On Reaction and PUAs

This post on the nature of women has made the Twitter rounds and some, such as Anissimov, are calling for a war on the manosphere and/or the PUAs. (I’m not sure how many see the distinction between the two).

Before I begin, I read the story emashee posted a week or two back, and felt no pity for the subject of the post. I still feel no pity. She’s a moral agent who has made her moral choices. She’s choosing to live the life of a whore and receiving a whore’s wages.

That being said, she does seem somewhat on the verge of repentance, so I did pray she finds Jesus. She can’t change her own nature, but God can.

The only person I feel any pity for in that story is the man who’s the intended target of her story. You just know she is going to shred his heart and soul in the future, and he’s walking into it blindly (the letter is unsent). If something does come of it, the decent man will likely find a cold bed or hot divorce in the future. Dealing with girls like that is like sticking your member in a meat grinder.

As the Bible warned many a times, the path of the adulteress leads to death.

****

Now, onto my main point. I must reject the war between reactionaries and PUAs some are trying to brew.

PUA’s are not the problem; they never were the problem. They didn’t create modern society and they are not the ones maintaining it. They are simply immoral men taking what they can from the decaying ruins. They’ve been handed a bag of complete shit and been told to enjoy eating it. How can you blame them for not wanting to?

If I wasn’t a Christian, you can bet I’d be out there taking what I could myself.

In addition, Dalrock has already established shaming PUA’s won’t work.

Finally, PUAs are not hurting anyone innocent. Only sluts will succumb to them, and the sluts they are hurting would have simply slutted it up with someone with ‘natural game’ (or less game) and been hurt anyways.

There is no social cost to PUAs, casual sex was a norm before PUAs. Mystery didn’t build the clubs he practiced game in and the club sluts were already looking for sex before he first sarged. It’s not like club sluts would magically have become wives if Mystery had decided to play video games instead.

Does anyone honestly think that PUA’s were at fault for the woman’s problem in emashee’s post?

Day game might be worrisome, as it extends the reach of the PUAs beyond club sluts and might intrude on women who may be marriageble. But given that a day game conversion rate of 2.7% and a number close rate of 25% are considered great, it’s pretty clear that only the sluttiest sluts will be taken in that way. So little chance of a decent women being ruined there.

PUA’s are not ruining marriageable women; they are using sluts.

Sluts are sluts, wives are wives, and the two should not be confused. Those complaining about PUA’s ruining women miss this point and doing so leads to Sheol.

Don’t mistake me, I’m not lionizing PUAs. PUAs are degenerate scumbags.

But, except for some of the deluded “left her better than when I found her” types, they’ll usually cop to that. Acknowledging their own guilt makes them closer to repentance than the sluts and progressives who stand sanctimonious.

Putting the blame for modern sexual relations on PUA’s misses the reactionary point and allows other, more insiduous forms of degeneracy to destroy society.

****

PUA’s are not the enemy. So who is?

The enemy is the adviser counseling young men to be nice guys and wait to marry used-up sluts.
The enemy is the father who pays for his daughter to live on campus.
The enemy is the mother who protects her son from struggle.
The enemy is the preacher that teaches God will bring that perfect soul mate if you just wait.
The enemy is the college becomes a place of partying signalling rather than strict academics.
The enemy is the journalist who glorifies premarital sex.
The enemy is the aunt encouraging her daughter to date around and delay marriage.
The enemy is the person who expresses disgust at the thought of a 16-year-old marrying.
The enemy is the person who calls a 15-year-old a child.
The enemy is the public school that infantilizes young people.
The enemy is the person who encourages long-term relationships.
The enemy is the person who encourages marriage based on romantic love.
The enemy is the person who encourages delaying child-birth.
The enemy is the organization encouraging ‘family planning’.

In case you don’t realize it yet, the enemy is you.

The enemy is the culture which has been completely taken over by the long march.

It is the culture that has separated sex, romance, procreation, and marriage from each other.

It is the culture that infantilizes young men and women and encourages them to avoid responsibility.

It is the culture that has destroyed the family.

You are a product of that culture. You are that culture.

****

This is the question to those other reactionaries condemning PUA’s, have you had sex outside of marriage?

If so, you are just as strong a degenerative influence on the marriage market as the PUA’s. In fact, you are probably are more degenerative influence than the PUA’s.

The PUAs are obvious degenerates. Nobody thinks the PUA’s are doing good, not even the PUA’s themselves.

On the other hand, there are many subtle forms of degeneracy that are widely accepted and hardly noticed. By being so they are far more potent forces of degeneracy.

A healthy society rests on the family unit.

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

A healthy society rests on a man leaving his parent’s household, taking a wife for himself, and raising children.

But you say, “Why does he not?” Because the Lord was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. (Malachi 2:14-15, ESV)

Any healthy society will be structured so as to encourage responsibility and independence in young men, so they can take wives, build a life together, and create the next generation of responsible adults.

Anything that takes away from this prime societal focus is degenerative. Small deviance will build on small deviance and eventually corrupt and destroy the civilization.

I am sure many reactionaries intellectually hold to and practice deviancies which destroying our society. We should eradicate these before we start hypocritically pointing out the degeneracies of the PUA’s.

****

So, what should a reactionary, non-degenerative view of sexual relations entail?

We must first understand that sex belongs in marriage and nowhere else. Romance belongs only in the path to marriage and marriage itself and nowhere else. Children belong in the married family and nowhere else. Marriage is for life and nigh unbreakable.

Without rock-solid marriage as a societal foundation, paternity is always in question and sexual access comes without investment. Men who don’t know the paternity of their children and have easy sexual access have no incentive to invest in the future of society, leading to the degeneration of society.

Any minor deviance from combining these four is entryism  and will lead to more minor deviance, inevitably leading to our current disordered sexual marketplace.

If you accept or practice anything else, you are a degenerate and just as bad an influence as the PUA’s, maybe even more so, because you’re reinforcing existing accepted degeneracy rather than being an unaccepted outsider.

Although romance is confined to marriage and the path thereto, marriage should not be based around romance. Eros is poor foundation for marriage. Marriage is a social obligation to your spouse and to your community to provide for each other and for your children, the future of the society.

An LTR is not marriage as it rejects the social obligations marriage entails.  Nothing is marriage but marriage.

Next, we must accept the biological fact that people physically become adults at puberty. God and/or evolution designed humans that way. If marriage is delayed more than a few years beyond puberty, young adults will generally engage in sex and romance outside of marriage. Only those with the lowest time preference (or the most sexually unattractive) will delay, and a society can not function if it depends on everybody to have low time preferences.

Anything but young marriage* will inevitably lead to our current sexual marketplace.

By young I mean actively considering in their early teens and anybody not married by their early-20s is considered an old maid or eccentric bachelor.

If you discourage teen marriage, if you think the 14-year-old a child, if you show disgust towards marriage between 15-year-olds, etc. you are encouraging degeneracy.

Once married, marriage should be nigh unbreakable: divorce should only be granted for adultery and, maybe, persistent physical violence and it should always be at-fault.

Anything else, encourages divorce, encourages the dissolution of the family, and discourages marriage, along with all the negative effects those entail. To accept anything else is to accept degeneracy.

Artificial birth control should be disallowed for the unmarried and strongly discouraged by society for the married. ‘Family planning’ should be shunned. Married couples should be encouraged to give birth to many children.

Anything else seperates sex and romance from procreation, which will inevitably lead to the speration of sex and romance from marriage. This will lead to the current sexual marketplce. It is degeneracy.

This is what society must enforce for a stable family, the building block of civilization. Anything else will lead to the decline of the family, and thereby the decline of the nation and its civilization.

****

The PUA’s are degenerates. In any functional society, they would be hunted down, exiled, whipped, and/or hanged. Cold, casual sex is harmful to the participants, to the family, and to society at large.

Engaging in short-term and long-term sexual relationships apart from marriage is also harmful. The hook-up engenders sex and separates it from marriage, romance, and procreation; relationships separates both romance and sex from both procreation and marriage, which is just as harmful.

The sexual STR is nothing more than an extended hook-up.

The LTR creates relationships not based on mutual commitment before society as a replacement good for marriage. Discouraging both marriage and stable family formation. They replace the societal commitment of marriage for the selfish pursuits of individuals. Without unbreakable commitment before the community, the relationship unit is not a stable way to raise children and it reduces the surety of paternity, which is necessary to encourage men to invest in their children.

These are particularly more insidious than hook-ups, because no one except a few damaged individuals think hook-ups are a good and beneficial way to live their life. But many people think the serial monogamy of STR’s or LTR’s are positive and acceptable. It’s a form of degeneracy we don’t see.

But most harmful of all is divorce. It destroys that marriage which is already built, ruins families, hurts children, and strongly discourages marriage.

All are destructive to society and engender the decline to our current broken sexual marketplace. We should be encouraging a return to traditional sexual mores.

But we should not be making a fight between reaction and the PUAs and should not be taking a harsh purging line for sexual degeneracy (at this point; come the restoration, we can decide what to do with degenerates).

As it stands, the PUA’s are potential allies. They see some of the truth and are effective at spreading it. The PUA sections of the manosphere function as an excellent dark enlightenment gateway. I came to Moldbug and neoreaction through the mansophere and I’m sure many others first taste of the red pill was through the PUA’s.

On a more pragmatically harsh note, the PUA’s strip the modern sexual market place down to its roughest and dirtiest and display it openly for all to see. A few years of reading of the PUA’s pillagings will likely turn many naive young men towards a more patriarchal society. A couple decades in the brutal hands of the PUA’s and I’m sure many women will be more willing to support a return to the loving, protective embrace of patriarchy.

Railing against the degeneracy of PUA’s, while accepting other sexual relationships apart from marriage is hypocritical and counter-productive. PUA’s are not the problem, they are not harming the innocent, and they are performing some minor pragmatic positives. They are the symptom of a larger problem.

We should focus on the root problems rather than the symptoms.

We should intellectually bind sex, romance, procreation, and marriage into each other and fight the infantilization of young men and women.

****

* The combination of later marriage, strict society-enforced sexual mores on women, harsh anti-divorce laws, and socially acceptable prostitution may also potentially function, but would not be optimal. 

36 comments

  1. The problem with the NRs is they desire absolute doctrinal purity, and want nothing whatsoever to do with anyone who strays from Moldbuggian orthodoxy.

    They have no interest in any sort of alliances with anyone who shares part of what they believe in but not all, nor with those who share similar views about the problems of the world today, but differ with them as to whom is and/or is not to blame, precisely, for the situation. Instead of deciding to agree to disagree, and forming alliances with the relatively-like-minded other reactionaries, or minor alliances on case-by-case bases with those with whom they share some views, they want nothing to do with such. They’re like the Judean splitter groups who hate each other more than the Romans in the Life of Brian.

    Idiots.

    I want nothing to do with such bigots, myself; pompous ass poseurs who speak in incomprehensible insider jargon. (And I’m in science and I also work with the law; I’m used to bureaucratic and technical-speak, but I often find them way too verbose and deliberately confusing.)

    Like the Judean terrorist cells, they’d rather be ‘right’, and ‘doctrinally pure’, rather than taking on their enemies; they want to ‘preside over the ruins‘.

    Let them. Those of us who actually want to accomplish something, rather than just getting together over some beers in some city and think they’re accomplishing something, should eschew the bigots, the incomprehensible, the deliberate obfuscators, and those who too harshly divide into ‘us/them’ groupings. Let them have their circle jerks; the rest of us can and should ostracize the ostracizers.

  2. Very good post.

    The problem with Anissimov is that he intends to be the Twitterian version of Moldbug, with all the baggage that the medium implies.

    He picks fights with PUAs and others because, in a twisted way, he’s trying to force an ideological and label fissure between Neoreaction and PUAs. A more effective, if slightly less eye-catching method would have been to emphasize the role of traditional patriarchy as a check against feral impulses.

    His shtick is juvenile, neither funny nor illuminating, and at least Moldbug makes sense in the context of his arguments. A bunch of nerdy in-jokes just feel flat once it’s taken out of context.

    I don’t condone any of the PUA bullshit, other than laughing at their antics.

    Most of all I agree on one thing: We were given a shit sandwich.

    Whether we want to refuse it or enjoy eating it is up to us.

    Whether we want to eat it and give it to the next generation is up to us.

    Regards

  3. To those with a more reactionary/traditionalist bent but are put off by the antics of the current Neoreaction clique, the following are a few critiques of the movement.

    http://mpcdot.com/forums/topic/7699-revenge-of-the-dark-enlightenment/

    For a good read on the basic theory that lead to the world today:

    http://mpcdot.com/forums/topic/1939-a-guide-to-the-managerial-revolution/

    http://mpcdot.com/forums/topic/107-the-culture-of-critique/

    Sorry about the doublepost and the linkage.

    Kind Regards

  4. Great post. Yes, it’s the LTR that really makes potentially marriageable women unmarriageable.

    Serial monogamy is just one long, slow-motion gang bang.

  5. Don’t yell at the bees, get rid of the honey.

    If part of Dark Enlightenment is accepting human nature for what it is, not what you want it to be, then accepting men always and everywhere want to get laid and will do what it takes to get laid should be pretty close to the top of the list. As Free Northerner says, this desire must be harnessed into working FOR society rather than against it.

    Also, it’s an odd, even cowardly choice to shame PUAs without shaming sluts.

  6. “Godly offspring.”

    Thanks for pointing out and highlighting the scripture from Malachi. Very thought provoking and eye opening.

  7. “If part of Dark Enlightenment is accepting human nature for what it is, not what you want it to be, then accepting men always and everywhere want to get laid and will do what it takes to get laid should be pretty close to the top of the list. As Free Northerner says, this desire must be harnessed into working FOR society rather than against it.”

    Yep. Not so long ago, men got married – and were perfectly willing to marry – because it was the sanctioned route to licit sex. Anything else was immoral. There’s no reason to marry now other than to raise kids, but even that doesn’t really necessitate a legal marriage.

    I’m not interested in a war on PUAs. Not at all. Nor am I interested in helping anyone who doesn’t want help. (BTW, I don’t agree that only sluts sleep with PUAs; I’ve known plenty – PLENTY – of so-called “good girls” and “good Christian girls” who have given it up a time or two for a pump and dump from a PUA.) Any woman who gets with a PUA does so because she wants that.

    At present, live and let live. The perfect must not be the enemy of the good. Let the PUAs ply their trade and we’ll learn from them what we can. Let the women who want to sleep with the PUAs do so and reap what they sow.

  8. Deti says “At present, live and let live. The perfect must not be the enemy of the good. Let the PUAs ply their trade and we’ll learn from them what we can. Let the women who want to sleep with the PUAs do so and reap what they sow.”

    I made a recent post that is congenial to this viewpoint (warning: shameless blogwhoring): http://laidnyc.wordpress.com/2014/02/19/unnatural-selection/

    Reactionaries should start looking at the path to victory on a longer timescale. Generations from now if need be. A broken bone needs TIME to heal, even if you do everything right.

  9. Eventually, pickup artists are going to have to go away. Society must not support them if it is to continue. They are a creation of the society and the incentives of today. This will not happen for some time; certainly not in the society of today.

    Pushing the Androsphere away from the Reactosphere is a fool’s gambit. Are the Neoreactionaries going to solve this? They have explicitly said that they are an intellectual movement, that it is about forming and ideology. In other words, all talk, no action.

    The Androsphere has the men willing to take risks, to do something real. The Reactosphere needs the Androsphere, or all their theories will stay theory.

    Besides, nothing is to say that the pickup artists will not return to the fold. If they marry and join the community, so be it. Actions have consequences, but we can forgive the men as much as we can the women. If LaidNYC, Runsonmagic, or Roissy settle down, what does it matter their past crimes? The enemy of my enemies is my enemies’ enemy; no more, no less. Hold them to account for what they do later, but leave the past where it lies.

    The Shadowed Knight

  10. Excellent post, controlling our animal desires as men and women to build for the future was the norm. It devoled pretty quickly, hopefully the return will be even faster but I fear we must fall further before enough people will see a need to return.
    For me the manosphere has allowed me to learn the things my ancestors would have shown me but my father and culture have hidden. Being a PUA as a lifestyle doesn’t have much of a future but it can be important as a tool to discover ones masculinity and the power that can be developed from it. I know what I can do now that I can see and choosing to not use that power makes me stronger.
    That said, I feel no pity for sluts.

  11. Will S.: Your description of Neoreaction is more divorced from reality than David Brin’s. Doctrinal purity? It is to laugh.

    Anissimov, like everyone else thus far, is a free agent. He picks some good fights and some not so good ones. But even the bad ones cause some sifting, and that’s not nothing.

    Like any good woman, Emashee sees a problem and wants men to fix it. For most of human history men had a fix for that problem: taking full control over the coupling decisions of reproductive aged women. Emahsee is right to wish for this and right to look to men to do it, but she is wishing for the: Complete Destruction of the Sexual Revolution.

    I told her on twitter, I’d be happy to prevent her from making bad decisions… as long as I have it in writing that she won’t sue me for doing so. But the trouble is deeper than. Even if we had such a contract, which I’m certain Emashee would be happy to sign, the courts would gleefully tear it up if she ever changed her mind (i.e., wanted to make a bad decision). There is no protection legally for husbands and fathers who control the coupling decisions of reproductive age women for whom they are responsible. It isn’t as though we need a law to allow it, we just need a law that doesn’t ban it.

    We could use some Cossacks running around with whips whilst the law whistles quietly and looks the other way.

    As it is, yes, men control your women… so far as you are able.

  12. Nick B. Steves: Oh, I am not suggesting complete homogeneity is required: one can be an atheist, HBD-obsessed type, or a Papist, or an E.O., or a transhumanist, as long as you agree to all bash Prots and ignore the Tribe, except for hanging on Moldberg’s every word.

  13. And since when were multiply-tattooed whores with weird haircuts ‘reactionary’?

    But hate Prots, and you’re welcomed with open arms by NRs as one of their own.

  14. Me too. As if one couldn’t be a reactionary on one’s own, without some Grand Thinker to come up with some Grand Theory of it all; as if one couldn’t simply have reactionary instincts, and roll with them. A thinker who conveniently overlooks the influence of Hollywood members of his own Tribe, or 19th century Eastern European socialist and communist parties dominated by his Tribe, in favour of a ‘blame Prots, esp. Calvinists’ mentality, which everyone else is keen to seize upon, agree with as the basis of some organized NR movement.

    Count me out of the Moldberg cult.

  15. Very thought provoking indeed. This shows that Old School always worked. I chose to go MGTOW because the current sexual and marriage marketplaces simply don’t encourage investment. This post also confirms that I made the right choice. No sense drawing from a poisoned well.

  16. Peter Blood, exactly. Even if one traces the roots of many elements of progressivism far back before the 20th century, the fact of the matter is this: it wasn’t until the 20th century that the most radical changes in society occurred – the biggest victories of progressivism. Whose timing was coincident with the arrival of outsiders, non-WASPs from Europe with non-WASP ways of doing things, from back home. One group of them were bright, ambitious, and came to dominate Hollywood, much of the media, academia, and so on; they had much clout, and still do. Moldberg does not want attention called to this, and so focuses more on the WASP elements of progressivism, from earlier times.

  17. yes, let us make circus against ourselves so we do not feel the absence of bread as the machinations continue to render all insolvent

  18. If you’re gonna hang the PUAs, then you need to string up the sluts too.

    That would at least be consistent.

  19. “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

    Anyone who thinks men can contrive a perfect government, religious institution, or society is deceived. But maybe “not too bad” is within our reach. Given time and faithfulness.

    Look at the example of the Israelites journeying to the promised land. God was supervising them pretty closely but, even so, an entire generation had to die before they were ready to take possession.

    For today, however, each man among us can, by God’s grace, work to think and act in a more Godly fashion. And to communicate with others so they can join us.

    1Cor 16:13 [ESV2011]
    Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.

  20. Now that was a great post, FN. Well done, indeed.

    I tend to think a lot of this is about branding, and specific individuals wanting their own brand to be disassociated with elements that they see as potential brand detractors by association. NANRALT, though — I think someone like Bryce doesn’t approach PUAs/Game that way.

    It is, in any case, a natural stage in the progression of movements such as this that there are periodic purity-related purges along ideological lines. I suspect that this is one instance of that, albeit a seemingly minor one.

    It’s true that the people who style themselves NRs see themselves as the ideological unit — that is, the theorists. There’s nothing wrong with that in itself. Every movement needs them. But the movement also needs intermediate theorists — that is, theorists who are focused not on the grand theory at 30k feet, but on the tactical theory on the ground –> say Georgi Plekhanov or Vladimir Ulyanov as compared with Karl Marx. And then of course when the time comes you need actual revolutionaries who execute the tactics –> whether that’s actually a violent revolution or not.

    At this stage it would appear we are still at the grand theory level, because we seem by consensus to be rather temporally removed from the phase where beginning to think in terms of more tactical theory makes sense. So at this time the NRs are mostly dominated by grand theorists. If things move along as they hope, there will eventually come a time when the tactical theorists are needed, and then a decade or two later, the real revolutionaries. This, of course, as was pointed out in a comment above, is a long-term deal: everyone who is dissatisfied with the current socio-political arrangements needs to take a long view of it at that level (precisely what Gramsci and his followers did as well). There will always be impatient people — that’s human. But realism dictates that this is a time for grand theory, primarily, while the time for tactical theory and implementation lies some time away.

  21. Death of self has a very deep meaning. Death of narcissistic dreams, death of cultural ties and ties to the world to tie thyself to the will and the love of God. This post gets at part of this and the relationship our current cultural ties harm our families even in Christian families; let alone Churchian ones. Every time we succumb to giving a ‘nice’ or ‘easy’ answer to young men and women, avoid condemning actions that detract from healthy communities, or fail to support the young whom desperately need assistance in overcoming cultural norms…

    We become the enemy.

    It happens all the time. That’s what Sin is, missing the mark and becoming the enemy of the good. Repent, pray, and change so that we might act with more strength, courage, and fortitude in the future.

Leave a Reply