Counter-Currents
On Why Pickup Artists are Superior to the Tradcon Manosphere
Travis LeBlanc
You don’t achieve this ideal simply by being a nice guy and preaching to women to try to change their behavior. (Picture courtesy of Flickr’s Internet Archive Book Images.)
1,530 words
A refrain I hear every so often is that porn gives men unrealistic expectations about sex. That may be true, but I would say that a bigger problem is mainstream movies giving men unrealistic expectations about romance.
I grew up in the 1980s watching many teen movies where the socially-awkward underdog manages to steal the smoking-hot popular girl from her handsome — but a total jerk — chad boyfriend just by being a good-natured sweetie-pie. It happened in The Karate Kid, Revenge of the Nerds, and multiple John Hughes movies (Weird Science, Pretty in Pink, and Some Kind of Wonderful). Basically any high-school movie where the main character is a guy will most likely involve him landing some popular girl who should be out of his league.
In watching these movies and TV shows, one would get the impression that women value inner beauty above all other considerations, including looks, money, confidence, and social status. Guys will inculcate this message and then go out into the world only to discover that things don’t work like that at all. “I was a sweetie-pie, but I still didn’t get the girl!” They are socialized to believe that behaving a certain way will get you girls. When it doesn’t work, they understandably get pissed.
Besides this, there is also a long tradition of sitcoms starring a shlubby guy who has a wife who is an order of magnitude more attractive than he is. Not only does this gives guys wildly unrealistic expectations of what they can expect, but it also feeds into another myth about women, one which women believe themselves: chicks go for funny guys. You see, Jim Belushi might not be conventionally handsome, but he’s funny! That’s why he was able to get such a smoking-hot wife despite being a fat guy who works in construction.
The Pickup Artist (PUA) community of yore had value in debunking some of the various myths and misunderstandings men often have about women. No, women do not always go for the guy with the most beautiful soul. They can be superficial and shallow. They don’t always mean what they say. And so on.
You can buy Tito Perdue’s novel Cynosura here.
Another virtue of the PUA community was that it cut to the chase. You can’t get laid? Okay, here’s how to fix that. You’ve been trying this? Here’s why that doesn’t work, and here’s what you should be doing. I nevertheless had my criticisms of the old PUA community; in ways, it was nihilistic and obsessed with the pursuit of fleeting pleasures. This is obscene when we are in the middle of a civilizational crisis. But I now find myself nostalgic for it when looking at its successor movement: the “red-pill,” tradcon manosphere as exemplified by the likes of Pearl Davis, Andrew Wilson, and the like.
For all its flaws, the Pickup Artist community was hyper-rational and dealt with the real world in terms of how women actually are. The Right-wing tradcon manosphere is all about pining for a different world and talking about how women should be. They dream of a world where women don’t work and get married at 18 to 40-year-olds. They can’t just say, “I want to get laid and it pisses me off that I can’t,” because that isn’t conservative. They have to pretend that they are against sex before marriage. They have to pretend that it’s not about them at all, but rather that they are trying to save the world — or that their ideal is actually for the woman’s own good, because if she doesn’t go along with it, she’ll be sad at age 40.
The self-improvement angle of the approach has gone out the window, and now it’s all about nagging women to change. The tradcon manosphere has all the downsides of the Pickup Artist community, but none of the benefits. You spend all your waking hours thinking about women, but then you never actually get laid.
Aside from the fact that the majority of manosphere influencers I’ve encountered strike me as sociopaths, I have two other major criticisms.
![Magnolia | Tom Cruise | Frank T.J. Mackie | Respect The Cock Tame The Cunt Scene [HD]](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/bbanWHx5AFQ/maxresdefault.jpg)
First, there is a school of thought which holds that understanding the Woman Question is the Rosetta Stone for understanding all the world’s problems, and/or that if we fix the Woman Question, everything else will fix itself. The reality is that even if by magic, everyone was red-pilled on women tomorrow and agreed that a woman should marry young, stay home, and raise kids while her husband works, the fact would remain that we live in a society where it is practically impossible to raise a family on a single income. If you ask me, anyone talking about returning to traditional gender roles without also talking about radically changing our economic system is unserious.
How about paying women some kind of universal basic income not to work? Enough to survive, but not enough to go clubbing every night? If she wants to upgrade her lifestyle, she can either get a man or get a job. A woman presently has to get a job to survive, but if she didn’t need a job to survive, getting a man would be a more attractive option and she would still have her own spending money. Of course, tradcons would never advocate for something like that because it would be “socialism.”
You can buy Tito Perdue’s The Smut Book here.
Secondly, there are some things that you just have to make peace with or else they will eat away at you and corrode your soul. A prime example is that everyone has to accept that they are going to die someday — maybe soon, maybe not for a while, but eventually. This life will not last forever, and while it’s an unfortunate reality, you have to make peace with it. I’ve known people who haven’t and undergo panic attacks at the mere thought of death. Someday, the Sun will expand and consume the entire planet Earth in flames. That’s a bummer, as I’ve grown fond of this place — but you have to accept it.
The fact that there is asymmetry in gender relations is another one of those things that you have to make peace with, if for no other reason than for you own sanity. In different contexts, men and women have unfair advantages over each other. There are all sorts of double standards that work in women’s favor, but then again, the average woman spends seven hours a week (two weeks a year) fixing her hair and applying makeup. That’s seven hours that men can spend playing video games and dicking around on the Internet. Would I be willing to sacrifice seven hours of my free time each week in order to have women’s social advantages? As in, I lose some of my free time, but then when I go to bars, people buy all my drinks for me, I never have to pay for dates, and I’m guaranteed to win if I ever get in a custody battle. Would I take that deal? I dunno. I’d have to think about it.
The PUA community made peace with the asymmetry of gender relations and devoted itself to developing a science of how to work within it. The tradcon manosphere refuses to make peace with this reality — and it eats away at them.
Here’s my advice to incels on how to get girls the easy way: Buy a guitar, learn to play the damn thing, and then join a band. I guarantee that you will get girls. You can actually be a loser in all other areas of life, and yet that works. Girls think it’s cool to say that they are dating a guy in a band. And who knows? If your band gets a record deal and “makes it,” then she will be dating a rock star, which is even cooler. Join a band and your autistic social awkwardness will be interpreted as the eccentricity of an artist. I would estimate that 80% of rock stars first picked up an instrument at least in part because they thought it would help them get chicks. The other 20% either came from musical families or are gay and not interested in chicks.
Now, when I say that this is the easy way, it will still require hundreds of hours of practice, but the results are guaranteed. If you are lazy, buy a bass guitar. It’s easier to learn, and there’s always a shortage of bass players, because everyone wants to play guitar. Fun fact: If you ever see a female bass player, nine times out of ten she had a guitar-playing boyfriend at some point in life who could not find a bass player, so he taught his girlfriend to play. That’s the beauty of the bass guitar: It’s so easy that you can teach your girlfriend to do it.
Or better yet, get some turntables and learn to be a DJ. Club DJs get even more (and hotter) chicks than musicians. The point is to find some way to get on a stage.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate at least $10/month or $120/year.
- Donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Everyone else will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days. Naturally, we do not grant permission to other websites to repost paywall content before 30 days have passed.
- Paywall member comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Paywall members have the option of editing their comments.
- Paywall members get an Badge badge on their comments.
- Paywall members can “like” comments.
- Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, please visit our redesigned Paywall page.
31 comments
How time flies, this article made me think of Chateau Heartiste back in the day.
I was still a lefty in many ways and that place «Where pretty lies perish» really helped me find other perspectives on life, the universe and everything.
It can still be read it seems, last entry is from may 2019.
Roissy was/is definitely one of us. He cited Dr. Devlin as one of his influences.
Roosh was on the same wavelength at least (and seemed to get further to the Dissident Right before he ended his blog).
Great article. I agree. Incels, tradcat and the manosphere are annoying to me. Those people just moralize and cry all the time. Pick ups try harder and have much better information and experience.
Many thanks to the author for noticing the stench of moral hypocrisy surrounding the incel and his complaints. The fact is, when women don’t work and marry 40-year-olds at 18, there is more debauchery, not less. It’s not like it’s never been tried before, but these psychopaths posing as guardians of public virtue are fine with rampant prostitution, however exploitive, as long as men are getting what they want.
Their objection to socialism is particularly revealing: men have to part with their shekels without “getting anything in return.” Well, this is why teenage girls in poor countries are de facto forced into prostitution if their little siblings need expensive medical care or something (a feature not a bug). This is the incel’s Utopia. (Note that I’m not saying there aren’t any good reasons to object to socialism, only that the incel’s particular objection is reprehensible.)
I grew up in the 1980s watching many teen movies where the socially-awkward underdog manages to steal the smoking-hot popular girl from her handsome — but a total jerk — chad boyfriend just by being a good-natured sweetie-pie. It happened in The Karate Kid, Revenge of the Nerds, and multiple John Hughes movies (Weird Science, Pretty in Pink, and Some Kind of Wonderful). Basically any high-school movie where the main character is a guy will most likely involve him landing some popular girl who should be out of his league…
“I was a sweetie-pie, but I still didn’t get the girl!” They are socialized to believe that behaving a certain way will get you girls. When it doesn’t work, they understandably get pissed.
Hmmm. I’m not sure it’s reasonable to “get pissed” when life doesn’t go according to the movies, but I’ll set that aside for the moment. Notice how the socially-awkward, homely girl disappears in this narrative, as though she doesn’t exist. Is there even a name for this girl? There are Chads and Staceys and betas, but what do we call that girl? From her point of view, the state of affairs is this: These incels only care about looks and then they get upset when the girls they court reject them because they only care about looks.
Not only does this gives guys wildly unrealistic expectations of what they can expect, but it also feeds into another myth about women, one which women believe themselves: chicks go for funny guys.
I take your point that these sitcoms may contribute to unrealistic expectations, but we really do appreciate a sense of humor. No, it’s not going to make up for being a repulsive schlub in every other respect, but wit is a massive boon when other things are reasonably equal.
Buy a guitar, learn to play the damn thing, and then join a band. I guarantee that you will get girls. You can actually be a loser in all other areas of life, and yet that works. Girls think it’s cool to say that they are dating a guy in a band. And who knows? If your band gets a record deal and “makes it,” then she will be dating a rock star, which is even cooler.
Come now, this is unfair. We actually really do love musicians, record deal or not. Well, many of us do anyway. If you grew up in the eighties, you might recall that teenagers divided themselves into highly endogamous “tribes” of a sort: preps, jocks, metalheads, etc. While this might seem silly now, at least there was an understanding that it really isn’t possible to generalize about what girls like, because we aren’t all the same (a crazy idea, I know). It was the athlete, not the artist, who was idealized in the most popular and conventional social sets.
That said, “cool” definitely matters, and a great deal at that. I mentioned in another thread recently that we are not interested in guys who are desperate for sex. The incel’s situation will not improve until he sorts that out. (Matthew 6:33)
I have more to say, but that’ll do for now.
I’m not saying that if you join a band that you could get any woman you want. But within your city’s local music scene, sure. If your band plays enough shows that people in the scene have heard of you, “scene chicks” will want to date you. When I was in my 20s, I was in, like, the 12th most popular band in my city and I could get girls.
It’s a cheat code for getting girls.
Lexi mentioned the shy, awkward, homely girl that gets left out. I’m glad that someone finally pointed that out. I’ll refer to them as wallflowers, which is an older term for females like that. In some of these movies, the wallflower gets the handsome jock. I think it was Molly Ringwald’s character in sixteen candles that got the CHAD at the end of the movie. After all, he cared less about looks and more about a girl’s inner qualities. She is right about the jocks being at the top of the social hierarchy in high school. I was in the metal-head sub-culture in school and I would not trade that for anything.
Notice how the socially-awkward, homely girl disappears in this narrative, as though she doesn’t exist.
Yes!
What definition of incel are you using?
This is true about learning to play bass. I started out on bass guitar in a band because I couldn’t play a six-string. For meeting women, being in a band certainly isn’t everything. But it’s something, which is at least marginally better than nothing. And you learn to accomplish something that other people acknowledge affirmatively – assuming that you can get your bass in tune.
When I finally learned how to play guitar, I started playing a set of Moog Taurus bass pedals with my left foot and used an early Roland drum machine.
As a one-man-band, if a woman wants to go home with a musician tonight, then you’re it. She’s stuck with you. Monopolies are great for the monopolist, but severely restrict consumer choices.
Marriage is a different story. Not many happily married men say, “I married my wife because she loves to hang out in bars all the time and pick up strange men.” But it’s a good way for young men to get some practice. Then you grow up and get serious.
But immaturity is fun for a while. That’s why we start out so young when we’re born – so that we can have years of fun before the seriousness sets in.
Paging all “scene chicks”:
Be sure and tell any and all suitors about your scene chick adventures, sexual and otherwise. As a matter of fact, embellish to your heart’s content. Say you were a Kings of Leon groupie or whatever floats your boat. That way, you can weed out entitled hypocrites like FNB. You can be reasonably sure that his egregious double standard about sex isn’t his only one. He has lots more double standards that you won’t find out about until you’re stuck living with him.
Scene chick porn:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gnhXHvRoUd0
Responding to Lexi’s post:
Ed Dutton says that the woman chooses; and that when she chooses to marry, she marries up.
For a good marriage, you have to find the right person; you have to be the right person; and you have to build the right relationship. A tall order in any world, and particularly in an atomized, dysfunctional Global American Empire that’s sliding – or tumbling head-over-heels – into the dustbin of history. I feel sorry for these young men and women today who are struggling to find a suitable life partner to go through this mess with. Hang in there.
In my younger days, earning money to finance my medical education, I worked over 10,000 hours in basement dive bars, fine nightclubs, and hotel lounges. A woman chooses the man, and my observation is that a woman who habitually chooses to pick up guys in a bar usually has issues that preclude building a long, happy, stable marriage. Not always. But usually.
I’m in my mid-70’s now and happily married. My wife and I have been together for almost 40 years. We’re still in love.
Fortunately, when I was finally mature enough to recognize the right woman when I met her (and I was finally mature enough to be worth the right woman’s time to meet me), the perfect woman conveniently moved in next door. She was a former high school beauty queen with a sunny personality who traveled extensively in North America working as a sales rep and sales trainer.
I look back at my old girlfriends with fondness and hope they feel the same way about me; and hope that they forgive me for the mistakes a young man often makes; because unfortunately, that’s how you learn how to behave with women: by making dumb mistakes and learning to never do that again. And then not doing it again.
It’s like learning to play guitar – you’ll hit some wrong notes along the way to playing it right. But you don’t learn how to play guitar by not playing.
And I was so musically inept that I had to start with playing bass. So I hit a lot of wrong notes. For years.
Did my wife marry up? I think we both found the right person; we had both worked hard to become the right person; and together we built the right relationship. But I don’t think that she married up. I think that I’m the one who got lucky. Real lucky.
Double standard
Is it a double standard when we say that Black people and White people cannot be held to the same standard because they are genetically and culturally distinct, and that they are going to need their own separate nations in order to enact their own separate laws for their own separate peoples?
Is it a double standard when we say that White men and White women cannot be held to the same standard because they are genetically and culturally distinct, and that they are going to need their own separate nations in order to enact their own separate laws for their own separate peoples? Because that’s almost where we are today: Young White men and young White women are almost living in two separate political systems inside the same fractured nation.
Hopefully, White people and Black people won’t continue to be forced to live with each other much longer. But White men and White women will always have to find a way to live with each other.
It can be done. But White men are going to have to get realistic and make some compromises. The trad wife meme is amusing but hopelessly unrealistic, and therefore constitutes cruel and unusual punishment to young White men. To many young White women, the offer of “family values, hard-line Pro-Life, a woman’s role is children, kitchen, and church” translates into the marching orders of “financially-absurd, No-Choice, political repression, religious authoritarianism.” Those young White women won’t vote for it, and they certainly won’t marry it. They won’t even talk to it.
You have to let some things slide to have a good marriage with a good woman; because, for sure, she’s going to have to let a lot of things about you slide. A lot of things.
Excellent comment, Foursquare.
Ed Dutton says that the woman chooses; and that when she chooses to marry, she marries up.
Well if “Ed Dutton” says it, it must be true, even though it sounds like you broke a few hearts until you finally made your choice. The only power women have over the matter, theoretically, is the power to withhold sex outside of marriage. That’s been tried and it never worked very well. You’ve heard of foundling hospitals, right? Men have the power to withold any kind of intimacy or affection unless they get sex. Our desire for intimacy, including physical contact, is as compelling as yours, only different.
Even the churches have given up on purity culture, because they can’t enforce it. They don’t want to shame and pressure the few men who still go to Church. They don’t dare carry on shaming women who don’t have any power to dictate terms, and they don’t want them to go marry outside the church and be “unequally yoked.”
Nor is it entirely clear to me that women are “marrying up.” Women are now more educated than the men they choose to marry. Are you talking about looks, earnings? What? This is the problem with all that hypergamy bullshit. You can’t even agree on what it means. Poor men say women are gold-diggers who only care about money. Ugly men say women are impractical and put looks over dollars and sense. Socially-awkward guys swear it’s all about charm and wit, etc. I think you should all just give it a rest until you get your story straight.
Is it a double standard when…
Yes, but you articulated the very rationale (genetic and cultural differences) for that particular double standard in your rhetorical question. The fact that you can justify one double standard doesn’t mean that therefore any double standard is permissible. I suppose you made an attempt here:
a woman who habitually chooses to pick up guys in a bar usually has issues that preclude building a long, happy, stable marriage. Not always. But usually.
Are you some sort of expert? This sounds like a conclusion of convenience to me. I can’t think of any better time/place for picking up guys than at a rock show, especially the very musician you came to see. Casual sex with an artist who has already touched your soul, however fleetingly, is the only kind of casual sex that could ever be worth having. At the very least, “scene chicks” understand that much.
Of course, if you’re right, then so much the more shame on men who decide to take advantage of their “issues.” As for women, people with “issues” tend to trigger our maternal instincts, and this sometimes gets us into trouble. Well, I would rather get into a little trouble than ever see someone else’s weakness as a cue that they’re easy prey.
A funny story: I once had a guy ask me if I wanted to come home and “party” (not “talk” or “watch a movie”) with him and his buddies. For some reason, I knew exactly what he meant, even though I was very young and naive then, and I don’t read social cues all that well to this day. There was no lying, no manipulation, just a straightforward yes or no proposition. It won’t come as any surprise that “home” was a tour bus. I declined, but I have never forgotten his honesty with me and his gracious acceptance of my refusal. I like to think he respected me as a fellow music lover. When all is said and done, every girl has a story or two like this, about good men who played some part, trivial to them but unforgettable for us, in helping us discover who we are and what we need.
I look back at my old girlfriends with fondness and hope they feel the same way about me; and hope that they forgive me for the mistakes a young man often makes; because unfortunately, that’s how you learn how to behave with women: by making dumb mistakes and learning to never do that again. And then not doing it again.
It’s like learning to play guitar – you’ll hit some wrong notes along the way to playing it right. But you don’t learn how to play guitar by not playing.
And I was so musically inept that I had to start with playing bass. So I hit a lot of wrong notes. For years.
It’s the same old story. Boys will be boys, but they learn from their mistakes, grow up and change. Well, so do we. That is what Fred C. Dobbs was talking about in Comment 6. The incels are having none of it, though. They demand that 18 year old girls be forced into marriage before they’ve had a chance to make their own mistakes and learn their own lessons about life.
Like ubercreep Roger Devlin says, “Sex is too important a matter to be left to the independent judgment of young women, because young women rarely possess good judgment…” Well, yes that’s kind of how young people are, isn’t it? As a matter of fact, maybe we should reconsider the age of consent in light of recent discoveries about brain development. The early 20s would be more appropriate. How about it Mr. Devlin, I mean, since young women have such poor judgment and all?
Thank you for your reply, Lexi.
The double standard issue was meant, as you noted, rhetorically. But now, on further reflection, I wonder if perhaps it’s not just a rhetorical question.
The entire concept of political power is up in the air now: Who controls what, and why?
If we’re going to have separate territories so that Black people can make their own laws for their own Black tribes, and White people can make their own laws for their own White tribes, then should we also at least consider having a further devolution of power to those tribes most directly impacted by a particular law?
Male and female organisms have essentially pursued separate but parallel paths of genetic evolution for well over a billion years.
If space aliens who reproduced by cloning (and were therefore unfamiliar with sexual reproduction) were to land on Earth, then they would classify White males and White females as entirely separate species.
In terms of genetics, anatomy, and physiology, White males are far more similar to Black males than White males are to White women. (Interestingly, most White men’s feelings towards the two groups are inversely proportional to our genetic, anatomic, and physiologic similarity to them.)
Many years ago, Ivan Illich wrote about paradoxical counterproductivity: whenever the use of an institution takes away from the society those things the institution was designed to provide. Examples are modern medicine destroying human health, modern education destroying learning, and modern democracy destroying the common person’s control over their own life.
In “Gender”, he differentiated between the modern world’s industrialized sex, where everyone – White, Black, male, female – is an interchangeable widget; and on the other hand, a traditional community’s vernacular gender, where each culture is distinct, and where men and women each have separate areas of power and responsibility. He wrote, “Gender bespeaks a complementarity that is enigmatic and asymmetrical.”
In the modern world, he believed that the institution of industrialized sex had destroyed vernacular gender; and by doing so, had destroyed much of the informal power that women had previously enjoyed, and replaced it with a cheapened form of fake equality. Marxist feminists hated him.
The White advocacy space is conspicuously deficient in White females. Advocating for a model of a White homeland that seems to be objectionable to many White females (particularly to young, White females) could become an exercise in futility. If anything, a movement to achieve a White homeland would need to be more attractive to White women than to White men simply because if a White homeland is where all the girls are, then the boys will start showing up. It’s human nature.
So a White homeland must meet the needs of White women. And not the needs of an idealized woman who makes “computer-perfect” decisions. It has to meet the needs of actual White women who – like the actual White men – have been driven half-bonkers by the totally-bonkers modern world we are all living in. And therefore, these actual White women will not be making “computer-perfect” decisions, and the White men will just have to put up with it, just as the White women will have to put up with the White men’s chronic inability to make “computer-perfect” decisions.
If there is a distinction between the tribe of Blacks and the tribe of Whites (and there is), then is there also a distinction between the tribe of White women and the tribe of White men, since White women are so genetically, anatomically, and physiologically distinct from White men?
As America breaks up along the natural lines of tribal division, we may see the development of multiple White tribal nations. In some of these White tribal nations, should we consider if there are certain issues that should be decided upon only by the tribe of White women, and other issues decided upon only by the tribe of White men, and other issues decided by both?
For example, in a particular White homeland, could reproductive rights be decided solely by the White women, with the foreign policy/military defense decisions made solely by the White men? Would it be acceptable to White women? Would it be acceptable to White men? Would it lead to better decision making, or worse? Would it make the project to achieve a White homeland more attractive to White women, or less attractive?
It’s a thorny issue.
I had a few thoughts reading this.
The first is that the “need gets the hot girl” meme in movies is just one trope among many in movies that is meant to be wholesome. There’s also “black casino singer saves ailing church”, “prostitute turns into loyal wife”, “plucky lawyer outsmarts entire FBI”, “12 year old girl hacks dinosaur theme Park security system and saves the day” and that’s just a few from the 90s alone.
What all these tropes are doing is selling a message that is actually kinda wholesome: it’s a don’t judge a book by its cover kind of thing. In movies, it’s better pathos to root for an underdog, and so on.
This in terms of relationships usually means “hot girl who’d usually get railed by entire football team / go with douchebags who will hit her / turn down less exciting but more loyal and wholesome ordinary man” gets with the ordinary but ultimately talented nerd. She sees thru the weak outer shell at a strong inner persona. The nerd also goes on a character arc – maybe he finds a bit of courage and learns to stick up for himself a bit, for example.
I’ve said a lot about this because I hear people go on about this nerd/prom queen thing a lot and how it is either an incel fancy or otherwise underhanded.
Its no underhanded than any of the other similar tropes in movies where characters who seem weak/bad/inept go on a journey and turn out to be heroes after all. Also in movies other weak characters tend to come out on top: little kids tend to get the best sarky comeback lines, and black people usually get to deliver some kind of unattainable wisdom. These are just tropes for telling stories. Sure, Hollywood exaggerates and corrupts with it. But underdog plucks defeat from jaws of victory is also just a trope, one that dates to antiquity and probably before.
I wouldnt read too much into it.
As for PUA and the new-manosphere or whatever its called (I see Andrew tate, pearly, and so on get called redpill- I always thought redpill meant JQ, or at least just “woke up to dissident right stuff about race and gender generally”, but it seems redpill now refers exclusively to these new trad anti feminists. We need a name for this movement. Manosphere also refers to the general PUA/MGTOW scene too. But I’ll use manosphere for now.
The new manosphere is more of an evolution of PUA than a rejection of it. They both accept the same tenents: it is almost impossible to get a girlfriend, especially a decent one. The PUA try to take a personal responsibility angle and the manosphere take a deterministic, broad social angle.
Could it be that PUA had its day and men noticed that even despite getting game and hitting on 10 women a night it still wasn’t working? And thus the focus is now on a movement that says no matter what personal responsibility you take, its still out of your hands?
The PUA could also be derided from a WN perspective as cynical selfish hedonists, resigned to late stage liberalism and even revelling in its excesses. The PUA was not a strictly racial affair, and while it was a gateway, I guess so are a lot of things. Black metal is a gateway. Video games are a gateway. The alt lite, Jordan Peterson, sargon, triggernometry: they’re all gateways. I guess you just have to meet people where they are.
I personally am more on the Determinist side in general. What drives history? To quote Harold Macmillan: “Events, dear boy, events.” Why are the far right so marginalised? Is it because they’re incompetent? Or due to historical events leading the left (who are very incompetent) to be in power?
For example the Counter Currents article about the indian nebbish and his stunning wife. Is this Indian nebbish a slick chad with top game? Or is he part of a traditional society? They’re in a trad society that has arranged marriages (not a bad idea, imo) and so once again their lives are pre determined by broader events.
On the subject of the paramounce of the WQ : I think this is a cop out for not discussing the JQ or race. Its an interesting chicken and egg debate, our current predicament and women’s liberation, which created which, and it is an interesting question: if we solved the race question, would we still have the women question? And would this hinder us? I don’t know.
I believe in the primacy of race, so that’s my shibboleth. But that’s just me. I don’t know if I’m right or wrong on that.
On the subject of guitar : I guess you were joking but I must hard disagree on this. Learning instruments is utterly not something women are interested in. Maybe in 1977 it was. It ain’t now. Being a DJ is a better shout. Well, maybe get get acoustic guitar and cover John mayer or jack Johnson. If you’re doing that it helps if you’re very fit and good looking, too. And rich.
I’d suggest the best way into women’s pants nowadays is: get one of those gingham pattern headscarves, get an Extinction Rebellion tattoo, a Che Guevara backpack, and a THIS IS WHAT A FEMINIST looks like t shirt, go to a leftist Gaza protest and bellow about how Israel is a white supremacist colonialist patriarchal apartheid puppet of the US and UK. Also start a 4th wave feminist TikTok where you do short videos of your face reacting with disgust to the latest thing Donald Trump said. I guarantee you’ll be swimming in pussy before the year is out (or your money back). Those lefty guys will get it all. (I’m not even joking).
Or, be a violent (black) criminal who kills women. 100% guaranteed erotic fan mail from (probably married) women. Set aside the dates for conjugal visits.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QNjB8ZCBuHY
Why are the far right so marginalised? Is it because they’re incompetent? Or due to historical events leading the left (who are very incompetent) to be in power?
This is a cope.
The ‘left’ is not incomptent.
The ‘right’ is simply incoherent.
Show me one part of the ‘right’ that has ever been this technically proficient at pursuing goals:
https://mainstreetjournal.substack.com/
The fact they’re able to get people to crowdfund and support their ideas on that blog is mostly due to circumstance and not how competent they are.
When I say circumstances what I essentially mean is that the Left won WW2, leading to the current Liberal world order and concepts such as the UN Bill of Human Rights, Liberal capitalist democracy, anti racism, feminism, and so on.
The left are full of bumbling buffoons making pants-on-head retarded assertions about gender and other topics. They can afford to make mistakes because of the power they have. The president is a demented old clown who almost daily makes a fool of himself.
Much leftist journalism and academia is lazily researched and badly written.
I’d argue they only even have the willingness to be competent, when they are competent (which they are some of the time of course) they only have this energy due to their victorious position.
Meanwhile the right, resigned to defeat, don’t even have the energy to try and be successful.
“The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity”. Was that Yeats?
The fact they’re able to get people to crowdfund and support their ideas on that blog is mostly due to circumstance and not how competent they are.
If being able to raise money for one’s causes and put them to good use isn’t ‘competent’, I don’t think that word means anything anymore.
If you ask ‘the Left’ they’ll tell you they didn’t win WWII, the capitalists did. And they’d be right. There are fewer unions than there were before WWII. There is a smaller percentage of workers in unions than there were before WWII. Capital is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands than before WWII. After WWII, every major American city had a ‘red squad’ specifically dedicated to suppressing certain forms of ‘leftist’ organizing (specifically the communists).
The Left didn’t win WWII. The jews did.
The left are full of bumbling buffoons making pants-on-head retarded assertions about gender and other topics. They can afford to make mistakes because of the power they have. The president is a demented old clown who almost daily makes a fool of himself.
I think you need to look very closely at how incoherent your views are. How can ‘the left’ be full of bumbling buffoons and they also have so much power they can afford to be reckless.
If they’re so bumbling, how did they get so much power?
If they’re so incompetent (and unwilling to be competent), how did they get so much power?
I submit to you that however ‘bumbling’ the Left might seem to you, that their opponents are even more so.
Much leftist journalism and academia is lazily researched and badly written.
So what? If it satisfies the needs of their ‘base’ and reaffirms their values, it’s a ‘win’.
The left’s pivot to ‘cultural’ issues is simply an admission that the mutant form of ‘liberalism’ known as ‘neolibealism’ was dominant after WWII. ‘Freedom’ stopped being about the control of the means of production (the pro-worker left) and started being about ‘the creation and consumption of preferences’.
When you look at Main Street Journal, you’re not looking at leftists. You’re looking at liberals, and pretty OG liberals at that. Nice, highly-educated, well-compensated, mostly White people who want to ‘do good’ for ‘the marginalized’. And by their own account, they’re pretty good at building the sort of structures and processes that allow them to have influence in your back yard.
‘The Right’ has nothing like this.
And my view is that it’s because the Right doesn’t have anything to sell that their most logical constituencies are willing to buy: hierarchy, rigid conformity, worship of the almighty dollar, suppression of worker interests.
Which is why I’m not on the Right.
If views beneficial to Whites were to be taken up by liberals, the situation for Whites would improve.
So, while liberals are building banks and creating investment pools for their logical constituencies, the Right is debating the relative value of monarchy over democracy.
And I think the problem boils down to trust.
Pro-Whites cannot afford loyalty to any existing political faction.
The pro-White approach has to be completely transactional with the Left and the Right.
Pro-Whites have to be able to work with either the Left or the Right depending solely upon what each faction has to offer.
Right now, Whites are a minority in 11 states in the US. And that number will rise to 14 pretty soon.
California has been minority White for some time.
And yet, where is the discourse within the pro-White movement taking up the banner of ‘minority rights for Whites’ in these states?
Even more important, where is the discussion of ‘minority rights’ for Whites within the pro-White movement?
Pro-Whites need to recognize that a pro-White liberal discourse – rather than a pro-White ‘right wing’ discourse – is something for which the opponents to White self-determination have no effective defense.
A lot of liberal Whites lead functionally White Nationalist lives.
Pro-Whites can use this contradiction to point out that working class Whites just want the same stability and access to resources as they do. Pro-Whites should point out that the liberal state has acted like a bully towards ‘racist’ Whites, rather than allowing them their own self-determination. We can point out to liberals that racial bullying by the state was exactly the same as the state’s bullying of workers during labor strife. Pro-Whites can point out that working class Whites are not only a marginalized people, but that their ways of life are actively attacked via liberal cultural institutions. Pro-Whites can point out that the White working class is a minority globally and their labor has been marginalized by neoliberal trade policies and mass immigration.
And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
I have said this before and I’ll say it again now, liberalism is the better vehicle for pro-White advocacy than any of the alternatives.
While it does seem to me you’re just now arguing the toss, I guess you’ve got an interesting take there, but I also feel you haven’t really applied the “principle of charity” (in philosophical debate terminology) to what i have said.
I will paraphrase you : “why don’t Whites make a stand for white minorities in certain areas?”
I mean is this a rhetorical question? Or serious? OK, so imagine a crowdfunder explicitly for White people in, say, Baltimore or LA.
How long (in hours) do you realistically think that would last up online before being taken down for inciting “hatred”?
A pro white political party? That’d be banned too. Hell, White Nationalist people are even jailed for acts as mundane as putting up stickers or social media posts such as ‘its OK to be white’.
The argument you are engaging in, which is “why are marginalised people marginalized” is equivalent to a high school bully manhandling a junior high kid and holding their hands to make them hit themselves, while going “Why are you hitting yourself? Why are you hitting yourself?”
It is completely disingenuous. If you hold power you don’t need to be competent or consistent or well-liked. You just need to brutally repress your enemies. I believe in a ‘vanguard’ theory whereby an intellectual vanguard will pave the way for a larger movement which will eventually seize some kind of power.
At the moment the left hold that power. (I use this term more broadly than you, it seems: you seem to use Left to mean “economic Socialists” whereas to me everyone from mild Republicans to antifa is “Left” which to me is an all encompassing mindset of culture and economics, and is based on Liberal concepts like the supremacy of man-made laws over nature, atheism, blank slate theory, nurture over nature, and egalitarianism over hierarchy. I Also believe Holocaustianity is a key divider between what i consider Right and what I consider Left. To me, Marxist economic principles are just one part of one part of the Left.)
These articles about guys that can’t find a good woman always make me cringe. The timing of this one is impeccable. A high school buddy and myself went out tonight and bumped into one of the prettiest girls from our class. She married a very average looking, church going white guy and had 6 kids with him. My friend asked her about her choice and she said she was sick of the cool guys, and just wanted a nice peaceful little life. She was tired of being cheated on and lied to. So the sweet nice can get the girl. My guess is that her husband wasn’t some whimpering simpleton that apologizes for his own existence. He just had the nads to approach her and win her heart.
So this one anecdotal story somehow disproves an observable general trend? Exceptions to the rule don’t disprove the rule.
To put it simply, my anecdotal story is not the exception and this essay is not the rule.
The simple fact that you’re unironically singing the praises of women who settle after having had their “strings of bad relationships” is somehow nothing short of astounding to me still. And to speak of any nads on that poor chump who had to win her heart, incredible stuff.
There’s far too much talk around here about the inversion of reality when it pertains to a certain tribe’s devious schemes, yet far too little when it comes to most of our wise elders guiding the younger generation on the subject of women. CC regulars were never on the younger side of the moobment, that much is known.
By all means, please do keep it up. Without this most essential work many young guys would still be on the fence, susceptible to gaslighting of the grass touching variety due to the constant mental torment.
Whether it’s these kind of takes that go mask off or the poppycock peddled by borderline Xers stuck in the 90s of the Travis LeBlanc variety, we genuinely owe you a great debt. Unhinged, deeply dysfunctional individuals like Fuentes, scammers like Tate and so on could not come close to educating the youth like your efforts do.
Even if you don’t agree with everything that the PUA community advocates, you should find some things about it that you can agree with. A lot of the advice that some of them offer are how to communicate your intensions better and how to interpret certain aspects of female behavior better. Much of it is not how to lie and manipulate women, although that is there as well. A lot of it is about communication and clearing up confusion.
Here are a few remarks on the incel and PUA problem:
To what extent are low birthrates of Whites due to the fact that many below average looking white people (especially those from the middle classes) no longer find mates (mainly because women being too picky about looks)?
Should ugly Whites procreate?
If not, can they join white nationalist movement (out of racial, ethnic and cultural solidarity)?
Why should white nationalism prefer PUA over incels considering that PUA is based on liberal illusions (“you can get whatever you want if you try hard enough”) whereas incel/blackpill is deterministic and asserts there are limiting differences based on genetics?
Guest wrote: “Should ugly Whites procreate?”
I say unequivocally yes! Whites should procreate as much as possible. I believe to the extent PUA methods can be depolyed to find potential mates, it’s a good thing.
I also believe that women have become pickier, so “manning up” will be essential until certain cultural changes take place to bring down female expectations. Perhaps simping and other forms of clowning behavior should be publicly condemned. The family courts could also be made less hostile to men.
Additionally, we need to make sure that the phenotypic traits of the various White groups are preserved. To do that, we should actively discourage distinct White groups from mixing. Perhaps there should be online battalions to remind Whites to keep their subtype as pure as possible. These battalions can carefully monitor discussions to provide healthy reminders of the importance of subtype preservation.
All in all, I say the PUA methods beat out the fatalistic blackpill ideology.
Antiblackpiller: “Whites should procreate as much as possible.”
I believe you are missing the point of Guest’s post. He sounds like he identifies with the incel movement, so he wonders whether the involuntarily celibate (like him) should join the WN movement. He probably has self-limiting beliefs due to sour experiences with women, and perhaps wonders what role he has in the cause. To answer his question, he should stop viewing himself as a cuck-at-best who should support other Whites having kids, given their genetic similarity. He should instead figure out why most people – or a significant percentage at least – have kids and he does not, instead of debating the point online (where the sample population might be skewed).
The incel movement conflicts with WN because it assumes unilateral loyalty – loyalty by the individual WN while White women (and other women more generally) supposedly exclude the majority of “their” men from passing on their genes.
Guest should abandon the incel ideology if he wants to be a WN. If he is an incel, there is no way working around the conclusion that he’s at best a cuck who can only passively watch others reproduce when he gets out of the house, showing some emotional support to his kin online. As a WN, he can actually go outside and follow what a large percentage of Whites (and non-Whites) are doing to actually have kids. What he’ll find is he needs to turn his life and attitude around (ie. be responsible).
There is no such thing as incel ideology. Incels are men who are unable to meet the (artificially induced) standards of today’s women. That is a fact about their romantic situation; it doesn’t mean they all speak with one voice or share the same beliefs about women.
You assume it’s within the power of incels to attract women. I would dispute that. For one thing, women are hypergamous. They do not find all men to be equally attractive. On dating apps, where most people meet nowadays, search filters for height and income exclude the majority of men. The majority of men don’t get messaged back. It’s only a small number of men who benefit from online dating. The same trend persists offline, on college campuses, where a small percentage of men monopolize dating and sex.
Second, women in the West don’t depend on individual men for financial support. Even non-college educated women have set-aside opportunities to climb into management in retail, manufacturing and hospitality. They don’t need a husband to own a home anymore (the majority of US homeowners are women). So it is no longer sufficient for a man to be a good earner to attract a mate.
Another change to the romantic landscape is legalized abortion and birth control pills, which remove the risk of unwanted pregnancies, and the civil court system which almost always awards custody to the mother because of Title-IV D which provides federal funding for child support agencies. There are hardly any consequences for women to be promiscuous nowadays, whereas promiscuous men have to worry about false rape accusations and “miracle” babies.
The system has created incels. They didn’t pop up out of nowhere because of a negative state of mind, or because they play video games too much. Until the system is reformed, or done away with completely, there are going to be men who do not get to so much as kiss a woman.
Gyromite: “You assume it’s within the power of incels to attract women. I would dispute that.”
It’s within the power of virtually all men to attract women within their range of perceived value. However, this value is not solely based on looks, or as much on looks as incels believe. Many incels, as can be seen in documentaries, struggle with mental health issues (Elliot Rodger was extremely neurodivergent, as an example), but look very normal or average-ish.
The statistics also show most men from 40-49 have kids, which conflicts with the incel notion that women only wish to have sex with the top 10 percent or so of men. So any man who is 40+ and does not have a kid should, statistically and matter of factly, look within on the cause, rather than blaming women or their supposed pickiness. It is ludicrous to see men complaining about women almost 24/7 on the internet, as if behaving in such a manner, absent looks to the level of Brad Pitt, should bring them the results they believe they deserve.
It is a fact that women have become more picky in the modern era, and passive, socially awkward (ie. “beta”) men have it much harder than their grandfathers – but historically it has been the case that average men have faced great challenges in attracting mates, so the experience of Baby Boomers should be seen as anomalous rather than as a “norm.” Romantic love, for example – the experience of many Boomers – is a modern notion.
What I believe is partly responsible for the rise of incels is a lack of social skills due to social media, and with that a lack of social circles. Social circles were critical to pair bonding before social media, and it’s just not possible to even form a social circle with the amount of time that some incels spend online on social media and other websites. This is especially true of incels that spend all day debating politics or political theory (a sign of neurodivergence, perhaps). Dating apps, however commonly used and counterproductive in our society, should be avoided by most men trying to meet women. There are other ways of meeting women.
These “pick up artist” suggestions always seem so weird and unnecessary to me. If the goal is to just have sex, aren’t there floozies in every bar and night club? And there are tons of apps where people are always looking for that stuff, no? It would be so easy. And why would you even want to get with a woman who would have casual sex? It’s kind of trashy. And sleeping around will just bring problems like STDs. It’s dirty. Why not respect yourself enough to only have sex with someone else who also didn’t pass themself around like a cheap piece.
To meet someone I would say that it goes without saying that you should be fit and well-groomed. That is well within any guy’s control. If you’re not fit and well-groomed, then you’re just lazy. Secondly, obviously you want to be responsible and bettering yourself through education or other experiences. You don’t have to take up certain hobbies just because you think they will impress women. And as for the girl obviously she should be kind, loving, smart and not a slut. If you meet someone you really like then there’s no point in continuing to play the field.
I don’t follow these things directly. I imagine the tradcon world relies on women being put back in their box from 200-300 hundreds ago. These things are complex, but different forms of female empowerment are encouraged by our enemies as a destabilizing force with exactly the effects one would predict. Some kind of sane realignment probably should happen.
I’d like to ask who is sitting around watching sitcoms from the 1980s ? Not incels today.
But this is not quite correct. The idea every great looking woman is with some ‘perfect’ man, looks or otherwise is BS.
They are often with very flawed men. Maybe he didn’t start that way when she met him, who knows.
Less physically attractive guys clearly can get nice looking women. I’ve seen it all the time for years. How stable every relationship is, how impervious to dissatisfaction, wandering and cheating it is, is a whole other question. Usually those men have money or at least a reasonable regular career.
And not every great looking man is with some great looking woman either. People’s needs can be quite different.
In fact, there may be an abundance of women who would take the incels, but the incels don’t want them. It’s very hard to get animated about someone you don’t really like.
Then there’s the question of what relationships are. Probably most of us, whether religious or not, are brought up to view marriage as a sacred institution. The reality is a lot of marriages are not like that. I don’t know the percentages, but I was shocked when I found out what marriage could mean years ago. There’s a number of very attractive women in some variant of sham or weird marriage, or the husband even plays some kind of cucked role.
You end up compiling a bunch of dark theories about all this that are difficult to write without sounding bitter or retarded and are open to misunderstanding so I proceed cautiously here, but after everything I’ve seen over the years you come away feeling that women as a group are not fully cognizant agents when it comes to this stuff and their choices have to be shaped for a greater good, which is probably along the lines of the PUA thing-and which I used to be quite good at once and I quite brave, and I never really knew all this detailed stuff about it existed online at the time.
Perhaps a purely evolutionary reading would claim women are actually making sound reproductive choices. But I think that’s very hard to reconcile with a good amount of what we see. Women are quite capable of making objectively dreadful choices with men and relationships. And when you add the hell of race into this it’s a whole other ballgame of chaos and dysfunction.
Either the tradcon or pick up artist position is probably preferable than letting women ‘figure out what they want’.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment