A Response to Jack Donovan"/>
Print this post Print this post

In Defense of “Squares”:
A Response to Jack Donovan

1,033 words

I haven’t yet read Jack Donovan’s new book The Way of Men, though I plan to do so. However, having read Jack’s intriguing reply to Jef Costello, I find myself compelled to raise an issue related to the contemporary masculinist movement, of which I know Jack to be an enthusiastic advocate.

The point I wish to make is one that, surprisingly enough, I haven’t seen anyone in the so-called “manosphere” address adequately, unless I have missed it.

First of all, let us grant that the “gamers” have it right, in asserting that women in fact do tend to be attracted to men who are confident, “take charge” bad-ass alpha-dog go-getters; or in ghetto argot, “pimps,” “hustlers,” and “playas.”

In that case, then, aren’t men who actively try to be “alphas” when they aren’t naturally inclined to be this way in fact degrading themselves, by rejecting the integrity of authenticity in order to court female acceptance and get laid more often?

And if the idea that Jack is trying to sell is one of male liberation, then shouldn’t the aim be for a man to pull away from enslavement to his sex drive, with its attendant demands that he do whatever it takes to get himself laid . . . and instead insist on being himself, regardless of what the ladies may want him to be?

Isn’t making such a choice, in truth, the “manly” thing to do?

In his Counter-Currents article, Jack relates contemporary men’s issues to the movie Cry Baby, directed by Jon Waters and starring Johnny Depp. Really, he could have cited any number of movies or novels which feature much the same storyline, minus the Water-y campiness.

Time and again, in film after film and book after book, we see an identical scenario repeated: a woman is drawn to a “scoundrel” or a “bad boy” over a more sweet, earnest, and well-behaved rival. The series that comes most readily to my mind is, of course, the original Star Wars trilogy. There, Princess Leia Organa finds herself turned on by the roguish mercenary Han Solo, and left cold by the “nice guy” Jedi-Knight-in-training Luke Skywalker (who turns out to be her brother anyway– so no harm done, I guess . . .) Using Jack Donovan’s terms, Han is a “drape,” and Luke is a “square.” The “drape,” of course, ultimately gets the girl. (Then again, the “square” learns the Force!)

From an early age, I’ve always had a clear conception of myself as a “square.” I’ve always been Luke, not Han. But unlike most other “Lukes” of the world, I didn’t reproach myself for this; I never WISHED to be Han. If the Princess Leias of the world didn’t like me, so what? The notion of cultivating a rougher-around-the-edges persona to make girls find me more appealing or sexy just struck me as pathetic.

Mind you, it wasn’t that I wanted not to be liked by girls. I simply felt repulsed by the idea of falling over myself to be “remade,” as if I were broken and needed repair, all for the purpose of enhancing my overall attractiveness to the opposite sex.

After all, even if such a ploy were to succeed, and girls came to like me because I appeared to be more of a hard-charging, ball-busting “badass” now, what credit was that to me? If I bagged babes by not being myself, didn’t that ultimately mean that my real self remained unattractive? Therefore, how could my ego feel legitimately stroked? What was flattering about seeming to be attractive by pretending to be somebody I wasn’t?

No . . . far better, I decided, to embrace my unattractiveness, to wear it with defiant integrity, and not to try too hard — or at all, for that matter — to be what I clearly wasn’t. This has been my approach ever since. (Somehow I wound up happily married, and a father of two children. How and why this happened, I’ll never know, but I’m pretty sure that these results are not typical.)

Granted, my case is the exception which proves the rule. The vast majority of Luke Skywalker-type men aren’t satisfied with their lot in life; they want to learn to be Han Solos. Many of my beta brethren eagerly shell out hard earned money to attend “pick up” seminars or otherwise consult so-called seduction “experts” to find out how to enhance their attractiveness quotient. They do this partly because, being testosterone-afflicted, they want sex, and lots of it. But I don’t think that such men have purely physical inclinations; they are also driven by sheer jealousy of natural-born alphas, and a sense of inferiority to them. They are seized with the conviction that there is something wrong with them, since they aren’t scoring and “winning” like James Bond or George Clooney.

It seems to me that a legitimate masculinist movement needs to emphasize that such endeavors are a waste of time, are in fact even worse than simply being a waste of time; they are grotesquely, repugnantly degrading. Seeking to become “a pick up artist,” whether out of deference to one’s sexual urges, or because one is ashamed of being a “loser” and wants to begin “winning,” amounts to a betrayal of one’s self. If you’re a quiet, shy, nice guy, then why not go on being quiet, nice, and shy? If you’re a nerd, then nerd out; if you’re a geek, then geek boldly. If chicks don’t dig you, fine; let the chicks not dig you. Cultivate a contented sense of stoicism, and go on being who you are. Luke Skywalker ultimately didn’t need Leia’s affection; he ended up doing pretty well on his own. So can you.

“Be ye innocent as doves, but shrewd as serpents,” Jesus says in the Gospel of Luke. One needn’t be naive in order to remain pure. In the same sense, a modern male branded a “loser” because he’s not a swaggering ladies’ man can stand up for his dignity by not participating in any activities designed to “rehabilitate” him and artificially render him a “success.”

What say you, Jack Donovan? Is there room in the new men’s movement for such fiercely unrepentant, determinedly unreconstructed “Squares” as those for whom I speak here?

 

If you enjoyed this piece, and wish to encourage more like it, give a tip through Paypal. You can earmark your tip directly to the author or translator, or you can put it in a general fund. (Be sure to specify which in the "Add special instructions to seller" box at Paypal.)

28 Comments

  1. Mighty
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 3:34 am | Permalink

    “all for the purpose of enhancing my overall attractiveness to the opposite sex.”

    Every heterosexual male strives, at varying degrees, to maximize his starting suite of attractiveness traits to the opposite sex. You, it seems, maximized your indifference, and, advertised effectively, your beta provisionist qualities. Your wife, being the gatekeeper of sex, thought your display was worthy enough to birth two children for you.

    No one, not even you, can escape the dynamics of the sexual market place.

    Pick-up artistry, on-the-other-hand, is a cancer upon civilization that finds sustenance feeding on another cancer: feminism. Female economic empowerment increasingly renders beta provisionism irrelevant and thus strips males of the traditional weapon they wield in the sexual marketplace, i.e., the male’s ability to be an adequate resource provider; now, add-in the hypergamous nature of women and we have the disaster in which we now find ourselves.

    • Posted March 30, 2012 at 8:34 am | Permalink

      That’s an interesting flip side to the more generally recognized phenom, women entering the workplace reducing the male’s bargaining power with the boss, thus lowering wages overall. The American “household” income hasn’t budged since Archie Bunker was on TV, but only because both spouses now work. Men are worth less to women and less to employers.

  2. Posted March 30, 2012 at 5:00 am | Permalink

    Solid reply. Not to get too esoteric, but is the self really that static? And isn’t one of the meanings of life to improve upon the self- or to fight off the weaker aspects of oneself- (the base)- to control the wolves pulling your chariot, so to speak? Can one be totally true to themselves, ever? Would you want to be?

    I also don’t feel that changing oneself in a positive manner for another person is necessarily inauthentic, especially when it can enrich you. The question is, does becoming a mock alpha enrich the soul and better you as a person?

    I will agree with the above poster, that indifference is an extremely attractive trait in a man (to an extent) as it communicates that you are impervious to a woman. So I would say that in a way, being aggressively true to yourself, in your case, did make you more attractive.

    Last thought (sorry so hodge podge) but this may have worked for you, as being “nerdy” is not necessarily weak- and being indifferent is MOST certainly not weak….so in your case, yes it may be productive for you to be yourself….but for men that through nature or nurture are weak of body, mind, and spirit, a little posturing and weight lifting might do them good.

  3. Andrees
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 5:15 am | Permalink

    Mr. Nowicki, you refer to some (seemingly undefined) concept of staying “true to one’s self,” whatever that self encompasses. Would you say that a routine of regular exercise for one’s health is a betrayal to one’s natural physique? Why say that a man who seeks to better their success with women is betraying his natural nerdiness rather than being true to his desire to better his situation in life?

    As for pickup artists, I look down on the goofiness and the exploitative nature of their pursuits. There’s a difference, however, between that and actually bettering one’s social skills. I’m glad that since the time that I was a teenager, I stopped paying attention to the “be yourself” slogans and started to take self-improvement seriously.

  4. rhondda
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 5:37 am | Permalink

    If I may enter this male domain and offer a comment from the other side. ( you decide) It is this:
    Women are attracted to the alpha male, but they marry betas who are more likely to be there for them than alphas. The nesting instinct ain’t about the money. Neither is it about predator and prey games, fun though they may be during an extended adolescence.

    • Posted March 30, 2012 at 8:52 am | Permalink

      Yeah, but most women marry betas because alphas are hard to pin down, not because they had an actual choice. Further, there is some evidence that woman can be pretty unfaithful, especially during ovulation, and they tend to go for more dominant (read, alpha) men. So, although the douchy, caddish behavior of alpha men is not something I would advice most to emulate, I would say that men becoming leaders of their household would be beneficial for the harmony of the white family and race.

  5. Petronius
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 5:39 am | Permalink

    PU Artists are juvenile monkeys, that can nonetheless teach a few valuable things and tricks, and help to break away from feminist brainwashing. But all these general assumptions about women must be taken with a grain of salt. Life would be a boring hell if it was all about alpha pimps vs. hot chicks. Fortunately, in reality mating choices are far more complex, and the more complex a person is the more individualized the choice will be. Let us not forget that there is such a thing the ancients called Eros. Nobody loves a sexual type: what is loved is always a person. Further, lasting relationships require more than “bad boys” and eternal Don Juans. They require responsible grown-ups. PU theory neglects traditional patriarchal concepts of manhood. In think Donovan’s “gang” concept as well isn’t the only possible expression of masculinity. Some are born lone wolfs rather than join the pack. And in any case the best advise for any man is to become what he, and only he can be. If you are born square like Andy, become proud of it and make the best of it, your squaredom will get you love and respect.

  6. Posted March 30, 2012 at 8:46 am | Permalink

    “It seems to me that a legitimate masculinist movement needs to emphasize that such endeavors are a waste of time, are in fact even worse than simply being a waste of time; they are grotesquely, repugnantly degrading.”

    Trouble is, most men wouldn’t even understand your point. Shamelessness is part of the post-racial mindset. No White man pre-60s could imagine being so ‘repugnantly degraded’ as to want to be a negro, but since negro = manly by current standards, it just goes with the territory.

    Even the phrase ‘be a player’ is negro slang. Treating women as indistinguishable, disposable cum-bags is a negro trait.

    Kingsley Amis was, along with Philip Larkin, a keen exponent of ‘white jazz’ of the 20s and 30s. He explained in a letter that this was because his generation saw jazz as a release from the pressure and expectations of being a gentleman, and thus “no white man can play jazz without a feeling of shame.’ Sort of like going to a whorehouse.

    When Amis wrote that in the 50s, jazz was already being reconfigured as “the black man’s exclusive cultural expression, which he deigns to let Whitey listen to and appreciate” . Negroes were re-positioned not as comical, failed attempts to emulate real, i.e., White, men, but contrarily, as ideals for the White man to vainly emulate.

  7. Izakk
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 9:57 am | Permalink

    Who’s saying anything about being a pick-up artist? I haven’t read the book either, but from the looks of it, he seems to be saying that manhood isn’t determined by the number of women that one can land, but that manhood usually causes female attraction ipso facto. The example of Luke Skywalker doesn’t really work, because whatever you think of the guy, he was a fully-realized man, even as a square. If you see Luke Skywalker as a nerd figure to which one should aspire, then you have to realize that he did a bunch of insanely courageous things, like fly in fighter planes, get into dangerous sword-fights, stealthily infiltrate an entire military base filled with hostiles… need I go on? I’ll go on.

    “And if the idea that Jack is trying to sell is one of male liberation, then shouldn’t the aim be for a man to pull away from enslavement to his sex drive, with its attendant demands that he do whatever it takes to get himself laid . . . and instead insist on being himself, regardless of what the ladies may want him to be?”

    This statement is sort of the locus of where the argument goes wrong. The problem is that men don’t know themselves, not at all, because they are never put to any kind of test. Luke Skywalker might have been one of those squares in Baltimore in that Crybaby movie, but because he went on adventures and stared death in the eye, he realized what he is and isn’t capable of. None of those squares are going to do that, because they have been narcotized by bourgeois comfort, and they have allowed labels to define who they are. If one of them has a strong virile force within him, waiting to burst forth out of its wall of ice, he will never know that. His conditions, his environment, and his surroundings keep him mediocre, and he willingly stays mediocre because he falsely believes that he is “being himself.” If he really kept that belief, then everything would be ideal, right? But unfortunately it isn’t so.

    Nowadays, it’s considered very “intellectual” to talk about the unfulfilling and demeaning aspects of suburban life, like in that movie American Beauty. But it isn’t because the suburbs are this inherently evil and awful place. It’s because American men are very unsure of who they are, and once their bodies have become older and more brittle, many of them spend the rest of their waning years wondering about what they could have done, what great achievements they could have achieved, what might have happened if they tried to join the army or become oil-rigging roughnecks, what would have occurred if they mustered the courage to try and approach the cute girl standing outside the post office. Their own unawareness of themselves starts out as a nagging itch, but by the end of their days, it begins to burn away at them, like a corrosive chemical.

    The modern world needs books like “The Way of Men,” whether I would agree with the entirety of it or not (again — I still haven’t read it), because our abundant resources and superfluously extravagant living conditions have hidden away the key to self-knowledge. And that kind of self-knowledge isn’t the kind which one can obtain by reading all of the great books, or contemplating the heavenly spheres. It’s a self-knowledge which is defined by form, action, and the intensity with which one chooses to live his life. Even knowing “living my life with intensity is not for me” is an expression of that knowledge! And those poor squares… they’ll never even realize whether such a statement would be true for them or not!

    • Donar Van Holland
      Posted March 30, 2012 at 5:30 pm | Permalink

      A good addition to your argument may be the excellent essay on danger vs the bourgeois lifestyle by Ernst Jünger on this website. Jünger exemplifies the man who accepts, welcomes and even longs to be tested through danger, while being a perfect aristocrat, not a thug.

      http://www.counter-currents.com/2010/11/on-danger

    • Fourmyle of Ceres
      Posted March 30, 2012 at 8:23 pm | Permalink

      THEIR GOAL IS GENOCIDE. OURS. WHAT’S YOURS?

      Izzak in blockquote, cites in quotes:

      Who’s saying anything about being a pick-up artist? I haven’t read the book either, but from the looks of it, he seems to be saying that manhood isn’t determined by the number of women that one can land, but that manhood usually causes female attraction ipso facto. The example of Luke Skywalker doesn’t really work, because whatever you think of the guy, he was a fully-realized man, even as a square. If you see Luke Skywalker as a nerd figure to which one should aspire, then you have to realize that he did a bunch of insanely courageous things, like fly in fighter planes, get into dangerous sword-fights, stealthily infiltrate an entire military base filled with hostiles… need I go on? I’ll go on.

      The theme of Star Wars – and, it was the first, all-White part of the Trilogy that people pay to watch over and over – is of Masculine Initiation. Luke starts off as a Talented farmboy, who defeats the best swordsman in the Empire, while accepting the power of the Shadow, working with it, and transforming it to his purpose, a metapolitical purpose.

      THAT is the real reason so many of our young men watched this one movie, over and over, Their Soul was whispering to their Spirit, “THIS is possible. THIS can be you. THESE are the Talents lying formant in you, waiting for the Trial that will allow them to come forward, and be made manifest.”

      “And if the idea that Jack is trying to sell is one of male liberation, then shouldn’t the aim be for a man to pull away from enslavement to his sex drive, with its attendant demands that he do whatever it takes to get himself laid . . . and instead insist on being himself, regardless of what the ladies may want him to be?”

      This statement is sort of the locus of where the argument goes wrong. The problem is that men don’t know themselves, not at all, because they are never put to any kind of test. Luke Skywalker might have been one of those squares in Baltimore in that Crybaby movie, but because he went on adventures and stared death in the eye, he realized what he is and isn’t capable of. None of those squares are going to do that, because they have been narcotized by bourgeois comfort, and they have allowed labels to define who they are. If one of them has a strong virile force within him, waiting to burst forth out of its wall of ice, he will never know that. His conditions, his environment, and his surroundings keep him mediocre, and he willingly stays mediocre because he falsely believes that he is “being himself.” If he really kept that belief, then everything would be ideal, right? But unfortunately it isn’t so.

      Singularly on point, the power of color television to define you to the satisfaction of The Owners combined with Distractions – SportsCenter! The Masturbation Channel! – and various tranquilizers (alcohol, SSRI’s), all but FORCE you to ignore realizing and manifesting your karmic duty to the Needs of the Cultural Moment. Hence, the importance of the metapolitical project.

      Nowadays, it’s considered very “intellectual” to talk about the unfulfilling and demeaning aspects of suburban life, like in that movie American Beauty. But it isn’t because the suburbs are this inherently evil and awful place. It’s because American men are very unsure of who they are, and once their bodies have become older and more brittle, many of them spend the rest of their waning years wondering about what they could have done, what great achievements they could have achieved, what might have happened if they tried to join the army or become oil-rigging roughnecks, what would have occurred if they mustered the courage to try and approach the cute girl standing outside the post office. Their own unawareness of themselves starts out as a nagging itch, but by the end of their days, it begins to burn away at them, like a corrosive chemical.

      “What IF…” is an incredibly toxic formulation for most older men. It reminds them of how much of the substance of their lives was squandered on thankless shrews, duplicitous bitches, and “jobs” glamorized into “careers,” rather than fulfilling and magnifying their Callings.

      Materialistic definition of their Selves won out. THIS is why so many Old Men seem to be cranky, monomaniacal Old Men. They KNOW that the key to success is to find that Purpose, and work on fulfilling that. The Adversary works to avoid having you find that Purpose.

      The modern world needs books like “The Way of Men,” whether I would agree with the entirety of it or not (again — I still haven’t read it), because our abundant resources and superfluously extravagant living conditions have hidden away the key to self-knowledge. And that kind of self-knowledge isn’t the kind which one can obtain by reading all of the great books, or contemplating the heavenly spheres. It’s a self-knowledge which is defined by form, action, and the intensity with which one chooses to live his life. Even knowing “living my life with intensity is not for me” is an expression of that knowledge! And those poor squares… they’ll never even realize whether such a statement would be true for them or not!

      The function of Christian Institutions has been to geld men, and then eliminate them altogether – except when a new roof has to be put on. THIS is why Pagan organizations are growing in importance, AND Masculine Effectiveness. Yes, they spend all of their time out in the woods, and yes, they seem to commune with whatever the Shapes in the Fire inspire within their souls.

      Following such weekends, they walk with a kind of swagger not seen since Marines graduate from Paris Island. Apparently, they are dealing with the “hump” Lt. Col. DuBois wrote of in “Starship Troopers.” Good, and a fine example they are for the rest of us.

      I was talking casually with a member of the Pagan Priesthood one Monday morning, and he said, spontaneously, “They only have the power over us we allow them. You know that, don’t you?”

      We talked about “They” later on, to great effect.

      A new month is almost upon us. What better April Fool’s joke to play on our Enemies than to send money to counter-currents? Any left over, send some to the Northwest Front.

      What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!

  8. Jaego Scorzne
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 11:15 am | Permalink

    Some truth here. Ever see a nice girl try to act hot – and not be? This is quite different than the red hot librarian who is repressed and just waiting to be awakened.

    Likewise, few betas can make themselves into believable alphas thru acting alone. Many end up looking ridiculous – and it can be a dangerous red flag in the presence of real renegade alphas and their beta followers. But it might happen for real as a man ages and comes into his own. For such a man, who feels a new power come into his being and the reaction to it from others, a litte bit of “acting as if” might help him make the shift from old limiting ways of acting and feeling.

    And again, what’s alpha? Does it not depend on the arena? Is Bill Gates an effective fighting animal? Or barbarian chief? Think he got picked on in high school? Think he got hot girls? But look at him now. Look at his wife. Some real food for meditation for those guys who picked on him and those girls who ignored him.

    The Mythologist Edith Hamilton said in old Athens, the football players were the intellectuals. We’ve lost that and it’s not all bad. Aryans learned long ago about the law of compensation and that scrawny men are often gifted mentally – and worth treating with some respect. Perhaps Someday in Time this terrible split will be healed, but it wont be in this Fallen Age. Until then, it will remain complicated. And all the castes help make up the Social Body. Ideally, the higher would always retain the lower capacity, but that’s no longer true. The Warrior Caste be definition, yes: they must be as strong and enduring as the manual laborers in their own dharma.

  9. Alaskan
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 11:30 am | Permalink

    Yet another aspect of masculinity is a desire to transcend the mundane platform altogether and thus transform one’s consciousness and therefore the way in which one views the world of sensory objects and fleeting pleasures, including women. It is no secret that a life spent chasing sense pleasures and a “happiness” which is always contingent on so many variables that we have no control over, is both a kind of imprisonment and a colossal waste of time, mental and emotional energy and our masculine potential. Squandering one’s intellectual, emotional or spiritual energies attempting to chase women is absurd. Nothing could be LESS masculine. And it is well known that Woman historically leads men away from the path of Truth, not toward it. Woman represents the most appetitive, irrational aspect of reality. It is based in the world of the passions and senses. Men must therefore understand this and then seek to rise above it in order to attain any meaningful freedom.

    In Phaedo Plato states “I think that if the soul is polluted and impure when it leaves the body, having always been associated with it and served it, bewitched by physical desires and pleasures to the point at which nothing seems to exist for it but the physical, which one can touch or see or can and drink or make use of for sexual enjoyment, and if that soul is accustomed to hate and fear and avoid that which is dim and invisible to the eyes but intelligible and to be grasped by philosophy-do you think such a soul will escape pure and by itself? Impossible” (Phaedo, 81 B)

    Again: “No one may join the company of the God’s who has not practiced philosophy and is not pure when he departs this life…The lovers of learning know that when philosophy gets hold of their soul, it is imprisoned in and clinging to the body, and that it is forced to examine other things through it as through a cage and not by itself, and that it wallows in every kind of ignorance. Philosophy sees that the worst feature of this imprisonment is that it is due to the desires, so that the prisoner himself is contributing to his own incarceration most of all. The lovers of learning know philosophy gets hold of their soul when it is in that state, then gently encourages it and tries to free it by showing them that investigation through the eyes is full of deceit, as it that through the ears and the other senses. Philosophy then persuades the soul to withdraw from the senses insofar as it is not compelled to use them and bids the soul to gather itself together by itself, to trust only itself and whatever reality, existing by itself the soul by itself understands and know to consider as true whatever it examines by other means, for this is different in different circumstances and is sensible and visible, whereas what the soul itself sees is intelligible and visible. The soul of the true philosopher thinks that this deliverance must not be apposed and so keeps away from pleasures and desires and pains as far as he can” (Phaedo 82 E-83 C).

    Measuring one’s masculinity by the degree to which one can attract or bed women and then manipulate their psychological, evolutionary behavior and flip their switches in order to scratch the constant sexual itch is therefore antithetical to the above idea. It only serves to throw fuel on the fire, deepen the existing attachment to the world of the senses, which is always an inferior, ignorant path for a real Man.

  10. Mark
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 12:03 pm | Permalink

    There needs to be a distinction between a basic virtue moral theory and some of the pick up artists. Again, I can understand the revulsion towards the gaudy dressed liar making up stories and performing a schtick to get laid. But, what is wrong with going to that 14 year old “nerdy beta”, and saying you need the virtue of strength, which I would change to formidability. The reason for that is because I would focus on the aspect of strength which is relevant for inflicting damages on others(1), which is something that I would like to expound upon later. But, to get back to my point, I would not hold to the position that by helping him develop a specific virtue that I am contributing to him being inauthentic.

    Also, I think that people are being somewhat unfair to the pick-up artists. What is wrong with taking a theoretical body of knowledge, in this sense evolutionary psychology and sexual selection in humans, and having a good practical application of the principles. That does not necessarily lead to becoming a cartoon character. Here is a good example, take the article, Attitudes toward heroic and nonheroic physical risk takers as mates and as friends(2). Risk taking behavior will get you friends, but heroic risk taking behavior gets you the girls. The idea is that from this little bit of knowledge, you know that what you do and say around your friends is not the same to the girl that you are interested in.

    1. Sell, A, L Cosmides, J Tooby, D Sznycer, Rueden C. Von, and M Gurven. “Human Adaptations for the Visual Assessment of Strength and Fighting Ability from the Body and Face.” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 276, no.1656 (2009): 575-584.
    http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/276/1656/575.long

    2. Farthing, G W. “Attitudes Toward Heroic and Nonheroic Physical Risk Takers As Mates and As Friends.” Evolution and Human Behavior 26.2 (2005): 171-185.
    http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138(04)00058-3/abstract

  11. Steve
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 2:03 pm | Permalink

    A couple of things. First of all, becoming a more confident person (in life generally, not just with women) is not a betrayal of who you are. Learning to be confident and assertive is something most people obtain by effort. Few of us are born with it.

    Secondly, this whole idea that you are either an arrogant asshole or a meek wallflower is a false dichotomy. You can be assertive without being cocky. Think about the persona that Cary Grant had in movies. He was attractive to women and often played an action hero. He was also well-mannered, elegant, and treated people (especially women) with respect. That’s an ideal I’d like to see make a comeback.

    • Donar Van Holland
      Posted March 30, 2012 at 6:23 pm | Permalink

      Agreed. But it is important to understand that virtue not only comprises of loyalty, caring, justice etc. but also of power and violence. The Cary Grant type should be able to be dangerous and violent. He should be a werewolf, or Jekyll and Hyde.

      If there are people whom you love, there will automatically be people whom you hate: those who threaten your loved ones. If you are not able to express your hate in being violent, you cannot backup your love with the support your friends and family deserve.

      Many men shy away from violence because in their youth being “”nice” brought them the “love” of their parents. But acquiring the love of a girl requires exactly the opposite, for a girl desires a grown man who is able to protect her: to be violent.

      A “nice boy” should grow up.

      • Leon Haller
        Posted March 31, 2012 at 5:58 am | Permalink

        But acquiring the love of a girl requires exactly the opposite, for a girl desires a grown man who is able to protect her: to be violent. (donnar)

        That is so untrue. I’m no expert on sexual psychology, but I have repeatedly observed that the best looking women (these days anyway; things may have been different in my dad’s youth) tend to like ‘players’ and ‘partiers’, esp if they are pretty boy handsome, too. Maybe this is a NYC/LA thing, but that’s what I have observed. Being a strong, tough man is actually inimical to maximizing sexual conquests. Being thin, having a good head of hair, being “cute” (ie, pretty boy, not super masculine – think Brad Pitt, Dicaprio, Matt Damon, etc), being socially prominent, driving a nice car, and having free coke are the main tix.

        Urban women love metrosexuals, well-dressed “cute” guys who seem a little gay, even if totally straight.

        Sorry, but I’ve seen it and lived it. I have two friends who are exactly like my description above of the new “beau ideal”. I am taller, stronger, tougher, deeper voiced, totally more assertive and masculine than these guys. I’m also going bald, have never been rail-thin (even when I had no fat), am not “cute” (even when I was asked to audition for a male modeling gig in my youth), and I have never done drugs.

        Who do you think gets more women?

      • Donar Van Holland
        Posted March 31, 2012 at 6:28 pm | Permalink

        Well, I won’t say that being handsome is counterproductive: that certainly does play an important role, also with men.

        However, any level of attractiveness is much hightened by being “edgy”.

        Compare Draco Malfoy with Harry Potter: I guess they are more or less the same type, with the same level of physical attractiveness. But Harry is a boy who gives the impression that he will ask for parental permission before he does anything, especially something aggressive. Draco oozes danger.

        Who do you think is (far) more popular with the fan girls?

      • Mark
        Posted March 31, 2012 at 7:07 pm | Permalink

        Leon,

        I think that both of you are right, but it needs to be developed more. I referenced an article earlier that showed that the most important trait that will get men noticed is social dominance, whereas the most important trait that will get men noticed is physical attractiveness. How much of your social dominance is dependent on your physical dominance? I guess that depends on some factors, one that I can think of now is age. If you are 17 and in high school, and you could score high in a powerlifting competition, while at the same time you have a good martial arts background, you will get any girl. If you fast forward 20 years, will that be the case? Probably not, the social dynamic is different. Your social dominance is now going to be based upon many other factors, like prestige, wealth, etc.. You are also going to need to have a much better sense of style, and use you clothing and ornamentation to signal certain qualities. To use Jack’s four virtues, this is where mastery will now become more relevant than strength, which I would like to change to formidability.

        I think that this is a great conversation, and something that needs to be discussed. There is something that I would like to see discussed in a serious manner, and that is the relationship of religion to this. If we think about it, from the perspective of the Middle Ages, Christianity did tame our wild ancestors to the degree necessary to create stable states. Maybe it did create a Europe. Maybe we would all “shit our pants” if we had to deal with a bunch of people like Egil Skallagrimson.

        If the average white person today is Ned Flanders and not Egil Skallagrimson, shouldn’t we try to get the beast out, rather than tame the person even more?

        Here is a quote from Machiavelli

        “In thinking, therefore, of whence it should happen that in those ancient times the people were greater lovers of Liberty than in these times, I believe it results from the same reason which makes men presently less strong, which I believe is the difference between our education and that of the ancients, founded on the difference between our Religion and the ancients. For, as our Religion shows the truth and the true way (of life), it causes us to esteem less the honors of the world: while the Gentiles (Pagans) esteeming them greatly, and having placed the highest good in them, were more ferocious in their actions. Which can be observed from many of their institutions, beginning with the magnificence of their sacrifices (as compared) to the humility of ours, in which there is some pomp more delicate than magnificent, but no ferocious or energetic actions. Theirs did not lack pomp and magnificence of ceremony, but there was added the action of sacrifice full of blood and ferocity, the killing of many animals, which sight being terrible it rendered the men like unto it. In addition to this, the ancient Religion did not beatify men except those full of worldly glory, such as were the Captains of armies and Princes of Republics. Our Religion has glorified more humble and contemplative men rather than men of action. It also places the highest good in humility, lowliness, and contempt of human things: the other places it in the greatness of soul, the strength of body, and all the other things which make men very brave. And, if our Religion requires that there be strength (of soul) in you, it desires that you be more adept at suffering than in achieving great deeds.”

        http://www.constitution.org/mac/disclivy2.htm

  12. Posted March 31, 2012 at 6:51 pm | Permalink

    Another great one, Mr. Nowicki.

    All men, or almost all men, want sex. But some men want other things more than sex. I’m with you. I’d love to get *married* some day, but would I give up my beliefs, my squareness, even the way I dress, for mean sex? The idea is laughable. Under temptation, some squares can fall and break their principles or violate their aesthetic, but as soon as the banging stops, they will go back to being square, and I hope proud of it.

    In conclusion: socially awkward philosophers rock!

  13. WG
    Posted April 1, 2012 at 10:39 am | Permalink

    I found this essay off-putting and distasteful.

    The spectacle of a beta making wise-ass excuses for his ‘squareness’ brings out the brute in me.

    There’s just something…weak, unmanly, and degrading about it.

    I bet Mr. Nowicki was bullied at school.

    Putting the beta on a pedestal runs counter to our efforts, and presents a negative example to our young men.

    • Alaskan
      Posted April 1, 2012 at 9:39 pm | Permalink

      You might have more testosterone and “brute” in you than Andy Nowicki, but your words here thoroughly demonstrate that in no way can you come close to matching his intellect.

      “Counter to our efforts”? You can’t be serious.

      • WG
        Posted April 3, 2012 at 5:39 am | Permalink

        “Intellect”?! Don’t make me laugh. Have you actually read his books? Yeah, Nowicki’s a genius all right. I’m sure he’ll get the Pulitzer any day now.

        The issue I have with Nowicki’s testosterone-deficient stance is that he appears content merely to be. There’s no ambition, no striving.

        We need to teach our young men to cast off the modes of thought, attitude, and behavior imposed on them by the System, and realize their true self. We should help them achieve success in the real world: at home, at the office, in the political arena, and, yes, with women. Let’s show them how to be New Men. If “Game” helps young men in this respect, then I think it’s a good thing.

        No, it’s not “okay” to be square. Instead, be a man.

        For now the “movement” such as it is is dominated by jealous betas aspiring to be geniuses and professors. I’ve often wondered if the reason the “movement” hasn’t really achieved lift-off is because alpha males–the ones with organizational and leadership skills, as well as money–are turned off by the nerdiness and beta-ness of it all.

        • Greg Johnson
          Posted April 3, 2012 at 12:37 pm | Permalink

          You need to read our review of Moneyball. You sound like a jock-sniffer to me. My strategy is to win with a Moneyball team of talented, hard-working people who are not appreciated by superficial, jock-sniffing, waiting for a frat boy on a white horse types like you seem to be. Frankly, I think jock-sniffers are far more responsible for the problems in our movement than us nerds who actually produce things of value.

          If the people you think are alphas really are alphas, and if this really is about saving the white race, then the presence of nerds is not going to keep them away. Your macho alphas, in short, are all about “feminine,” “herd” psychology. So what you are talking about is just a physical and social type, often spotted at sports bars, rather than real leaders who are serious about our cause. Like women, the fraternity set will rush to our side when we are winning. In the meantime, who needs them?

          You really are a dick, and I am banning you from commenting here.

  14. daniel
    Posted April 2, 2012 at 4:16 am | Permalink

    I like where Andy is coming from in this essay. I concur.

  15. Lavazza
    Posted April 2, 2012 at 11:37 pm | Permalink

    Alaskan: Great post. Ultimately you have to go beyond attachment and aversion, rather than just change what you are attached to and aversed by.

    • Alaskan
      Posted April 4, 2012 at 12:30 am | Permalink

      Thank you. I have concluded that real revolution must first occur within our own hearts and minds if we are to facilitate the creation of a new WN Vanguard. Me must thoroughly transform ourselves in order to resist the very things that keep us chained, spiritually and physically. Only then can we properly lead and honestly ask others to follow. For me, the leader to emulate most is Codreanu. As far as I’m concerned, he was the most revolutionary of all of our revered men. Politics must also make use of certain metaphysical and spiritual/philosophical concepts.

  16. Catherine
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 3:16 pm | Permalink

    Leon Haller – The way I see it metrosexuals and effimate men may maximize sexual conquests but they lose greatly on the reproductive race. Liberal feminist women are too fond of frivolous abortions and contraception when it comes to reproduction. You have more of a possibility of finding a chaste religious woman and having a couple of children. Your metro friends will have no descendants sadly from their modern girlfriends and casual sex buddies. There is too much emphasis on sex being recreational and pleasurable that the “having babies” thing doesn’t even come into their minds. I’m a virgin and I prefer more patriarchal dudes. I have never been on contraception and never will so that affects my choices too. Urban women prefer metrosexuals because they never ovulate properly.

2 Trackbacks

  • Video of the Day:

  • Kindle Subscription
  • Our Titles

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    The Lightning and the Sun

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Forever and Ever

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles

    Demon

    Proofs of a Conspiracy

    Fascism viewed from the Right

    The Wagnerian Drama

    Fascism viewed from the Right

    Notes on the Third Reich

    Morning Crafts

    New Culture, New Right

    An eagle with a shield soaring upwards

    A Life in the Political Wilderness

    The Fourth Political Theory

    The Passing of the Great Race

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Fighting for the Essence

    The Arctic Home in the Vedas

    The Prison Notes

    It Cannot Be Stormed

    Revolution from Above

    The Proclamation of London

    Beyond Human Rights

    The WASP Question

    Can Life Prevail?

    The Jewish Strategy

    The Metaphysics of War

    A Handbook of Traditional Living

    The French Revolution in San Domingo

    The Revolt Against Civilization

    Why We Fight

    The Problem of Democracy

    The Path of Cinnabar

    Archeofuturism

    Tyr

    Siege

    On Being a Pagan

    The Lost Philosopher

    The Dispossessed Majority

    Might is Right

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace

    Defiance