losing the child. )

If you are, then, prone to naivete and believe that everyone wants to help you and provide you with security, you will live a painful and poor quality of life. Some may call me a cynic, arguing that my view of human nature is debasing. To them, those so afraid of reality that they must deny it at very turn, I respond: (1) I do not hide from the dark crevices of reality.  (2) ’tis better to be a cynic/realist in power than an idealist who is shitted on by everyone he meets.

Thus, to prevent being used, one must actively do the using. Enter any social interaction with the following mindset: what do I have to gain from this individual? And how do I communicate (verbally and nonverbally) to best meet my needs?

Remember: You are above else. Your needs, your happiness, your desires. The purpose of social mastery is to acquire great skill with utilizing and manipulating others into doing as you wish. And therein, lies the Second Rule.

First Rule

July 3, 2011 — 5 Comments

The first rule to follow before beginning on any path, and particularly important in the path to attaining social mastery:

First Rule of Social Mastery

(1) Fear nothing

In modern society, we do not have threats that engender or require legitimate fear–the chemically driven fight or flight response that our ancestors depended on for survival. No, our fears are much more subtle, but also all-encompassing and constant. More or less, we fear others. And this fear, revealed as social anxiety and discomfort especially among young males, can be disarmed by remembering this appendage to the first rule of social mastery:

Do not fear what they say.

Do not fear what they do. 

Do not fear what they think.

Without this to hold onto–without a grounding in fearlessness–social mastery becomes impossible. Our own emotions will act against us, preventing experimentation with different configurations of words, body language, voice tone and other social indicators. We must, necessarily, become free from our mechanisms.

It is important to remember, however, that just wanting to be fearless will not make it so. To conquer one’s fears, one must face them. If you are afraid of saying something you perceive would result in disapproval from the other party, do it anyways. Do it precisely because it makes you afraid. As you keep at it, these experiences will add up, and produce a growing fearlessness. You will find your social anxieties dissipating. The first step to social mastery, then, is finding what makes you afraid, and facing it head-on. Needless to say, this requires balls.