User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 277
Joined: Sat May 25, 2019 11:06 pm

What Status Means (And What It Doesn't)

Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:13 am


Of course PUAs would reply that you CAN convey status in the street, via fitness, fashion, grooming, overt communications (DHVs) and subcommunications, but it's bullshit, or at least true only to a marginal extent. They don't understand the visceral, direct manner in which women are attracted to status, and barely even understand what status means itself. PUAs say "Women are attracted to status because in olden times leaders with status could provide for womens' offspring", and so the PUAs try to convey status in the street with DHVs about their cool careers or lifestyles or whatever. But that's the equivalent of a woman telling a man, "Men like boobs and assess and long hair because they signify fertility; I may not have boobs or an ass or long hair, but I just got tested for fertility and my numbers are off the scale!" And of course the man wouldn't give a shit about her freakin' fertility because when we say that men are attracted to boobs, assess and long hair we mean that MEN ARE ATTRACTED TO BOOBS, ASSES AND LONG FUCKING HAIR not to evo-psych textbooks for crying out loud lol! For women, money or accomplishments or even looks mean NOTHING, or at most they mean about as much as female fertility tests mean for men; what the woman looks for and responds to most viscerally above all is ACTUAL STATUS, i.e. tons of people worshiping you and treating you as if you're God! One eye-opening experience in a Stockholm hostel a couple of years back drove home this point for me. I was talking to this Indian-Canadian 7, more to pass the time than because I was attracted to her, and the subject arrived at philosophy as it usually does with me if the discussion goes on long enough, and she asked to see my website. So I started spelling the address out to her while she was typing it in her browser, and when she got to around the sixth or seventh letter ("orgyoft") Google autocompleted the rest (my philosophy site's address is, and she looked up at me with her eyes all lit up and exclaimed "Google knows you!" She was interested in me before, otherwise she wouldn't have been talking to me for an hour, but realizing that "Google knows me" turned up her attraction a massive amount. And note that this wasn't even a cold approach, it was in a hostel where it was quite obvious I was the coolest guy there. If I had approached her in the street we probably wouldn't even have got to the googling phase because that's what the 5-10% street success ratio signifies (which btw post-Tinder has plunged even further, to 1-5%): that cold approaches practically never work, regardless of the "value" disparity between target and PUA. And now you know why.

If you're still unconvinced, explain to me e.g. Justin Bieber. He lacks absolutely EVERY QUALITY the PUAs say women find attractive. Where is his masculinity? He looks like a girl ferchristsake! He even behaves like one! Where is his leadership? What man would ever follow Justin fucking Bieber? And yet he has an absurd amount of status simply because lots of girls know him and like him. YouTube one of his concerts and take a look at the hysterical level of screaming of all the girls there, they are as if demon-possessed, they have completely lost their minds and individuality for the sole reason that ALL THE OTHER GIRLS THERE HAVE DONE THE SAME. There is probably an equation, a law of nature, that describes how female attraction rises exponentially with every additional audience member in a music concert, starting from tepid dive bar gigs with a few dozen patrons and culminating with straight-up Dionysian orgies of hysteria in stadium performances, with girls lining up backstage afterwards as willing sacrifices to any and all depraved acts their fake idols feel like performing on them.

So the PUAs' equation of status=leadership=masculinity is correct, but FOR MEN. For women, it's bullshit, it simply doesn't work with them, especially in contemporary society where masculinity has been marginalized and the highest status is bestowed on the kinds of males that, in earlier times, were treated with barely disguised contempt: artists and businessmen.

Nietzsche: "In declining cultures, wherever the decision comes to rest with the masses, genuineness becomes superfluous, disadvantageous, an encumbrance. Only the actor still arouses great enthusiasm."

That's why Nietzsche described women as "born slaves"; you set them free and they still look for someone to enslave themselves to, and moreover the most powerful person they can find, so they can be enslaved by him more totally. And, being women, they confuse status with power for the reason I have explained at length in the Defining Game essay (because they have no idea what power is and no direct experience of it, so they can only judge it by its most shallow, most superficial effect: status).

And it's not only women who behave like this, by the way. Weak men behave pretty much exactly the same way; they're females with a penis, male in name only. My philosophy is the most masculine one that exists or will ever exist and calls for nothing less than the extermination of weak males (at least of those who are useless to civilization, because the useful ones we'll keep chained-up and working in dungeons until machines can completely take over their functions), and yet it routinely attracts droves of weak males simply because it's "cool" and "edgy" and there's a hubbub surrounding it that weaklings find as irresistible as girls find a Bieber concert. Never mind that, when called on to explain my philosophy, or answer a question about it, they interpret it in the exact opposite way to how it was meant; that little fact no more bothers them than Bieber's obvious effeminacy bothers the millions of girls who scream hysterically at his concerts; Bieber's music and my philosophy have A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF STATUS, and that's all that weaklings of both sexes need in order to gather round them and buzz around them like moths to a flame.

However, to present the other side of the coin too, so as to arrive at a complete and just analysis, we must also realize that this absurdly superficial behavior of females and weak males makes perfect sense when seen from their own point of view. Take for example my own behavior on a visit to a doctor. I know next to nothing about medical matters. I have zero medical knowledge, and don't plan to acquire much either because I find the subject quite boring. So when I am forced to go to the doctor I have not the faintest idea of the quality of his judgement and advice. So what do I do about it? How do I choose between doctors? Above all, I go through friend recommendations (preselection in PUA lingo). Then I look at things like the address of his practice, the quality of the building and interior spaces, the doctor's and his assistants' and even receptionists' professionalism, even the kind of clothes they are wearing and how they express and carry themselves. In other words, I look at everything EXCEPT the matter at hand, quite simply because I know nothing of the matter at hand but quite a few things about all the other things, thus I can judge the other things and draw an inference from those judgements towards the doctors' ability, and thus the validity of his advice. Generally speaking, this strategy yields good results, so that for example if I see a hobo under a bridge claiming that he used to be a doctor and he can help me out, I can safely ignore his advice and get the hell outta there. But now and again I am doubtlessly deceived by a slick-talking operative with cool digs who barely passed his exams, and that's life. If you want to be 100% sure of what's going on with your body, go to medical school.

The same thing happens with women. It's true that when they reject nearly all street approaches they sometimes commit an error and turn down an incredible male specimen like me who, if introduced to their social circle, would instantly blow the fuck out every other man there; but for the most part they reject straight-up sheer losers like Krauser, Torero, the RSD fools, and all their students and followers, so generally speaking it works out well for them in the end. And yes, they also increasingly reject masculine men like special forces commandos in favor of high-status effeminate morons like Bieber and the entire celebrity circus, but that's a social and philosophical problem arising from the fact that modern men are too weak to keep control of their women as they used to. It's a societal issue, and we can't solve it in a PUA book. All we can do is understand it, and figure out how best to navigate it—or take advantage of it. And the first step in that direction is to understand that what women want above all is ACTUAL STATUS and not the things it signifies, or those that signify it.

So bottom line is that women want PURE STATUS, i.e. actual people telling them you're awesome, not you ACTUALLY BEING awesome, as they are too stupid to understand the difference, and that's why cold approaches almost always fail no matter how awesome you may be. Women would turn down Leonidas himself in the street if he ever appeared before them. They are FUCKING RETARDED and that's why the only truly alpha game is rape game, as I explained at length earlier. Everything else is clown game, and the biggest clowns are the "alpha PUAs" themselves, with Krauser as their leader.


User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 277
Joined: Sat May 25, 2019 11:06 pm

Re: What Status Means (And What It Doesn't)

Sun Apr 05, 2020 3:15 pm

Krauser posted an article attacking extroversion:
Nick Krauser wrote:Have you read Susan Cain’s popular book Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking? I did last year and thoroughly enjoyed it. Her main thrust is that extraverts outnumber introverts 3:1 and through weight of numbers have convinced us that characteristics of introversion are dysfunctional. They’ve pathologised it. We see this in game advice constantly. You’re supposed to go out to social environments packed with people and stimulus (bars, clubs) and then talk to every cunt there. Be friendly to the door whore, high five the bouncers, get pally with the bar man, chink glasses with every group, open some pawn sets, merge them forwards, get bummed off a fat hairy Turk. Okay, that last one is still non-standard advice. But, the point is, traditional game advice maps directly onto extraversion. Be More Extraverted.

What if you think bars are shit? What if you’ve no interest in faking palliness with strangers? What if you don’t want to befriend jackasses? Then you have bad game, brah! None of this is news to avid daygamers. Most of us already had that eureka moment of I can shag birds without becoming a social monkey. We know we are introverts and that a path of tight game exists for us too. No, that’s old news. What interests me about Corona is extending the thought: what if it’s not just simple introversion that is being unfairly patholigised by insufferable extraverted big mouths?

My replies: ... ent-144300
icycalm wrote:The issue with game and extroversion is that girls want status from men above all. Introvert means basically no status. Unless you are rich or famous from some other way. And even then girls want you to have a social life to stay with you long-term. There are exceptions to everything of course, and that’s what you look for in daygame, and that’s partly why daygame’s abysmal ROI exists.

Bottom line, for the best results in game, it helps to be extroverted, or to at least make some effort to move in that direction.

Personally, I can be extremely extroverted when I want to, but I only want to a few days a year. So for the most part I look for introverted daygame unicorns too. ... ent-144301
icycalm wrote:Let me put it more bluntly. You say that “a path of tight game exists for us too”. My point is that, no, you are wrong. Your “tight introverted game” will lead to much worse results than someone else’s “tight extroverted game”. Ergo, your game isn’t tight from where he’s standing. And that’s okay. It’s not a competition. As long as you get your needs filled, it’s all good.

Return to “Endgame: The End of PUA Theory”