The Politics of Pick-Up

Paul Fahrenheidt

Paul Fahrenheidt

Many a man thought himself wise, but what he wanted he did not know.

The massive success of the U.S. event has led to “Good disagreements” as pertains to the ideas expressed in the various talks. The first and most “Out-of-place” talk which comes to mind was given by my good friend RedHawk, in regards to PUA or “Pick-up-Artistry” and its implication to the politics and social means of our sphere. I am more amicable to the ideas of Mr. Hawk than most. I see this article as less a response/defense to his ideas being challenged, and more a constructive and proactive argument as to why PUA is not only relevant, but vital to the workings of our sphere and outside of it.

Before I explain the politics of PUA, I must explain why it exists in the first place, why men need it when women and marriage is something that “Happens naturally.” In order to do this, three things must be explained:

  • The nature of men

  • The nature of women

  • How “The Ashes” affects them both

Following the explanation of these three concepts, the political implications of PUA will make more sense and it is my hope that further discussions will be less dismissive.

The nature of men is something well-known among our spheres, or at least well-discussed. To use Evola’s most basic representation of men, they are active energy. I.e., that which builds and disciplines, making the world a reflection of the highest divine principle: Order. The nature of the age we live in, the Kali Yuga, is that of making the world as unlike God as possible. It is a reversal of all roles, an inversion of the pyramid, where the worst aspects of each role are played up and emphasized to be the primary aspects of each role. For example, the role of the Aristocrats is to be Robber-Barons rather than to fill their Noblesse-Oblige. The role of Merchants is to price-gouge and swindle rather than to offer quality goods at a fair price. The role of Priests is to preach their self-serving truth instead of the difficult yet true truth. And in accordance with this trend, the role of Men is to be inferior and passive women instead of being active and disciplined men.

What has been pathologized and made a disorder by the feminized psychology cult is simply the male way of being. “Autism,” though an endearing term when used by friends, has its origins in this Will-to-Dismiss. Men are supposed to have a disturbingly detailed knowledge on a particular subject or subjects, it’s how we exist in the world. In previous ages this was called “Interests,” though not “Hobbies” as “Hobbies” is another product of this pathologizing reductionist regime. Now, men are essentially conditioned to take shame in their “Interests” that cannot be understood by the overgrown narcissists and sexual deviants we call the modern woman!

The nature of women is less known in our spheres, which I believe is the reason why many are quick to dismiss PUA and the associated community. The nature of women in the Evolian framework is passive energy. I.e., that which fills the world with life and vitality, reflecting the endless love and care of God. As the Kali Yuga affects men, so too does it affect his Rib. The worst aspects of the female nature is the utter chthonic chaos that is the fabric of their very being. Women dissolve, dilute, weaken, degrade, as is the nature of the chaotic energy which they bring. They are nature incarnate, the void of the Earth-Mother Goddess made flesh.

This is why they seem to lie to us men, as they are entirely moved and swayed by their emotions moment to moment. Your girlfriend may say she will not cheat on you, believe it completely genuinely, and then proceed to do so that night as she met a man who changed her mind. This is not their fault, this is how they are, and why man’s purpose is to tame and civilize woman like he tames and civilizes nature. When men become weak either through outside forces or internal surrender, the worst aspects of women come to corrupt the creations of man, to imprison him in another womb that his fathers fought like hell to escape. In the Psychology-Pathologizing cult, the woman is held to be the standard of normalcy, the default, that worthy of emulation by all.

The Ashes of Civilization is the consequence of this role reversal. All culture of value, all order, all decency and wholesomeness is shaped by the vehicle of men fueled by the life-giving energy of women. When the gasoline becomes the only force, uncontained by the fuel line, the vehicle catches fire and burns to Ashes. Even the name, Kali Yuga refers to the age where the influence of the female avatar of Shiva is at its height (The demon Kali is a later invention I believe.) It can only be ended by men standing again.

This is what has happened to culture, to civilization, and it’s the fault of men as it happened due to our abandoning our nature. No penance is required of us. We must simply take up our mantle and do what we’re supposed to, to fulfill our role once again as God has ordained.

This brings me to PUA, to the Rational Male community and adjacent concepts. In all ages good or bad, even in the depths of despair in the Kali Yuga, there are men who remember themselves, who instinctively understand their purpose and what they must do to be men. In the decade before Trump unleashed Pandora’s Box, the expression of this was found in PUA. Particularly, the work of gentlemen such as Mystery and Neil Strauss. While they said it was a means to get pussy in an age where men were weak, in reality it was a metaphysical fulfillment of man’s purpose.

Allow me to further elaborate. Man’s task is to order nature, to make a system that makes sense, to reflect God ordering existence in his minor way (but not to compete with him.) A man must learn to tame his Rib, the other half of himself, in order to self-actualize. This is a mirror of man taming nature, beating back the feminine forces of chaos which lurk in the forests, jungles, and deserts outside of the hamlets he’s made where order reigns. If a man cannot tame his own Rib, how can he be expected to competently face the forces of Mother Nature and triumph? 

Taming a woman is to guide her into desiring complete and total submission to the man. There is no such thing as “Taming” or “Training” each other, at least not in equal measures. This concept, concurrent with the concept of “Soul-Mates” is a fabrication sourced from the feminine dilution of normal gender relations. The first step in taming a woman, not the last, is sexual submission on her part. This is not to say that virginity in a woman is a bad thing or an undesirable trait, or that a woman keeping her virginity her whole life is not an archetype. Yet when man comes together with woman, the union cannot ever begin until the sexual act has been performed. 

Men desire all women that are attractive physically, consciously or subconsciously, and it is only possible to overcome this physical desire post-sexual union, to determine whether she was simply her looks or that there’s something more to her.

To put it in other words, a man cannot ever truly determine his actual desire for a woman until after the sexual act has been performed with her. Men and women fall in love differently.  The idea that the man must love the woman before such an act is performed is a corruption of the feminized world we live in, as this is how women fall in love. Men fall in love when they no longer desire to rid themselves of the woman that has submitted herself to him, when she has made herself such a vital, integral, and irreplaceable part of his life that no substitute for her can be found. This bond is the metaphysical form of marriage. 

The social institution of marriage (which has been critiqued in far more depth by BAP in episodes 86 and 100 of Caribbean Rhythms) is in some ways the beginning of the corruption of social roles. The following is not to bash marriage nor any husbands or fathers reading. Social marriage was initially created by the Romans to have a man’s stable home life guaranteed by the state. It was only enforced on Patrician families, i.e. the only ones allowed to participate in the workings of Roman politics. Marriage gave the man complete and total ownership of the family, including the wife and the children, placing both in a legal state similar to property. 

This gave the power of life and death to the man, and the state would side with him on all household issues whether he was in the right or not. This may seem cruel or tyrannical to us, but look at the alternative. When the state sides with the woman on all issues (which will naturally happen over time if the state is not explicitly patriarchal, just as a state will become left-wing if it is not explicitly right-wing,) we get the Ashes, Globohomo, and the Hell-world we live in. The Roman model for marriage is the only proper way to make such a constructive social institution (and even it degraded over time.)

With all of the above outlined, I believe I can fulfill the purpose of this article: to explain the value of PUA for the politics of our spheres. I see the techniques bringing three important benefits:

  • Self-actualizes the men in our spheres

  • Enables the proper political engagement of those men’s women

  • Allows us to utilize the resources of women “Orphaned by the Ashes”

PUA is a science of social interaction, a means of modeling a way of interaction with women which can result in building relationships of a sexual and romantic nature. Anyone, any man, so long as he has above a room temperature IQ, can learn it. It is a tool, not the spawn of Satan utilizing lies to win over women for men with bad intentions. It can be used for such, but literally anything can be corrupted and used for the dissolving forces (even the semblance of ideas deemed, “Right-Wing.) The reasons why men become self-actualized through sexual and romantic contact with women has already been outlined.

PUA also fosters a mindset of where women belong, and where they do not. Women do not belong on Twitter, at meetings which discuss the finer points of political policy, nor in anything related to conflict or military combat (save for taming a frontier where all people, including children, must be used for such.) Children is a good metaphor for how to look at women, in terms of the scale of agency they have (which men do not give them.) PUA teaches the men in our spheres to ask the question: “Would it be harmful or dangerous to have a child here?” Child and woman are synonymous when posing this question.

The most controversial point of PUA, and the one which walks the line which most criticize it for, is the utilizing of women “Orphaned by the Ashes.” Sometimes called “AWFLs” or “Affluent White Female Liberals” on Twitter, these are women who are victims of the worst aspects of the social womb which weak fathers allowed into existence. These women are Liberal only by consequence, as they bought the lie of waiting to have kids and they missed the bus. While it may be too late for their wombs, it’s not too late for them to experience the love of a strong and self-actualized man.

Allow me to preface by saying that this path is not at all what I recommend for all men, even most men. Most men should seek to create families and become fathers, and this will prove to be the best long-term success of our movement. What follows is, strangely, a kind of monasticism which may prove tactically necessary, performed by those among our spheres willing to make the sacrifice.

Francis Parker Yockey, a hero and model to many in this sphere, employed the tactic of “Gigolo-ing” older affluent women who had money with no children (or relations) to spend it on, in order to fund the political movements of which he was a part. There are scores of women who focused on their careers at the expense of their divine purpose, and many are divorcees or inheritors with sizable means. Why would we not attempt to utilize this resource, vis a vis those men willing to sacrifice themselves for the political benefit of our spheres?

I may not have covered every aspect of the relative merits of PUA in these spheres, and I understand that not all will agree with the points I’ve made. Yet I feel the case for it must be made in the strongest way possible before actual debate over the concept can be done. I hope further discussions will benefit from this insight.