georgioz
2hr ago
I think this is the result of different strategies that Morgan and Fuentes had with this interview. Fuentes came there with his bloodsport debate style, which is about listening to your opponent and constructing arguments. Morgan came there with tabloid style gotcha questions, moralizing and shaming/guilting - complete with random segues and topic switching whenever he thinks that he got what he wanted.
It was also seen specifically with the part you mentioned, when Fuentes obviously sarcastically admitted that he is "Holocaust maximalist". Morgan did not listen to Fuentes in order to form his own counterargument, he jumped into a gotcha of we know how many Jews were slaughtered. It's at least 6 million. Uh, what's interesting to me is that you appear to now concede that. Which may be news to your regular viewers. So again, even if Morgan thought that Fuentes offered a concession, he immediately went on attack satisfied that he proved Fuentes as a liar for his viewers. It is a different style of discussion, not a debate.
In a sense it was a battle of styles with each side utilizing different tactics, it was almost like a parallel streams with little to no substantive engagement from any side.
I do not know what else should he do especially in the face of "school shooter" argument being such a tangent. Fuentes wanted to say that his argument of 5% blacks being murderers is vastly larger than whatever proportion of whites are mass shooters, which supported his earlier argument of how white people should avoid black people or whatever. Fuentes explained himself clearly at least twice: first by saying that it is something like 0,0000001% and second by literally asking Morgan to calculate "number of all white people as a denominator vs number of white school shooters as numerator". Morgan did not understand what was asked of him.
Maybe this is too mathy language for some people to get, but it was as easy as elementary statistics goes.
Do you mean that PUA guides are all about how to get a virtuous wife you can marry, so you can live together happily ever after, instead of guides of how to become an ultimate womanizer with three digit body count? Maybe they have too bad of a reputation.
georgioz
4hr ago
Yes, he was such a genuine "liker" of women, like when he knowingly slept with his own daughter Leonilda in threesome with her mother, who was his previous lover. Excuse me if I do not share this vision of love and respect for the gentle sex. If anything, it is vastly more degenerate than that of Don Juan.
georgioz
4hr ago
One theory I also heard about, is not to bring those women back home permanently. Maybe you are a digital nomad who just lives in some tax paradise like Panama or Philippines and make yourself home there including your wife/concubines. Definitely a degenerate life, but not unlike sailors of old.
And now take a look at Casanova again. He's in an entirely different ballpark. The average loser can't get people to finance their university degree, can't get a wealthy patron to enable them, can't trick people into believing they are medical experts, and especially not for months at a time. It just doesn't work. Casanova used a wide array of social trickery far beyond the small, formalized PUA playbook, and expertly switched it around to whatever was needed for whatever he wanted to do at the moment. This included seducing women, but was not limited to it, and even on this particular topic he generally was more versatile. He's a con artist.
Casanova wrote his memoir exactly as PUA masters sell their courses. He "inspired" millions of middling losers with his tidbits of wisdom in his memoir, shit like Be flame not the moth or Praise the beautiful for their intelligence and the intelligent for their beauty. He was the OG pickup artist, not a middling wannabe art dabbler. Anyway, my original point is that this whole culture is nothing new and it exists for centuries and millennia.
His sons are what would give me pause but I can't recall what context they were brought up in. I'd hope young kids could be kept out of it.
The context was Morgan saying how Fuentes was antisemite, Fuentes said it was because Morgan is a boomer and he is representing a new young wave. Morgan then said that his sons are around Fuentes's age, and that they are empathetic and good people very unlike Fuentes. So now I guess it would be fine to have Morgan's sons under microscope and digging up any potential problematic antisemitic, misogynistic and racist behavior if they are such exemplars of uprightness. From now on to forever.
Assume Nick Fuentes was some rando leftist, like Ta-Nehisi Coates, would it be fair to bring up things his dad said about politics when asking about his own left radical views?
No. I think that it is a distraction and a low blow. I think it is a normal gentlemen's agreement not to bring family into such a debate, even if people brought their family up before themselves. Morgan himself said that he has literally thousands of interviews. Fuentes has thousands, maybe even tens of thousands of hours of his show. It may be that both of them mentioned their family at some point, but still it should be a taboo. Maybe it is my sensibility here, but coming after someone's family to win debate points is absolutely vile tactics.
Especially here, Morgan got what he wanted, which was Fuentes admitting that he is a racist. Morgan just wanted to go one step further somehow proving that Funetes's dad is racist based on this one clip. It is such a stupid shit to pull off - maybe Fuentes hates his father and he would gladly smear him. His father was not there to defend himself about such a wild speculation and accusation. It is just not right.
georgioz
3d ago
And? Are you for or against that? I'd wager by your logic Celia Walden is now a fair game for all crazy groypers now, and it is all Morgan's fault for bringing her up in the past. In my eyes it is a low blow.
georgioz
3d ago
Is there no PUA guide that walks western passport bros on how to get a concubine in Africa or other 3rd world country for what would basically be a can of beans at home, utilizing desperate material conditions for their benefit? Again I am no expert, but I am quite confident that such a thing has to exist.
Fuentes made it Morgan's business by putting it out there.
Also around year ago there was a crazy guy who showed up in front of Fuentes's house with a gun. After the police was called, the guy was shot to death in Fuentes's backyard only to be found, that he actually murdered his roommate in other city before appearing at Fuentes's doorstep . Yeah, it is a complete mystery why Fuentes wants to keep his father's name out, when there are literal crazies looking for victims.
By the way Piers Morgan also mentioned his wife Celia Walden numerous times on his show. He literally mentioned his sons during this show, showcasing how empathetic and upright they are. Does this mean that Morgan's family is now fair game for any future discussion with him? Anybody can now demand Morgan to explain unempathetic behavior of his sons, dig up their racist tweets, or maybe showing how one of them visited a strip club or something like that, they are now cleaned for the chopping block - right?
Oh an it is not to get under Morgan's skin, it is just to have an honest discussion about what he said and an opportunity for Morgan to expand on hist stance. He may be asked about his wife or sons and their misdeeds five times in one interview even if he is visibly uncomfortable. In the end it is he who brought up his sons and wife into public spotlight.
Solely beguiling women without also having access to some genuine advantages such as high social standing, wealth or power was near-impossible before the sexual revolution due to guarding behaviour by males in her social circles.
Pickup artists are predators. They do not have to go after the most secure and difficult prey. While in the past it may be so that women had in general more protection from their families, they were also more gullible in absence of internet and other channels. There were widows, women with sick parents etc. In addition even if men held dominion over their women, then the path led through those. You could just get into a good grace of dominant men in order to get to women in their care.
Plus again, you have a very self-defeating definition of Pickup Artist. It seems to exclude any man who either starts or during his life gains status, wealth, social trickery or any other resource. What is your stance then? That "true" pickup artists are only losers who never start or end with money and status and who never get laid?
So again - who is PUA artist in your eyes? I just googled for the list of most famous modern Pickup Artists, not that I know any of them:
-
Julien Blanc
-
Ross Jeffries
-
Mark Manson
-
Erik von Markovik
-
Neil Strauss
-
Roosh V
-
Eric Weber
According to AI, the average net worth of all of those is in range of millions of dollars, often due to their courses etc. Are they by your definition not Pickup Artists - because the can get to fuck women solely based on their fame and wealth?
Secondly, Casanova is someone with a high enough social standing & wealth that his family could afford to send him to study law at a university, at a time when such education was extremely rare. That tells you a lot more about his background than just saying his parents were "two actors". He also is a classic general-purpose con artist, as evidenced by the wikipedia entry you cite yourself. He not only regularly, successfully impersonated aristocracry, he also directly tricked aristocrats themselves. And he evidently was genuinely rich, even if it was ill-gotten & regularly frivolled away. Obviously, such a person can take advantage of a similar playbook as the actual aristocrats.
What? Casanova was as poor as it gets at least in Venetia. He got his degree thanks to a priest who noticed him at age 9 in poor boarding school while his widowed mother was "acting" somewhere in Russia. He showed enough aptitude for Latin and other subjects to pass for priesthood education at age 12. He received his degree at age 15, not at all anything special - something like degree from some degree mill, such as University of Phoenix today.
Nevertheless I agree with the statement that he was well "educated" by experience for life as a con artist, ranging from his actor parents through talking his way through life hardship in his early teens which translated later to his life. Which is exactly what PUA lifestyle is about, isn't it?
He didn't walk into a bar at night negging unaccompanied women until they sleep with him. He publicly displayed his wealth and status to the entire greater circle of people around the women, would woo the men around her as well, often played a long game over months that included ripping off entire social groups for money by claiming access to secret, useful knowledge. It's certainly more similar to PUA than the classic, far more common aristocrat, in that it includes social trickery aimed at women, but yet again structurally very different and far more complicated.
No, he applied wide range of PUA strategies. When he wanted to bang nuns, he applied his meager theological knowledge. When he wanted to bang Madame d’Urfé and get her money, he pretended to be an occult master. He was exactly what you in your original reply mentioned as:
PUA is based on the idea of a stranger seducting women entirely with social trickery.
Anyways, the point is that PUA is nothing new. You discarded pirates, conquistatdors, minor nobles and other players as somehow unfairly using status and violence to bang hundreds of women in order to be "true" PUA artists. Now you discard Casanova and his ilk for applying social trickery and beguiling his victims from being the same. So what is PUA artist? Only those who fail in life or in seduction of women using their perceived status, money, power, social wit and any other trick that can get them to score? It does not make any sense.
georgioz
3d ago
These were not whores, just regular girls. A can of beans was not payment for sex for a prostitute, but elaborate ploy in game of affection, accompanied with promises of eternal love and poetry from a married husband, who was set to leave day after tomorrow back to his family in USA to be demobilized. It was a game.
How naive are you? Or maybe even better - how cynical are you in your pretentiousness?
In the same way inviting some local girl for a drink while flashing you borrowed Omega watches and designer cloths bought on credit works right now in a bar. A promise of stability and bright future of plenty of money/food if only they fuck you, and then discarding them like a dirty rag.
By the way, this whole PUA topic is disgusting to me as I am Christian. But there has to be some reality check.
PUA as a phenomenon specifically entails men codifying pick-up artistry and teaching it to other men.
Sure. Let me know what you think about OG PUA master named Giacomo Casanova I mentioned in my other reply. Does he fit your criteria of womanizing teacher?
Plus how does picking and fucking desperate girls not fit the disgusting PUA style? I know of a guy who back in oughts created a bot contacting all the women on dating platform with a rude message akin to - hey do you want to fuck - as an experiment. He had maybe 1 in a 1000 response, some of them even from very attractive girls, although I'd wager they were all crazy. Maybe in their manic phase of BPD or some other shit. I know of a guy from the West who rented an expensive car back in early 1990s, and who went on fucking spree in Eastern Europe for pennies, and he even evaded having his teeth kicked in by local village heroes, mostly by copious amount of bribes and rounds paid. But hey, what works works - right?
It still is structurally quite different. PUA is based on the idea of a stranger seducting women entirely with social trickery. This wouldn't have worked historically; Men in a social group generally guarded the women against strangers, and the women themselves were often even more wary of strangers. Inside a social group where everyone knows everyone else already, PUA falls apart as well.
What a silly thing to say, as if people in the past were so different from people now. Let me introduce to one of the OG pickup artists, one young Venetian commoner, son of two actors back then when the word actress was a synonym for a whore: Giacomo Casanova. In his memoirs he named 100+ women that he slept with in 18th century, ranging from commoner farm girls or courtesans, nuns, through daughters of merchants and patricians to high nobles such as Madame d’Urfé - who was probably not right in her head as she was obsessed with occult and other weird shit, something like modern liberal Wiccan widow of deceased startup entrepreneur.
He beguiled them all using wide range of PUA strategies, which were then rigorously employed by his fans, while retaining his head on his shoulders from vindicative male relatives and rivals. If anything, he played the PUA game on Nightmare mode and "won" by that metric, living to age 73 in comfort and fame. Many other examples like that.
What answer is there? That a Chicago working class guy tells his son, that his family is not going to eat "black fare" and this is some sign of extreme racism? This is right in the alley of your mildly racist uncle ranting about how terrible black music is during a family dinner. Exactly as Fuentes mentioned, Morgan tried to use this anecdote to paint the villain story of how Fuentes's dad is some sort of white supremacist doctor Frankenstein, who created some sort of superracist. It is absolutely ridiculous.
Fuentes did not reply, because he did not want to drag his father into this. He did not want to apologize or even explain his fathers behavior, because frankly it is none of Morgan's business. Absolutely rational response from Fuentes.
Just to nitpick: the Red Pill/PUA community, to the extent that it actually existed*, was pretty much a GenX phenomenon, and a ‘90s/’00s phenomenon in particular. All the prominent PUAs are GenXers.
I don't think so. All of these things existed before. For instance the PUA community has perfect overlap with rockstar or yuppie lifestyle from 1970s and 1980s. And of course the archetype is way older than that such as a dashing American soldier picking up young desperate girls in occupied Germany using chewing gum, can of beans and coffee, or even in 19th century literature where young noble or soldier picks up local village girls doing the deed in haystack, and leaving them with bastard babies.
Or you can go even earlier with literature of conquistadors and pirates and sailors having harem of wives and lovers in every port - the OG "passport bros", such as no other than Hernán Cortés who allegedly killed his own Spanish wife for nagging him about his harem of lovers and concubines, and for being too low status as an official wife for his elevated position. Andrew Tate is just a pale image of this Chad. It is all over the literature either as a cautionary tale, but also as a tale of promise for young brave men.
Could you elaborate on this scary future? I'm getting sick of Indians being portrayed as an amorphous pestilence. Like a brown mongol horde dipped in shit that's about to destroy western civilizations.
For me it is a result of experience with Roma/Gypsies who came from around northern-central India. Despite six hundred years of presence in Europe, they still form permanent underclass of people living in the most filthy and disgusting conditions imaginable. When I see documentaries from India with rivers of trash, it is indistinguishable from our gypsy slums in Slovakia like Lunik IX, despite chasm of thousands of miles and hundreds of years. There were considerable migrations into Europe from all around the place - including nomadic barbarians like Bulgars or Hungarians etc. with strange customs and religions. But none of them live like that now. I do not know why gypsies are like that, but it is what it is.
I find it fascinating that western countries are willingly importing this population from country of origin, just to appease some sort of savior complex.
This one blew up recently during Tucker Carlson vs Pierce Morgan show: A UK woman who was battered by her boyfriend was sentenced for calling him a faggot in text message to her "friend" who reported her to police. The charge for texting the word faggot was "malicious communications offences". The boyfriend who obviously was not gay was not arrested. Pierce Morgan invited her to talk about it.
By the way, there are 12,000 arrest for online communication offenses a year in the UK. So there are plenty of examples.
I unironically believe all these statements are true. It doesn't take schizophrenia.
I do not understand how this is even a controversial statement. Look at Bush/Gore 2000 election, which was decided by margin of 537 votes out of 5.8 million for Bush in Florida and by 366 votes out of 572 thousand for Gore in New Mexico. I have utmost confidence that Bush won thanks to some type of cheating, which was enough to offset Gore's cheating. And it is not as if Bush was some unimpactful president. One can say that whole US history was changed thanks to electoral cheating.
The whole system incentivizes - and as the previous case shows - rewards cheating. It is no conspiracy theory to have priors in favor of cheating deciding the elections, especially if the margin was couple of thousand of votes in contested states.
I don't know, it feels like something changed with respect to speech between 2010 and 2020.
It is not only about free speech. During 1990s and early 2000s there was a huge discussion of how will the EU look like post Maastricht, labeled as Europe of Nations vs federal Europe - with the former being labeled as "eurosceptic" and latter as proeuropean of course. The eurosceptic side basically lost with 2007 Treaty of Lisbon. The new empowered EU beurocracy started churning regulation at breakneck speed - doubling the already burdensome regulation by 2024 so now majority of national laws are passes just to implement EU regulations. It now borders with comical, such as the latest EU Space Act which despite declining EU space programs boasts how it will bring about safe, sustainable and green space exploration or something silly like that. EU institutions and bureaucrats are unironically proud of EU being regulatory superpower, some of them really believe in how they are essential for regulating the whole world.
EU is basically a paradise for bureaucratic structures - the so called Deep State - with byzantine rules hiding responsibility behind layers and layers of structures and almost no real oversight. Just look at this simplified graph of EU institutions from wikipedia and keep in mind that each of this rectangles hides layers of equally byzantine rules of how they are constituted. I'd say that with EU institutions gaining more and more control, the whole thing is turning into something akin to ancient Chinese system of true bureaucracy or maybe something like late Soviet or post Deng and pre Xi system of collective leadership, where it was not dear leader, but party structures controlling the state.
Who is to say that men can take power back from women?
Men did that in the past, they are doing it right now and they will do it in the future. I literally used the Taliban example just from couple of years ago - just 0.5% of population of motivated men were able to do as they please. They are no weak dogs or birds. If anything, it is women who are powerless like that unless protected by other men.
Peasant revolts don't prove anything because (as you note) women are integrated into every part of society.
Yes, women are integrated into society in manner that men allow them to, in the same way men are integrated into society in a manner other men allow them. But it is always men and not women. That is the point.
My point is that while men as a whole could in theory do this, a man for the most part cannot actually do this because enslaving women is illegal.
It has happened in the past, it will happen in the future and it is happening now. That is why I used the example of Taliban. They were able to put all women behind veils, remove them from political power and bar them from education without any fuss. It is impossible for women to do it the other way around - there never was such an occurrence.
Furthermore, they would then have to directly commit a lawless act by chucking out their women's rights laws (and in many cases women's rights constitutional provisions) outside the constitutionally-prescribed mechanisms, and yet still maintain enough regard for those constitutions and the rest of their laws to not immediately degenerate into civil war over what other laws should be chucked out (or dictatorship, as "the military is supposed to uphold popular sovereignty, not do whatever the guy in the big chair says" is also part of respect for constitutions).
Men can change laws, so that lawless action becomes lawful. It happened in the USA at least twice - the revolutionary war as well as the civil war, and there were many close calls. It is not impossible that this will happen again in some shape or form, especially if the society seems to be keen on pissing off young men of fighting age. As for other western countries such as in Europe, to me this seems almost inevitable. The changes in population composition will almost inevitably lead to some conflict and political reshaping in upcoming decades. Then it will become apparent where the actual power lies.
Thought experiment: group A and group B live on an island together. Every member of group A has a big red button; no member of group B has such a button. If a day goes by with less than 10% of the buttons pushed, everyone who pushed a button has a heart attack. If a day goes by with between 10% and 95% of the buttons pushed, the island's volcano goes Krakatoa and everybody dies. If a day goes by with over 95% of the buttons pushed, group B are enslaved by group A. Does group A have any practical capability to use the buttons to enslave group B? No, not without some form of explicit co-ordination to make sure they all push the buttons on the same day. Even threats to push the button are empty without the ability to explicitly co-ordinate over 10% of group A.
It is not necessary to coordinate on such a scale. Taliban only has maybe around 50-100 thousand of warriors with upper limit of around 200 thousand - if various local militias are counted. That is around 0.5% of total population of Afghanistan at best, and they were able to push that button. There were many such cases in the past, where key men were able to completely change the course of history: be it coups by pretorians in Roman Empire, Mamluk slave soldiers overthrowing their Arab slavers in Egypt etc. All it takes is a minority of men willing to apply violence, while the rest of the men are just looking on and abstaining from the fight. And again - there was never such a case in history, where couple of thousand of female warriors were ever able to do anything close to that.
One way to put it is the difference between patriotism and chauvinism: one is expression of sympathy or love or other positive emotion toward your group, while the other is declaration of superiority. In that sense you just ascribe positive or even negative attributes to your identity which does not preclude doing the same for other groups. You may still like jazz, black basketball players etc. It is just a view from the standpoint of other culture.
From my meager experience with Fuentes during latest slew of interviews, this is what he preaches: Multiculturalism is over. Even the mild one such as "judge based on content of character and not based on your skin". Whites should stick together, foster positive relation toward their white identity and become a tribe. This will be especially important as whites will become minority majority. They do not have to be necessarily hostile to other groups, they can let's say be allies toward East Asians, especially if there is a common interest let's say when it comes to education reforms etc. But they should acknowledge that they are distinct group with their own history, culture, religion etc.
Paradoxically this is what Fuentes also says about other groups, especially blacks and Jews. They are Americans, but they also have their tribal/national identity which enables them to band together and promote these interests. Whites should do the same. In this sense I do understand why people adhering to liberal worldview such as James Lindsay call people like Fuentes as "woke right". Although it is interesting that they do not have the same label for other people such as Ben Shapiro, who is also on the right and who also has tribal identity which is sometimes in conflict with general liberal ethos.
More options
Context Copy link