Dear Diary, I went out last night just like the previous Friday. My results were terrible this time. I have enough experience to know the work I put in was fantastic, lots of discomfort that can trigger growth. So I have some new ideas today. If all goes well, I will have a much better understanding of gregarious instincts and connection.
A concept I gleaned from my prior Friday outing was that of the man as the conqueror and the woman as the surrenderer. I am now flipping that around. Something I find fascinating about seduction is the chaotically deterministic variety of what works and does not work depending on context. My strength and crutch is to creating a bidding war among women in a venue. It takes special conditions: (1) no dominant focus of attention, and (2) good sight lines.
The masculine or overt form of conquest is wholesale frame replacement by open force. Open frame replacement could be by consent, but when do rationalist conduct business in the open? Overt frame replacement requires major advantages that basically only sovereign men as conquerors can have. The feminine or covert form of conquest is by evolutionary degrees like the banyan tree also called the ‘strangler fig’. A banyan tree will grown many trunks supporting a very large canopy, will take endlessly. The banyan tree is a merciless competitor designed to perform initially as a challenger to the establishment and then as the establishment without challenge.
We can learn lessons from the modus operandi of the Nu World Oder and from the earlier uses of credit for governance during the declines of leading societies past. Field work requires perseverance and patience because we are playing the covert feminine game of players. It just so happens that men create order and women do not, but the techniques of liquidation are the same.
I didn’t think my discomfort in social situations was creepy last night, but it was not exactly smooth either. What if there is a creepy-cool continuum? Cool could be the absence of creepiness. Under the cover of cool there is no feel of creepiness to detect and challenge hostile creep, yes? Nudging works, just look around at what used to be a great country where you are.
The seducer community talks about congruency, but that is limited to congruency with one’s self in a mind of minds in a body of many body parts. From my last outing, I suspect there is congruency with the social group and that degree of congruency is the degree of cool and the degree of incongruence is the degree of creepiness. To lead requires that the social bonds not break entirely, though they might bend (or be temporarily broken as part of the drama).
Today I also got the idea that the surrender of defenses a woman gives to a man has a tolerance, a certain margin for error. Maybe a woman always is in surrender mode but rare is the man who can calibrate correctly with endurance and go straight down the virtual pathway to casual sex.
Suppose women are programmed with a cheat code for sex, with a behavioral profile definition of alpha.
If as commonly believed women are the sex to judge the fitness of men for reproduction and employ the alpha fux, beta bux strategy, it can be no other way. Take away the magic of determinism and think about that. Think about implementation. Women will treat you like a sperm god or male crap depending on how well you navigate the behavioral profile for alpha and casual sex she has by instincts subjected to the calibration hardening of her experiences, of ‘finding herself’. It would seem that women over 24 sometimes develop ‘a type’ of man that is unrealistic. It is not hard to imagine an alpha profile that is calibrated so ridiculously by the behavioral conditioning enforced by the establishment that the woman past her bloom is mentally set and broken.
The Surrender Exercise
It occurs to me that my lack of ability to read social situations and be congruent externally in set has to do with, well, ignorance. We all have had those experiences with sheeple we must navigate, particularly bureaucrats, who cannot enter our frame. If you have a question or concern and you need help, maybe even deserve service, you have a perspective to go with it. But nooooooooooooooooooo. You get an answer in the frame of the sheeple. My advice, that I will be taking myself, is savor that experience.
A very mild lack of frame empathy is shown by opposite negation among English speakers, and it is commonplace. For example, person A asks the question, “You’re not using that chair?” and person B responds, “No.” What person B typically means, for typically being a self-absorbed and socially coddled sheeple, is ‘no, I am not using the chair.” The question was ‘are you not using the chair’, and that not has been dropped in the reply.
In English an even number of negations is the same thing as no negation. If we were to be accurate with respect to the frame of the questioner, though it would be deemed ‘anal retentive’ because the majority of people who socialize are low-IQ sheeple, a ‘no’ would mean ‘no, I am not not using this chair’ or more simply ‘no, I am using this chair’. The self-absorbed convention is to always say in effect, ‘yes, there is no conflict’ and ‘no, there is a conflict’ but with the safety of expressing self-importance in a subliminal way.
Sheeple are sneeky little fucks, aren’t they. They maintain frame out of stupidity that is the elegant simplicity of intelligent design.
I also realize, and now make the point, that person A loaded the question emotionally by adding the negation which only made the question more complicated and no more logically valuable in a factual sense. If transparency among cooperating fellow citizens were the true state of affairs, the logic of rhetoric would not work and patriotism would be genuine.
I am talking about studying the solipsist frames that rubs you the wrong way. They could be treasure troves of body language. The uncompromising frame is so simple and self-absorbed it can be clearly understood. There is no manipulation by pretense because the subject defining frame does not give a shit, take it or leave it. Study the subject’s body language because of the opportune chance to determine its meaning. Mirror the body language, the tone, etc. Immerse. Think and feel in his or her frame, and go through the motions as a follower to the bitter end.
Surrender frame and observe.
You might get what you wanted originally if you just go along with the uncompromising frame. You will certainly get more if the other person is unable or unwilling to move to your perspective.
Frame surrender that is accepted is also social connection. That method of connecting, typified by the loving wall-aged fiancée turned ambush divorcer, has its merits. Where regular men do not enforce law and order more than agents of the state do, those merits will persist according to the morality of nature that is might making right.
Because women are always looking for a better animalistic deal, they are always testing and comparing. I am not suggesting that frame surrender is always a good idea, and I tell you that it is often a bad move. As I said at the start of this post, context matters, to the point of making opposite behaviors switch positions with each other as the winning and losing behaviors.
Surrender and scorch frame
I gather from the RSD Tyler Durden videos and from Château Heartiste that there is a time, an exact time known only by primitive social awareness, to drop interest or even the metaphorical bomb. Don’t worry, there are plenty more frames where that came from.
From Heartiste post “Friendzoning Girls As A Pickup Strategy” dated 11 June 2015:
If you’re experienced, you’ll be able to sense when your ship of sate teeters on the brink between sexual promise and platonic defeat. Your flirtation credit has maxed out. Just at that moment, when she’s most expecting your announcement of phallic intention, you send this kitty diddy: [friends forever image icon]
Experience does not mean shit if its data and data-driven lessons to not reach consciousness. Understanding this bullshit dance of sheeple relevance (social rank) and calibration (social awareness) is what modern seduction is all about. The more efficient, that is practical, means of overwhelming physical force known in the sane times of patriarchal privilege does not apply in the cesspool that is our seduction laboratory, but do not assume those overt means are forever passe. Strength gathered now as the backlash challenger sets up dominance later as the new establishment.
In an entirely platonic social interaction with an overt simpleton or slacker, as is common with bureaucrats and worker drones, surrender is a way to avoid rejection. In sexual seduction (as opposed to courtship with its promise of long-term aspirations), surrender also known as trust can not be given on credit without almost certainly being exploited. Good men are not allowed to prohibitively punish the behavior that the establishment cultivates. You must be a better worm to win. Your surrender or trust must be only for the transaction in the moment and not a moment later. Relations with the uncivilized are not the George Foreman grill. You do NOT set it and forget it: they be bitches not friends.
Friends have complementary survival and reproductive strategies.
Friendship requires the stability of culture.
I suspect the best looking poon generally have the tightest alpha profiles at least. For them it will be important to cleanly reframe by freeze out just like last minute resistance but all the fucking time. Worth the trouble? No, but with an exception. The only good reason to chase women is to chase being a more powerful and successful man. They are means not the end because there is always a younger, hotter, tighter woman just around the corner when we live in the social wilds of no culture.
Women are the complement of men. If they are not reliable wives by which to support upper masculinity, they are disposable cheat code puzzles by which to forge lower masculinity.
Unplug, side step, ride, rebuild. PUA is the way.
—‘Reality’ Doug, 13 June 2015