PREVIOUS: SELF-IMPROVEMENT VS. GAME
As far as I was concerned, then, the whole point of game was woman (and not, for example, Krauser's notch-counts or Roosh's flag-hunts), so I began by thinking about how woman—or, more generally, the female of the species—had been attained by males throughout history and even as far back as the animals, and right away I was struck by a peculiarity in the whole business. It seemed to me that the major difference between animal and human sexual relations was that animal females (rapist ducks and a few other exceptions aside) generally got to pick their own mating partners, while human ones did not—for essentially all of human history, and for probably most of our prehistory, our females have had their partners chosen for them by their family and/or—in the distant tribal past—by other tribal members and leaders, in the social phenomenon known as "arranged marriages". Arranged marriages persisted well into the 20th century, and indeed in some countries like e.g. India reportedly persist even today, but by the arrival of the sexual liberation movement of the 1960s and '70s they were already on the wane in the West, and the financial independence women finally achieved via feminist pressure on society and the state, plus the prevalence of the pill and other birth-control measures, finally put an end to them, and today women are for all intents and purposes sexually independent and pick their own partners. And this is the crucial difference and the key to the whole business. For, first of all, pick-up itself as a specialized activity and skill-set only becomes possible in this modern, sexually liberated era. I mean, it's not like players like Casanova or Lord Byron didn't exist before, but the game was so difficult, and the odds so stacked against you, that in order to be any good at it you'd have to be a jack-of-all-trades adventurer prodigy or a world-renowned-poet-slash-nobleman-baron to get anything out of it, and even then you'd probably achieve less in a lifetime than a decent PUA could achieve today in a year. And secondly, precisely due to this fundamental difference in the means of partner selection between the two eras, the optimal mating strategies would also fundamentally differ between them. In the old era you could pretty much forget about cold approach, which as I'll be showing eventually is essentially a prerequisite for proper pick-up, so unless you were a Casanova- or Lord Byron-type character the only women you'd be doing besides your wife would be prostitutes. Guys like Roosh and Krauser would struggle to get even a wife, in fact, and all they'd have would be prostitutes—and this is my whole point here. I.e. that, precisely because in order to land a wife they'd have to convince her father and brothers, none of their ridiculous, pitiful little tricks would work on them. No father or brother ever would be impressed by a leather jacket and "cold readings" or "push-pull" buffoonery, for example; they'd demand to see real wealth assets and real achievements, of which Krauser, Roosh and co. would obviously have none (the fags don't even drive lol—they are middle aged men who still take the bus, and they both quit their real professions to become professional street corner rejectees; the kind of "profession", in other words, to which no sane father or brother would ever entrust the future of his daughter or sister). So the most they'd have been able to land would have been some peasant girl, and an ugly one at that, since the pretty ones would all be getting snapped up by craftsmen and merchants and other proper, useful people, and with good reason (this reason being that these people are useful to society and civilization, and we could therefore use more of them, and of an increasing quality, which business is called reproduction and which is precisely what fathers raise pretty girls for). But all of this changes in the modern era; women are left to go wherever they please unchaperoned, from their youngest teenage years even, and any charlatan can go up to them at any hour of the day or night and spit any number of stupidities, absurdities and outright lies at them, without the slightest danger of incurring any repercussion—not even so much as a mild stain on their reputation, if they do it in the perfect anonymity afforded by a big city—in an effort to isolate them and lay them, while all the poor women have as a defense in this assault on their sexuality is their judgement. Their judgement, however, has not been used in this sort of matter (or in any sort of matter, really) for tens of thousands of years, at the least, so it shouldn't be surprising to find that it's so ridiculously out of whack that, on occasion, even a stupid ugly loser like Krauser can fool it. Worse still, it is evident from what we observe in the animal world that, even with hundreds of thousands of years of practice, women's capacity for proper judgement would not improve much: just look at what happens with say peacocks or even lions. The peacock's colorful tail provides absolutely no practical advantage to the bird besides pleasing the females, and is in fact a downright survival risk because it makes it stand out to predators. Nor is the male lion's great mane, whose size and lustre lionesses use to determine which male lion is stronger, of any direct benefit to the poor beast: all it does is make its system overheat faster so that it can't sprint or fight for too long. The females' criteria of mate suitability, in other words, are absurdly superficial, and this shouldn't come as a shock to anyone who understands how judgement and critical acumen work. To expect a female—the weak sex of the species—to judge strength accurately is equivalent to expecting stupidity to accurately assess genius; it's just not going to happen, since in order to assess a quality you must obviously know something of it; you obviously need yourself to have it, ideally to a greater degree than the person you are judging does, in order for your judgement to be perfectly accurate. So for the female to judge strength accurately, as opposed to according to some ridiculously superficial standard, she would have to be stronger than the male, in which case she either wouldn't be female, or the male would be so absurdly weak that even females would be stronger than it (as e.g. happens with garden variety nerds and all types of physical or mental cripples, in which cases womens' judgement of them is indeed accurate and they do well to avoid them like the plague, which they do). For the most part, however, females are weaker than the males who pursue them—far, far weaker: physically, mentally, you name it: in pretty much every dimension of life except child-bearing—so they suck at judging the males' strength=value, and thus their suitability as sexual and relationship partners. The tradition of arranged marriages was thus a brilliant invention that for the longest time protected our species from the evils of womens' inferior judgement, but the social and moral decay engendered in our culture by the rise of mob rule and democracy have done away with all of that today and that's how absurd little creatures like "bad boys" or hipsters or Krauser and co. (who aren't even real "bad boys"; they are just pretending to be; they are losers pretending to be a different type of loser; losers raised to the second power, in other words) can finally have a chance at getting laid.
And this is where the theory of the supremacy of self-improvement for pick-up falters. For raising your value could be the ultimate means of improving your sexual prospects if and only if women were perfectly accurate judges of value. Since they aren't, however, it's not, at which point two types of cases should be examined to see what they tell us about optimal pick-up strategies. The first of these is the case where the player's real value is below the girl's, and the second is where it is above it. In the first case self-improvement is obviously helpful, provided the girl can accurately judge it and understand it, which she will usually be able to, for the type of man whose value is below a woman's is a very weak man indeed, since even the hottest of women have so little value. Most men in that category then stand to gain a lot by self-improvement in respect to their sex lives, because women will be generally able to detect this improvement—and most players will fall in this group, because most players are losers. However, self-improvement, as aforesaid, is not pick-up, and it is moreover a strenuous and time-consuming business, especially for a loser, so a player can simply take advantage of girls' inferior value-judging capacity and deceive them into thinking that his value is higher than it really is: and that's precisely what the PUA tradition from Mystery to Krauser has been mostly concerned with for over a decade now. And then we have the second case, of players whose value is above the girl's, as in my case for example, where self-improvement as a sexual strategy would be a joke since my value is already so astronomically higher than any girl's—or any other male's even—that improving it further, if such a thing were even possible, could not possibly be of any use, since the girl is already perfectly incapable of properly assessing it; so increasing it, ironically, could only make things worse for me. The optimal sexual strategy in this case, therefore, would be for me to dumb myself down to her level, which is to say to deceive her, once more, into misjudging my value, but in this case in the opposite direction than before. And there are indeed many suggestions in traditional pick-up literature about how to accomplish this, the classic piece of advice in this respect being to never engage a girl logically in the initial stages of an interaction, or go into great depth in any discussion subject, because this will kill her attraction for you, but to talk to her in a childish manner mostly about childish and frivolous matters—which pretty much condemns all philosophers and geniuses ever into celibacy unless they are willing to become clowns and deceive the girls as to their true nature by dumbing themselves down for them.
In both cases, in other words, the common element of optimal sexual strategy is deception, while self-improvement has its place (even in the latter case, since for the higher type of man self-improvement is not a choice, as with the losers: it's his life) but, properly understood, it's not pick-up—it's self-improvement, and it has its own type of literature on which PUAs are not any kind of authorities whatsoever; at which point not the slightest sliver of doubt remains as to what game is about, and how it should be defined: game is deception. It always has been and it always will be, for the simple reason that women are not very good judges of a man's value. As long as women are sexually independent, therefore, cutting-edge game will hinge around some type of deception; and when women are not independent, as was the case in the vast majority of our species' past, game will vanish.
NEXT: ON THE GENEALOGY OF DECEPTION