Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Generation Nihilism reviews Minimal Game

I don't know whether you are familiar with Generation Nihilism, but if you are not, you should definitely check it out. It's a blog containing musings and often hilarious stories of a happy bachelor. Since I like this blog and sensed that the author comes from a similar place as I do, I asked him whether he'd be interested in reading and reviewing Minimal Game. He was, and this is why you can now read about his opinion of my book.

His perspective is most interesting because he is not associated with the pickup community and was never involved with it. By his own admission, he thinks that "a ton of PUA stuff is fucking stupid." So, if you want to know what a genuine "player" (as opposed to a guy who went through PUA at one point in his life) thinks of my book, read on:
Believe it or not, this was actually the first Game book I have ever read, and I was looking forward to possibly learning a thing or two along the way. Shit, I even took notes for the first time in years. 
So what is Minimal Game all about? It really is all in the title. Forgoing fancy evo-psych explanations and complicated routines, peacocking, and all that other stuff, Sleazy breaks down approaching, attraction, and closing to the simplest of forms.
Written as it is for beginners, Minimal Game is good shit. If I was a newbie, this would be a book I would want handed to me, and even reading it now it helped to refocus some things for me and highlight some things I have lazily gotten away from. Sleazy rightly keeps the scope of his book to foundational stuff, and you won’t have your head swimming with hundreds of steps and lines and routines. He writes it all in simple language with concepts that are easy to grasp, with knowledge you can use right away. I know I’ve said simple and minimal a lot during this review, but really, that’s what his stuff is. And that’s a good thing.


  1. Generation Nihilism seems like a truly detestable human being.

    Why do you like this guy, Sleazy?

    1. I'm sure we'll all going to hell for having fucked lots of women.

    2. He is detestable because he has no qualms treating women like shit. I didn't read his whole website but his own brother and best friend disowned him, for merely "inconveniencing women".

      Inconveniencing probably means treating women like shit, filtered through the psychology of a sociopath.

    3. Mr White Knight,

      maybe you should go out and meet a couple of women so that you realize that they are not all little princesses. You claim that FFY treats women like shit -- guess what, some women love being treated like shit, and some women treat men like shit, too. So I guess we all get what we deserve, don't we? You can certainly expect less loyalty from a woman than from a man.

      To get you started with critical thinking, here are two questions for you to contemplate about:

      1) Which sex initiates (by a wide margin) most divorces?
      2) Which sex is much more likely to cheat on their partner?

    4. Furthermore, "pump and dump" does not equal "treating women like shit". In all likelihood they're having a boyfriend anyway and are cheating on them, or just go out "slutting it up", raking up numbers in the process that would make Casanova pale. It's certainly not the case that every girl in the club is looking for a husband, celibate, and gets seduced against their will by mischievous men.

    5. Sleazy douchebag-

      First off, I never claimed to be a "white knight", I suppose that means defending women no matter what. I am not a white knight. If you take "white knight" to mean "fuck you" to guys like you and generation nihilsim by all means address me by that label.

      Pump and dump does mean treating women like shit. Your argument that the chick probably deserves it anyway is ridiculous. How do you know? Didn't your mother teach you that two wrongs don't make a right?

      I never claimed that all or even most women are 'little princesses'. It is telling that you feel the need to strawman me. I can only guess what you mean by 'little princesses' anyway. I know very well that people in general are shit, men and women. Just don't think you are any better, Sleazy. You are all in the mud together.

    6. To answer your questions:

      1. I don't know. I am too lazy to find out. People divorce for all kinds of reasons. I know that MRAs like to argue that women initiate divorce more, so if what you imply is true your argument is still weak besides. I have never seen any science to back up their claim. MRA's are notoriously full of shit but maybe they are right on this. So what?

      2. Most studies indicate that men cheat a little more often than women.

      Maybe you should stop listening to MRAs

    7. Buddy,

      please state clearly in which way, in your humble opinion, FFY mistreats women. I replied to your accusations in the abstract, and I provided an riposte to "pump and dump" beforehand because somehow I got the idea that this is objectionable to you.

      Your "two rights don't make one wrong" accusation is ludicrous. If a girl only wants quick sex with no strings attached, then you can't argue based on your morals. You may have a problem with how FFY acts, but that's your problem and nobody else's. The girls don't seem to complain, after all.

      Lastly, that women initiate the vast majority of divorces is a fact and not something the MRAs pull out of their ass. You don't need "science" for that, all you need to do is being able to read statistical data.

      Second, research is indeed a bit divided on whether women cheat more often than men or not. In any case, they do cheat a lot. Also, what is often neglected is that women are quick to "reinterpret" their sexual activities with other men behind their partner's back. (This is my personal experience from having been involved with quite a few women in my life.) Suddenly, a blow job "doesn't count", or "he's not there at the moment" is a valid excuse to fuck some other dude; sometimes, they say, "let's just be quick", or they simply lie about having a boyfriend/husband and you then later on find out and lose a little bit more trust in women as a whole.

      What I want to get at is that maybe women say to the researcher that they don't cheat on their partners, but that's just because the instances when they were cheating somehow "don't count".

    8. There is nothing immoral about hooking up. Sex with no strings attatched. You wrote "pump and dump" which means a guy promising a relationship and then using the girl sex before he dumps her unceremoniously. As I understand it, pump dump is assholish behavior.

      What offends me about Generation Nihilism? I read one of his articles and I remember thinking his writing hints at a person behind the keyboard I would find to be loathsome. He comes off as another whiny, cynical, MRA cocksucker. He wrote about the "pro-female" status quo in a decidedly negative light. Presumably we are supposed to be "anti-female" then if we take this guy seriously. Huh? Why didn't he write the "feminist agenda" instead? I honestly don't get it.

      I have no problem with other men who defend the rights of men but that isn't what self-styled Men's rights activists do. They write viciously mean articles against women and their rights. I happen to believe in (social and political) equality for men and women.

      I don't want to get into a long debate about what women are innately vs what men are innately. Suffice it to say I am not niave enough to take the notion of gender equality literally in the face of intersting evidence to the contrary. Not that such evidence would likely alter my social and political view of gender equality. I also acknowledge that there are minor but signifcant differences between the sexes.

      Btw, statistics is science, technically.

    9. Let's just say that "the numbers" show that women initiate the vast majority of divorces. Can you agree on that wording?

      "Pump and dump" is indeed what many women themselves do, and there are plenty of women who show the same "assholish" behavior, subconsciously or not. After sex, all is forgotten, they feel "guilty" and don't call the guy back, despite playing happy couple for a few hours. Just ask around among the men you know, and you'll learn that this is not that rare. (Of course, "not all women are like that.")

      I do agree with FFY that there is a pro-female bias in many societies, especially in the US. Of course, we could argue about the interpretation of "the numbers", but there is such an enormous disparity that to speak of anything but female privileges is tantamount to denial.

    10. Well, it is ridiculous how women get so much money in divorce settlements. High profile divorce settlements being the worst examples.

    11. Exactly! There are also plenty of cases in which guys go to jail because they can't pay what the judges think they should. They resort to a phantasy construct called "imputed income", and this is the kind of income they claim you could make if you really tried.

  2. been reading your blog for a minute Sleazy and bought your book. at the risk of sounding like a groupie ha (which I probably am lol) your concepts and mindset are just solid no bs.
    be social, have a life, have a few hobbies, a job u like etc no complex routines and all that weird ass stuff....keep up the good work.

    1. Hey man,

      thanks for buying my book. I appreciate it.
      Please let me know how you like it!

  3. I didn't have time to go through the whole Generation Nihilism blog. But I've seen enough to get the message, and it's a PRETTY VALUABLE one.

    G.N. comes across to me as one of those guys who have found Truth-Strength-Independance within themselves. Which in itself isn't exactly common among men.
    It usually doesn't come naturally. It's a choice one makes at some point in life, and a pretty scary one for those who lack the balls.

    What makes G.N. one of the web-greats however, is that little auxiliary component in his persona that spurs him to actively SPREAD what he has earned. To those who aren't already too-far-gone or in-to-deep. So they can find their Truth-Strength-Independance too.
    Without having a personal relationship with the audience, or generating revenue.
    I don't know about you people, but I recognize greatness when I see it.

    Some of GN's articles are about the most empowering writings I've ever come across online.
    It's just too bad for many that they are wasted on them. They are, however, definitely not wasted on me.

    I suppose his level of independent thinking and unapologetic making of his point will render GN the label arrogant with some people. Online, and IRL too.
    But hey, MIT's Donald Sadoway as has been described as "full of himself" too.

    The issue of "using women" has already been covered by Mr Sleazy himself.
    Yours truly takes the freedom to add this :

    For certain females, anything less than catering to her whims & agenda, ad infinitum, suffices to get the label "treated like shit".
    So one shouldn't take this label too seriously in the first place.

    Girls are free to fall for someone or not, to make the pussy available or not.
    GN's mindset seems to be that their decision/compliance doesn't obliges him to what he considers unreasonable in return.
    Many females consider this rude, not so much because they can't personally accept or handle it, but mostly because they see so much of the opposite happening around them :
    If all the other girls are catered for, I should be too !

    The more independent a girl, the less she will blame guys like GN for what he did with/to her.
    In any case, I'm not that bad at reading between the lines, and find nothing "rotten" in GN's attitude or foundations.
    BTW : As far as I can see, fundamentally corrupted attitudes towards girls are less commonly found among the abundant, than among the scarce.
    ironic nomenclature :

    In conclusion, GN can be added to the list of ironic nomenclature.
    He's in fact no more nihilistic than GLL are losers, Aaron is sleazy, DeAngelo is angelic, PUA's are artists, or Daft Punk is daft.

    1. "Sleazy" was actually originally an ironic commentary on the whole seduction community. Later on, though, you could have made a convincing case that there was something "sleazy" about my kind of pickup.

      You made some great comments. What is most noteworthy, I think, is that once you put yourself out there, some will try to take you down, and try to call you "narcissist" or "full of yourself". I find this quite bizarre because you could say this to anybody who wants to produce anything. Sure, you may just want to write things down on a public forum, like a blog, to help you clarifying the issue. But as soon as you've gained some followers, and even if it's just a handful, it won't take long before the first guy attacks your character. But think about it, where would our culture be if nobody had risked being called "narcissist". Sure, a lot of worthless books have been written, but also many great ones that found their readers generations after the death of the authors, while books that were popular during his lifetime are now forgotten.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.