The dramatis personae are Will and Burke, not their real names. They are opposite of each other like night and day. This isn’t to show one as right and the other as wrong. The point is a study of the old advice “Be Yourself.” That advice was recalled with resentment by many Game/Red Pill blog commenters because to them, “be yourself” came from the place of well-intentioned Blue Pilled older people’s advice that was useless in the new world of unleashed female hypergamy.
“Be yourself” meant “keep on with your Blue Pill lies”. So if you want to timidly hand a sappy love poem to a girl you like, just do it. The old advice was flipped by Red Pill commenters into “be your best-self,” and from there Red Pill-based self improvement commenced.
“To thine own self be true” — it means, as an ideal, that you be who you are. Subtractive Game means that you unlearn bad habits, discard stuff that’s incongruent with your nature, that you practice self-discipline, you know who you are. Timeless values. I do not believe in Additive Game and perhaps Sentient and I disagree solely on the level of semantics. In my usage, learning facts and tactics is not additive; attempting to transform yourself into something you aren’t is an attempt at Additive Game. And as noted earlier, the effective study of game is a subtractive process, not an additive process.
Fake It till You Make it is also additive if you’re trying to practice behavior that’s not part of your innate character, and it doesn’t work if you are trying to make yourself something you individually aren’t designed to be. There wasn’t a single word that nailed down the Gamma Male until Vox Day’s sociosexual hierarchy (SSH), though people had been aware of the phenomenon going back to the Old Testament, with the Book of Proverbs calling him “fool.” Another word that people used for the Gamma Male is “phony.” I’m sure each of you knows that guy with the superficial Alpha qualities whom no one takes seriously because he’s a puffed-up, belligerent phony.
Additive Game turns Deltas into Gammas. “Be your best-self” for that Delta means “work with what you’ve got.” And that’s essentially a subtractive development.
[As an aside, here is my respectful disagreement with Plumpjack: the “beta male patriarchy” is who we are, and yes, that includes brother-wars. Trying to be something different would be inauthentic and a disaster. I don’t want any more brother-wars but I believe they will never end. I only therefore hope for no more brother-atrocities and no more industrial scale total wars fomented by The People of The Lie. War is hell, but war is also glory. “Make love not war” is rabbit life.]
So here is the illustration involving Will and Burke. At the time, about a decade ago, Will was in his late twenties, Burke was almost forty. Will is a Sigma, Burke is a lower Delta. Will is an ambitious risk-taker, Burke is an ordinary guy insofar as SSH qualities go. Burke does have one extraordinary quality relevant to the SSH: a rock-solid frame. He can’t be cajoled into anything or socially intimidated. He has his ways and it’s up to others to deal with those ways. Both are good men but they are very different from each other.
Will is well-read in Game/PUA literature. In fact, he first introduced me to this stuff in the early 2000s. This was before Chateau Heartiste. What he directed me to, was Doc Love. For my part, that was my first and lasting Red Pill learning. Doc Love’s lesson was simple. It’s to practice the three C’s: Be a Challenge, Be Confident, Be Self-Controlled. Everything I learned after that, I assimilated into that schema.
Later such formulae, like Dynamic Passionate Authentic — those are good as far as theory and observation goes, but the first two (Dynamic and Passionate) are something you either are or you aren’t. You can’t become those things if you aren’t. Except Authentic, which is simply “be your best-self.” On the other hand, Doc Love’s Three C’s are things you attain through subtractive practice: lose your supplication, lose your self sabotage, lose your enthrallment to the seven deadly sins.
Will had a pretty girlfriend. He later had more pretty girlfriends. He is good with women. Burke is a regular guy, a lower Delta, but one with a rock-hard frame. He hadn’t had any girlfriends in his youth, he’s doing fine now. He started doing better with women in his late thirties, and scored himself a hottie at one point. Fell head-over-heels in love with her during the period when she was his girlfriend. I instantly saw the warning lights in his behavior. Too eager to please, way too doting on her. Way too loving, you could say. I was telling him to dial it down or he’ll lose her. They never listen.
Maybe women want that kind of treatment when hypergamy is caged. But not when it’s running wild.
Virtuous women create indulgent men
Indulgent men create troublesome women
Troublesome women create pimp-handed men
Pimp-handed men create virtuous women
He lost her and took it hard. He and I were at the gym, doing freeweights, and he was despondent. He said “she’s special.” I told him “she’s not special.” So he asked me, how can I believe in love as a married man, when love is just another form of oneitis, just like the one he got burned on.
I told him that no woman is special, except the one that loves you. If she no longer does or never did, then she no longer is special or never was.
Will and Burke, as casual friends, get along great albeit with some personality friction. Will’s commanding charisma vs Burke’s bullish frame. One time we were all hanging out and Will started busting Burke’s balls, and getting Game’ish about it. Burke would have none of it. He trumped Will’s Dynamic Charisma with his own Artless Frame. He looked at Will with the look of a horned beast that is no longer amused and said with a wry grin: “Dude, fuck off with your Cocky-Funny. Do that to a chick, not me. Do I look like a chick to you, motherfucker?”
This blog post is a continuation of an excellent comments thread under PUA Reevaluated.